Sitting of 10 January 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SKILLS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND SKILLS

    Student Support
    Patrick Mercer: What plans she has to consult the National Union of Students over the new system of student support. [23789]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): My hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning met Owain James, the president of the National Union of Students, in the summer to discuss student finance. A review of student finance is now under way. We plan to consult on any proposal for change and, naturally, would expect the NUS to respond and contribute.
    Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her reply. This is certainly the most emotive issue among my constituents in Newark and Retford who are involved in further education. Although a review is welcome, I see no evidence so far of consultation with the NUS, Universities UK and even the teachers' unions, on top of which there is confusion about the timing. May I beg for greater transparency? Let us have evidence at least of the open government of which we hear so much and see so little.
    Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman is a little unfair. We have made the principles of the review clear, and no one in the higher education world or the student body thinks that they are not free to send us their views; they have being doing that in great numbers. When we have proposals, we will publish them and then we will begin a proper consultation exercise. As we have said, the results of the review will be available early in the new year, which is roughly where we are, so it should not be too long from now.
    Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Does the Secretary of State share my surprise, as an ex-president of the NUS, at the gall of the Opposition, who tried to shut down the NUS, in talking to us about consulting it? Will she please bear it in mind in the review that the NUS also represents students in further education, which is a vital stepping stone for many of our constituents who are
    654
    still excluded from the higher education that they are capable of attaining, to the benefit of the community and the economy?
    Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is right. We have noted that the Opposition's views on education unions have changed a great deal in schools, as well as in higher and further education. She makes a valid point. When we talk about student finance, we often restrict our comments to people in full-time study between the ages of 18 and 21, who represent fewer than 50 per cent. of those who study. That has always been the case. She will know that, in the Labour Government's first four years, we spent resources to help part-time and mature students, and I assure her that in our on-going work—not only in the review, but in funding adult learning—we will not forget that incredibly important body. The number of students studying part-time in their mature years is likely to grow, not shrink, in the years ahead.
    Mr. David Rendel: I declare an interest in that I have three sons in the student age group.
    Given that the Secretary of State has already done two U-turns in the student finance proposals that she has leaked to the press, must she not give a much better answer than the wishy-washy one that she just gave when she said that the proposals will be made some time in the new year, especially as many thousands of students are currently trying to make up their minds about whether they should go to university this year or next year, when they might get a better financial deal?
    Estelle Morris: I take the point, and we will publish our recommendations, or our thoughts and ideas, in due course. We have also made it clear—I am glad of the chance to clarify this important point—that we do not envisage major changes for entry in 2002, and I encourage all those who are considering applying to enter higher education to do so. The figures published only yesterday by higher education institutions show either a 5.4 or a 5.5 per cent. increase in the number of students starting to study this year. When they started in October, we had already announced that we were looking at student finance. I take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously. Students who start their studies this year need to know what their situation will be in September. We have talked about that, and we will make it clear again that they should apply. We do not envisage any significant change in the method of student finance for those who apply to enter this year and start in the next academic year.

    School Autonomy Criteria
    James Purnell: What criteria she will use to determine whether schools have earned increased autonomy.[23832]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): The criteria will relate to two school characteristics—first, performance and, secondly, school leadership. On leadership, we will work closely with

    655
    Ofsted, and I will provide the House with a draft consultation document on the detailed criteria before the Education Bill leaves the House.
    James Purnell: I thank the Minister for that answer. May I draw his attention to schools, such as Alder High in my constituency, that do not perform outstandingly in terms of absolute results and league tables but do very well in terms of value added and that are rapidly improving? Will he explain how such schools, which would particularly benefit from the extra freedoms under the provisions for earned autonomy, will be able to earn that autonomy?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our aim is to establish a modern, effective comprehensive system that commands the confidence of every community in the country, building on the extra investment that we are making in schools. We want successful schools and teachers to lead a wave of reform, and our view is that giving them greater freedom, as will happen under the earned autonomy provisions, and removing some of the current constraints, will enable them to do so.
    As my hon. Friend says, it is important that the opportunity should be available to schools in the whole range of local circumstances. In the consultation, we certainly intend to propose referring to the newly available value-added data to ensure that schools such as his have that opportunity, along with schools in other parts of the country.
    Mr. Phil Willis: Does the Minister accept that the concept of earned autonomy is insulting to the vast majority of Britain's schools that deliver quality results year after year? He refused to provide clear criteria in the Education Bill that we are considering, so may I suggest the criteria that we should use? If a school is not in special measures, or not showing serious signs for concern, it should automatically have earned autonomy.
    Mr. Timms: No, I do not agree with that suggestion. It is right that we look to our most successful schools and teachers to lead the next wave of reform in education. If we had taken the hon. Gentleman's advice, we would not have had, for example, the literacy and numeracy strategies. We intend to set the criteria so that about 10 per cent. of schools will qualify for earned autonomy in the first instance. We will see how things go from there, but it is important that we look to our most successful schools to take the reforms forward and pioneer the innovations that we shall then want to apply throughout the whole system.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Most of us are pleased to support and accept more autonomy for our local schools, but is my hon. Friend aware of the problems caused by some foundation schools that set their own admission criteria, especially in areas such as Kent, where selective education is in place? What plans does he have to help to sort out the mess caused by Tory Kent county council,
    656
    whose failure to look ahead and plan means that pupils in Aylesham village and other parts of my constituency are denied places in secondary schools in September?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend knows that we have taken the view that decisions about whether there should be changes in the selective nature of admission arrangements in some parts of the country, including Kent, should be made by parents locally. He will also be aware of the arrangements that we have made for that.
    I reassure my hon. Friend that the provision for earned autonomy is certainly not about reintroducing anything like the old grant-maintained schools that were introduced by the previous Government. For example, there will not be any extra money for schools with earned autonomy. As to changes to admission arrangements, our view is that they are best dealt with locally.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: What powers will the schools with extra autonomy have that grant-maintained schools did not have?
    Mr. Timms: We have proposed in the Bill that the extra freedom should be in two areas. The first is over the curriculum and the second is over teachers' pay and conditions. There is, of course, the possibility that we shall want to extend that list in due course in the light of experience, but that would require additional primary legislation. For now, we are sticking to those two areas.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not have read the Bolton Evening News this week. If he had, he would have seen headlines to the effect that schools across Bolton between them have banked more than £5 million as they wait for a rainy day. Each has a genuine reason for keeping the money in the bank, but would it not be better to bank the money centrally so that the cash flow could continue? If that experience has been replicated across the country, billions of pounds must have been banked. The money is not being used for the purpose for which it was designed, namely education.
    Mr. Timms: That is a matter for governors to decide. I have, sadly, missed the latest issue of the newspaper that my hon. Friend mentioned, but I think that he will accept that schools have enjoyed great gains from their ability to make their own decisions about how to allocate their resources. They can decide their own priorities on issues such as maintenance and repair work. It is right that the resources are used for the benefit of children in each school and that they should be applied to that end. If there are concerns, I hope that the governors in the schools involved will ensure that the resources are applied properly.
    Mr. Graham Brady: The Opposition strongly support increased autonomy for schools, but what confidence can schools and parents have that the criteria will be open, clear and transparent when the Government persist in abusing their majority in the House, as they did this morning to prevent proper debate and scrutiny of the Education Bill? On Tuesday, the Committee lost 11 clauses because they were not debated—and four more this morning—because of the application of an absurd timetable by the Government,

    657
    who use knives to prevent discussion of the important parts of the Bill while allowing time for those that no one wants to talk about.
    Mr. Timms: I am mystified by the hon. Gentleman's point. The Government offered the Opposition an additional three hours of debate in Committee on Tuesday. We were keen to continue the discussion beyond the time that we actually took. We offered an extra three hours, but the Opposition refused them.

    Information and Communications Technology
    Tony Cunningham: What progress is being made to equip schools with resources in ICT. [23833]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): The Government are investing more than £1.8 billion in information and communications technology in schools. Some 97 per cent. of schools are now connected to the internet and there is a computer for every seven secondary school pupils and every 12 pupils in our primary schools. Before Christmas, the Prime Minister launched curriculum online and only yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced £100 million to help equip teachers with laptops.
    Tony Cunningham: I thank the Minister for his answer. I have certainly noticed the huge difference that extra information technology resources have made in many schools in my constituency. However, as we all know, computers are only as good as the people who use them. What is being done to improve the training of teachers, which is of paramount importance? Are there plans to increase the number of IT assistants, who also do a tremendous job in our schools?
    Mr. Lewis: I agree that it is essential that teachers have both the skill and the confidence to use the most up-to-date technology to ensure that pupils get access to the highest possible quality education. The Government have a proud record on training teachers in the use of the most up-to-date technology. Over the past three years, we have provided training for teachers through the new opportunities fund. Nearly 350,000 teachers in England have signed up for that training and more than 160,000 have completed it. A survey in October 2001 indicated that 73 per cent. of teachers feel confident in their use of the most up-to-date technology.
    On trained technicians, the funding that the Government provide under the national grid for learning programmes can be used by schools specifically for technical support. In November last year, we launched a technical support website to provide advice and information to help schools develop appropriate approaches to managing and organising technical support.
    Bob Spink: In recognising the value of the digital curriculum, does the Minister also recognise the great danger inherent in allowing the BBC free rein to use licence fee payers' money to provide the digital curriculum outside any education controls, checks and
    658
    balances? Will he agree to meet the industry to discuss how the checks and balances can be brought to bear on the delivery of the digital curriculum?
    Mr. Lewis: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point that we have to get the issue right. However, there have been meetings with the industry, and I pay tribute not only to the BBC, but to the industry for their contribution in that respect. Before the BBC gets the go-ahead to produce its curriculum digital service, it will be required to submit its proposals to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for formal consultation and approval. We are in constant dialogue with the industry and are delighted that both it and the BBC have entered into a partnership with the Government in this most imaginative and exciting way.
    Mr. Stephen Hepburn: The Minister will know that South Tyneside has one of the highest unemployment levels in the country, so it is vital to equip kids with new technology skills. Is he aware that South Tyneside has identified a major shortfall in IT provision in the education development plan? Will he take special note of that case and investigate it so that the kids in South Tyneside do not lose out?
    Mr. Lewis: I am more than willing to respond positively to my hon. Friend's request, and if he informs me of the details of any issue to be addressed in South Tyneside, I will look into it. There is no doubt that South Tyneside will have had its fair share of the significant resources that the Government have made available for the use of up-to-date technology, but I am willing to look at that issue.

    Primary Schools
    Siobhain McDonagh: How the Government intend to improve primary schools to promote standards of education for 11 to 14-year-olds. [23834]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): As a result of the national literacy and numeracy strategies, more pupils are leaving primary school with the skills that they need to access and benefit from secondary education. Our key stage 3 national strategy aims to help those who are just below the expected level to catch up quickly with their peers. Secondary and primary schools, working together, can support those pupils with summer literacy and numeracy schools, bridging units and catch-up programmes.
    Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Has she considered how parents can be involved in improving standards? Many of the children who need the most help have parents who themselves feel alienated from the education system, and who desperately want to assist their children but do not know how to do so. How can we get them involved?
    Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Nothing can replace good teaching as a means of raising standards, but the combination of good teaching and support from home and family is a formula that can work with every child in the country. That is why it is right to

    659
    address the needs of parents. I pay tribute to the imaginative work of so many of our schools in making links with parents, including those who are the most difficult to reach.
    The Government's commitment to raising standards is evident from the fact that during the National Year of Reading, the National Year of Mathematics in 2000 and Science Year, which is this year, much of our effort is about making parents feel confident that they have a role to play. The message from us all, which is not political, is that those parents who did not succeed at school and who do not have qualifications or a degree can play a full part in their children's education. Every parent can play a role, and all the partners in education—not least the Government but mainly schools—have a responsibility to try to make it as easy as possible for them to play that role.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Does the Secretary of State think that it would help to improve primary schools and, for that matter, secondary schools if the Liberal Democrats' proposals to undermine the Catholic education system and, indeed, many Church of England schools, by preventing them from selecting on the basis of faith, were implemented? Does she agree that it would be better to leave good schools to get better and poor schools to become good than to mess about with their admission policies?
    Estelle Morris: There's a question. In this job, a lot of research evidence lands on my desk, but I have never yet seen any relating strength in literacy and numeracy to religious belief. I suppose that it may emerge at some point. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) knows that my views on religious education differ from his, and I am more in agreement with the comments that have just been made.
    The role of Churches in education goes back a long way, and if the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) had wanted to, he could have pointed out that hundreds of years ago, Churches were making sure that the poor could read and write when the state had not accepted its responsibility for doing so. I pay tribute not only to faith schools but to all schools for raising literacy and numeracy standards. Just to be absolutely clear, I do not think that people who attend a church have a better chance of being successful in reading and writing or of higher achievement at key stage 3.
    Clive Efford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most significant contribution that we can make to improving performance in secondary schools is to improve performance in primary schools? May I draw her attention to Henwick primary school in my constituency where I have been a school governor for 16 years? The school struggled along for many years, starved of resources, but the education action zone has provided laptop computers for all the staff, which has made them more efficient, and targeted more resources at the school, allowing it to reduce class sizes at key stage 2. That means that it has the most improved performance of any primary school in the education authority area. Is
    660
    not that testimony to the investment that we have made in primary schools? Should not we now move on to secondary schools and achieve the same?
    Estelle Morris: I am happy to pay tribute to the school in my hon. Friend's constituency and, indeed, to his personal support for that education action zone. The good news is that the story is repeated in thousands of primary schools throughout the country. Every Member will have similar stories to tell about the achievement of primary schools. Secondary schools are having to rethink completely what they do with year 7 students because of the improvement in standards. That is the best problem that secondary schools could have to face—how to adjust teaching because the quality of children and their learning is better than it has ever been.
    We are not there yet, and I do not wish to sound complacent. For every child who gets to year 7 without the basic skills needed to access the secondary school curriculum, an opportunity is lost. The statistics show that if someone has not conquered basic skills by 11, the chances of them doing so thereafter and getting five A* to C grades at 16 are not good, which is why we must continue with that work. I am delighted with the progress.
    Mr. Damian Green: The right hon. Lady said that she does not want to sound complacent, in which case I invite her to read Hansard tomorrow. Is not having enough teachers the first step towards improving standards both in primary schools and for 11 to 14-year-olds? In that context, has she read reports about the head teacher in Fareham who said that the situation is so bad that he devotes two days a week simply to recruitment and has set up a stall in his local Sainsburys in the hope of attracting an ex-teacher or two? Or has she heard about the head teacher of a school in Cambridgeshire who said:
    "there is a lot of papering over the cracks going on…one head was heard to say that if it's upright and breathing, appoint it"?
    The situation is desperate. Is the right hon. Lady not just a little ashamed to be presiding over it?
    Estelle Morris: I gather that the hon. Gentleman thinks that there are so few teachers in Wandsworth that he had to go in and help out. We could have a long debate about how that has affected the quality of learning for children in that school, but I hope that he enjoyed his three-day sojourn and I welcome him back. Seventeen more years and he will catch up with my experience in the classroom, but never mind.
    The fact that there are 12,000 more teachers than in 1998 is a tribute to the Government's investment in recruitment and retention. There is no getting away from that figure. There is an issue about teacher recruitment and retention; some of our secondary schools have serious problems, especially in the shortage areas of maths, design, science, English and modern foreign languages. Of course that is the case, but it is also true that there are more teachers than there have ever been before.
    The hon. Gentleman should engage in a proper debate about the dilemma of staffing our schools and how we square the statistic that there are more teachers than there have been for more than a quarter of a century with the fact that there is a real shortage, as well as a perception of shortage. We are dealing with that and have already

    661
    talked about remodelling the profession, taking burdens off teachers and seeing how we can better use people who do not have qualified teacher status. That is the debate, and those will be the solutions to the historic problem of staffing our schools effectively—not quoting the odd school here and there and offering anecdotal evidence.
    Mr. Green: If the right hon. Lady wishes to discuss my enjoyable time in Southfields this week, I should point out that the children awarded me seven or eight out of 10 for my teaching skills in the lesson that I taught yesterday. I am not sure that teachers would award her such a high mark for her performance.
    The right hon. Lady dismissed the head teachers' experience of teacher shortages, but perhaps she will listen to local education authorities instead. Kingston upon Thames surveyed teachers who had left the profession. The main reason for leaving was the work load, and the report said that a significant factor in that was
    "Frustration felt by teachers over the large amount of paperwork, established through Government initiatives."
    Does the right hon. Lady recognise that her Department is not providing a solution to teacher vacancies, but is a large part of the problem as it is causing them?
    Estelle Morris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not teaching the children of Southfields maths; the fact is that there are 12,000 more teachers than in 1998. As long as he refuses to accept that—[Interruption.] There are 12,000 more teachers, which means that, no matter how many have left, more have joined the profession; that is what 12,000 more means. There are more teachers now than there were three years ago; the hon. Gentleman must accept that. He wants me to repeat what I have said when he offers anecdotal evidence. Yes, there are problems; some head teachers have to spend far too much time looking for teachers and there are far too many supply teachers in our schools. I repeat what I have said on previous occasions: I would rather that head teachers spent that time raising standards.
    The real issue is that because of the action that this Government have taken, there are more teachers than ever before. There is a real increase this year in the number of teachers going into teacher training and more teachers are training to be maths teachers. There are more teachers today teaching our children in our schools than in 1998. That is the reality, but there is still a problem. The solution to that problem is not about sending teachers fewer pieces of paper, but about how we can enable them to do the things that they know are good that have emanated from the Government, which are about target setting and pupil-level support, while getting other staff in with a different range of skills to support them in doing that. I say to the House and to head teachers that sending teachers less paper will neither raise standards nor satisfy them of our ability to give them the support that they need to do the job.

    School Sport
    Mr. Andy Reed: What steps she is taking to improve the level of participation in competitive school sport in the east midlands.[23837]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): We have already funded almost 500 school sports co-ordinators nationally to assist families of schools to deliver after-school competitive sports. Thirty co-ordinators are in post in the east midlands covering 204 schools. Competitive games are a compulsory part of the national curriculum for pupils aged between five and 14 and are an option for 14 to 16-year-olds.
    Mr. Reed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he agree that while school sports co-ordinators are a fantastic success, by the time we produce the 1,000 or so that we need throughout the country, the current funding stream will end? Will he assure the House that he is doing everything that he can to ensure continued core funding for school sports co-ordinators, and also to ensure that at least two hours of sport is undertaken by children during core curriculum time? If we do not do that, we will have a nation of couch potatoes. We have already seen obesity increasing among children. School sports co-ordinators offer a fantastic chance to make a difference. Will he assure me and the House that they will be funded for the long term?
    Mr. Lewis: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's long track record of passionately arguing the importance of school sport and physical education. He has rightly been a powerful advocate of this important part of a child's educational experience. I can give him and the House a cast-iron guarantee that the continued and expanded funding of school sports co-ordinators will be considered as part of the 2002 spending review. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the Treasury would allow me to say anything different at this stage. We are consulting on how we can ensure that the Government's commitment to two hours of high-quality physical education and school sport happens in practice. One issue that we will consider is the whole concept of that being part of, or outside, the school day. That will feature in the consultation process.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am not sure whether the Minister is old enough to remember the 1970s and 1980s, but many of us in the House can, including, I think, the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I am sure that she is much younger than me.
    In the 1970s and 1980s, competitive school sport was undermined by the dogma of Labour education authorities. [Interruption.] It is no good the Minister addressing the matter in such a way, as he obviously does not remember. Will he now pledge that any local education authority that says that we must not have competitive school sport will be brought into line by the Government? It was Labour dogma that destroyed competitive school sport in the 1970s and 1980s.
    Mr. Lewis: The comments about my right hon. Friend's age were disgraceful and unforgivable. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that the Conservative party was in government from 1979 onwards and that it was the Conservative Government who forced schools to flog off playing fields to pay for basic repairs to schools, which we have funded properly since we came to power. We have spent millions of pounds and we plan to spend a further £7.8 billion on school buildings. As a result

    663
    of the Government's commitment to giving schools resources, schools no longer need to flog off playing fields. Alongside the legislation that we have introduced, that means that schools have more opportunity to enable their pupils to participate in competitive sports.
    Events that the hon. Gentleman mentioned had nothing to do with dogma or ideology and everything to do with lack of resources and forcing schools to flog off basic facilities.

    Examination Results
    Roger Casale: What recent assessment she has made of the attainment rates of GCSEs grade A* to C.[23838]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): The results published on 20 November show that 50 per cent. of 15-year-olds gained at least five good GCSEs this year, compared with 49.2 per cent. last year—an increase of 3.7 percentage points since the targets were set in 1997. We are delighted that the 50 per cent. mark has been reached a year early.
    Roger Casale: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he join me in congratulating Wimbledon college in my constituency on increasing the number of students who received a grade between A and C at GCSE from 46 per cent. to 57 per cent? Does he agree that the individual variations in schools' performance scupper the argument that improved standards are achieved through easier exams? If that were the case, the impact would be the same on all schools. We should recognise that improvements in schools occur as a result of the dedication and hard work of teachers, students, support staff and parents. We should reward best practice in schools such as Wimbledon college and ensure that it spreads to other schools.
    Mr. Timms: I agree with my hon. Friend and I am glad to join him in paying tribute to the achievements of Wimbledon college. Each year, as improvements occur, some people claim that they are the result of easier examinations. That is not the case. We have an extensive monitoring programme through the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. It shows that the difficulty of the syllabus and the performance of GCSE examination candidates have been broadly maintained not only in the past few years but over decades. Standards in public exams are more rigorously scrutinised today than in the past. It is right to commend the achievements of young people and schools that have enabled important and welcome progress.
    Adam Price: The Minister will clearly be aware of the Department's recently commissioned research, which shows that attainment rates at GCSE level in coalfield communities lag considerably behind the national average. The Government have adopted a targeted approach to educational underachievement in urban areas; will they consider a similar approach to those problems in coalfield communities? Will the Secretary of State consider holding
    664
    a joint ministerial summit with her colleagues in Wales and Scotland, where there is a similar pattern of underachievement in coalfield communities?
    Mr. Timms: We are adopting a targeted approach across the country. We have introduced floor targets so that every school, wherever it is based, will be supported to secure at least 20 per cent. of students with five good GCSEs by 2004, rising to 25 per cent. by 2006. Wherever those schools are located, they will be supported to increase their achievement levels to that of the floor target, which will rise with time.
    Our excellent clusters approach targets parts of the country that are outside urban areas, for which excellence in cities is available, to tackle disadvantage and deprivation in rural communities.
    Caroline Flint: I think that I am right in saying that the range of grades for GCSEs runs from A to G. Unfortunately, a lot of children get grades E, F or G, for which they do not think it is even worth bothering to turn up to the presentation ceremonies to receive their certificates. Can my hon. Friend assure me that we will consider a broader range of options for young people at 14, so that they are not forced into doing subjects that they do not feel motivated to do, ending up with qualifications that they do not feel will serve any purpose? I am talking about options on the more vocational routes, which I hope will keep young people learning and may lead them to keep learning beyond the age of 16.
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I would not want to denigrate the achievements of some youngsters in obtaining E, F and G passes at GCSE, and we have seen the number of children with no qualifications fall again this summer, which I welcome. But my hon. Friend is right in saying that we need to extend opportunities to young people beyond the age of 14. That is the intention that we set out in the White Paper and we are debating the matter in the Education Bill Committee at the moment. We shall shortly give further details of our proposals to extend opportunities and raise standards for young people beyond 14.

    Further Education (Teaching Vacancies)
    Mr. Mark Hoban: What recent meetings she has had with the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education to discuss the shortage of (a) teachers and (b) lecturers in further education. [23839]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge): We have had a number of meetings in recent months with representatives of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education. Discussion at those meetings covered a wide range of issues about the further education sector, including teacher and lecturer shortages in some subject areas, and the initiatives that the Government have introduced to attract new staff into the profession and to reward and retain excellent FE teachers and lecturers.
    Mr. Hoban: Fareham college in my constituency is finding it very difficult to recruit staff because of a combination of lower pay and a heavier work load leading to poor morale for teachers and lecturers throughout the

    665
    sector. It is finding it difficult to refill vacancies, and is having to advertise three or four times to find the right calibre of staff. It is not only the secondary sector in my constituency that is suffering. Will the Minister set out in detail what she is going to do to address the recruitment and retention crisis in the further education sector?
    Margaret Hodge: The reason why the college in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has found it tough to recruit and retain excellent teachers in past years is the cuts in spending on further education that the college had to bear under the Conservative Government—12 per cent. in five years. That is part of the legacy that we have inherited. Since we have come into government, we have increased the amount of money available to FE colleges by 17 per cent. in real terms. Specifically to attract new teachers into the FE sector, we are introducing golden hellos, helping with teaching bursaries and looking at helping with student loan write-offs. As in the secondary and primary sectors, we acknowledge a problem, but we are the ones tackling it; the Conservatives were the ones ignoring it.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Education and Skills interviewed three of the major teaching unions yesterday? Is she further aware of the changed atmosphere in the unions? There is a much more positive spirit, in terms of recruitment and of what they think the Government are achieving. On the other hand, a recent meeting with NATFHE flagged up some real concerns about recruitment into the FE sector. The Government rely on this sector, which covers the ages of 16 to 19, to deliver the sort of educational performance that we need for people who often miss out in the first phase of education. Will my hon. Friend take seriously the fact that something has to be done very quickly about recruitment?
    Margaret Hodge: I am delighted that there are regular meetings between the Education and Skills Committee and the teaching unions, as there are between Ministers and those unions. I agree with my hon. Friend that the atmosphere is one of co-operation and working in partnership. Of course we take seriously the issue of recruiting and retaining high-quality staff in the FE sector. I think that we are the first Government to take the FE sector seriously at all. I hope that initiatives such as the teachers' pay initiative, involving more than £300 million over three years, will start to give some indication of how we want to raise the rewards to excellent teachers in the FE sector.
    Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) raised in his supplementary question the issue of morale and its importance to retaining and recruiting teachers and lecturers. Is the Minister aware that the already low morale in that sector has been lowered still further by the impact on further education of the failure of the Government's individual learning account scheme?
    The Association of Colleges tells me that principals, teachers and lecturers have to deal with irate and frustrated students, many of whom are the mature and part-time returners referred to by the Secretary of State, who do not know what is going on, wrongly blame
    666
    colleges and teachers for their experiences and threaten legal action against them. All that is distracting those in further education from what they should be doing.
    Will the Minister explain to the House and those in further education who are bearing the brunt of anger that should be directed at the Government what she intends to do about that failed scheme and when; how much her Department's overspend on it already runs to; and which part of her budget—schools, adult education, further education or higher education—will have to be cut to pay for it?
    Margaret Hodge: I do not accept that morale in the FE sector is as low as the hon. Gentleman claims. I find in all my discussions with staff and college principals that there is huge confidence in the fact that we are investing real money in the FE sector and raising standards.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that when we discovered that there were genuine problems with the way in which the individual learning account scheme was operating, it was right to stop it. I also hope that had he been in our position, he would have taken a similar decision.
    We must get on with the job of sorting out and paying those people who are waiting for the money that they are owed, and we are doing that. We also have to sort out a proper scheme that will ensure that we can encourage learning among adults in the workplace, and we are doing that. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman would have tackled the issue any differently had he discovered the problems that we have had. It would have been nice had the Conservatives, over their 18 years in government, done anything—anything at all—to encourage adult learners into such a scheme.
    John Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the root of the problems of FE lecturer shortages is the Conservative Government' s policy of incorporation, which in reality was backdoor privatisation?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister will want to answer questions about the last Government. It is her Government who she has to worry about.
    John Cryer: I was about to come this Government, Mr. Speaker. The key question we face is whether to inject a degree of democracy and accountability back into FE colleges. Owing to incorporation, the power of principals—or chief executives, as some of those with particularly bloated egos call themselves—became immensely concentrated and there are no checks and balances. That led to depressed wages, de-recognition of unions and deliberate attacks on the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education—many trade union activists were targeted and shifted from their jobs. We need to reintroduce accountability—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Minister.
    Margaret Hodge: I agree that the introduction of incorporation had terrible impacts for sixth-form colleges in particular and the FE sector in general. I hope that, through the learning and skills councils, we are introducing better mechanisms to ensure that colleges in each locality can work together in the interests of learners in their area. I also hope that the new inspection regime,

    667
    with Ofsted working with the adult learning inspectorate, is achieving better accountability on quality and standards for learners and the local community.

    Recruitment and Retention (Oxfordshire)
    Mr. David Cameron: If she will make a statement on recruitment and retention of primary and secondary school teachers in Oxfordshire. [23840]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): The annual census showed that the vacancy rate for Oxfordshire was 0.4 per cent. last January compared with 1.4 per cent. nationally.
    Mr. Cameron: I thank the Minister for that reply, but if he reads the answer to the written question that I asked his Department he will see that in January 1997 there was just one vacancy, whereas in January 2001 there were 14. That is not an anecdote, but fact. Will the hon. Gentleman take two concrete steps to deal with the issue in the south-east: impose a moratorium on new circulars and paperwork to teachers and give all schools greater freedom to pay and reward staff?
    Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about pressures on recruitment in his area, but I think that he will welcome the news that the disruption in schools that some predicted last term did not materialise. I think that he will welcome other encouraging signs too. For example, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, the number of applicants for teacher training increased by a further 5 per cent. this year. That is the second successive increase after eight consecutive years of reductions. The long decline in recruitment for training has been reversed, which I think suggests good prospects.

    The Solicitor-General was asked—

    Crown Prosecutors
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: How many Crown prosecutors at each level of seniority there were in the post in each year since 1995; and if she will make a statement. [23866]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): Rather than reading out the tables relating to the five grades of Crown prosecutor over the last six years, let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I have arranged for the information to be put on the Law Officers website. I can summarise it by saying that in 1995 there were 2,218 Crown prosecutors, and in 2000 there were 1,922.
    Mr. Llwyd: How many prosecutors have been female, and how many have been members of ethnic minorities? What efforts are being made to increase recruitment in those groups?
    The Solicitor-General: I will supply the hon. Gentleman with the exact percentages, but I can tell him
    668
    now that there are relatively more female and ethnic-minority lawyers in the Crown Prosecution Service than in private practice. We welcome that, and want to build on it.
    One of the ways in which we attract women to the CPS is to provide much more flexible employment, and much more family-friendly terms and conditions, than they would find either in private practice or at the independent Bar. But we need to go further. We must not just recruit ethnic-minority lawyers at the basic level, but ensure that they move up the system and become higher-court advocates. I hope that they join the judiciary as well, so that we can play a part in its diversification.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that Crown prosecutors take account of the interests of victims and their families, especially in prosecutions relating to traffic incidents?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is far too wide.

    Road Offences (Cyclists)
    Mr. Ben Chapman: How many cyclists were prosecuted for road offences in the last 12 months who had fines of over £500 imposed on them. [23867]
    The Solicitor-General: In the most recent year for which figures are available, more than 700 cyclists were prosecuted and 600 were found guilty. About 500 were fined, but none were fined more than £500.
    Mr. Chapman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend as dismayed as I am at the fact that cyclists nowadays seem to flout the law with impunity—riding through red lights, riding without lights, riding down footpaths, riding on pavements and riding in the wrong direction down one-way streets? Penalties exist, but are insufficiently applied. What could be done to rectify the problem of lawless cycling in general, and the specific problem caused by the failure of some authorities to issue fixed penalties?
    The Solicitor-General: The CPS is well aware that the law—including the criminal law—applies to cyclists as it applies to everyone else. If there is evidence that cyclists have committed a criminal offence, they should be prosecuted. I have given my hon. Friend the figures. He mentioned a range of offences; they are included in the 700 prosecutions that have taken place in the last 12 months.
    As my hon. Friend will know, two questions arise in relation to decisions whether to prosecute: is there enough evidence, and is a prosecution in the public interest? I am not aware that the CPS has ever said, "Oh well, it is just a cyclist, so although there is evidence we will not bother".
    I know that my hon. Friend is raising other issues with the police and the courts

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. David Kidney: What guidance she gives to the Crown Prosecution Service on efforts to be made to trace defendants who fail to answer Crown court bail. [23868]
    The Solicitor-General: If a defendant who has been granted bail does not turn up in court, it is an offence under the Bail Act 1976. The CPS will apply to the court there and then for a warrant to be issued for the arrest of the defendant. The system for tracing defendants who fail to answer bail is the standard procedure for finding and arresting under a warrant. The court issues a warrant and the police trace and arrest the defendant.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. My question was inspired by a tragic constituency case in which a young man was knocked down and killed on the pavement by a motorist. When the trial date came, the accused, who had been granted bail, did not turn up and has not since been found. The two general issues that arise are whether to grant bail and the length of time that it takes to reach trial. However, when a defendant fails to appear, cannot the CPS and the police be much more proactive in the steps that they take to trace him or her? For example, the BBC "Crimewatch" programme helps to trace people before they are charged. Could it be used to help to trace people who have bunked off when they should be on trial?
    The Solicitor-General: I am aware of the case that my hon. Friend raises because he has written to me and his local chief crown prosecutor about it. He raises the issue of whether the CPS should object to bail. He also raises the issue of "Crimewatch", which can be used to find people who have skipped bail. On the issue of the CPS and the police working closely together on tracing people and bringing them back to court after they have skipped bail, that is important through the whole process, including during trials and advice on cases generally. My hon. Friend raises a tragic case and I understand that the police do not yet know where the defendant is. I hope that they find him, and when they do, he will be brought before the court to face the charges.
    Mr. William Cash: Can the Solicitor-General shed light on the mystery of why, since 1997, the number bailed by the Crown court has fallen by 11 per cent., but the percentage failing to appear has increased by 3 per cent.? Why is that happening? In relation to the question of objecting to bail, does she have any remedies, because the situation appears to be getting exponentially more serious?
    The Solicitor-General: The CPS always thinks carefully, according to its code for prosecutors, about whether it should object to bail when a request is made. The hon. Gentleman knows that the CPS does not know why more of those granted bail are skipping bail, but that will inform its view of how often it is right to object to bail. The general pattern of more people skipping bail will
    670
    make the CPS look harder at whether it should object to the granting of bail. I will consider the figures and see whether I can shed more light on the mystery that he raises.

    Previous Convictions (Disclosure)
    Mr. Neil Turner: What assessment she has made of the impact on the work of the Crown Prosecution Service of implementing the proposal of the Auld report that the previous convictions of defendants be disclosed at trial. [23872]
    The Solicitor-General: In his review of the criminal courts, Lord Justice Auld recommended that consideration be given to the Law Commission proposal on evidence of bad character as part of a review of the law of evidence more generally. The CPS is consulting its prosecutors about the implications of different approaches to admitting evidence of previous convictions.
    Mr. Turner: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Anything that allows the CPS to make more prosecutions must be welcomed, but if convictions are made known to the court prior to witnesses giving evidence, might that make them less liable to come forward? Is that a possible drawback of any change to the system?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The provision to the jury of evidence of previous misconduct—previous convictions—is an issue not only in relation to the defendant but in relation to defence witnesses. Should the jury know about their previous convictions? All those issues are within the scope of the Law Commission's report and recommendations, and all have been looked at by the Auld report, consultation on which will finish at the end of January. There has also been regional consultation, in which evidence has been discussed.
    The Government will consider all the information coming from the wide-ranging consultation and we will publish a White Paper. One of the things contained within that will be the way in which we deal with the issue so that we have simpler, clearer and more predictable rules of evidence in relation to previous convictions, which command public confidence.
    Simon Hughes: Does the Solicitor-General have figures for the trials that already have disclosure of previous convictions and for trials in which the defendant's previous convictions have not been disclosed under the present rules? I ask because the right hon. and learned Lady will be aware that there is great concern about any significant change in the proposition that somebody should be tried without knowledge of their previous convictions, because if these are brought in, we hugely increase the chance of a conviction, whether the person is guilty or not.
    The Solicitor-General: The Law Commission's proposals—which are still out for consultation—would mean that some previous convictions that are currently

    671
    admissible would no longer be allowed, and that others that are currently not admissible would be allowed. The situation will change. The Attorney-General and I have asked the Crown Prosecution Service to consider the issue in great detail because the CPS is in court, dealing with issues of evidence. Obviously the CPS and the
    672
    Government want the system to be fair, clear and understandable; that is also in the public interest. We can all agree that that is not the situation at the moment, but the rights of defendants and the question of bringing offenders to justice must both be considered under the new system.

Business of the House
12.32 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the
Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Office of Communications Bill [Lords].
Motion to approve a money resolution on the Home Energy Conservation Bill.
TUESDAY 15 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill.
WEDNESDAY 16 JANUARY—Opposition Day [7th Allotted Day]. Until Seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "State of the Railways" followed by a debate entitled "The Crisis in the Care System". Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
THURSDAY 17 JANUARY—A debate on Bristol Royal infirmary on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 18 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 21 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Justice(Northern Ireland) Bill.
TUESDAY 22 JANUARY—Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 23 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the International Development Bill [Lords]
THURSDAY 24 JANUARY—Motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 25 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
I should like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall on Thursday 17 January will now be a debate on victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system.
I should also like to inform the House that, on Wednesday 16 January 2002, there will a debate on the sixth environmental action programme in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
Following are the documents:

Reports Session 1999–2000

Report No:

Title

HC No.

Publication Date

Govt Reply

38

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: The Sheep Annual Premium Scheme in England

362

24 November 2000

Cm 5021

39

HM Customs and Excise: Revenue from Gambling Duties

423

8 November 2000

Cm 5021

40

National Savings: Public-Private Partnership with Siemens Business Services

566

15 November 2000

Cm 5021

674

Reports Session 1999–2000

Report No:

Title

HC No.

Publication Date

Govt Reply

41

The Gaming Board: Better Regulation

611

16 November 2000

Cm 5021

42

The Management and Control of Hospital Acquired Infection in Acute NHS Trusts in England

306

23 November 2000

Cm 5021

43

Hip Replacements: Getting it Right First Time

513

13 December 2000

Cm 5071

44

Ministry of Defence: Accepting Equipment Off-Contract and into Service

319

30 November 2000

Cm 5078

45

Ministry of Defence: Acceptance of the Chinook Mk 2 Helicopter

975

30 November 2000

Cm 5078

46

Ministry of Defence: Kosovo—The Financial Management of Military Operations

582

21 December 2000

Cm 5071

47

The National Health Service Executive—Valedictory Hearing: Sir Alan Langlands

624

19 December 2000

Cm 5071

Reports Session 2000–01

Report No:

Title

HC No.

Publication Date

Govt Reply

1

Inpatient Administration, Bed Management and Patient Discharge in NHS Acute Hospitals

135

25 January 2001

Cm 5127

2

Public Trust Office: Unclaimed Balances Held in Funds in Court and the Office's 1998–99 Accounts

142

31 January 2001

Cm 5127

3

Emergency Aid: The Kosovo Crisis

143

14 January 2001

Cm 5127

4

Grants made by the National Lottery Charities Board

168

16 February 2001

Cm 5127

5

The Draft Social Security (Inherited SERPS) Regulations 2001

243

18 February 2001

Cm 5127

6

Review of Audit and Accountability for Central Government

260

2 March 2001

Cm 5201

7

Excess Votes 1999–2000: Class X, Votes 2 and 3

284

9 March 2001

N/A

8

Maintaining the Royal Palaces

77

14 March 2001

Cm 5201

9

Managing Finances in English Further Education Colleges

283

21 March 2001

Cm 5201

10

Parole

349

29 March 2001

Cm 5201

11

The Housing Corporation: Overseeing Focus Housing Association

365

2 May 2001

Cm 5261

675

Reports Session 2000–01

Report No:

Title

HC No.

Publication Date

Govt Reply

12

English Heritage: Access to Properties

265

3 May 2001

Cm 5201

13

The Refinancing of Fazakerley PFI Prison Contract

372

5 July 2001

Cm 5261

14

Ministry of Defence: Managing Reductions in the Number of Vacant Family Quarters

391

5 July 2001

Cm 5261

15

Strategic Rail Authority: Action to Improve Passenger Rail Services

392

18 July 2001

Cm 5261

16

The National Blood Service

207

11 July 2001

Cm 5261

[Wednesday 16 January 2002:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union Document: 5771/01, Sixth Environmental Action Programme of the European Community. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 28-xi (2000–01); HC 152-i and HC 152-ii (2001–02).]
Mr. Forth: In thanking the Leader, may I take this opportunity, if it is not too late, to wish him a happy new year?
May we have an urgent statement on a very serious allegation that has been raised today—what I would have to call the "cash for no question" issue? It would appear—I can scarcely believe this—that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) had a question down to the Prime Minister, but that the powers-that-be in the Government persuaded him to withdraw his question—which was going to be about the inadequacy of funding for a hospital in his constituency—with the promise of £200,000 additional funding for the hospital.
We are used to allegations about cash for questions, but the amount seems excessive, and to be an example of regrettable parliamentary inflation. Apparently, the going rate for the withdrawal by a Government Back Bencher of a question—presumably to avoid embarrassment to the Prime Minister—is £200,000. I hope that the Leader of the House will assure us that an urgent statement on this serious matter will be made—if not today, then tomorrow—because we need to get to the bottom of it and to be assured that the allegation is untrue. If it is true, we need to be told how the tactic can be justified.
I hope that the Leader of the House will also make provision for the Deputy Prime Minister to come to the House and explain his response to the unusually truthful statements from the Minister for Europe. Today's press report that Minister as saying:
"We have the worst railways in Europe.
We started transport investment far too late… We should have been more radical earlier."
676
I quote from The Sun, which the House knows has a direct line to No. 10, so we can rely on what it says. It states:
"Last night, a Government source"—
and we all know who that is—
"said: 'Peter Hain has finally coughed to what we have known for some time.
The transport system has been going to pot since the day Labour won power.
John Prescott, who told us for years what he would do to put it right, messed it up once he got the chance."'
These are serious matters, because not only is a Minister of State admitting finally that the railways have been put into a disgraceful condition by the Government—which we have known for some time—but a Government source is seeking to undermine the Deputy Prime Minister. I ask, therefore, for a statement, either from the Deputy Prime Minister or from the Minister for Europe. Otherwise, I hope that the Leader of the House will arrange for a statement to be made by the Prime Minister, as it is obviously his man who has given this information to The Sun.
Mr. Cook: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes for the new year. I am very happy to accept them, however late they may come in the course of the parliamentary Session. I shall observe only that it is plain that the Christmas and new year recess has in no way softened his approach to these exchanges, but I would have been surprised and disappointed if it had.
I have no insight into why my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) may not have asked his question. That is entirely a matter for him to decide. However, I am taken aback that the right hon. Gentleman should complain about a case in which an hon. Member, finding that an issue that he has raised has been satisfactorily resolved, decides not to continue to press that issue in the House. I should have thought that resolving the problems of our constituents was what Parliament was for. If this constituency matter has been resolved, I can only commend the speed with which that has been achieved.
I turn now to the railways. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been present in the House when we debated transport matters in the 1970s and 1980s. Had he been present, he would have heard a number of speeches—by me, and by the Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill)—making the point that investment in Britain's railways was among the lowest in Europe, and that that had caused a relative decline in the quality of our railways. That is why this Government have set about increasing investment in the railways.
I remind hon. Members of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday. He told the House that, in the previous Parliament, this Government increased by half as much again the annual investment in the railways inherited from the previous Conservative Government. In this Parliament, we shall double that amount. Every year of this Parliament, this Government will be investing three times as much as the average for the last years in office of the previous Conservative Government.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe drew attention to what has been a matter for discussion in the Labour party and in the press—that, for the first two years of this Labour Government, we followed the investment

677
and spending plans inherited from our Conservative predecessors. I am perfectly willing to listen to my colleagues and friends in Government ask whether, in retrospect, we should necessarily have shown such patience. I am not willing to listen to lectures from the Conservative party, which left us those spending plans and an inheritance for the railway industry that will take a decade to put right.
Mr. Harry Barnes: May we have a debate on the coal industry that will be wide ranging enough to deal with the problem of equal pay for the female cleaners and catering staff who have missed out on equal pay provisions? It should be broad enough to deal with the continuing compensation problems that exist for those with vibration white finger, bronchitis and emphysema and to take into account the miners' pension fund. The 50: 50 arrangement on surpluses is in an unfortunate position and needs renegotiating so that those pension rights can be extended and developed.
Mr. Cook: I am well aware of both the points that my hon. Friend raises; the deep personal concern of the individuals involved has been articulated in the House on a number of occasions.
I remind my hon. Friend that the Government were anxious to find a solution to the problem of the cleaners and other domestic staff who were caught in the position to which he refers. Indeed, we settled with all those who were nominated by the union. We very much regret that it appears that people were not included in that initial nomination, but there comes a point at which we have to draw a line under the settlement. Although I understand why the individuals concerned may feel aggrieved, we took a step that no previous Government had taken to try to resolve the issue, and we did resolve it with all those known to us at the time.
Mr. Paul Tyler: When can we expect the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to come to the Dispatch Box and give us a full explanation of what is going on in the rail industry? The crisis is reaching desperate proportions but we have had no full statement from the Secretary of State. Does the Leader of the House really believe it to be desirable or satisfactory for a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, in the columns of The Spectator, to produce the first analysis of the chaos that the Government have added to by failing to undo the disasters of rail privatisation in their first four years? Does the right hon. Gentleman really think it satisfactory that the Liberal Democrats have to provide the Secretary of State with an opportunity to explain to the House the chaos that has been caused in the rail industry and the confusion that is increasing every day, to the disadvantage of rail passengers?
In the light of what will obviously happen as a result of the Lord Chancellor's duffing up at yesterday's meeting of the parliamentary Labour party, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is true that Labour Members are being invited, by questionnaire, to tell the Government what proportion of elected Members of the second Chamber they are prepared to accept? Why,
678
as Leader of the whole House, is the right hon. Gentleman not inviting all members of all parties to tell him how the Government have got it wrong?
Mr. Cook: On the last matter, I am happy to put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. No questionnaire from the Government Whips is going round the PLP.
Mr. Forth: Why not?
Mr. Cook: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to send a questionnaire to all Labour Members, I can predict some of the answers that he will get. However, he is welcome to do so.
We are about to have a debate on the House of Lords in which I will address the matter at greater length—indeed, perhaps at great length. I hope that the process of the debate will help take us forward to find a point of consensus on the plans for reform of the House of Lords.
On the rail industry, a speech will be made by the Minister with responsibility for the railways in the debate next week. In addition, Monday sees the publication of the new four-year plan from the Strategic Rail Authority under its new direction. I anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will have things to say on that occasion.
David Wright: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a review of English Partnerships' activity is under way. English Partnerships is a major landholder in Telford and is key to the regeneration of the town. When will there be a statement to the House on the progress of the review?
Mr. Cook: I am advised that the review is already under way. It was announced in October 2000, and there will shortly be an announcement on its progress.
Peter Bottomley: The Leader of the House said that he was not prepared to listen to Conservative Members. I remind him that most of the signatories to early-day motion 513 on the parliamentary commissioner are Labour Members:
[That this House has confidence in the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and invites Elizabeth Filkin to accept reappointment on the terms of the initial contract working four days a week.]
Is the announcement that Mr. John Stonborough has been appointed as the crisis manager for the House of Commons Commission a sign that we are likely to have that debate? What progress is being made in making a nomination to the House? Is it open to the House to say that the present commissioner should be invited to carry on with her work on her present terms?
Mr. Cook: The last sentence is a statement of the facts at the present time. The commissioner remains in post and must continue with her job; indeed, we would be distressed if she did not do so. The offer remains open to her to include herself on the shortlist, on which we guaranteed her a place. I have repeatedly urged her to accept that invitation. We want to ensure that we get the best possible candidate for the House to occupy the role of parliamentary commissioner. That is why we have

679
tested the market. I am pleased to say that we have received a number of excellent applications, on which we will reach a judgment in the next month or two.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will my right hon. Friend secure a statement on Iran's refusal to accept the Government's choice of ambassador to Iran, Mr. David Reddaway, on the grounds that he is Jewish, or that they believe him to be so? Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is plain anti-semitism, that it should not be accepted and that Iran should not be in a position to dictate to the Government who should be our rightful ambassador?
Mr. Cook: As I understand the situation, the friction to which my hon. Friend refers does not exist. Mr. Reddaway is an excellent diplomat. I knew and worked with him when I was at the Foreign Office and have full confidence in him. It is not unusual for there to be a short delay between one ambassador leaving and another arriving. There is no friction of the sort to which she refers.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Will the Leader of the House find time soon to debate an issue that I first raised on 5 November—namely, European Union regulations on the disposal of refrigerators? Are the Government aware that this is entirely a matter of their creation, because they failed to seek a derogation from those regulations, thus making it impossible for refrigerators to be disposed of, which is leading to fly tipping and all sorts of problems? Does he recognise that it is a problem that must be rectified, and soon?
Mr. Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I share his view that that is a serious and pressing problem. It is having a serious impact in a number of areas. The Government are fully seized of the issue and are looking for a way to deal with it as quickly as possible.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Following the question about English Partnerships, which often used to get rid of land in new towns without consulting the local community, is my right hon. Friend aware that Defence Estates is also engaging in that practice? For instance, it has given the local Royal Air Force benevolent club in my constituency notice to quit. I hope that he will urge Defence Ministers to explain to the House that Defence Estates will act in the interests of communities, not against them, when they take such decisions.
Mr. Cook: I cannot say that I am familiar with the case that my hon. Friend draws to the House's attention, but I am glad that he has been given the opportunity to ventilate what is obviously a serious issue for his constituency. I will happily draw his comments to the attention of the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: As the Government grapple extraordinarily ineffectively with the winter of discontent that has descended on public services in many parts of the country, is the right hon. Gentleman, who was on the Government Benches in 1978, suffering from a sense of deja vu? Will he reconsider the suggestion
680
that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and I made, which is that we should have regular debates—say, every month—that are attended by the Prime Minister so that we can monitor on behalf of our constituents how he is getting on with his solemn pledge to the British people at the general election that he would deliver world-class public health services?
Mr. Cook: I am refreshed to see that Conservative rhetoric has not changed in 30 years. It is helpful in this world of change to have such a reassuring statement of stasis and paralysis. Of course, there will be plenty of opportunities for the House to debate the state of the public services during this Parliament. Indeed, the Prime Minister has shown a refreshing and welcome interest in those matters. In December, he took part in discussions on health policy, and he will continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman should not run down the improvement that has been secured through the increase in the number of doctors and nurses in the health service and the first increase for more than a generation in the number of beds in our hospitals. That is why this winter has passed so far without the sort of crisis that we saw in the closing years of the Conservative Government. They did not increase the number of beds in our hospitals; they dramatically cut the number.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the Leader of the House take soundings throughout the House to establish the views of Members on two points: first, whether there is now a consensus, as I suspect, in favour of a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber, on the principle that, in a democracy, the people should decide who sits in our Parliament; and, secondly, whether now is the time for the responsibility for policy on the subject to be located in this House—the House of the Executive—and specifically in the office of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House?
Mr. Cook: I think that I would be very unwise to respond to the last part of my hon. Friend's question. On the other matter, I invite him to listen attentively to the half hour that I am about to embark upon.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will be aware of the concern in the House about the relationship between India and Pakistan. The Prime Minister recently visited those countries, yet we have not had a statement on what happened. Specifically, is it possible to have a statement on whether he made any representation to the President of Pakistan about the person in Pakistan who is agitating for attacks on this country, and whether there is any chance of extradition to enable that person to be brought here to be tried for such activities? Concerns were expressed about London being a centre of international terrorism; now it seems that we can be attacked from abroad, by encouragement. Is it possible that there might be that ambiguity in the Government's viewpoint between home-bred terrorists and international terrorism?
Mr. Cook: I see no such ambiguity in that case. I believe that the hon. Gentleman refers to Mr. Butt, whose inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric we would all deplore. It must be borne in mind that on several occasions in the past he has made wild statements that have turned out to have no substantial basis in fact.

681
Without referring specifically to the case of Mr. Butt, our security and law enforcement services monitor the situation very carefully and look very hard to see whether there is any evidence of a threat to this country from within or without it. I am pleased to say that, as a result of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, those authorities now have more means with which to conduct that search for any threat to the country and hold to account those who are a threat to this country.
Mr. Martin Salter: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that should a full-scale war break out in Kashmir, it would have a disastrous effect on community relations in many towns and cities in Britain that have a substantial number of citizens of Indian and Pakistani origin? It has been said that the conflict could produce civil unrest on Britain's streets that would make the current disturbances in north Belfast seem like a teddy bears' picnic. Will he find time for the House to be regularly updated on the worrying events in Kashmir, and will he ask our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to redouble his efforts to encourage peaceful dialogue in the region?
Mr. Cook: I would not wish to be alarmist about the consequences of conflict in the sub-continent. We have witnessed such conflict in the past without any sensational developments on our own streets, although we must be careful about the rhetoric that we use. However, having expressed that reservation, I would have no dissent with my hon. Friend's concern about the consequences for the region and the world of any conflict. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put so much effort into speaking to the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan and urging them to return to dialogue. I find it very hard to understand why some have criticised him for going to that very substantial area of partnership for Britain, of community ties with the British people, and of concern about tension for world peace. I believe that he was absolutely right to go and absolutely right to try to ensure that peace continues.
Mr. George Osborne: Will the Leader of the House take an urgent look at the format of Transport questions, as under the present arrangements we can question only the Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and the Regions and his junior Ministers, none of whom runs the Government's transport policy? Will he find an early parliamentary opportunity for us to question the Government Deputy Chief Whip, who is responsible for negotiating with the striking unions, Lord Birt, who is in charge of long-term Government thinking on transport policy, and the Minister for Europe, who seems to be in charge of telling the truth on transport policy?
Mr. Cook: I have to tell the House that I know of no ministerial team from any Department that has appeared more often in the Chamber or any Cabinet colleague who has come more often to the Dispatch Box since the general election than the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and his team. It was entirely wrong for some in the press to criticise him for taking a holiday over the new year, for heaven's sake, and
682
I should like to know whether those in the press who made that criticism have taken fewer holidays than him during the past 12 months.
Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend make a clear commitment to the Government's commitment to mutual and co-operative organisations? Will he have a word with his colleagues in the Government—principally, those at the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry—to ensure that they carefully consider the two Bills that will be debated on 18 and 25 January? Those Bills would make a significant difference to mutual organisations, so anything that could be done would be of major importance all round.
Mr. Cook: The Government are highly supportive of the development of co-operative forms of ownership and partnership in industry and business, and we shall continue that record of support and ensure that there are no legal barriers in the way of such of organisations flourishing and competing successfully. I will pass on to the relevant Department my hon. Friend's comments on the forthcoming private Members' Bills.
Sir Sydney Chapman: The Leader of the House will know that the Government have recently published proposals—albeit, in consultative documents—seeking to make radical changes to our town and country planning system, including dealing with planning applications of national significance. As those issues are vital to all our constituents, does he agree that a debate on that matter would be very helpful to the Government and, indeed, the House at this time?
Mr. Cook: I am always open to suggestions for debates that would be helpful to the Government and will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says. He raises a very serious and strategic issue, and he is right to say that we are consulting on it. It is important that that consultation process should enable all those in the country to express their views. I understand that the proposals cannot proceed without legislation, so they are bound to be debated in the House at some stage.
Mr. David Chaytor: May I tell my right hon. Friend how fearful many families in my constituency with friends and relatives in Kashmir are about the growing tension between India and Pakistan? I endorse the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) to hold a debate on this subject in the near future. May I tell my right hon. Friend that my constituents appreciate the Foreign Secretary's efforts in seeking to mediate between India and Pakistan? Does he agree that this is perhaps now the time for the United Kingdom to play a more proactive role as a mediator in the conflict between those two nations?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is correct. Some 3 million people in Britain have community and family ties with the sub-continent, all of whom will watch, with close interest and apprehension, what may happen to their relatives and back any effort to try to preserve peace. Those efforts are strenuously pursued in the Foreign Office and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I appreciate my hon. Friend's call for more discussion of this issue in the Chamber, and I will retain a watching brief on it and consider what he says.

683
In the meantime, I should mention that I suggested in my modernisation proposals that we should reduce the period of notice for oral questions to increase topicality. Tuesday's Question Time was a good example of the need to do that, as the Order Paper contained not a single question to the Foreign Secretary on India and Pakistan. That would not have happened if we had a realistic period of notice.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is the Leader of the House aware that he has singularly failed to explain why the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has not voluntarily come to the Chamber since the House returned on Tuesday, when my constituents and others are suffering from neanderthal industrial action on the railways at the hands of the RMT? Is the real answer that too many Labour Members, starting with the Deputy Prime Minister, are far too close to the RMT?
Mr. Cook: I indignantly deny that suggestion. For the record and in case anyone subsequently complains, I explain that I have had a long relationship with the RMT, which has been regularly and annually declared. I am happy to make that clear.
The position that the Government have taken on the current dispute has been to invite both sides to go forward to arbitration. There is provision for arbitration in their agreement, and we hope that both sides will agree to arbitration.
Over decades, the House has discussed the Government's role in disputes and, by and large, the consensus has emerged—a consensus that was certainly followed by the previous Conservative Government—that industrial disputes are a matter for the business concerned. They are not for politicians to resolve on a political basis.
Clive Efford: May I ask for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to come to the House to make a statement on the performance of the train operating companies? Too much of the debate about the railways has focused on individuals rather than on what people in the street want done to improve the railways. My constituents suffer the daily misery of travelling to central London on Connex South Eastern, which is almost certainly the worst-performing train operating company on the rail network. We need a proper debate—not one that is petty and backbiting about who is or is not running the railways—that will bring about the improvements that we need. The performance of the train operating companies and the persistent poor performance of the management of those companies is worthy of debate in the House.
Mr. Cook: I echo the central thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. This issue is not a matter of personalities and it should not be personalised. Fundamental strategic issues are involved and those who use the railways are aware of some of them. They would like those issues, and not personalities, to be at the centre of the debate.
I invite my hon. Friend to look forward to the announcement on Monday of the Strategic Rail Authority's four-year plan. I hope that it will provide a
684
way in which we can create a consistent theme to take forward the future of the railways and to address some of the problems that they face.
Mr. David Heath: Can the Leader of the House find time for a brief debate on the helicopter industry? He may be aware that just one hour ago Westland helicopters, which is now part of AgustaWestland, announced 600 job losses at its base in Yeovil. That will have a serious effect on my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). Is it not time that we had an opportunity to hear from Ministers in the Ministry of Defence about the strategic importance to both military and civil avionics of our helicopter industry, and from Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions about the help that they can afford my constituents at this very difficult time?
Mr. Cook: I fully sympathise with the position of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I was notified of the recent announcement of the redundancies in Yeovil and elsewhere in the south-west. The Government will obviously examine any way in which, through the Department of Trade and Industry and the Employment Service, we can assist communities to cope with the impact of the redundancies. However, at the end of the day, the decision is one for the company. It was not taken by the Government, and although we of course bear in mind the strategic importance of preserving our own weapons and armaments industries, those industries must ultimately decide what is required of their work force and the size of the work force they need.
Paul Flynn: When can we debate the adverse effects of prescribed drugs? It has been reported that the young pilot who crashed into the skyscraper in Miami was being prescribed Roaccutane, which is notorious for producing side effects including depressive illnesses and suicidal tendencies. A few years ago, a young constituent of mine died after being prescribed this drug and his parents have been campaigning ever since for clearer labelling of the drug and for warnings that it had such awful side effects. I have seen no improvements since then on the warnings about Roaccutane. When can we debate the issue?
Mr. Cook: I have to confess that I am not technically qualified to enter into a discussion on the particular drug to which my hon. Friend refers. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Department of Health. There are requirements on the information about and on the labelling of all drugs and they usually draw attention to the kind of side effects that he has mentioned. However, if there is a problem, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will wish to address it.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Given that in two weeks' time South Hams district council will produce a local plan that almost certainly will provide, thanks to Government pressure, for a new town in the middle of my constituency for up to 4,500 houses that no one locally wants, may I add my weight to a call for a debate in Government time on town and country planning? Two points need to be made. First, while the Government consult on new rules, district councils up and down the country are producing local plans on the basis of existing

685
rules and are confused whether the new rules will apply to that process. Secondly, we need to be able to argue the case for existing national housebuilding targets to be scrapped so that decisions on the number of houses to be built locally can be taken by local people.
Mr. Cook: I would not advise the hon. Gentleman's council or any other to put decisions on hold pending a change in legislation. As Leader of the House I can say that there is no guarantee when legislation will be completed and come into force. It is important that decisions are not left in suspense until then. I understand the controversy that such a proposal must cause in any constituency, but there are many ways for the hon. Gentleman to ventilate his concerns, and I would encourage him to do so.
John Cryer: Is there time for a debate on the energy industry? We need that debate for two reasons. First, Ofgem, the energy watchdog, plans to complete the deregulation of energy pricing, which has implications for rising energy prices for low-income families. Secondly, confidence tricksters are going around switching energy supplies to various homes without the permission of the people who live in them. Clearly that is to a large extent a result of deregulation and we need to crack down on those cowboys. Can we have a debate, or at least a statement, on those problems in the energy industry?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes his concerns most forcefully and I shall ensure that they are drawn to the attention of the relevant Minister. I understand that the Office for Gas and Electricity Marketing is consulting on some of those matters and he may wish to express his concerns directly to it.
Mr. Michael Jack: In 1997, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
"I will have failed in five years' time if there are not fewer journeys by car."
He went on to say:
"It is a tall order—but I want you to hold me to it."
I mention in the light of today's report that since 1997 there are 3 million more cars on the roads of the United Kingdom. May I press the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on transport so that we might first explore the total failure of the Government to move people from cars on to public transport and secondly consider the roads policy? It seems to me that most of those 3 million cars are parked permanently on the M6, unable to move because of the Government's failure to reach conclusions on the development of those vital routeways.
Mr. Cook: There have been more debates on transport than any other issue in this Parliament and I am sure that it will continue to be a priority. However, the right hon. Gentleman might, for completeness, have shared with the House the fact that more people are travelling by bus than before and more people are travelling by train than ever before. I would have thought that the Conservative party would welcome the new subsidies that we introduced to ensure that there are more rural buses.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Leader of the House aware that quite a few of us on the
686
Opposition Benches think that, all things considered, he was a capable and able Foreign Secretary, and in particular that his ethical foreign policy would have had more impact on Zimbabwe? Does he agree that the Government's policy on Zimbabwe is not delivering? It is about as much use as an ashtray on a motor cycle, and that country is facing its gravest crisis since independence. Is it not time that we had a full-day's debate on the crisis in Zimbabwe?
Mr. Cook: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening comment, but it would have been nice if it had been made when I was Foreign Secretary, rather than afterwards.
Zimbabwe is in a grave crisis. Indeed, no one in the Government has sought to diminish that in any way. I read the comments of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at Question Time on Tuesday. He clearly laid the degree of persistent serious violation of human rights in Zimbabwe on the line and made a new commitment that if the situation does not improve the Government will speak up for the expulsion of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth.
We have gone through the gamut of measures available to us as sanctions. We have reduced aid and targeted it only for humanitarian purposes. We have used the political measures available to us. We have withdrawn the British military advisory and training team from Zimbabwe. We are working with both the Commonwealth and the European Union, with some success, to increase that pressure and we will continue to do everything that we can.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Can the Leader of the House find time in the near future for a Government statement on the ombudsman's report, published at the end of last year, on access to official information? The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the ombudsman found that this was the only occasion when a Government had failed properly to respond to a report of his on access to information. As a result, he laid it in the Library of the House, but there is still no Government response. Can the right hon. Gentleman ask the Deputy Prime Minister, who is responsible for relations with the ombudsman, to come to the House and make a response so that we can question him about what the Government are trying to hide?
Mr. Cook: The Government are not trying to hide anything; indeed, as the ombudsman's report accepts, the Government were acting entirely within the principles of the code and the decision concerned was not wrong, even though he himself may have chosen to disagree with it. The hon. Gentleman will have many opportunities to pursue the matter, and I am sure that he will do so.
Bob Spink: I became aware yesterday of some of the issues surrounding the withdrawal of a question to the Prime Minister by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). We heard more about that today from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The matter raises serious issues about Back Benchers' ability to hold the Government to account, Government control freakery,

687
which is becoming all too apparent, and the status of Parliament itself. We ought to have a debate so that we can investigate all those issues.
Mr. Cook: Whatever can be said about the matter concerned, I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that it hardly seems to be an example of Parliament failing to hold Ministers to account; on the contrary, it demonstrates the Government responding quickly, expeditiously and appropriately to a Member's concern.

International Assistance Force (Kabul)
1.11 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): In my most recent statement about Afghanistan, on 19 December, I set out the encouraging progress that had been made towards the deployment of an international security assistance force to Kabul and its surrounding areas. I am grateful for this early opportunity to bring the House up to date with the considerable progress that we have made since then.
First, however, it is important to repeat why the United Kingdom is participating in and, indeed, leading the international security assistance force. That is entirely consistent with the objectives for the campaign against international terrorism that we set out last October. Those objectives have not changed. They are being achieved, and coalition military operations will continue until they have been achieved in full. The United Kingdom continues to support the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders.
We have always made it clear, however, that our commitment to Afghanistan was not simply for the short term. One of the longer-term campaign aims that we set out in October was to secure the reintegration of Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community and an end to its self-imposed isolation. That is vital if we are to ensure that the link between Afghanistan and international terrorism is broken.
An essential part of achieving that longer term aim is supporting the establishment of a new representative Government in Afghanistan—a process that was agreed at Bonn on 5 December. That means providing support to the Afghan Interim Administration. That support was clearly demonstrated by the Prime Minister's visit to Bagram on Monday.
The Bonn agreement called for the deployment of an international security assistance force to Kabul. One month on, troops are already on patrol in the streets of the Afghan capital. As the lead nation for the security force for the first three months, the United Kingdom has been responsible for putting the ISAF together. To have put together a major international force and agreed the terms of its deployment with an Interim Administration who have only just taken office—all in less than a month—is a remarkable achievement. I pay tribute to all the other nations who have offered troops—both those who will be contributing from the outset and those who will not—and to the Afghan Administration and to the United States. Without their help, we would never have achieved that in such a short time.
The way forward for the deployment of the force was cleared by the signing of the military technical agreement on 4 January by the commander of the ISAF, Major-General McColl, and the Afghan Interim Administration. That agreement, a copy of which I have placed in the Library of the House, sets out the relationship between the ISAF and the Interim Administration. It defines the status of the security force and gives it the powers that it requires to operate freely and without hindrance. It covers the legal status of the ISAF, its deployment and authority, and the support that the Interim Administration will provide. It specifies the location of the barracks in Kabul to which Afghan forces will be confined. Most important, it makes clear what the ISAF will do and where it will operate.

689
The ISAF is there to assist the Afghan Interim Administration, and the military technical agreement sets out what that might mean in practice. In addition to taking part in joint patrols with the Afghan police, the ISAF may assist the Interim Administration in developing future security structures; assist the Interim Administration in reconstruction; and identify and arrange training and assistance tasks for future Afghan security forces. The ISAF will operate in Kabul, and Kabul alone. The military technical agreement includes a map that clearly delimits the security force's area of responsibility.
In putting the security force together, we have made a careful assessment of the military capabilities that are needed to complete these tasks. Major General McColl and representatives from other troop-contributing nations have already carried out essential reconnaissance to that end. The ISAF headquarters is now operational and the first elements of the ISAF main body have already deployed. British forces have been on patrol in Kabul for nearly two weeks now. French troops began to patrol yesterday and those patrols have been extremely well received by the people of Kabul.
In total, the security force will be about 5,000 strong. Putting it together has not been easy, but not because we lacked offers of help. The international community responded swiftly and generously to our request for troops and at the planning conference on 19 December, 21 countries offered forces. Many nations offered infantry, but we had to construct a balanced and capable force able to get to Afghanistan quickly, support itself and do its job. The ISAF needs logistics support, explosive ordnance disposal troops, signallers, engineers, medical units, helicopters and, given that it will deploy and be supplied by air, it needs air transport.
As is always the case when putting a force together, we had to negotiate with the countries offering troops. Some were able to adjust their offers in the light of what we needed; others were not. For various reasons, some countries, such as Argentina, Jordan and Malaysia, have had to withdraw their offers to participate. There may, of course, be an opportunity for them to contribute troops at a later stage. There has been some comment about Canada's generous offer of an infantry battlegroup. It was not rejected; we were simply unable to accept it in its entirety from the outset. We had hoped to use its engineers right from the beginning, then replace our own infantry battlegroup with the Canadian battlegroup after several weeks. In the end, the Canadians decided to deploy their troops elsewhere—to Kandahar—to support continuing offensive operations in that region. While we would have welcomed them as part of the security force, we welcome their deployment to Kandahar where they will play an important role in the fight against international terrorism.
In total, we expect 17 countries to deploy troops alongside United Kingdom forces as part of the ISAF—Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and Turkey. The participation of those nations will be formalised this afternoon with the signing here in London of memorandums of understanding. That represents the final step in agreeing the structure of the ISAF for its period under our leadership.
690
The nature of the forces provided by those nations varies considerably in size and type. The Austrians, Danes and Dutch are deploying forces as part of a German-led multinational infantry battlegroup; others are providing vital specialist troops. New Zealand, for example, is to provide headquarters staff and support troops; Norway has promised explosive ordnance disposal troops and other support troops; Romania has offered military police and air transport assets; and Turkey will help staff the headquarters and will deploy other troops as well.
The security force is authorised by a United Nations Security Council resolution and will be led by the United Kingdom. The United States central command has authority over the ISAF to ensure that there is no risk of its activities interfering with the successful completion of Operation Enduring Freedom. The membership of the security force will probably change over the next six months. The ISAF is a coalition of the willing, drawn from forces that are needed, available and deployable in the time required.
The United Kingdom has agreed to lead the ISAF for its first three months. We took that on because our armed forces have the right capabilities; we have experience in expeditionary operations and rapid deployments; and we can provide effective command structures and enablers to get a force in and up and running in the time scale required. Being the lead nation means that we must inevitably provide the core of the security force, which is vividly demonstrated by the breadth of the forces that we have assigned to it. The force headquarters is drawn from the headquarters of 3(UK) Division. The headquarters of 16 Air Assault Brigade will exercise tactical command. Our infantry battle group is centred around the 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, and includes a company of Gurkhas. Elements of 33 and 36 Regiments, Royal Engineers, will deploy—so will 30 Signal Regiment, which will provide strategic communications. Support troops will be drawn from a number of units, including 13 Air Assault Regiment of the Royal Logistic Corps, and 16 Medical Regiment of the Royal Army Medical Corps. The Royal Air Force is deploying a range of airfield enablers from stations across the country. Those are simply the major force elements; we will also deploy many other smaller support units. We are now withdrawing the elements of 40 Commando Royal Marines who have helped to secure Bagram airstrip.
The United Kingdom's contribution to the ISAF will total up to 1,800 personnel. In addition and in the short term, we are deploying almost 300 Army and Royal Air Force personnel to help repair and operate Kabul international airport. That will help us in resupplying the ISAF and will be of lasting benefit to the Afghan people. We are able to make this contribution without any impact on our other operational commitments. Our commitment as lead nation is limited in duration. The ISAF mandate is for six months; we shall hand over our lead nation status to one of our partners after three months. I am delighted that Turkey has already expressed an interest in the responsibility. That does not mean that our commitment to participating in the security force will end completely at the three-month point. Certainly, we would expect to see a significant reduction in the number of British troops deployed, but we will not ignore the need to give continuing support to whoever takes over as lead nation.

691
We and our partners have already begun to deploy the forces assigned to the ISAF. Others will follow over the next few weeks. The security force should reach its full strength by mid-February. This deployment is not easy: it can only be done by air; airport facilities in Afghanistan are limited and very basic; and weather conditions can be treacherous. Supplying the security force—also by air—will be difficult. So far, the deployment has gone well, thanks to the thorough preparatory work we have been doing over the past few weeks.
We have put together and begun deploying the international security assistance force while continuing our contribution to the coalition military operations elsewhere in Afghanistan. As I have indicated, the United Kingdom is continuing to support the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. The Royal Air Force is still flying reconnaissance and air-to-air refuelling sorties. The Royal Navy is now playing an important role in the coalition maritime force in the region and is patrolling in the Arabian sea to prevent those with links to al-Qaeda from escaping from the region. I pay tribute to the work that it is doing.
Neither we nor the wider international community have neglected the provision of humanitarian aid. The World Food Programme and other agencies have worked hard to ensure that relief supplies are in place for the winter months. The World Food Programme dispatched 116,000 metric tonnes of wheat in December, against a target of 100,000 tonnes. That is the highest monthly distribution into Afghanistan to date, reflecting the expansion in aid operations and improved access to most parts of the country.
The United Kingdom's commitment to the Afghan people as they set about the enormous task of rebuilding their country remains as strong as our commitment to them in removing the Taliban from power. Our contribution to the ISAF is a clear demonstration of that commitment. Our contribution could not have been made without the skills and abilities of our armed forces. I am confident that they will carry out this new task, on which so much depends, to the high standards that we have come to expect.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, a copy of which I received in good time, for which I am grateful, and for his continued efforts to keep Parliament fully informed about developments in Afghanistan. May I reassure him and the House that, whatever reservations Opposition Members may express about the deployment of the ISAF, we share the hopes of the Government and the whole House that it will be successful? Moreover, the Government continue to enjoy the support of Her Majesty's Opposition for their backing of the United States in the war against terrorism and their commitment to the reconstruction of Afghanistan alongside the continuing humanitarian aid programme.
I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would clarify four main issues. First, I understand that there has been an inevitable measure of uncertainty about the timing and mechanics of the deployment. Will he express his sympathy and understanding to the families of some elements of 2 Para that have been put on 48-hour standby and then stood down many times since 11 September and more than once over the Christmas period?
692
Incidentally, can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the welfare of our troops? What accommodation will United Kingdom soldiers have in Afghanistan? Will they have anything more than sleeping bags on concrete floors in derelict buildings for the coldest winter months? What access will they have to telephones and e-mails for contacting families back home?
Secondly, uncertainty inevitably compounds the effects of overstretch. I note the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to deal with that point. However, does he recall that 2 Para was in Northern Ireland last Christmas and was sent to Macedonia at short notice during the school holidays in August? After this operation, it is due to serve in Northern Ireland again next Christmas. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman fully understands that such intensive disruption to family life is one of the factors that drives good soldiers to leave the British army. Can he set a date for the withdrawal of our main elements of the ISAF as well as for handing over responsibility to the follow-on force in three months?
Thirdly, on overall command, is it true that the Government waited for the approval of all EU states, including non-NATO members, which are not involved in the ISAF or have only a token role, such as Austria, Finland and Sweden or no role, such as Ireland, as the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported on 14 December? Is it also true that our European partners objected to the principle of overall US command? Again, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported on 16 December:
"The British want the force to act under the auspices of US central command … Germany rejects this idea."
Why have the Government acquiesced to the demand so that different UK forces in Afghanistan operate under split command in the same military theatre? Does that explain why the Foreign Secretary tabled proposals in writing on the matter in Washington that were rejected out of hand by the Americans and had to be substantially amended? What exactly is the agreement between the ISAF and US central command?
Why has the Secretary of State allowed the shadow of the Euro army to cloud the Government's judgment? He has been determined to involve as many EU members as possible at the expense of NATO allies. That is not only my criticism; the Canadian Defence Minister can discern no other reason for the refusal of Canada's offer of help. On Monday he told a press conference in Ottawa:
"This is a European Union kind of mission. I think quite clearly European politics became a part of the decision making process."
Is the Secretary of State worried that he has created unnecessary friction with the United States and offended Canada, one of our most loyal and long-term NATO allies? As has been announced, the Canadian infantry is good enough for the Americans to deploy for war fighting around Kandahar.
Fourthly, now that our troops are in Kabul, will the Secretary of State clarify any misunderstanding about the Bonn agreement? Annexe 1 clearly states that the Afghan Government must
"withdraw all military units from Kabul and other urban centres or other areas in which the UN mandated force is deployed",
yet Interior Minister Qanooni said that that will not happen.
Does not the military technical agreement that was agreed last Friday permit the Kabul Government to maintain Northern Alliance forces in Kabul to be

693
deployed when they wish? How will that affect the ability of ISAF forces to intervene in cases where lives are threatened? It is all very well saying that British forces are welcome in Kabul, although I am pleased by that news, but why was a patrol of Royal Marines able to do nothing but stand aside and watch a woman accused of adultery being stoned?
We are told that ISAF patrols must defer to the Afghan police. How are they meant to distinguish between Afghan police and Northern Alliance troops, given that they are the same people? Why are we patrolling in "Kabul alone" to quote the Secretary of State, when the Bonn agreement clearly states:
"This force will assist in the maintenance of security for Kabul and its surrounding areas. Such a force could, as appropriate, be progressively expanded to other urban centres and other areas",
so why Kabul alone?
The Secretary of State must answer these questions about the political leadership of ISAF. As for the British armed forces, they are once again demonstrating their supreme professionalism, and we are confident that everyone, from the high command and General John McColl to the troops on the ground, is ready to meet any challenge that they are given. I assure them that we wish them every success.
Mr. Hoon: I welcome a number of the observations made by the hon. Gentleman, but he rather spoils the impact of his sensible questions by his continuing obsession with things European. He risks becoming a kind of Dr. Strangelove figure, unable to control his European obsessions, with his characteristic lack of understanding of the way in which these matters operate. Instead of concentrating on the matters at hand, about which he has some sensible questions to ask, he shows his obsession with Europe and European issues, which ruins what would otherwise be a perfectly sensible set of questions on behalf of the Opposition.
I will deal with the points that the hon. Gentleman has made in relation to the overall command of the force by referring to the statement that I have just made. Having given him the opportunity of reading it, I am surprised that he did not study the details of the command more carefully. This is a UN-mandated force, a coalition of the willing, that includes a significant number of countries—I read the list out fairly slowly for the hon. Gentleman's benefit. Countries such as Norway, Romania, Turkey, Bulgaria and New Zealand have not yet exhibited characteristics consistent with being members of the European Union. I realise that the hon. Gentleman's grasp of geography might be a little less than desirable. [Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Front-Bench Members sitting there saying, "This is cheap". We read the shadow Defence Minister's observations on the front page of The Times the other day. We know what his obsession is; he has repeated it here today. If he wants his observations on defence matters to be treated sensibly, he really ought to make sensible ones. Frankly, talking about a European army is simply a characteristic of the obsession that the Conservative party and its Front-Bench spokesmen have, sadly, been gripped by.
The force is a coalition of the willing. It works as a result of the 18 countries represented working together to provide the appropriate forces necessary to do this particular job. The hon. Gentleman asks why UK forces
694
in Afghanistan will be under two different sets of command. The answer would be a statement of the obvious, if he had been following what has been happening there over recent months, British forces are engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom under the direct tactical command of the United States. There are now also forces involved in the security force engaged in helping to reconstruct Afghanistan. There is nothing remarkable about that, and nothing that is difficult to understand—except to someone who is determined not to understand it because he wants to make a cheap point about Europe and the way in which the forces are deployed.
I set out our position clearly on the relationship with the United States Central Command—Centcom—in the statement. There is a clear relationship agreed between the United Kingdom and the United States to ensure deconfliction between the two forces. That is a matter that any sensible Ministry of Defence would resolve, and it has been resolved entirely satisfactorily between the United States, the United Kingdom and other contributors to the ISAF.
I also set out the position in relation to Canada in the statement. Canada offered a complex battle group which, unfortunately, duplicated the kinds of forces that we had been offered by a number of other countries. In trying to provide a satisfactory solution for Canada, as well as for those other countries, we offered Canada the opportunity for its force to come in to replace a British battle group. This was a matter for Canada, and it judged that it was better for its force to become involved in the operations in southern Afghanistan. We entirely welcome that. The matter was agreed with Canada and it is not worth the comment that the hon. Gentleman chose to make about it.
On the more sensible points that the hon. Gentleman raised, I share his concern about the impact on families, particularly over a holiday period, of the change in notice requirements and the difficulties that that causes, but it is an inevitable consequence of the uncertainties that we obviously face in a fast-moving situation such as that in Afghanistan.
Work is being done on an accommodation and welfare package. One of this country's key abilities is getting forces into a theatre quickly, and we shall address the comprehensive welfare package that goes with it, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the accommodation is the best available in the circumstances, although I do not pretend that it is not pretty robust. The Prime Minister told me this morning that he is very impressed by the efforts made by British forces, which he saw for himself in Bagram the other day. We shall continue to work on the matter.
I do not accept that there is any impact on overstretch. On the date for withdrawing the force, I referred in my statement to the time scale. We anticipate being the lead nation for three months, but we do not anticipate leaving the theatre entirely thereafter, simply because it is important that we continue to contribute to the six-month effort that the UN has mandated. We are pleased that Turkey has offered to replace the United Kingdom as lead nation and anticipate that, by the end of the three months, that will have led to a significant reduction in the number of British troops deployed.
I have previously described to the House the importance of having robust rules of engagement, but I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman, as I did then, that this

695
is not a peacekeeping operation. The force is for security assistance and we are there to work alongside an Interim Administration who are engaged in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. That is a difficult and complex task, and it is a sign of the support that the international community can give that 18 countries are represented in the ISAF and prepared to put their troops on the streets of Kabul to assist.
The hon. Gentleman's questions about a wider involvement do not address the matter of the kind of force that has been and will continue to be deployed in Afghanistan. The force is there to support the Interim Administration as they struggle with the difficulties of restoring Afghanistan to the international community.
Ann Clwyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on the role that they have played in prosecuting the war in Afghanistan. I know that the contribution made by British forces is much appreciated. I particularly want to ask him about reports that the International Committee of the Red Cross has been unable to gain access to prisoners. Will he set out the status of prisoners being held in Afghanistan? Are they held under the Geneva convention or not? On what basis are prisoners being sent to the United States or Cuba or being held in Afghanistan?
Mr. Hoon: I would expect all prisoners held in Afghanistan to be subject to the Geneva convention and we would expect that, ultimately, the ICRC will have access to them.
Mr. Michael Moore: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of the statement and I welcome its content. We on these Benches continue to support the deployment of UK troops under the Bonn agreement of 5 December and UN resolution 1386 of 20 December. We congratulate the Ministry, and in particular General McColl and his team, on getting themselves into such a state of preparedness at this early stage. However, I seek clarification of certain points in the statement.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the rules of engagement are robust enough to ensure the safety of the British troops deployed in this exercise? Will he further clarify the time scale he has mentioned? In particular, has the three-month period begun; if so, at what point did it begin? He was careful to say that British troops would not be withdrawn completely at the end of the three months; what scale of operation does he expect Britain to continue to support after that?
Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that the United Nations mandate is flexible enough to allow the troops to ensure the safety of Afghan civilians? Will he also clarify the role of the UN Secretary-General? Resolution 1386 specifically asks the force to report to the Secretary-General. It is important to understand the relationship between that and the line of command to the United States.
Many of our armed forces have been in the region under Operation Veritas. When does the Secretary of State expect them to be either redeployed or returned home—
696
or are they being retained in the area for possible deployment in other theatres, should the situation develop further?
Mr. Hoon: As I said on the last occasion, it is important for the rules of engagement to be robust and to provide for the safety and security of our armed forces. I assure the House that that is the case.
I expect the three-month period to run from the point at which the force becomes fully operational. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise date today, but I am sure that the House will be informed. It will depend on the extent of the logistical problems involved in conveying a large force and its supplies to a difficult environment within an appropriate time scale. There are uncertainties in the region at present, and it is important for us to take them into account. If all goes according to our current plans, however, I shall expect the period to start very shortly.
As I said in my statement, this is a UN-mandated force, and regular reports to the Secretary-General are of course involved. As I have also said, however, the force's role is to assist the Interim Administration. It is not there to perform a peacekeeping role, or to police the streets of Kabul day in, day out. It is therefore the Interim Administration's responsibility to ensure the safety and security of Afghan citizens, although that does not mean that the rules of engagement are not robust enough to allow our forces to intervene in appropriate circumstances.
Obviously we will have regard to ensuring that forces are replaced in theatre when that is necessary, or allowed to return to the United Kingdom or another appropriate base when the time comes.
Mr. Ernie Ross: I welcome the statement. Other members of the defence forces will want to play their part; what implications has the deployment for our reserve forces?
Mr. Hoon: The impact on our reserve forces has already been clear. There has been a call-out order since last October, which allows us to call out individual volunteer reservists for operations resulting from the terrorist attacks in the United States. The process has worked very well to date, but we must now consider how to sustain our operations in the future. One possibility is limited further mobilisation, particularly in specialist areas, and I am considering that. It conforms to our policy of integrated and usable reserve forces as set out in the strategic defence review, and although we have not yet made a decision, we may do so in the near future.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does the Secretary of State agree that we should not underestimate the difficulty of recent operations, and that all those involved in the planning and implementation of the operations in Afghanistan deserve our heartfelt appreciation? I join those who have paid tribute to the courage, determination and skill of our armed forces.
Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, if we continue to expose our troops to hazard in an area with a primitive infrastructure, they will have first-class medical support?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. He is right to say that it is a difficult theatre,

697
and it does not pay to underestimate the problems that our forces have already faced and will continue to face in Afghanistan. I am also grateful for his tribute to the armed forces. I have said that a British medical force will be deployed, alongside medical units from other countries, and access to up-to-date medical facilities is a vital aspect of support for any deployed force. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will be the case.
Ian Lucas: Further to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), can my right hon. Friend clarify whether all alleged terrorists in Afghanistan, including those held by US forces, will be dealt with in due course under the auspices of the UN, through the International Criminal Court?
Mr. Hoon: I mentioned earlier the UK's expectation that all prisoners will be covered by the Geneva convention. I cannot go further, because it is not my responsibility to determine how the Interim Administration or the US should deal with prisoners. I assure my hon. Friend that it is not the responsibility of the United Nations to deal with those matters either. In international law, the Geneva convention applies and that is the best statement that I can give of British policy.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Given that we train our troops for war fighting and given—as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) said—that our troops have played a distinguished role in the offensive alongside our American counterparts in what has been a most successful operation, can the Secretary of State tell us why Canadian troops are being deployed in Kandahar to assist the Americans in the offensive activities that are still necessary to rid Afghanistan of al-Qaeda, and why our troops are restricted to their present role? The Secretary of State says that that role is not peacekeeping, but I am not sure what else it is. It certainly does not mean involvement in the offensive activity.
Mr. Hoon: Again, I would be delighted to answer questions on behalf of the Canadian Defence Ministry, but I am not in a position to do so. As for war fighting, some 5,000 British troops are engaged in continuing operations in and around Afghanistan. They are doing their job magnificently, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would expect. Equally, the international community has assumed a separate responsibility, which the UK has taken on as lead nation, to assist in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. I am sure that with a moment's reflection the hon. Gentleman will realise that it is equally important, having dealt with the threat that the Taliban regime posed to international security, that we should ensure that the Interim Administration have the opportunity to rebuild Afghanistan, if for no other reason than to avoid a further threat from that part of the world. After all, we got into the difficulties with Afghanistan because of the failure of the international community after the Russian withdrawal to recognise that Afghanistan could pose a threat beyond its borders. We must avoid at all costs repeating that mistake.
Mr. Chris Mullin: To what extent is it anticipated that our troops will play a role in securing the distribution of aid? The Secretary of State will have
698
seen reports that people in the interior of Afghanistan are surviving on grass, and it is important that aid reaches them as quickly as possible. Aid seems to be reaching the country, but it then appears to be stockpiled instead of being distributed in some of the more difficult areas.
Mr. Hoon: That will not be a responsibility of our present force. As I emphasised earlier, its responsibilities are limited to Kabul. I have read those accounts and it is obvious that there are difficulties in certain more remote parts of Afghanistan. I know that serious attention is being given to distribution, which is the problem at present. I said in my statement that more food is now getting into Afghanistan than at any time before. The problem is making sure that once it arrives, it reaches those parts of that country that are at the moment somewhat inaccessible. However, I assure my hon. Friend and the House that every effort is being made to deal with the problems right across the country.
Michael Fabricant: It was disingenuous and unworthy of the Secretary of State to attack my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on the European dimension, given that all my hon. Friend was doing was quoting the Canadian Secretary of State for Defence.
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Prime Minister visited Bagram for two or three hours on Monday. He said in his statement that British forces are on the streets of Kabul and have been for the past two weeks. Could the Secretary of State amplify his remarks on the security position within Kabul, and say whether the Prime Minister did not visit Kabul because of security reasons? Will he answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex that has direct relation to the situation in Kabul? Annexe 1 of the Bonn agreement says that military forces in Kabul would be withdrawn where mandated forces were deployed. Has that condition now been met?
Mr. Hoon: As the build-up of the force continues, I indicated in my statement that we are well short of an operating capability there. Obviously we are in the process of implementing the Bonn agreement in what is a very dangerous environment. Nobody can underestimate the difficulties that our forces face in doing their job in Bagram and Kabul. I am not going to suggest to the House that theirs is not a demanding role. That is why we have every regard to the security and safety of any visitor to that part of the world.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I welcome the deployment of the force—I congratulate the Government on the part that they have played—and I wish the force every success, whatever the composition of the force, particularly if a lot of European countries are involved. On the question of humanitarian aid raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), there are large areas of Afghanistan where the situation is desperate and lack of security is preventing the delivery of aid. There must be some plans for the future to extend the multinational security force to other areas, to enable those people to be fed.
Mr. Hoon: I have emphasised the nature of the Bonn agreement and the agreement entered into by the

699
international community with the Interim Administration. It is not to extend the activities of the security force beyond Kabul. That is not to say that efforts are not being made inside Afghanistan by relevant international organisations and the Interim Administration to ensure the effective distribution of aid. That work will continue and it is supported by the international community by ensuring that large amounts of aid are provided.
The issue, as the hon. Lady has quite fairly indicated, is security and distribution. She knows a good deal about the situation in Afghanistan; the problems faced particularly in the most inaccessible parts of the country were caused by the failure of three successive harvests and by three years of drought. They are not attributable to the security situation directly, or to the military conflict. That is not in any way to underestimate their seriousness, nor to underestimate the determination of the international community to help resolve them.
Angus Robertson: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and I thank him for providing me with a copy before he spoke. On behalf of the Scottish National party, I put on record our support for the security force and reiterate our support for the military operations against both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. I especially support those from my constituency and RAF Kinloss who are serving in our armed forces.
I wish to reinforce some of the points made today in terms of the interaction between the military and humanitarian operations. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees this morning reported problems to do with distribution and security in Kandahar and Helmand provinces. The International Rescue Committee has highlighted an extreme situation in the mountainous northern region of Abdullah Ghan. The Secretary of State has explained that there is no possibility that ISAF' s role and area of responsibility will be widened. If that remains the case, will he say how military units on the ground elsewhere in Afghanistan could help to secure the aid deliveries so urgently needed in parts of that country?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's early comments, but in the end he asked a question that I have sought to answer on two previous occasions already. The security force has a particular responsibility that has been agreed with the Interim Administration. Other forces in Afghanistan that belong to the international coalition are still actively engaged in rounding up the remaining
700
Taliban and al-Qaeda elements. I am confident that those forces will continue their particular military task until they are successful.
As far as the distribution of aid is concerned, however, the extensive support given by the international community means that there is no reason why the Interim Administration should not be able to ensure the effective distribution of aid, even in those especially difficult parts of Afghanistan that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. There remain some real dangers in and around the Kandahar area, and elements of the Taliban and of al-Qaeda are still active and dangerous in that part of the world. I emphasise that it is vital that those elements be rounded up and dealt with before further efforts to distribute aid are made.
Hugh Robertson: Given that the thoughts of the United States Administration are clearly turning to the next stage of the war against terrorism, what assessment has been made of the numbers and types of troops that this country might contribute to any future operation?
Mr. Hoon: Again, I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting ahead of reality. Obviously, efforts are in hand to address the threat of international terrorist organisations from other countries, but as I said in my statement, the focus of the United States and the United Kingdom remains on ensuring that the work that we began in Afghanistan is continued to a successful conclusion.
Patrick Mercer: May I begin by applauding the deployment of ISAF, and especially the work of Major-General John McColl? However, the Secretary of State has spoken about the importance of rounding up the elements of al-Qaeda that are still effective in the Kandahar area. Without dwelling on Canada's decision to deploy a light infantry battle group there, will he say why Britain has not thought fit to honour the words of the Prime Minister, who spoke of standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States? Currently, only a tiny number of our special forces have been deployed in the teeth of the enemy. Have we run out of personnel in the Parachute Regiment, the Royal Marines or special forces? Have we run out of Guardsmen and line soldiers trained in desert and mountain warfare? Or have we run out of resolve?
Mr. Hoon: We have not run out of any of those elements. We deploy the right types of forces to do the job that is required of us. As I said, up to 5,000 of Britain's armed forces are actively engaged in the hunt for al-Qaeda and remaining elements of the Taliban. They are ensuring that precisely those tasks to which I assume that the hon. Gentleman was referring are completed.

Point of Order
1.59 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you please have a word with Mr. Speaker and ask him if he would be kind enough to consider having discussions with those who arrange our business to ensure that, when a topic of crucial interest and importance arises, there is adequate time to debate it? I make no criticism of the 10-minute limit imposed on speeches by Back Benchers today, but the House of Lords has had two full days to debate the matter of reform. By contrast, the statement that we have just heard will limit our debate to just five hours. I appreciate that the matter is not under Mr. Speaker's direct control, but I am sure it would be much appreciated if, on behalf of the House, he could have some conversations with those who regulate our business.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but he has already indicated that the matter is really one for business questions.

THE SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
Ordered,
That the Speaker have leave of absence tomorrow to attend the funeral of Jennifer Brown, daughter of the Right honourable Member for Dunfermline East.—[Mr. Woolas.]

House of Lords Reform
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Woolas.]
1.59 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): When I presented the White Paper on reform of the House of Lords, I promised that the Commons would have a full opportunity to debate the Government's proposals within the consultation period. We are within the consultation period and this debate fulfils that commitment. The contributions to the debate can inform the period of reflection that must follow the end of the consultation period.
There would not be much point in our providing this day for debate if it did not permit Members who favour a different design for the second Chamber to express those views. I anticipate that we will hear from a number of them this afternoon. The White Paper is, after all, a consultative paper. It invited views on its proposals—
Mr. Chris Bryant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: I have hardly begun, but if my hon. Friend will bear with me a little, I promise to give him priority.
The White Paper invited views on its proposals and, on some questions, it set out options for discussion. However, there are two points on which the White Paper is robust and on which the Government will not compromise.
The first is that the hereditary principle has no place in a modern Parliament. In the last Parliament, the Government took the historic step of breaking the dominance of the hereditary vote in the House of Lords. However, there remain 92 hereditary peers. We are the only Parliament in Europe which still permits members of the legislature to vote on the laws of the nation on no other basis than that of privilege of birth. The White Paper finally severs the link between the hereditary peerage and a seat in the House of Lords.
Mr. Eric Forth: Given the vehemence of the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the hereditary peers and the support that he has from his colleagues, will he therefore guarantee that there will be a Bill on the reform of the House of Lords during this Parliament, and that under no circumstances will he allow the hereditaries to remain beyond this Parliament?
Mr. Cook: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is indeed our intention to make sure that a Bill is brought before the House of Commons and the House of Lords in the course of this Parliament. That, after all, is the whole point of this debate—to establish the weight of gravity that will enable us to bring forward such a Bill.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I think that I owe it to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) to give way first to him, as I promised to give him priority.
Mr. Bryant: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does what he is saying about the consultation

703
process mean that if the consultation showed that people wanted a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber, the Government would then bring forward such proposals?
Mr. Cook: I will address the question of a wholly elected second Chamber in the course of my remarks. I have grave concerns about a wholly elected second Chamber for reasons that I shall put before the House. On the broad principle, of course we will listen to what is said during the consultation period. In the period of reflection that will follow, we will see where we can find the centre of gravity in order to move forward with reform.
The second core principle of the White Paper is that the second Chamber of Parliament must reflect the broad political balance in the country. The Conservative party remains the largest single party in the House of Lords, despite successive record defeats in general elections. I hope that, even among the Conservative party, this debate will establish that there is a consensus that a modern second Chamber must more fairly represent the balance of how Britain votes.
That is why the White Paper proposes a new statutory appointments commission that will determine independently the proportion of political appointments to the Lords in line with the distribution of votes for the parties cast at the previous general election. That will remove from the Government of the day the right to determine for themselves the political balance of new appointments. Never again will it be possible for a Government to use their political patronage to guarantee themselves a secure majority in the House of Lords, as the Conservative party did throughout its 18 years in office.
Indeed, given the distribution of votes in general elections, never again will any one party hold an outright majority in the second Chamber. That will make it a real check and balance on the majority in the Commons, which it was not during those 18 years of a Conservative majority in both the Commons and the Lords.
I am confident that the great majority of Members will welcome the removal of the hereditary principle and will support a second Chamber that is more broadly—
Mr. Gerald Howarth rose—
Mr. Cook: I may well turn out to be wrong. I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Howarth: I am most grateful. If the Leader of the House wants the other place to be an effective check on this place, why has it proved necessary for the Prime Minister to appoint so many people of his own persuasion to enter that place, thereby reducing significantly its capacity to act as a check on this House?
Mr. Cook: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to respond to that misconception. Throughout the Conservative years, there were two Conservatives to every Labour person appointed to the other place. Throughout the years since 1997, we have
704
made only a minority of the political appointments to the House of Lords—a restraint that was never shown by the last two Prime Ministers.
Mr. Tyrie rose—
Mr. Cook: I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's wish to intervene, but at the moment I want to make progress.
Mr. Tyrie: It is on that point.
Mr. Cook: How can I resist?
Mr. Tyrie: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the facts he will find that, until last year, it was not the case that only a minority of Labour peers were appointed. This Prime Minister was the first ever to appoint a majority from his own side in his first three years in office. Secondly, the main reason why such a small number of Labour life peers were appointed during the 1980s was that Labour refused to nominate any.
Mr. Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is wrong on that last point. However, he has confirmed that over the four and a half years of this Labour Government we have appointed only a minority of Labour peers. We still do not have the majority that he attributes to us in the House of Lords. We are still only the second largest party there. I very much doubt whether Baroness Thatcher would have tolerated for four and a half years her party, through appointment, being only the second largest in that Chamber.
I said that I was confident of a welcome for the two core principles. Of course, I recognise that not all Members who support reform and those principles of the White Paper will necessarily support all the solutions by which it achieves those principles. What is now urgent is to find the package that would establish the greatest consensus among those Members of Parliament and the public.
The sole reason why Westminster has entered the 21st century still dignified by the presence of hereditary peers is that those who wanted reform could never agree on what to put in its place. I have heard many references in the past 48 hours to the alliance in the 1966 Parliament between Michael Foot and Enoch Powell to halt the proposals for reform. One of them wanted more reform and the other wanted no reform. Between them, they stopped any reform for 30 years. We must not let history repeat itself. The year 1911 is so long ago that many Members may have forgotten the preamble to the first Parliament Act—
Peter Bradley: Not in the Lords.
Mr. Cook: I defer to my hon. Friend's greater wisdom on that matter.
The preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 stated:
"it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation".

705
The authors of the Act turned out to be correct. It was another 90 years before the hereditary basis of the House of Lords was broken. I do not want the next stage of reform to be delayed another 90 years because we cannot agree on an alternative.
Mr. David Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend envisage that the Bill that will be introduced will provide a permanent solution to the reform of the House of Lords, or will it be an interim stage towards yet further reforms in the years ahead?
Mr. Cook: I personally do not see much point in our introducing a Bill if it does not stand a reasonable test of time. However, no Bill introduced on any subject or any issue of public debate can necessarily be the last word. It is in the character of Parliament that we evolve over the decades and centuries. What is important is that we achieve the right balance between a Bill that pretends to be the ultimate statement and a Bill that will nevertheless stand for a reasonable period and achieve progress that those who back it regard as worth while and worth the effort.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Leader of the House agree that any Bill must clearly state the ultimate aim of proportional representation for the House of Lords but also allow for a transitional phase to enable us to see how those proportions will be achieved over time?
Mr. Cook: Obviously, any Bill that is presented must in its legal text seek to give effect to its purpose but, having studied the matter over the past six months, I see no way in which reform can be achieved without a transitional period. That is not to say that the Bill should not in itself state what will be the situation at the end of that transitional period.
I was saying that although there is support for the principles, we must ensure that we find sufficient agreement on one alternative to make progress. I would therefore ask those who have come to the Chamber not to praise the Government's package but to bury it at least to be clear in their mind about the alternative that they would put in its place. That applies particularly to the official Opposition.
Last night, the Conservative leader in the Lords braved "Newsnight". He was asked whether he agreed with the statement:
"Your MPs are split from what your peers are saying",
to which the noble and candid Lord replied, "Oh, absolutely."
This morning—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are pointing at us, but in these circumstances there is comfort in numbers. This morning I read in my Daily Telegraph that last night the shadow Cabinet decided on a policy. I would ask the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth): do tell. Let us know the new policy. For a century the Conservative party has championed the hereditary principle. In their time in government, the Conservatives never once proposed that there should be a single elected Member of the House of Lords. [Interruption.] Indeed, I see that some of them are still not up on the new policy agreed last night. In the last Parliament, they sacked Lord Cranborne for pulling the
706
embroidered rug from under the feet of the hereditary peers—an action for which he deserved applause, not his P45.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst himself said in the debates in the last Parliament that he had
"no problem defending the long-standing hereditary element of the House of Lords".—[Official Report, 10 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 1190.]
He and his party have a lot of words to swallow if they are to be convincing when they say that they are now the champions of a democratic second Chamber. I would only suggest that they make a start today on that process of swallowing.
I recognise that the question of composition is the issue on which there has been most debate on the White Paper. Before I address that question, we should first be clear about what we see as the functions of a second Chamber. We cannot decide on the composition of a second Chamber unless we first decide what is its function.
The Government's view is that the second Chamber should remain a Chamber of revision of legislation, of scrutiny of Government decisions, and of deliberation on public policy. It should have the capacity to recommend policy and it should have the power to delay legislation that requires second thoughts, but it should not have the right to compel the Commons to change the view of its elected majority.
If the second Chamber is to discharge those functions in the public interest, it is essential that it should contain some members elected by the public. That is why the White Paper proposes for the first time that there should be members directly elected by the public to the second Chamber.
That principle of direct elections to the second Chamber has been broadly welcomed. The precise proportion proposed by the White Paper of those to be directly elected has not enjoyed quite such a welcome. That will be one of the issues on which the Government will need to reflect in light of the views expressed in this debate and in the country.
However, I would place firmly on the record my anxiety about a wholly elected second Chamber. I have served three decades in the House of Commons and I do not wish to see the supremacy of this place undermined. The White Paper starts from the principle that the House of Commons will remain the pre-eminent Chamber. It will retain the right to the final decision on whether legislation can become law and it will retain the sole right to decide legislation on taxation. The right to form a Government of the United Kingdom will depend on whether the Government can command a majority in the House of Commons alone.
David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when it appeared to be the case, in the late 1980s, that our party was in favour of a directly elected second Chamber, I was among those Labour MPs who argued that we should not go down that road because, whatever might be written in the powers, the fact would remain that the directly elected House of Lords would be in direct competition with this House? Will he bear it in mind, however, that if there is to be a directly elected element—I firmly believe that there should be, as I argued in written evidence to the Wakeham commission—

707
it should be more than 20 per cent. and a minimum of one third? Under no circumstances should the second Chamber be entirely directly elected; it would be wrong to take that path.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend and I have, broadly speaking, similar periods of service in the House and I fully share his concern to preserve the pre-eminence of this House and his anxiety that it would be impossible to do so in the event that there was a wholly directly elected second Chamber. No written document would be strong enough to withstand the challenge to the supremacy of the Commons by a second Chamber that felt that it had equally good democratic legitimacy. Over time, a wholly elected second Chamber would seek to approach parity with the Commons—perhaps even, as in the case of the United States Senate, to achieve more than parity with the Commons.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Many Labour Members simply do not accept that. It is an assertion, not a statement of fact. If the powers and functions of the second Chamber are to be tightly circumscribed, what is wrong with having an elected upper House?
Mr. Cook: Plainly, I have failed to carry my hon. Friend with me and I must try harder. I fully admire the extent to which he is vigilant about his rights to represent the people who sent him to this place and active in using the House to pursue those interests. I ask him to contemplate how he would react if he found himself returned as a member of a wholly elected second Chamber and was then told that he had no right to vote on the taxation of his electors, no right to block—rather than delay—any law that was binding and no prospect of questioning Cabinet Ministers running the public services. I know my hon. Friend well enough to know that in those circumstances he would commence a vigorous campaign to ensure that he had the rights to do those things and to represent his people.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I seem to remember that when we debated the Scotland Act 1998 a number of people made similar points, arguing that the Members of the House who came from Scotland would try to interfere with the Scottish Parliament. Most of us recognise fully what we are elected to this place for, and we vote on that basis.
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that I recognise that as a parallel case in the circumstances. I would also say to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) that of course we can—I would be enthusiastic about it if I were ever faced with such an outcome—write down and tabulate in statute what should be the limited functions of the House of Lords. I just do not believe that that tablet of stone would stand the test of time when confronted by a wholly democratically elected House of Lords that was pressing to change it, and which might sometimes find itself pressing for changes with the support of public opinion. But there is another reason why—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Cook: I fully understand that many of my hon. Friends wish to intervene on that point, but I shall make progress because many of them also wish to take part in this debate.
The limited functions of a second Chamber do not require it to mirror the democratic mandate of the House of Commons. On the contrary, the second Chamber will be better able to fulfil its role of deliberation and a more valuable forum in which difficult issues can be discussed openly if its debates are informed by the expertise and authority of people with a lifetime of distinction.
Parliament can benefit from a forum that can tap the experience of people who have devoted their lives to courses other than Parliament, such as science, the arts, the voluntary sector and business. This may seem strange to me, and perhaps to some of my colleagues, but it is a fact of life that only a minority of the population actually enjoy the prospect of standing for election. If we want to preserve and improve the standing of the second Chamber as a place that can draw on the expertise and first-hand knowledge of those who have not stood for election, we need to preserve an alternative entry to the House of Lords for independent Members.
That is why the White Paper proposes for the first time that there should be a new statutory appointments commission that takes the appointment of those independent Members out of political patronage. The White Paper proposes that the commission should have the duty to appoint independent Members to form 20 per cent. of the new reformed second Chamber. There has been much media criticism of the first batch of Members chosen by the present Appointments Commission.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: No, I shall finish this point.
I invite hon. Members to consider the individuals who were brought into the House of Lords through that new transparent system. They include Valerie Howarth, chief executive of Childline, which she built up from a small charity to a national body. She has brought her expertise to proceedings in the House of Lords on child poverty. They include Mr. Amir Bathia, who has a long record of voluntary work, including as trustee of Oxfam. He has brought that voluntary sector experience to debates in the House of Lords on immigration and pre-school education.
Those people also include other distinguished members of Britain's ethnic communities, such as Dr. Michael Chan, who has a distinguished lifetime of contributing to the NHS as a paediatrician and as a professor in ethnic health. The House of Lords has benefited from his expertise in its debates on health. The truth is that those people would never have been likely to put themselves forward for election as party candidates and that they could not have taken part in those debates without an alternative entry system.
Mr. Harold Best: Does my right hon. Friend accept that such elected expertise probably exists in this Chamber and that it could equally exist in another elected Chamber?
Mr. Cook: As Leader of the House, I would be the last person to undermine the status, experience, expertise and

709
the calibre of the House of Commons. No one is saying anything other than that the House of Commons is the wholly democratically elected Chamber, on which its prerogatives rest. If we were to exclude those voices altogether, the debates in the second Chamber would be poorer, and it does not seem unreasonable that 20 per cent.—only a fifth of the total membership—should be available to those independent voices.
Michael Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I shall give way, but then I must make progress.
Michael Fabricant: The Leader of the House will be aware that voting shares and non-voting shares exist under company law. Why has he not considered allowing certain people—such as the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and, indeed, the Law Lords—to attend and debate in the House of Lords without having a right to vote?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion has been reflected in some of the responses to the consultation exercise, and it is obviously open to us to consider and to the House to reflect on that suggestion. I am not sure whether I would necessarily wish to constitute a second Chamber in which there was a very clear cleavage between the status, standing and rights of its individual Members, but that is obviously a consideration.
For those reasons, we believe that the right solution for House of Lords reform is to have a mixed membership of elected and appointed Members. That principle of mixed membership also appears to have the support of a majority of the public. The two most recent opinion polls show that only 30 per cent. of the public supports a wholly elected membership of the second Chamber. However, that still leaves us with a very difficult judgment—it must be a matter of judgment—about where the balance should be struck between elected and appointed Members. That is why the first of the six questions posed in the White Paper is whether the proposed balance between elected and appointed members is right.
Many hon. Members have already made it clear to me—some of them on more than one occasion—that they do not think that the proposed balance is the right one. I hope that today's debate can take us an extra step beyond that by establishing whether there is an alternative that would command a centre of gravity of opinion in support of reform.
Mr. Chaytor: Is it not the case that the composition of the overwhelming majority of bicameral Parliaments in the world is wholly elected? Is there any evidence that those countries have worse records of government or social stability than the United Kingdom, or that there is permanent gridlock between their two Houses?
Mr. Cook: I considered that matter carefully last summer, when we were developing the White Paper, and it is not the case that most bicameral Parliaments are wholly elected. Many of them, probably the majority, have a significant elected element, but many draw their democratic mandate not from direct elections, but from indirect elections. Indeed, in our closest comparators in Europe, it is commonplace in France, Germany, Spain and
710
the Netherlands for the composition of the second Chamber to come predominantly from indirect elections from regional government.
I am conscious that some of my colleagues view that as a way to increase the democratic element in the House of Lords, but when the Wakeham commission investigated that option, it found no support for it among the regional or devolved bodies. One of the issues that can be resolved in the consultation exercise is whether that remains the case and whether the regional and devolved bodies would be interested in a route of indirect election as a supplement to direct elections and the democratic mandate of some of the second Chamber's Members.
There are several subsidiary questions. I shall not detain the House with them for long, but it is important to put them before the House for debate. One of the other issues raised in the White Paper is whether the 15-year term of membership proposed by the Wakeham commission is too long for the elected or appointed members. Is it necessary to change the remuneration of Members of the second Chamber from the present system of daily allowances, especially if there is a wish to elect more of its Members?
Finally, the White Paper invites views on the circumstances in which Members should be expelled from the second Chamber. Members of the House of Commons can be expelled on the grounds of imprisonment under a sentence of more than one year. No similar provision exists for the present House of Lords. If we seek a reformed second Chamber that will command respect, we must protect it against Members who bring it into disrepute.
The Government have put House of Lords reform out to consultation because we want to build on the basis of the broadest possible consensus for reform. This is the national Parliament of the British people. That is why we seek the widest consultation on the design of its second Chamber. A number of hon. Members have differences with some of the proposals in the White Paper, and we want to explore those differences in this debate, but most Members want reform to proceed, and I ask the House to recognise the far-reaching extent of reform on which the White Paper is based.
The reforms will secure four objectives of principle: they will remove the last of the hereditary peers from Parliament; they will introduce the first ever elected peers into the House of Lords; they will put the appointment of independent Members outside political patronage; and they will secure a political balance in the House of Lords that reflects the views of the British public in the most recent general election. I invite support for those four objectives of principle from all hon. Members who want a modern second Chamber—one that will not compete for power with the House of Commons, but will complement the House of Commons as a Chamber of revision and be in touch with the Britain of today, not the Britain of yesterday.
2.29 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Madam Deputy Speaker,
"The House of Lords should be replaced by an elected second chamber".

711
These are the words of the Prime Minister in Cardiff in 1994.
"Labour will abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a proper democratically elected second Chamber with a new electoral system to go with it".
These are the words of the Prime Minister at the 1993 Labour party conference.
"I think it would be very important to avoid the perception of the biggest quango in our nation's history".
These are the words of the Lord Chancellor in 1997.
Having set the background to the debate, let me do that very modern, but for me rather uncharacteristic thing, and try to identify common ground between the Opposition and the Government.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the shadow Leader of the House recall that, in 1999, he stated that he had no problem defending the long-standing hereditary element in the House of Lords? Does he still agree with that view?
Mr. Forth: I think that I said that in the context of our response to what the Government were then doing. My view then and my view now is that the hereditary element provided a splendidly robust and independent counterweight to the Government and to the House of Commons. I still hold to that view.
Glenda Jackson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Forth: Let me answer the first intervention. I ask the hon. Lady to be patient.
The issue now is how we can best replace the robustly independent element that served this country well for centuries with something that is at least effective. I am not here today to say that we should return to a hereditary element; I am here to look forward. However, I have no hesitation in confirming that those were the words that I said then, and I have explained why I said them.
Glenda Jackson: Does the right hon. Gentleman's definition of independent in the context of the House of Lords apply to a body that during my lifetime—and, I would argue, for the whole of the last century and even before—was firmly tucked in the pocket of the Conservative party?
Mr. Forth: I wish that had sometimes been the case. Those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who had the privilege, as I did, to serve in government for a number of years will well recall that one of the primary questions asked during the preparation and passage of legislation was, "Will this get through the Lords? Will the Lords accept it?" As those Labour Members who have had the privilege of being here for more than one or two parliamentary terms will recall, the Conservative Government were, indeed, held to account very frequently by the House of Lords even when it was predominantly a
712
hereditary body. My recollection in and out of government—as a Minister and Government Back Bencher—is somewhat at odds with the hon. Lady's.
Mr. Savidge: The right hon. Gentleman says that the House of Lords could be awkward to Conservative Governments, but surely he is an ideal exemplar of how awkward Conservatives are still Conservatives.
Mr. Forth: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that high praise. I hope that I can continue to meet his description.
I was saying that I wanted to try to seek common ground between the Opposition and the Government, and I believe that there is some. We agree that there should be a second fully effective parliamentary Chamber. Indeed, we agree with the sentiments of the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor that I quoted a moment ago when they said that the second Chamber should at least be substantially elected to give it democratic integrity and credibility. We agree with the Lord Chancellor when he said in 1997 that the second Chamber must be "above patronage". It should be visibly and palpably above criticism, not a quango.
Sir Patrick Cormack: When my right hon. Friend says that we agree that the majority of the second Chamber should be elected, for whom is he speaking?
Mr. Forth: I did not say that. I said that the second Chamber must at least be substantially elected. Those were the words I used; those are the words I read. That is why I am, uncharacteristically, going to read most of this speech. It will save me from exactly the sort of pungent point that my hon. Friend has just made.
Mr. Chaytor: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the range of percentages between which his definition of "substantially" falls?
Mr. Forth: No. It will not surprise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to learn that I had anticipated that I might be asked that question, so I have armed myself with the words that were used by my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde in another place in yesterday's debate. He said that Her Majesty's Opposition in both Houses had
"accepted the invitation made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and laid out in the consultation; that is, that we should respond by the end of the month."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 January 2002; Vol. 630, c. 570.]
That is what we shall do.
Fiona Mactaggart: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. As the originator of an early-day motion that has been signed by many Members and that refers to the word "substantially", I have discussed with colleagues what they mean by that. The overwhelming view of all those to whom I have spoken—most of the signatories—is that "substantially" must mean at least half the Members of the second Chamber.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I am in substantial agreement with her. However, she and the House will learn by the end of the month what we mean by "substantially". I will not be tempted to tell her today.
Peter Bradley: Will the right hon. Gentleman reveal to us the temperature of those on the Conservative

713
Benches? I have signed the early-day motion that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) mentioned, but I am not aware of any Conservative signing it to support the principle of substantial election.
Mr. Forth: I must correct the hon. Gentleman—there are a number of Conservative signatories to the early-day motion. We have gone to some lengths to allow for the opinions of my parliamentary colleagues in both Houses to be expressed and to be gathered. Meetings and consultations have been held and, in whatever direction we proceed, it will be in full knowledge of the views held by my colleagues in both Houses. That is the way in which we proceed, and that is the way in which we have proceeded in this case. I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree that they have had ample opportunity to express their views on this matter.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I have read with interest the Hansard reports of the debate in the other place and I have failed so far to find any Conservative speaker who wished to have any elected element at all. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the case?
Mr. Forth: It is fair to say that the perspective of Members in another place is somewhat different from the perspective of colleagues in this place. That is necessarily as it should be, but we should always bear that in mind when we give great weight and consideration, as we will, to the views expressed in another place about its future.
Mr. Tyrie: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Forth: I will, but the House will want me to make progress because many Members wish to speak.
Mr. Tyrie: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) might care to take a look at the speech of Lord Goschen and a number of other speeches made by Conservatives. They all supported the principle of election.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
I was about to say that we agree with the sentiments expressed in 1993 in "A New Agenda for Democracy—Labour's Proposals for Constitutional Reforms". It stated:
"a second chamber is a necessary and important check on the power of the first".
However, if I am to be criticised for going too much into the past—fortunately, it is about the only thing for which I have not yet been criticised—and for selecting quotations made mysteriously before the Labour party was in government, I shall refer to the early-day motion that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) tabled, which has attracted 177 signatures.
The early-day motion was initiated by six of the hon. Lady's colleagues in the Labour party and, by my reckoning, more than 130 Labour Members have signed it. It states:
"this House supports the democratic principle that any revised Second Chamber of Parliament should be wholly or substantially elected."
714
It is in that context that we are entitled to assess the direction in which the White Paper wishes to take us.
If we take the assertions of the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor in their earlier incarnations and the contents of the early-day motion, it is true to say that the proposals in the White Paper are inadequate. I will argue that they are incoherent and lack consistency and credibility. Eight key proposals are enumerated on page 7 of the White Paper. I could probably endorse three or four of them, but by no means every one. There is some shared ground, but I fear that there are substantial differences on the essential elements, which I suspect will be reflected in the debate.
I challenge much of the analysis that underpins the Government's proposals. It is apparent from some of the statements in paragraph 16 on page 9 where their ideas start to go astray. For example:
"General Elections return individual MPs who are expected to look to the interests of their constituents irrespective of Party affiliation."
Tell that to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden); he did not seem to think that. In fact, he thought so little of it that he left the Labour party to cross the Floor of the House, as he said at the time, to have the freedom that the White Paper asserts should belong to all Members of Parliament.
How about the statement:
"The Party which secures a majority has the right to form a Government and … to carry through the programme set out in its election Manifesto"?
Does that mean irrespective of all changes in circumstances? Does it mean only the measures in the manifesto? Does it mean regardless of any revisions that may be made by the second Chamber, which is crucial to this debate? All those matters are important glosses on what appears on the face of it to be an unarguable statement.
It is no surprise to me that the Government wish to reassert so vigorously, as indeed the Leader of the House just did, the doctrine of the absolute primacy of the House of Commons. However, they have made the Commons their creature to an unprecedented extent, and they continue that process through the so-called modernisation procedure. A combination of the routine timetabling of Bills, deferred Divisions, the elimination of debates on money resolutions, timetable motions and so on, and the almost regular delay in answering parliamentary questions or the non-answers given to them, set in context the repeated assertion that the House of Commons must be supreme. What I suspect that really means in today's context is that the Government in the House of Commons shall be supreme. It is against that criterion that we have to measure the White Paper's contents.
That would be bad enough, but when we examine the Government's attitude to what they call the reformed second Chamber, as revealed on page 11 of the White Paper, we see that the upper House
"has the duty, and the power, to press the Government hard to justify its actions".
That is hardly an impressive endorsement of the powers of an effective upper Chamber. It goes on to state:
"The House of Lords is a powerful deliberative assembly".
That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the concept of checks and balances to which the Leader of the House claims he is so attached. The House should notice that the

715
other place is referred to not as a legislative body, but as a deliberative body. That important distinction gives an important insight into the Government's real thinking.
The White Paper goes on:
"The second chamber can question and criticise individual Ministers".
Well, that is a real concession—except, of course, that only those Ministers who are Members of the upper House can be questioned on the Floor of that Chamber, which sets a limit on that power. It also states:
"There is no case for giving specific new functions to the House of Lords."
That is an assertion; it does not make the case. I pray in aid again what Lord Strathclyde said in yesterday's debate:
"The House"—
the House of Lords—
"should not have its powers reduced, as the White Paper proposes. It should retain the power to reject secondary legislation; the White Paper proposes removing it. It should have more power to consider and advise on financial matters; the White Paper has nothing to say on that matter whatever. The White Paper is nothing to do with authority, with legitimacy, with democracy or even with the core proposals of the Royal Commission's report."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 January 2002; Vol. 630, c. 569.]
There is a case for at least looking, within the context of the balance of the powers between this place and another place, at perhaps increasing the role and participation of the upper Chamber, not reducing it as proposed.
Having said that, the greatest difficulty arises—as the Leader of the House was characteristically generous enough to accept—on the issue of the composition of the upper House. Hardly anyone seems to support the Government's proposal on that, except the payroll and some of the wannabes on the Labour Back Benches. Funnily enough, page 17 also contains eight points—the Leader of the House seems to have a thing about eight; perhaps it is his lucky number. I can agree with five of them, but that does not get the Government off the hook. The proposal for a majority of nominated Members creates the difficulties that follow in the rest of the White Paper. For example, the statement,
"It is sometimes argued that only direct election can provide legitimacy for the second chamber. This was not an argument accepted by the Commission or by the Government",
sits oddly with the repeated assertion by the Prime Minister and others, including the right hon. Gentleman today, that a hereditary element in the House of Lords is an affront to democracy. It is beyond me how the Government can go on to assert that a nominated element in the House of Lords is not an equal affront to democracy, and that has never been satisfactorily explained.
In paragraph 38, the Government argue:
"a second chamber constituted on the same elected basis as the first chamber would be superfluous and dangerous."
That may be so, but I am not aware that anyone is arguing that a second Chamber should be elected on the same basis as the House of Commons. Many people argue that the upper House could have a different electoral arrangement, different constituencies, a different electoral cycle and so on, and I suspect that we will hear those arguments today. However, the assertion in the White
716
Paper does not deal with them; instead, it deals with the completely different argument, which I have heard no one make, that the upper House should be elected on the same basis as the House of Commons.
In paragraph 39, we get to our old friend, the bogey of gridlock in the case of
"A parallel elective basis of authority for two chambers with parallel functions".
The Government reinforce that with a further threat that if the second Chamber were wholly elected, but on a different system from that used for the House of Commons, the two elected Chambers
"within the Westminster system would be a recipe for gridlock and the Government therefore joins the Royal Commission in rejecting this option."
That is a familiar argument, and it is well understood here and in another place. In some ways, it is at the heart of the differences between the Government and nearly all the Opposition parties and more than 130 Labour Back Benchers.
Surely gridlock is not always a bad thing. It may sometimes provide an extra opportunity for deliberation, scrutiny and second thoughts before legislation is hurried through the parliamentary process. I freely admit that it would require a formal conciliation procedure between the two Houses if disagreement and gridlock arose, but that is not beyond the wit of man. We all know that the system has operated for nearly 200 years in the United States and in other contexts as well. That is not a final or definitive argument. Gridlock can, indeed, provide a safety measure if a party with a large majority in the House of Commons tries to force through a measure that is unpopular or unacceptable. That would apply whatever party was in government. In all those ways, the concept of gridlock is not necessarily the unacceptable or negative idea that is construed in the White Paper.
Sir Patrick Cormack: For clarity, will my right hon. Friend say whether he believes, as he did a year or so ago, that we should have an American-style system, with a directly elected Senate-type Chamber? He argued passionately for that before.
Mr. Forth: I believe what the shadow Cabinet believes. If I did not, I would not last long in it. My thought process, as my hon. Friend knows, is legendarily dynamic. I am capable of making infinite adjustments to my view on this and other matters.
The White Paper asserts in paragraph 40 that a mainly elected chamber would mean that
"independent members would virtually disappear"
and we would
"risk losing the potential the Lords provides to bring to Parliament the expertise and experience of those who are leaders in a wide range of national endeavours".
But I notice that the Leader of the House, picking his words carefully as he always does, referred throughout his contribution only to a wholly elected Chamber.
To my recollection, the right hon. Gentleman did not address the argument about a substantially elected Chamber, which could include a significant number of independent and appointed Members, so he failed to address, as did the White Paper, what is probably the preferred option of the majority of people. Very few

717
people are saying that the upper House should be elected on the same basis as the lower House, and very few would deny that a substantially elected House could contain a significant number of independent Members, thus answering the point that the Leader made.
It is when we turn to the White Paper's proposals on composition, however, that we see the real absurdity, because it tries to say that there will be a limited or capped membership that will be largely nominated, which, as I said earlier, must surely be an affront to democracy in the sense in which the Prime Minister and others have referred to it over the years, but at the same time, by some process that I cannot for the life of me understand, there will be representation of political parties reflecting the votes cast in the preceding general election. I cannot see how those elements can be squared.
The White Paper goes on to talk, in a sinister way, about regional elections on the same proportional system as is used for the European Parliament. Oh, dear. If that means closed lists, then we are back, effectively, to nominations through another route. How are we to square the inherently contradictory and conflicting principles of a limited membership and a membership that reflects the result of each general election? How on earth could a House whose membership is largely nominated but fixed reflect a change as dramatic as the one that occurred in 1997? In 1974, we had two elections in quick succession, in February and October. How could the upper House reflect that degree of alteration in its composition?
The Government's most difficult task, however, is to solve the problem of transition—the polite name for the question of how we deal with the lifers while introducing the Government's proposals. In a rare moment of realism, the White Paper says:
"there will be a real challenge both to work towards a reduction in numbers and rectify the clear imbalance in strengths of the two main political parties in the Lords."
It goes on to offer, as an alleged solution,
"provision for members formally to retire before the end of their term."
Anyone who listened to the debate in the other place, as I did, and read the account of it, as Members here have, will agree that it is unlikely that Members of another place will be persuaded, even by the charm of the Leader of the House, formally to retire from the upper House before their life term naturally expires. That is one of the great difficulties inherent in the White Paper's proposals.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a solution would be for life peers to vote themselves out, just as hereditary peers had to do?
Mr. Forth: That is a positive, interesting proposal, which will have to be considered. I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to pursue it.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of composition, will he reflect on the following point? As I understand it, he is a substantial man, but not a total man. We all understand the rush of blood to the head that we get when we have the legitimacy granted by the electorate and the problems that it would cause in the House of Lords. Under these principles, some Members of the Lords will suffer
718
from those urges, and some will not we are to have two species of Member, one superior to the other. Are the appointed Members to act as a brake on those who have urges inflicted on them by the electorate?
Mr. Forth: That is a fair question. It will depend very much on the length of the term served by elected and appointed Members in a hybrid House, which will affect considerably their attitude towards each other. It is a legitimate question, and there are answers to it, but it remains to be seen whether different sorts of Members in a hybrid House will manage to find accommodation with each other, and it will depend on the length of term, electoral cycles and the like. Whether the appointed will envy the elected or vice versa is an interesting question to which I cannot give a ready answer.
We still believe that the way forward is to have a joint Committee of both Houses consider the matter, to see whether we can expand the common ground that undoubtedly exists and build on the contents of the early-day motion, on what has been said in another place and on what we will hear in this debate. We want to make a genuine attempt not only to find a means of having an effective, reformed upper House but seriously to consider the role that the Commons plays in the parliamentary context. Let us not imagine that that can be done by focusing on the nature, composition and powers of the upper House without looking equally seriously at the role of this House, its relationship to the Government of the day and the dynamic that is created by one Chamber of the legislature producing the Executive and the Executive being part of it.
Until we deliberate on all those factors together, it will be very difficult for the Government to find a way forward. We make a genuine offer. We would want to play a positive role in a joint Committee. We urge it to be set up because we fear that the White Paper is going nowhere. I do not want the Government to use the fact that their White Paper has so little support as an excuse to shelve any further reform of the upper House. That cannot be allowed to happen, and I ask the Leader of the House to give serious consideration to a joint Committee.
2.57 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: Let us remind ourselves what, at heart, this debate is about and why it is important. It is about power and the nature of that power, how it is exercised, who determines who wields it and how the people of this country are involved in that process. Surely, what we are seeking to achieve is greater democratic and representative legitimacy in the way legislation is framed and passed and the way the Government are held to account. That must be the test of any proposals. I am afraid that I do not believe that the Government's present proposals pass that test. Quite simply, the Government have not got it right.
There are some things on which virtually all of us can agree. First, there is no place for the hereditary principle in the legislative process. It must go. Secondly, I believe that the primacy of the Commons must be clearly established and confirmed. There can be no substitute for the direct relationship between MPs and their constituents. There is an important objective in avoiding legislative gridlock. Of course the Opposition like the idea of gridlock—it is a recipe for permanent Conservative bias in the system—but effective government requires that we seek to avoid, as far as possible, the prospect of gridlock.

719
Thirdly, there ought to be a second Chamber. The Commons does not always get everything 100 per cent. right. Fourthly, the powers of the second Chamber should be broadly similar to those at present: to revise, to advise and to hold to account, but not to overturn or override the main thrust of legislation. Let us not forget that the other place has considerable powers. For example, to my grief over many years, its Members have caused enormous damage to our lesbian and gay citizens. I do not wish to remove those powers from it, but it is important to maintain its revising role, rather than a principal role of initiating and passing legislation. Finally, it makes sense to divorce the honour of a peerage from membership of a legislative assembly.
There is broad agreement on both sides of the House on all those points. Beyond that, we enter more difficult territory, but that should not deter us from making the attempt. There will be a multitude of proposals on how to proceed, but the worst thing would be for us to do nothing as a result. We should have a genuine debate about how to achieve better democratic legitimacy without sacrificing the important principle of the supremacy of the Commons.
I shall offer some basic principles for consideration. Any new Chamber needs to be substantially elected. In my book, "substantially" means at least 50 per cent; 20 per cent. will not do. Surely there is also a need for representatives to be sought from regional assemblies, national Parliaments and assemblies and local government. Their appointment or nomination should not be made by party leaders, but should come directly from local or regional bodies. Is there not also scope for seeking representatives who are drawn directly from other parts of society—business, trade unions, voluntary and charitable sectors and faith communities? In that context, we should end the unjustified automatic inclusion of a number of Church of England bishops. We should divorce the judicial system from the legislature, establish a separate highest court and end the automatic inclusion of judges. We should aim at a much smaller overall membership of the second Chamber. There is talk of 750 Members as a transitional figure, and 600 Members as a final total; but those figures are far too high.
One problem that the Government have brought upon themselves has arisen from the fact that they started from the status quo, which they tried to push, pull and squeeze in a more rational direction, rather than starting with a set of principles and working from that point. We should not let the present composition and nature of the House of Lords dictate what happens in the long term. Of course, getting consensus will not be easy and there will be different options to consider. However, the present set of proposals is not the right starting point. I urge my colleagues in government, with understanding and respect, to make another start on their proposals.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
3.4 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said. Rather to my surprise,
720
I found myself agreeing also with a great deal of what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, particularly in his peroration—specifically, we are in danger of isolating our discussion if we do not see it in the context of the reform and modernisation of Parliament as a whole.
I want to concentrate for a moment not on the role of the House of Lords, but on that of Parliament. What is its job and how can we make it more effective? I was interested that in his evidence to the Select Committee on Public Administration this morning, Lord Wakeham admitted that his remit did not permit him to consider the reform of the House of Lords in the context of that of Parliament as a whole which, he said, was above his pay grade. That was unfortunate but perhaps inevitable, because a royal commission has to concentrate on certain things, which is another good reason for a Joint Committee of both Houses to look at the issues in the round.
It is a happy coincidence that we are discussing reform of the House of Commons in parallel with the proposals. It is an even happier coincidence that the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who has a long record as a parliamentary reformer, is at present Leader of the House. I remind him that he was the joint author of an agreement with the Liberal Democrats before the 1997 general election—the so-called Cook-Maclennan agreement—in which he committed himself to
"recommendations for a democratic and representative Second Chamber".
The White Paper before us this afternoon does not fulfil that promise.
A holistic approach to the reform of Parliament, reviving and strengthening both Houses to enable us to hold the Executive to account, is the context in which we should be operating and is in the interests of the whole electorate. This is not necessarily an esoteric issue of interest only to the chattering classes. Every single citizen of this country should be interested in making Parliament a more effective vehicle for their concerns. Until now, I fear, the reform of the House of Lords has been of personal interest to the chattering classes, their friends and relatives—ermine-fringed anoraks, as it were—as it has concerned their own expectations. It should not be so; we should go much further.
Before dealing with recruitment to that body, I wish to look at Parliament's job. What is this whole place about? First, it is to represent the people, constituency by constituency, by having free and open elections. That is our principal job in this House. Secondly, it is effectively to scrutinise and influence legislation and policy proposed by the Government; both Houses should be involved in that. Thirdly, it is to hold the Executive to account for all their actions. Fourthly, it is to protect the rights and liberties of citizens and, in parallel, encourage other countries embarking on parliamentary democracy. Finally, it is to provide a reservoir of able men and women from which Ministers may be recruited.
Mr. Forth: Should not the hon. Gentleman have put providing the Government first on his list? Does he not agree that a genuine difficulty that we face in the reform of Parliament is how to deal with the fact that this House or legislature creates and sustains the Government at the same time that it has to hold them to account and

721
scrutinise their activities? The fact that we in Parliament provide the Government gives rise to some of our greatest difficulties.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; I was just coming to that point. Democracies in other parts of the world have approached the separation of powers in a very different way, but in this country we have dodged the issue for years. There is a good case for examining it in the round in both Houses; I accept the point that he made.
The reform of the second Chamber, proceeding in parallel with the reinvigoration of this Chamber, must achieve greater democratic legitimacy—surely, we all share that common ground—so that its work is complementary to that of the Commons: together we can hold the Government to account more effectively. The creative tension is not between the two Houses; that is a new Labour pink herring. The creative tension is between both Houses and Whitehall. That is what it is all about, and what it should be all about. It was extraordinary that the Leader of the House again paraded the issue of the supremacy of the Commons; nobody is questioning that. What we are saying is that the supremacy of Parliament over the Executive is critical in a parliamentary democracy.
Given that he is a great internationalist, it was not good enough for the Leader of the House to say that other bicameral systems in other parts of the world had somehow got it wrong. We in this country have a great deal to learn from other countries in that respect.
We should be seeking to complement the work that is done in each House rather than to compete. Good government and effective scrutiny go together, as the Leader of the House has said on several occasions. That means the whole of this building will be involved if we are to achieve better government.
Judged against those objectives, we found the royal commission recommendations woefully timid and desperately disappointing. However, in our worst nightmares we could not have believed that the Government would water down Wakeham. It was bad enough at the start, but to find that the White Paper is even worse is extraordinary.
Paragraph 24 has already been quoted. It states:
"There is no case for giving specific new functions to the House of Lords."
Who says? If new democratic legitimacy is being given to the other part of Parliament, why should such proposals not be considered? There may be issues that neither place currently considers properly—a point to which I shall return.
Surely, if greater legitimacy is given to a democratic assembly, the right of that part of the democratic system to do more work rather than less and to have more responsibility must at least be considered. For example, the Government are currently suggesting that the reserve power to veto—it is only a reserve power—should be taken away on secondary legislation. We need some checks and balances in the system, especially on European legislation. At the moment, that is an important part of the second Chamber's function. We should not be weakening an arm of Parliament in relation to its responsibilities to consider what the Government are up to, but seeking to strengthen it. We should again look at
722
the Parliament Acts in that respect and we must learn from other bicameral assemblies that have done that most effectively.
Mr. Bryant: The hon. Gentleman referred to the reserve power being taken away on secondary legislation. Is not a three-month delay a stronger power than a veto that is never used?
Mr. Tyler: The veto has been used in the recent past, although I admit that it has happened only once. Hon. Members may recall that it was used very effectively and achieved a major change in respect of the government of London. As the power was rarely used and the Lords showed that they felt so strongly about the matter that it had the maximum effect, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman.
There are a number of areas where Parliament is currently failing but where the second Chamber could have an important role. It could have such a role with regard to increased use of pre-legislative scrutiny, perhaps through Joint Committees in some cases. Cross-party business planning would ensure that we did not have some of the absurdities mentioned by the Leader of the House in the context of the modernisation of this House. There could be a Select Committee on treaties. As my right hon. Friend Baroness Williams of Crosby has pointed out on a number of occasions, it is ludicrous that we have no right to examine treaties in either House. A Joint Committee may be the answer, but it is outrageous to have nobody in that role. Treaties as important as those relating to the World Trade Organisation are of great interest to our constituents, but we cannot deal with them. Perhaps there is no room on our agenda here, but there might be room in the other place.
The royal prerogative is a huge area in which Parliament is not doing its job. Gradually and incrementally, successive Governments have expanded the royal prerogative in a completely undemocratic way. There is no answerability or accountability to us. The House of Lords, especially in the sort of format that we are considering, would have a very important role in that regard. For example, it would have a role in relation to public appointments and to providing effective questioning of what quangos are doing in the name of the Government.
Finally, there is a role with regard to protection of some of the fundamental principles of our constitution. We are edging towards a constitutional settlement, with devolution to different parts of the United Kingdom. There must be some quasi-constitutional court to ensure that, in the process, our civil liberties are not severely diminished.
My colleagues and I are not suggesting a huge increase in powers, but we will certainly resist any attempt to dilute the powers that the House has at the moment and we will look for ways to improve the situation.
I deal now with the democratic legitimacy of the second Chamber. I was interested in the reference to 1911. I do not recall it, but I think that I am right in saying that it was my colleagues in the Liberal Government who had the great problem with the House of Lords at the time. I think that they were right to say that the contrast and choice were between a popular Parliament and a hereditary one. We cannot go on dodging the issue. In

723
the end, either we want our Parliament to be answerable mainly—not substantially, but predominantly—to the electorate, or we will be fudging the issue. My colleagues and I believe strongly that we should proceed firmly and expeditiously to a second Chamber that takes its authority from its democratically elected mandate—full stop. By the end of the transitional period, there should be no more political appointments. Perhaps that period will be 10 years or even longer, but at the end of it we cannot have any more corrupt patronage. That must go. In the meantime, we must ensure that we are moving in that direction.
It was extraordinary this morning to hear Lord Wakeham referring to this situation. At one stage, he spoke about rejecting the idea of an appointments commission for those coming from the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. He said that the people should be the appointments commission, but then backtracked again. If the people are to constitute the appointments commission, that will reflect the logic for the majority of Members of the House to be elected. I do not deny that there is a case—although I think that it is limited—for allowing a minority of independent Members of the House to sit as Cross Benchers. Incidentally, I see that Charter 88 estimates that only 10 per cent. of current life peers in the other place have any expertise that is not already available to the House, so I think that the role is limited.
Given those circumstances, I found a recent briefing to the parliamentary Labour party extraordinary. I have a copy of the briefing and very interesting reading it makes. It states, in ringing terms:
"A wholly or largely elected second chamber would be neither right nor practical".
The last four words are underlined, which shows how strong those feelings are. I understand from a number of hon. Members that the briefing did not get universal applause at yesterday's meeting of the parliamentary Labour party. It contains no logic to follow up the statement that I have mentioned. It has been made—and, indeed, it is underlined—but there is no rationale to follow it. That is extraordinary. After all, this is the party that, for generations, and ever since I have been interested in politics, has attacked the House of Lords as undemocratic. If anything goes wrong there, there is a tendency to say, "They're unelected; you needn't take any notice of them." If 70 or 80 per cent. are still going to be unelected, that will be a very difficult problem.
I accept that there is a problem in terms of transition. Getting rid of peers at speed—let us put it mildly—will not be easy. I understand that somebody at the parliamentary Labour party meeting who was asked how many peers there should be referred to the number of lamp posts in the United Kingdom, as if stringing them up would be the quickest way to achieve attrition. I must warn the House that, even if that is thought to be too dramatic and drastic, leaving the matter to the attrition of the grim reaper will take a long time. The actuarial assessment of one of my noble colleagues in the other place—he may be slightly morbid, as well as mathematically expert—is that it will be well into the middle of this century before we get down to a sensible number. The average age of peers before they eventually decide to go not just to another place but another world
724
is increasing. In those circumstances, we simply cannot accept the idea that a House of 700 or 750 Members will exist throughout our political lifetime.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if, like me, he supports a wholly elected Chamber, none of those problems should arise? Even if there is a transition with a small element of non-elected people, the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) that they should select their own small number, just as with hereditary peers, is a very simple solution and would work perfectly well.
Mr. Tyler: I agree and accept that that may be a good way forward.
We must accept that the objective for the end of the transitional period should be a smaller House, perhaps of 300 Members but certainly not much more. We should go for a House that is free of all direct party political patronage and that has minimal obligation or deference to the Executive. That point has already been made by several hon. Members. There should be no Member of Parliament clones or aspirant Members of Parliament. It has been suggested that a minimum age should be set for Members of the other Chamber. I am not sure whether that is acceptable. However, if they are to be elected, we must try to ensure that candidates do not simply want to climb the greasy pole.
What should we do? First, elections must be fixed term, and whenever possible they should not coincide with general elections. If they happen on the same day, it is almost inevitable that we shall have clones at the other end of the building. Secondly, elections must be carried out through an effective system of proportional representation, and I hope that the recommendation for the single transferable vote will be accepted. Thirdly, it is important to provide for partial changeover so that we do not have "all out" at the same time and thus make continuity difficult.
I believe that there should also be one-term limits so that, once there, Members are not beholden to the party hierarchy for their return. I believe that most of my colleagues in both Houses support that. If half the House is elected on the same day as the European Parliament, the limit should be for 10 years—full stop, fixed term. There is thus no question of climbing back into favour with the party hierarchy.
The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) is good for the longer term. He speaks with the authority of the only former hereditary peer who sits in this House—I remind hon. Members that he does that with a democratic mandate. If elections for the second Chamber coincided with those for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Greater London Assembly, and I hope, English regional elections on a four-year cycle, and a 12-year period was allowed so that only one third was elected at any time, that would provide for consistency and continuity but free Members of ambitions for office and of party loyalty.
We perceive no need for retaining separate religious or legal representatives. The case for a supreme court is separate, and we have not examined it properly yet. However, there is no argument for Law Lords. Religious

725
and legal representatives might be eligible to make up some of the small number of independent Cross-Bench Members.
If, at the end of the transitional period—whether 10, 12 or 15 years—there is representation by but not from the devolved institutions, that should not replace the elected component. The former may be supplementary; there are some advantages to electoral colleges in the regions of England and the other national institutions. They could provide an extra element to the second Chamber, but that must not happen to the disadvantage of those who are directly elected.
The White Paper proposals constitute the worst sort of wishy-washy compromise. They satisfy nobody, and there is no majority in either House for them. By the end of today, I believe that we shall find that the Leader of the House is well aware that that applies to Members of the House of Commons as well as to his colleagues in the other part of the building. Almost 200 hon. Members have signed the early-day motion; most are Labour Back Benchers.
Liberal Democrat Members will work with others in all parties and in both Houses to achieve legislation that will encompass five principles. First, we should develop a comprehensive approach to parliamentary revitalisation in both Houses. Secondly, we should resist any dilution of the role of the second Chamber in dealing with primary and secondary legislation as well as scrutinising Executive action. Thirdly, we should extend parliamentary scrutiny to cover aspects of government that neither House currently examines. Fourthly, after the transitional period, we should end all party political patronage, which is no longer acceptable for a 21st century legislature. Fifthly, elections should be conducted on a PR system that gives maximum voter choice and achieves broad proportionality for voters' party support.
We are prepared to talk to everybody on that basis and we believe that there is a consensus in the House that will achieve it.
3.24 pm
Fiona Mactaggart: I am worried about House of Lords reform not because I am a geek about structuring the second Chamber—I can be; I have all sorts of ideas—but because I believe that we have a specific responsibility to democracy. It is not extreme to suggest that democracy is going out of fashion; it is frail and fragile. Participation in the last general election was poor, and, as those who carry the flame of democracy, we have a responsibility to feed it. I am worried about the proposals for reform because they could do the opposite. Not reforming the House of Lords would certainly do that. It is important that proposals emerge from the debate to provide for reform that reinforces democracy.
Why is democracy important? It asserts the primacy of people in making decisions. I was interested in the contribution of Lord Norton of Louth, who said in the upper House that democracy was a bit overrated. He said that when people were asked whether they would prefer decisions to be made by an absolute expert on a subject or an elected person, 49 per cent. said that they favoured an elected person and 43 per cent., an absolute expert.
Whatever happens, we will not get a Chamber of experts on every measure, because that is not possible. However, when offered a House of experts, the majority
726
of people would prefer Members whom they pick. We must tell people that they have the right to choose because they are good at it, and better than the Government at picking those who should hold them to account. In reforming ourselves, we should acknowledge people's ability to choose well.
Our behaviour in the Chamber is one of the reasons why people's confidence in the electoral system has been damaged. We are very tribal; our behaviour is summed up by "These guys are right, those guys are wrong." The House of Commons works on that basis. There is a role for that in politics. Sticking to a party line and manifestos keeps politicians straight, and it is important. However, it is not the only thing that makes politics sensible. When picking over detail and carefully considering measures that are part of a Government's programme, rather than forming that programme, it is good for people to point out that the emperor has no clothes, that a provision will not have the intended effect, and to suggest alternatives.
It is important that such people should be at the heart of the second Chamber. They should make the major decisions. We should encourage those who are prepared to be a bit sceptical and do not necessarily follow a party line. The Wakeham committee's proposals for long terms and not allowing people to hop between Houses provided a reasonable model for rewarding and encouraging the sceptics. Ours should be the primary Chamber. We should be the people who act as tribunes of our constituencies and as the voice of the people, but the people should choose the eminences grises, the reflectors and those who say, "Hey, hang on a minute. Let's stop and think." That should be the fundamental role of the second Chamber.
What is most depressing about the White Paper is the fact that it envisages that, in a House of 600 people, 332 will be appointed by the political parties nominating them. That number is not mentioned in most of the papers that we have been discussing, but that is what would result from the proposals in the White Paper. The White Paper and its companion documents also argue that elections are a bad thing, which is very much against the traditions of my party and of this place, and not something that we should stick to.
I welcome the Leader of the House saying that we had to work out some fundamental principles on which to go forward. There is a job to be done here, and the White Paper can be a starting point, but we have to find a way of introducing legislation. I am one of those who believe that we have to legislate, and that we cannot continue with the hereditary element that remains in the second Chamber.
The four principles proposed by the Leader of the House are a start. Let me remind the House of them. The first is to abolish the hereditaries. The second is to have elections, and in that respect I must stress that people will expect at least half the Members of the Chamber to be decided by the people, if we are to have elections with which people can engage and towards which they can make a commitment. The third principle is to reflect the political balance in the country. That is best done by elections, frankly. The fourth is to retain an independent element.
I accept that there can be a place for a Cross-Bench independent element. It should not be huge; indeed, the White Paper does not propose that. It proposes an independent element of 20 per cent., which I would be

727
prepared to accept, if that is the way to build consensus. Those Members should be genuinely independent, and they might help to make the Chamber the more deliberative, consensual and thoughtful place that we require. We should also consider other matters, such as the scope of the work of the Chamber. We are being unconfident in not giving it more powers to reflect on issues such as the World Trade Organisation.
We have an historic opportunity here. In 1911, Parliament said, "We have to have a popularly decided second Chamber." Ninety years later, we got rid of the hereditary bit, which went half way towards achieving that, although we kept a few of them in order to get there. Now is our opportunity to create a genuinely popular second Chamber, and we must do it. If we do not, we will reinforce the process by which the people of Britain lose confidence in their legislature. If they do so, and if we contribute to that, we will damage the constitution and the fabric of the government of this country for centuries to come.
3.33 pm
Sir George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), and I have much sympathy with many of the points that she made.
It is almost exactly two years since Lord Wakeham's commission produced its report, a task that it was challenged to do within a year. It responded well, and no doubt hoped that the momentum urged on it by the Government would be matched by that Government. It is worth reminding the House that Wakeham envisaged the first elections for the upper House happening in June last year. In June 1999, we were told by Ministers that the Commission was
"being asked to report by the end of 1999, to enable the Government to make every effort to ensure that the second stage of reform has been approved by Parliament by the time of the general election."—[Official Report,9 June 1999; Vol. 332, c. 743.]
So after a brisk sprint round the first lap by Lord Wakeham, the baton was handed over to a jogger in rather poor shape, and it has taken the Government nearly two years to produce their response, optimistically entitled "Completing the Reform." Reading the foreword by the Prime Minister, one would have thought that the Government had simply accepted the Commission's views. He summarises Wakeham and then says:
"The Government strongly endorses the Royal Commission's vision of the role and importance of the second chamber. It also accepts the Commission's broad framework for composing its membership."
There is no hint there of any disagreement.
Of course the Government do not accept the broad framework, however. They want something quite different that would undermine the legitimacy, independence and effectiveness of the second Chamber. Only when we get to the small print of the White Paper do we read some words that the late Sir Nigel Hawthorne would have enjoyed delivering:
"There are however a number of areas where further consideration of the practical effects of certain recommendations has led the Government to consider some modification of the precise recommendations so as to ensure implementation of the Commission's principles in the most effective way possible."
728
In a sentence, those words emasculate the Appointments Commission and propose shorter terms, undermining the independence of the second Chamber.
I want to make a number of brief points indicating the way forward. First, there has been a tendency to represent the debate about Lords reform as a two-dimensional contest between the Lords and the Commons: if one gains, the other must lose. But the true picture is multidimensional, and the real contest today is not between the Lords and the Commons but between Parliament and the Executive. In that battle, the two Houses are not rivals but partners. Without waiting for the Government to determine what to do next, the two Houses need to develop stronger links with each other.
We have an increasingly influential Liaison Committee in this House, and perhaps that should open a dialogue with the comparable body in the Lords to discuss matters of common interest. One issue about which we could talk to their Lordships is paragraph 5 of the White Paper, which says:
"Labour supports modernisation of the House of Lords' procedures to improve its effectiveness."
We have tasted some of Labour's modernisation down here, and although I do not criticise all of it, the motive has been the expedition of Government business, rather than better scrutiny of legislation. My strong advice to their Lordships is that they, not the Government, should decide how to improve their effectiveness.
Secondly, the current position of a wholly appointed Chamber is unsatisfactory. The Government have asserted that the House that we now have is more legitimate and more effective. However, there is no sign of the Government respecting the new House; nor do I think that they will until its composition is changed. When the Government lose, it is just like old times: more threats and abuse. The Lords have recently defeated the Government on anti-terrorism legislation, and quite rightly so. The Government must accept the legitimacy of criticism from an effective second Chamber, and we need a House with more authority than the present one, and a Government who respect it when they lose the argument.
My third point is on numbers. Wakeham proposed 550 Members, and the White Paper says 600. That strikes me as rather high. We have 660 Members here, a number that is scheduled to go down when we lose the presence of a number of Scottish colleagues. Even with 630, I believe that the lower House will still be too big. It is difficult to see why the revising Chamber has to have 600. No one has proposed that it should carry out the demanding constituency role that we carry out; nor is it proposed that it should provide more members of the Executive than it does at the moment. I would aim at the Wakeham maximum or below it.
The White Paper does not make it clear how we would keep the number at 600, if more peers are to be created to get the balance right after each election. To take an unlikely scenario, let us suppose that the Liberals were the largest party after the next election. They would be entitled to more peers than the largest Opposition party—that is, 222 instead of 65. But if the number of Members is capped at 600, how on earth would we achieve that proposal?
My fourth point is on composition. I believe that the new House should be one third non-political and appointed, and two thirds political and elected. I accept

729
that many who would be first-class Members of the upper House do not belong to a political party and do not want to fight an election—hence the one third. I also believe that no single party should have a majority in the upper House. Keeping one third of Members non-political while dividing up the political two thirds between the major parties should ensure that no party has a majority in the upper House.
There is an extraordinary passage in the White Paper seeking to reject this option which deserves quotation:
"A mainly elected second Chamber would have the following, further, practical disadvantages:
The independent members would virtually disappear."
That is manifestly absurd. In my example of one third appointed and two thirds elected, the appointed Members—the independents—could number about 200 and might form the largest bloc in the upper House.
I would like the two thirds who are politicians to be directly elected by open rather than closed lists. By definition, those people will not be political innocents and there is no reason for them not to go through the single gentle encounter with the electorate proposed by Lord Wakeham—an encounter much less taxing than anything we have to go through—which brings me to my next point, which is the British Rail argument: that produces the wrong sort of politician.
There is an unspoken view in the upper House, which is, "We don't want the rough trade from the other end of the building up here." In his speech yesterday, Lord Wakeham said that that would produce
"a second Chamber that was a clone of the other place, full of professional politicians".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 January 2002; Vol. 630, c. 582.]
Lord Longford put the point less tactfully two years ago:
"We would get the dregs."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 2000; Vol. 610, c. 955.]
The anxiety about elected Members is misplaced. Behaviour in our House is less a function of the sort of people we are and more a function of the role of a Member of Parliament in the highly political dominant Chamber to which we must get re-elected.
When the sort of people we are move from this environment to another one down the other end, our behaviour changes, and the greatest examples of that are Lords Wakeham and Hurd. When they were here, they behaved like Members of Parliament, but in the less partisan, more reflective environment of the upper House, they behave like peers. There is therefore nothing inherently suspect or inappropriate about people who want to stand for election being Members of the upper House; our former colleague, John MacKay, was one of the outstanding performers in the upper House until his untimely death last year.
That brings me to my penultimate point—the rival mandate argument: if we have a predominantly elected second Chamber it will challenge the mandate of this Chamber. The second Chamber is clearly defined as complementary, but in the end subordinate to this one. Its powers are those given it by this House, which is pre-eminent, and they cannot be unilaterally changed. The assertion is that that settlement might be challenged and that there would be tension between the two Houses if the upper House were elected, but Members of Parliament are all elected on the same day on the basis of a party
730
manifesto and for one Parliament. We are elected to the pre-eminent House that sustains the Executive and produces the Prime Minister. We submit ourselves for re-election.
None of those conditions would exist for the upper House were it to be elected on the basis that I suggest or, indeed, that suggested by Wakeham. Many of its Members would not be elected at all and they would have no mandate, while those who were elected would be elected at different times on different mandates; so the notion that electing some or even most of its Members could lead to the conversion of the upper House into a rival assembly is unsustainable.
So what do we do next? The only sensible way to resolve the issue is by a free vote on the various options, starting with the most radical—all Members elected—and then working down. On this side of the House, it is known that there is a variety of views and I see no reason for them to be restricted by the Whips. On the contrary, it would injure the standing of Parliament if either side became heavy handed.
Thanks to the early-day motion, we know that a significant body of opinion on the Government Benches disagrees with the Government on the percentage to be elected. As a party politician, I would love the Labour Chief Whip to exercise the diplomatic skills that achieved prominence last year to dragoon her party into line, but that would be absurd, so I look forward to a sensible debate followed by unconstrained Divisions leading to legislation that passes to the statute book quickly.
3.43 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: I believe that in a democracy the public should decide who represents them in Parliament. For that reason, I favour a wholly directly elected second Chamber, and I suspect that there is a growing and approaching consensus for a wholly or substantially elected Chamber, as the early-day motion suggests. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) chose his words carefully, but I take it that that position is about to take hold among Her Majesty's Opposition, which is right and proper. Primacy between the two Houses has been much discussed, but the real primacy in our democracy lies with the people. Strangely, however, the electorate are not mentioned in the White Paper, or in any previous document on the subject; it is all about membership, not people's right to have a say in who represents them.
Greater steps have been taken by the Government in the White Paper and over the past four years than at any time since 1911, so they should be congratulated, but by the end of the debate they will gain the impression that the White Paper is not "it". I doubt whether a single Member in any part of the House will speak uncritically in favour of the White Paper, and I am sure that the Leader of the House will note that.
I want to persuade the House of four points. First, we should consider the remit and responsibilities of both Chambers. Secondly, those, rather than the method of election or the membership, are the key to it all. Thirdly, distinct roles are possible and if we achieve them we shall avoid gridlock by design. Fourthly, we need a robust and effective second Chamber, not one that is artificially constrained because we are worried about its achieving primacy.

731
On the first point, we must consider the role of the second Chamber in relation to how we change the role and responsibilities of this Chamber. We all recognise that Parliament is both seen to be, and probably is, failing to impress the public with its ability to hold to account and scrutinise the Executive. The balance between the Executive and Parliament and between the Executive and this Chamber has skewed unnaturally and wrongly, and we and the Government are all the weaker for it. We must consider reforming the two Houses together, because their complementary nature is the key.
The White Paper does not take that perspective, and its other great strategic mistake, from which many problems flow, is that it asks the wrong questions. It asks how we should get rid of the hereditary element and find an alternative basis for membership rather than the crucial questions of how to establish Chambers that will perform better democratically and how to find remits that are complementary, not competitive. I welcome the Leader of the House's having made it clear that the role of the second Chamber is much more important than the debate on membership of it. That demands that we consider the roles first, then the membership.
What are the two roles? The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) rightly considered an earlier stage—the relationship between the Executive and Parliament, which has weakened—and only after such consideration can the roles of the two Houses be dealt with. The second Chamber surely must be a House of scrutiny, a point excellently described by the Leader of the House, and a better House of scrutiny than at present.
There is no case for introducing legislation in the second Chamber. This is the House of the Executive, and leaving aside private Members' Bills, it is the Government's responsibility to introduce legislation, which, first and foremost, should come from here. I hope that the Leader of the House's proposals on loosening the spill-over are accepted. If they are, the ability to introduce Bills in the second Chamber will no longer be important.
Those proposals would establish a different role and relationship, but the most crucial difference, which would solve so many of the problems that we are chewing over this afternoon, is excluding members of the Executive from the membership of the second Chamber. Ministers should not sit in that Chamber. This is the House of the Executive and our role is to hold the Prime Minister and the leading Ministers to account in person. We do not do that well enough, but that is our responsibility.
As soon as we removed Ministers from membership of the second Chamber, it would truly become a Chamber of parliamentary scrutiny. There would be no need for Members to get on the bandwagon and pursue a parliamentary career, so the Whips would be relieved of their powers. The White Paper wants to achieve an independent Chamber, but does not know how to do so. Independence would change all the balances between the two Chambers and resolve the gridlock almost at a stroke, because the Houses would become distinct. Clearly primacy is here, with the Executive, but the other House has an important scrutiny role.
I think that once that has been achieved, other developments will result. There will be a more independent House, and there will be different relationships between its
732
Members and the electorate and between its Members and the Executive. There will be no potential Government in that House; it will be a House for scrutiny and deliberation.
I also think that the House of Lords should be far smaller. There is no need for it to contain more than 300 people. Indeed, there is no need for this House to contain more than about 400. [Interruption.] The House should be smaller. Anyone who does not recognise that should consider the matter objectively, leaving aside his or her own job or career. Both Houses of Parliament are far too big. [Interruption.]
The Leader of the House demurs. Surely our responsibility in regard to this democracy is rather wider, and rather more important, than our responsibility for our own jobs. Perhaps it is easier for those who are approaching the end of their time in this House to see that.
Both Houses are too big, and the idea that the second Chamber should contain more than 700 Members is a nonsense that must be laughed out of court.
Mr. Wyatt: My hon. Friend said earlier that the turnout in some elections was so low that there was cynicism among the electorate. The lowest turnout was for the European elections. Could MEPs be nominated to the House of Lords? Could they sit there for one week a month, perhaps?
Mr. Fisher: I often agree with my hon. Friend, but as I have made clear, I favour direct election rather than nomination. The House of Commons has experienced a system of nominations to the European Parliament, and it was not a great success.
Mr. Michael Connarty: I hoped that my hon. Friend would elaborate on a small caveat that he issued earlier. He referred to a wholly elected House of Lords, and then mentioned the possibility of a majority-elected House. I hoped that he would recognise the new context in which all democracies involved a devolved democratic process.
It seems to me that unless there is some way of allowing the devolved parts of the United Kingdom to participate in processes down here by means of a second Chamber, there will always be a problem. Those parts of the UK will see their role purely as a competitive role in relation to us. Is there not some justification for nominations allowing representation of regional assemblies in the scrutiny to which my hon. Friend has referred?
Mr. Fisher: I am not sure whether I am allowed time off for interventions, but in any case I will not follow my hon. Friend down that line, because I do not believe in indirect elections.
Another advantage of a second Chamber that is not based on patronage is the fact that it would have confidence in itself. The danger currently posed by the White Paper is that, to create an artificial primacy for the House of Commons, it deliberately constrains arrangements in the second Chamber by providing for fewer resources and no payment, and making a number of matters convoluted. To establish that primacy, it provides for a feeble second Chamber that would jump at its own shadow. That is not in the interests of any of us.

733
The Leader of the House is getting so much right. If we are to consider modernisation here together with modernisation of the other House, he should surely be responsible for the overall policy. He could then proceed much more confidently, and be assured of the confidence of the whole House.
Each of us is here only because of democracy. I believe that today we should put our trust in democracy, and ensure that the second Chamber is democratically elected—not in competition with us, and not without the involvement of the Executive—so that we can truly strengthen the scrutiny of Parliament by both Houses and ensure that they have both distinct and complementary roles.
3.54 pm
Mr. John Maples: Along with every other speaker, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) made a powerful case for a substantially or wholly elected second Chamber; but think that he and others have overlooked some important second and third-order aspects of their proposals that would result in a fundamental change in our constitution. This is why it has taken us 90 years to get around to the third stage of House of Lords reform. Everyone knows that it is ridiculous for us to have a House of Lords with no democratic legitimacy, but it has suited us all quite well: the lack of democratic legitimacy has enabled the Lords to survive with very limited powers. I believe that once it is given democratic legitimacy, it will acquire much more power by one means or another.
The second Chamber must be either elected or nominated. There cannot be two classes of Member. There cannot be some who have lots of democratic legitimacy because they have been chosen by the electorate and some who have none—who are there because they have been nominated as Bishop of Winchester, or because they have been nominated by the Prime Minister or my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It must be one or the other.
It is in that regard that I consider the White Paper to be fundamentally misconceived. It seems that the Government want democracy, but do not want it quite yet. They want a bit of democracy, but not the whole lot. They want a rainbow House consisting of elected Members, party nominees, ex officio Members, a couple of bishops and some independent people appointed by a commission about which I shall have more to say.
The Government claim that they want the House of Lords to be representative of society as a whole. I do not know about anyone else here, but I do not want it to be representative of society as a whole; I want there to be some wisdom in it. The current Prime Minister appointed about a third of its Members, so if it is lacking in wisdom that is at least partly due to him. What we need, surely, are people who can credibly say to the Government, "You have got it wrong; think again." That involves two essential ingredients—independence and expertise.
If the Chamber is elected, it will be dominated by political parties. It is not possible to be elected to any organisation in this country without being a candidate representing a political party. There is no worse system for imposing party discipline on candidates than proportional representation in which people are on a party list. Proportional representation is, of course, the only
734
system of election to a second Chamber that would produce a Chamber that might defy the Government, but I think that we are in serious danger of simply replicating the House of Commons in one way or another.
Mr. Tyrie: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Maples: I must make some progress. I have only 10 minutes, and I want to make a few more points.
The basis on which the election will be different will, in fact, provide for only minor differences. I think that we will find that the second Chamber is full of party politicians—perhaps people who are better than those here, and perhaps people who have failed to get here, but who are party politicians none the less, with all the party patronage and all the involvement of the Whips that accompany membership of this place.
When politicians are elected, they are not satisfied with the facilities that they have elsewhere. They want offices, secretaries and researchers. Those who do not believe that should bear it in mind that when I entered the House—I have been here for only a short time; the Leader of the House has been here for much longer—the allowance was just enough to pay for one secretary, whereas I can now employ three or four members of staff, have three computers, and have £1,000 a month left over to spend on other things.
I want more office space. Everyone does, because of all the staff they have. These people will want the same—and, dare I say, they will also want salaries. They will end up duplicating our role, to a large extent. They will start holding surgeries, writing articles in their local papers and writing to their constituents. They will start doing the same things that we do. There are already 659 of us doing that, and I do not think that we need any more. Indeed, I agree with the Members who have said that fewer could do it here.
Those people will not just want offices, researchers and secretaries; they will want more power. An elected second Chamber will have as good a democratic mandate as this place, and will not be satisfied with a revising role and the right to a 12-month delay. It may not happen immediately, but there will come a time when the second Chamber will challenge the role and primacy of the House of Commons.
Let us suppose that the Chamber was elected on a different basis and at a different time. Let us suppose that 80 per cent. of its Members opposed a Government Bill, and that the Government were in the dog days of a Parliament, lagging way behind in the opinion polls and probably heading for defeat in the next general election. The second Chamber would be able to argue that it had greater democratic legitimacy than this plac—that it had a democratic right, and that it was representing the people of this country better than the legitimate Government. That represents a fundamental change in our constitution, which could result in a Government with a significant majority in this place having their legislation blocked.
Some Members may say that that would be a good thing; but if we are to move down that road, let us recognise that it would not merely represent a minor change in the constitution: it would be a move towards an American-style constitution, in which the Government would have to negotiate their programme with the legislature. If that is to be done, let us do it openly. I am

735
a great fan of the American system, largely because it stops Governments doing very much—and since Governments usually mess things up, that is probably a good idea. Let us not pretend that making the House of Lords wholly elected would be merely tinkering with it. It would be a very big change.
Those people who have made the case for a substantially or wholly elected House of Lords have an attractive case on the ground of democracy, but nobody has dealt properly with the second and third-order issues that, to my mind, mean that the case for an elected second Chamber has not been made.
Mr. Patrick Hall: The hon. Gentleman said that an elected second Chamber would inevitably demand more powers. Surely that could not occur unless this House agreed.
Mr. Maples: Yes, but the case for those powers might be overwhelming. We could have a hung Parliament or significant popular demand for it could be expressed. The history of this House has been the acquisition of more and more powers over the past several hundred years, first from the Crown and then from the House of Lords. We cannot set the situation in aspic, and any new set-up will be organic and take on a life and agenda of its own. To suggest anything else is fanciful.
If we are to have an elected House of Lords—a second Chamber, or whatever we will call it—I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that it should be a proper legislature. In other words, it should have no Ministers, because then it has some chance of being really different from the House of Commons. People would not try to pursue careers as Ministers by pleasing the Whips and the party hierarchy, but could concentrate on examining what the Government were doing.
People should not be elected for 15 years and not allowed to run again. That is the worst kind of democratic representation, because people would not be responsible to those who elected them. The proposed appointments commission is a real horror. I cannot see how it would advance democracy to take away the rights of hereditary peers and hand them to a commission consisting of the chairman of a building society, a couple of goods and greats from the charity world and a partner in PricewaterhouseCoopers. Why should they have the right to decide who votes in the second Chamber, any more than the accident of birth of the 800-odd people who happen to be hereditary peers—two of whom now sit in this Chamber—should be used to decide who has those votes?
The nominations should not be made by some quango but by the Prime Minister, who is accountable to Parliament. He has to make the nominations openly, and conventions give leaders of other parties the right to appoint working peers. Conventions also give certain people—such as former Cabinet Ministers—the right to go the House of Lords if they want to and those conventions should be extended to, for example, the president of the Trades Union Congress, the chairman of the Confederation of British Industry and presidents of the royal colleges. Such people would add independence and expertise.
736
If we are to have ex-officio members of the House of Lords, why should that include only a few bishops and judges? There is a good argument for judges having nothing to do with the legislature, and there is no argument for just having bishops of the Church of England. I would be happy to see the ex-officio principle extended so that those members of the House who were nominated could be produced other than by nomination by the Prime Minister. However, it is farcical to suggest that we should create a quango to which we should hand over the rights of the electorate.
While a persuasive case can be made for a wholly elected second Chamber, it does not deal with the second and third-order issues, which make the proposals a far more fundamental change to our constitution than its proponents recognise. I would prefer a nominated House without the hereditary peers—for whose presence there is no justification—with the same limited powers that it now has. The only way to provide the independence, expertise and—if I dare say it again—wisdom is to have a nominated, not elected, House.
4.3 pm
Mr. James Plaskitt: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), my constituency neighbour, but I disagree with most of what he said. It is becoming evident—if it was not easily anticipated—that the White Paper is in some trouble. That is because it is a mix of principle and old-fashioned political fixing. The problems arise when constitutional reform is more of the latter than the former.
The best constitutional reforms in history are those that proceeded from a core principle, such as devolution. That was achieved by this Labour Government from clear first principles, was well established and has taken root as a settled part of our constitutional arrangements. However, when constitutional arrangements are changed as part of a political fix, they tend to be unstable, fail to take root and do not work. The White Paper is a mix of the two.
When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House introduced the White Paper, he was on solid ground because he referred to core principles that are not negotiable—such as getting rid of hereditary peers. That is the easy part. However, the White Paper slides too quickly from certain principles into political fixes, and that is where the problems start. We need to achieve as much of the reform as possible on the basis of clear principle—why we are reforming the second Chamber and what its purpose will be. If we are clear about those principles and work from them, we will be able to achieve good and lasting reform, which will not happen if we mix up principle and political expediency.
All constitutional reform—and certainly this reform—should attempt to tackle the lack of esteem in which Parliament is held. I refer my right hon. Friend to his excellent document, "Modernisation of the House of Commons: a reform programme for consultation", in which he says, in the final paragraph:
"There are many factors which have contributed to the decline in turnout at the General Elections, but one of them has been the long term decline in esteem for Parliament."
That is right, and in reforming the House of Lords we are reforming Parliament. I therefore urge that we heed the message of the 59 per cent. turnout in the general election

737
and the point that my right hon. Friend makes about esteem, and link our reform of this House with what we wish to achieve through reform of the upper House. If we think of the reform of Parliament in its entirety, we will do better than if we try to keep the reform of the House of Lords in a separate box. That is why we are heading towards difficult territory.
The public have a problem with Parliament. They see it as outmoded, and in large part irrelevant and weak. Some of that perception is about this Chamber, but it includes the House of Lords. The public understand and support us when we reform on principle—such as putting an end to the hereditary peers—but if we are to concentrate on the esteem of Parliament, we should consider how the public will perceive our reform of the upper Chamber. Will they understand our aims if we get rid of the hereditary peers but retain a majority of appointed members? I do not think that we will take the public with us on that. They want us to continue reform, but it must be on broadly acceptable terms. The public will simply be baffled by the complex reforms proposed in the White Paper.
We are trying to rebalance the legislative and executive branches and addressing issues of accountability. Democracy must be the default position. We must start from the assumption that a house of a legislature should be elected unless a good case can be made for it not to be elected. The Government have two key arguments in favour of the White Paper. One is the gridlock argument and the other is the loss of independence and expertise. They are important points and worthy of consideration.
The gridlock problem arises only if the two Houses have similar powers. It is clear that they need not do so. The White Paper gives the example of America when it mentions the problem of gridlock, but that is an unfair point because the American constitution is fundamentally different in its structures and principles. That is not a valid defence of the point about gridlock. We can resolve the issue by having a clear definition of the functions of the two Houses. They will not be duplicate functions. The second Chamber will have a scrutiny and refinement role that is quite different from that of this place. The Executive will remain enshrined in this Chamber and the money power will rest here. Even if there is conflict between the two Houses, we are not incapable of devising ways of resolving that. Mediation processes can be brought into play.
We have not heard a lot about the second point: the argument about the loss of independence and expertise. Why is that deemed important? A number of reasons emerge from a reading of the White Paper, including the volume of legislation and the complexity of governing in the modern state. That is prayed in aid of the need for expertise if scrutiny of legislation is to be effective. But in this Chamber, we legislate and scrutinise, and yet the argument about bringing in independence and expertise is never used in respect of this House. We are deemed adequate, as elected Members, to write legislation, but somehow when it comes to scrutiny, there has to be independence and expertise brought to bear. There is some inconsistency in that.
The problem arises because the Government are trying to fit independence and expertise into membership of a legislature. Independence and expertise are needed to support the work of parliamentarians, but they do not have to be inside the Chamber. In the context of parliamentary
738
reform as a whole, we must ask what we do to support ourselves with independence and expertise in all the scrutiny work that this Chamber does and that an upper Chamber would do. We can provide Select Committees—of this or that Chamber alone, or joint Committees, or pre-legislative Committees, all of which are needed and envisaged in the context of Commons reform—with permanent standing committees of experts and advisers on whom they can draw. There is a role for that, but we start to get into problems when we argue that that expertise has to be contained within a Chamber, rather than working in support of that Chamber. There is an answer to that impediment as well. The points about gridlock and expertise are fair, but if we think coherently and stick to the democratic principle, they can be overcome.
I am concerned about the inherent instability of the White Paper's proposals, which will not bring an end to the argument about what the upper Chamber should be like. There is nothing inherently logical about having 20 per cent. of the Chamber elected, or 33 per cent., 50 per cent. or 66 per cent. If it is not a simple, clear, logical and coherent solution, it will be the subject of permanent argument. If we get stuck on that, we will get distracted from other things, and we will not do anything to help rebuild esteem for Parliament, which is what we should be in the business of doing.
4.13 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) made a thoughtful speech, but I am bound to say that I found the speech of his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), a very much more convincing one. My hon. Friend outlined the real dilemma that faces the House today: because of the Government's inept and clumsy handling of constitutional matters, we are—rather like the Irishman—not where we want to be, but we are here and we have to face facts. The facts are as was lucidly annunciated by my hon. Friend.
If we are to reform Parliament, we have a choice. We either seek to improve what we have or we seek to create something entirely different. The logic of the former position of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow Leader of the House, was entirely right; indeed, it was impeccable. He believed that we needed to re-write—or, indeed, to write—our constitution. He believed that we should have a second Chamber that had real power and was directly and wholly elected. He believed that the relationship between the two Houses should be broadly similar to the relationship between the two Houses of Congress in the United States. That is an impeccably logical position and a perfectly honourable and honest one.
It happens to be one with which I do not agree. I am an evolutionist. I believe that we should concentrate on improving what we have and not create something different. I do not want a wholly written constitution. I recognise that if we move towards a wholly elected second Chamber, all the consequences to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon referred, and many others besides, are inescapable. At a stroke, we would move towards the disestablishment of the Church of England and towards the establishment of a supreme court, both of which may be desired by many Members.

739
I am not seeking to argue that they are not logical things to want, but the House must face up to the consequences of its own actions and proposals.
It is fatuous to suppose—my hon. Friend was again entirely right on this—that we would be able to create a wholly elected second Chamber that was permanently and perpetually subordinate to this House. If we had people of real calibre seeking election to that place, and if they had a mandate, they would, over time, inevitably come to challenge us. If they were elected on the same day, we would merely have a replication—two elected Chambers, one subordinate to the other. If they were elected at a different time, we could have an unpopular Government of the day, wanting to get what they considered essential parts of their mandate through, while, at the other end of the Corridor, we had people with mandates stretching many years ahead who believed that they could overturn and challenge that. The prescription for gridlock, and worse, is there and we have to face up to that fact.
I believe that it would be far better to go down the road referred to by my hon. Friend. I would prefer a wholly nominated House. I do not believe that one can dismiss as pleasantly and lightly as did the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington the question of expertise. I do not believe that it is sufficient to have experts who are merely advisers to Select Committees and individual Members. I believe that it is right and proper to have people of real intellectual quality and ability in the other place. The country as a whole does not regard us as being less than admirable because of the activities at the other end of the Corridor; it does so because of the activities at this end of the Corridor.
I also believe that the argument about legitimacy is spurious. If we look around the world, we see that many second Chambers are not directly elected. Nobody questions that France is a democracy, but it has an indirectly elected second Chamber. The same is true of Germany. In Canada—where the second Chamber has the power of total veto—there is a wholly appointed second Chamber, with senators serving for 15 years. In my view, we would be far better building upon what we have, and having a second Chamber that is wholly nominated.
Such a Chamber would not be illegitimate. When one goes around the world, nobody suggests that this country is not regarded as a democracy. Indeed, we are held up in many places as being the fount of democracy. We hear—it is frequently misquoted—that this is the mother of Parliaments. It is not; the Bright quotation is that England is the mother of Parliaments. Other countries look upon us as a great democracy, and they do not believe that that position is invalidated for half a second because we have a second Chamber that is not directly elected.
Fiona Mactaggart: Yes, they do.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sorry; I do not think that that is the case. As I have said, there are many second Chambers around the world that are not directly elected.
I agreed completely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on one point: we must remind the Government of their oft-repeated promise
740
that a Joint Committee of both Houses would be established once the first stage of reform had been completed. That Joint Committee would look at all the implications and possible varieties and permutations of change. It is incumbent on the Government to honour that promise, which seems to have been forgotten and abandoned.
We should have a Joint Committee of both Houses, but there is no hurry about the matter. The second Chamber exists and functions effectively. The Joint Committee should look carefully at the various options. We should decide whether to have a written constitution in this country, which would entail a reorganisation and reordering of the respective powers of the two Houses. If that is the decision, we should move towards having a wholly elected second Chamber. If we decide that what we have is too good to throw away totally, we should safeguard and improve it. The only sensible way to do that is to follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon.
Hon. Members talk about elections as though the public love them, but a certain election fatigue has set in. People expect Parliament to scrutinise, supervise and hold the Government to account. They vote for us to do that, but far fewer people voted last June than in previous general elections. The percentage polls for the number of people voting for other assemblies such as local government or the European Parliament invite several questions. Do we really think that people would vote for the sort of second Chamber envisaged in the White Paper? That directly elected Chamber would have no more powers than the Government were willing to allow.
Would that directly elected second Chamber attract the necessary calibre of candidate or the enthusiasm of the population? It would not. Would a derisory turnout of 25 per cent. confer great legitimacy on that body? Would not having directly elected people in the second Chamber give more power to the political parties than even the patronage system gives? After all, everyone in the second Chamber would owe their position to one party or another.
I urge the House to approach this matter with great caution. We are talking about the constitution of our country, and we must get it right. The Government have not been especially helpful in setting us on the right road, but we can still redeem the position. However, we will not do so by going for the gimmick, or by rushing something through before the next general election.
4.22 pm
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who spoke earlier. Their Thermopylae speeches, if I might call them that, were as fine a defence of the indefensible as it is possible to imagine.
Before I continue, I shall do as I did in 1999. I shall come out straight away and say that I am an unreconstructed, unrepentant and practising unicameralist. I do not believe that there is a need in modern democracies such as ours for a second Chamber. However, I am also a realist, and I understand as well as anyone that unicameralism, like

741
heavenly bliss, is not for this world; at least, it is certainly not for this Parliament, so other matters need to be addressed.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend has at least one supporter in the Chamber—me. Does he agree that the speeches made today make our case even stronger than it was before?
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Yes, I do. However, before I deal with that I wish to make a brief plea for the unicameralist position, if only to ensure that the argument does not go by default. It has always seemed to me that having a single Chamber would avoid in the most dramatic way the false dichotomy involved in deciding whether a second Chamber should have too much legitimacy by being all elected, or whether it should have no legitimacy because it would be the product of nepotism, croneyism, patronage, or whatever one wishes to call it.
Secondly, in the limited time that I have been in the House it has always seemed to me that the existence of a second Chamber is often used as an alibi for this House's inadequacies. For example, we had some fine debates in this House on jury trial. There was considerable resistance among Labour Members to the proposal to remove the right to trial by jury. In the end, 80 Labour Members either abstained or voted against the measure.
The overall effect of that vote may have been slight in this House, but the effect on the House of Lords was more considerable. A considerable number of Labour Members told me how deeply worried and distressed they were about the legislation. Weeping through the Lobbies is a well known characteristic of new Labour Members, who said that they would support the Government because they knew that the House of Lords would chuck out the proposal in the end.
We should consider what would have happened if the House of Lords did not exist. Those Labour Members would have gone ahead and voted against the Government, and there is a good chance that the Government would have been defeated. Who knows what would have come from that sudden outbreak of testosterone among Labour Members? Who knows what would have been the long-term effect of the House taking control of the Executive for the first time?
I turn now to the White Paper. The real iniquity in its proposals is that 80 per cent. of the membership of the projected second Chamber would be chosen by a system of patronage. Patronage in any guise is the curse of the British political system. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made a compelling point when he said that patronage had its roots in the system that we have. We select our Executive, by a system of patronage, from the legislature. The result is animmediate and obvious conflict of interest, which is well overdue for review. The most crude manifestation of that conflict was evident in the disgraceful attempts to manipulate the Select Committee system.
Patronage in this House has always had a corrosive effect, on Government and on individual Members of Parliament. However, I have considerable sympathy for my fellow hon. Members. A few of us came here late in life, having had the enormous fortune—in my case, the good luck—to pursue reasonable careers beforehand.
742
We happy band of brothers do not give a fig about preferment of any sort, and would not accept it if it were offered. In my case, that is very lucky.
However, we are comparatively few in number. I understand very well that other hon. Members are professional politicians, and much younger than I am. Their entire careers rely on the fact that they are bound to that form of patronage, which colours and configures their behaviour as Back Benchers. There is no dishonour in that, but patronage represents the only chance that such hon. Members will have to serve.
The same applies to the House of Lords. Many hon. Members will have noticed, as I have, what happens when senior Members of this House discover that they are not going to be the junior Minister in charge of paper clips, or that they do not want to hold such a post again. In their case, the power of patronage is exerted in respect of elevation to the House of Lords. Anyone who has not seen that happen with senior Members of this House over the past five years must be very myopic indeed. We must set our collective face against the principle of patronage.
Finally, I want to explode the idea that a wholly elected second Chamber would in some way conflict with the primacy of this Chamber. That proposition has been touched on by several Labour Members. It is a specious argument. This House sets the parameters and the circumscriptions for that House. We may not get people of the highest possible calibre standing for election if they know that the House of Lords has very circumscribed powers. So be it. My bet is that we will, but that does not matter much. The principle is the main thing.
Of course people may want an office, a telephone and a secretary. I appreciate that those things matter to the patrician side of the Conservative party. They may even write to the local newspapers about it, and that will not conflict with me at all. In any event, we will have a proper and duly elected assembly.
The worst thing is to have part and part. What happens if part of the second Chamber is elected and part of it is not? We all get a rush of blood to the head when we suddenly find that we represent real people; we get the urge to take on the Government, or anybody else, and to make trouble, if necessary, on behalf of our constituents. What happens if part of the House of Lords suffers from that malaise and affliction and the other part does not? What happens if there is an alien body in the soft belly of the House of Lords that is permanently for insurrection and usurping the House of Commons? That only needs to be said for us to realise the absurdity of the position. I agree that one option or the other must be chosen, and it can only be one. The overwhelming view and wish of the people is that we should have a wholly elected second Chamber.
The Government have a choice. They can change the Bill markedly and substantially. I have never said this before, and I hope that I will be taken seriously, but it is my perception that if they do not they will lose it, for the first time ever, notwithstanding their majority. Alternatively, they can push it through as it is or they can sulk and say that even if we do not like it they will not bring it back. That was touched on by the Lord Chancellor yesterday or the day before.

743
I hope that the Government do not take that option and that they listen to this debate. Most of the contributions have been outstanding. I hope that we will ultimately have a Bill that will give us an elected second Chamber of which we can be proud.
4.32 pm
Mr. Archie Norman: I agree with many of the points made on both sides of the House, particularly those of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). I am not in complete agreement with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). However, he made the powerful point that whatever we do in reforming the House of Lords will represent a substantial constitutional shift. I believe that that is long overdue and should be embraced. That is the historic opportunity with which we are presented.
Many right hon. and hon. Members will believe that the constitutional shift should be minimised. The change in the composition of the House of Lords is inextricably bound up with what it does, and we should face that as part of the process. That is where the White Paper falls short.
Along with other right hon. and hon. Members, I recently listened to the Leader of the House give a very erudite and wholly convincing exposition to the Hansard Society on the need for change in the conduct and proceedings of the House of Commons to deal with the fact that we are facing a decline in democratic respect for, and legitimacy of, the public process. His trenchant remarks, with which I wholly agree, seem not to have been applied in the same way to the White Paper on the process of reform. Perhaps his thoughts have moved on since the White Paper's publication. If he could provide the same vision of and enlightened approach to the reform of the House of Lords that he provided for modernisation, we would all be much better off.
The test that should be applied to reform of the House of Lords is whether it provides for the 21st century an increase in respect for Parliament, the public processes and democratic representation, whether it provides the required balance between the power of the Executive and that of the state, whether it provides us with greater ability to attract men and women of wisdom, ability and talent into the public process and whether it can be achieved with a reasonable degree of consensus, which transparently does not exist at the moment. The White Paper fails on all counts.
I do not want to dwell on points that have already been made, but when it comes to respect for Parliament, this peculiar concoction of various manners of appointment to the House of Lords will be greeted with perplexity and derision by the public. I would find the White Paper very hard to explain to my constituents—it needs a White Paper to do that. It is too complex, but the worst thing about it, and the essence of the problem, is not that it proposes a primarily nominated House, for which a respectable case can be made, but that the bulk of it entrenches the power of patronage of the political parties. There is no respect or support for that in the country at large.
744
We should be asking not whether patronage of political parties should be predominant in this process but whether it has any place at all in appointments to the House of Lords. I am in favour of a largely elected House of Lords, but that is only one way to go. The central point is that entrenching the power of the political party in this demeaning process of patronage, which the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) referred to, should be abolished once and for all. It has been abused in the past by political parties on both sides and it will be abused again in the future.
More seriously, my concern is about the failure to address in any substantive way the roles of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. We are on the slippery slope, and the White Paper gives no sense of a permanent stopping place; it is simply the start of the process. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would rather face the issue now and have a substantive debate to see whether we can arrive at a solution that will endure at least for some years to come.
It is beyond dispute that this House has primacy. However, primacy is not as absolute as some Members have sought to pretend. For decades, the House of Lords has acted as a restraining and redirecting influence, and if we have a more capable House of Lords, so should it do in the future.
We have a system of government that is far more centralised than those of many of the countries that have been mentioned. Because of that, there needs to be an appropriate counter-balance. It is, I believe, a shared view that our system of government tends to produce too much regulation which is complex and often conflicted. There is a failure to confront the archaeology of regulation, by which I mean regulation that was produced many decades ago upon which are layered other forms of regulation. We never pull it up by the roots, review it and establish a comprehensive and simple process that meets today's needs.
Bearing in mind the media in this country, we are far more subject to the influences of short-term political pressures that can produce legislation that does not stand the test of time. The role of the House of Lords should be to address each of those issues. That has to do with far more than scrutiny; it is to do with limiting and constraining the supremacy not just of this House but of the Executive as a whole. Instead of reinforcing that process and addressing it, the White Paper diminishes the powers of the Lords. It removes the veto on secondary legislation, and although I understand the issues surrounding that, the House of Lords has a role to play in secondary legislation. The White Paper fails to provide a mechanism for amending ministerial regulation, of which there is more and more. It fails to address the failure of both Houses to scrutinise adequately the way we put European directives into practice. It does nothing to enable the Lords to instigate reviews of outdated legislation and to put forward proposals for simplification of the legislative process, and it fails to provide any enhanced role in protecting individual liberties and the vexed question of future changes to the constitution.
All those are, fundamentally, missed opportunities. The reality is that the proposed House of Lords will lack respect and influence. If one has a Lords that is not doing

745
anything substantive and that lacks respect and influence, one will not attract people of wisdom or talent to participate in it—even in the core process of scrutiny.
The failure to attract talent is a broader issue in public life today. We are seeing a narrowing of the political class. As the hon. and learned Member for Medway said, fewer and fewer of us come to this House with a prior career. There are still some of us, but we are something of a dying breed.
In amending the role of the House of Lords, we should enhance that process. Some hon. Members see that as an argument for nomination. I do not. The truth is that what will attract people to serve in the House of Lords meaningfully is the belief that they will have a meaningful role there. What puts people off coming into public life after a career? It is the futility of participating in a process in which their talents are not used or valued, the domination of the party machinery, the imposition on their family and lifestyle and the fact that they are often under-resourced and incapable of doing a good job.
Many former business colleagues of mine, as well as peers and people from other walks of life—men and women of achievement—will willingly stand for election to the House of Lords, particularly if there is a simplified election process in which they will not have a narrow constituency as we do, if they believe that they will have a substantial role to play and a fixed term of office and if they are not subject to quite the extent of democratic scrutiny that we are. The Wakeham proposal went some way towards meeting those criteria, but I am afraid that the White Paper does not.
The White Paper is short on vision and disappointing in its scope. If implemented in this form—I am sure that it will not be because there is clearly no consensus for it—it will represent a further step in the decline in public life and respect for it. The time has come, therefore, to have a rethink. That should not simply be a question of negotiating on the finer points of the arithmetic of the elected membership; it should be about the whole nature of the Lords, the balance between the two Houses and how we make that Chamber important and meaningful.
4.42 pm
Mr. Harold Best: Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), I had a career before I arrived in the House. I worked as an electrician. I have not come across another electrician in the House. Something that could be said for elected democracy, among other things, is that many different types of people are elected to office.
It is important to bear another factor in mind when we discuss the possible role of the second Chamber and how it might be made up. I was first elected to office a long time ago as the shop steward on a large construction site. The first lesson that I learned was that being elected to office did not mean being elected to power. Being an office holder was one thing; exercising power was another matter altogether. We must realise that we are talking about the exercise of power—where it might be exercised and by whom. It is almost like swearing in church to mention power on these occasions, but the debate is about that very subject.
I have never been sure whether I favour a second Chamber. There are powerful arguments for the abolition of that Chamber and for strengthening it in the way that
746
many hon. Members have described. I tend to favour maintaining the second Chamber, but I want it to be democratised. The difficulty is with that problem area. How do we democratise the exercise of power? How do we ensure that the powers that this House wants to retain can be shared in any way with another House? What role will that other House play in any amelioration of the exercise of power if it is done in an arbitrary and unfair fashion? Those are the important issues and we should face up to them.
I regret that the White Paper proposes that the second Chamber should still be dominated by the unelected—those whom some call the good and the worthy. There are the virtuous people there too: the good bishops of the Church of England and the judiciary represented by the Law Lords. There are also people who are said to be independent or politically neutral. The elected people proposed in the White Paper would form a minority of the membership of the second Chamber. In short, the proposal would amount to very little, if any, real change to the social, economic and political interests that exist in the other House. In reality, we are talking about continuity in the exercise of power.
I find it difficult to accept the notion that there are independent people—independent of thought and judgment. That isolation of intellectual activity I have always found interesting as an idea but it should not be followed through in practice, unless, of course, these people are like God and have an abundance of knowledge, if not total knowledge, and a judgment system to match. Perhaps, these independents come from some other place, such as Mars. The idea that they are somehow more virtuous is interesting. It has not been my experience that people who are "independent" are any more virtuous when it comes to the exercise of power than people who obviously and manifestly show the colours on which they seek election.
The political independence and influence of the dominant socio-economic forces in our society will continue, whether here or in the other place. I have always found the idea of political neutrality interesting—from my time as a shop steward right through to the level of activity in which I am now engaged. Neutrality says more about the neutering of political activity than a neutral position, and, again, that is relevant to the exercise of power. How are we to manage that power and have a reviewing body? The White Paper has failed miserably in its proposals for meeting the needs of a second Chamber, which on balance is a system that I would favour.
In the 1980s, I had the pleasure of serving as a member of the police authority of West Yorkshire. Another member of that authority was a first-class Tory councillor called Kenneth Davison. Sadly, he died about 10 years ago. He was an amazing character and working with him was an enlightening process for me. He was diametrically opposed to me, politically, in many ways. However, we shared a great deal. Since I came to this place in 1997, I have discovered to my pleasant surprise that Opposition Members hold views about democracy and how it might be exercised with which I can concur. I find the liberal, right-wing view very attractive sometimes. That exercise of liberal democracy has something to be said for it.
Ken Davison told me that no magistrates should be allowed to serve on the police authority. I asked why and he said, "Because they are unrepresentative, unelected and unaccountable, and they have no place in a democratic

747
society." It seems to me that if Ken was around now to make observations about the House of Lords, he would be able to make a similar comment, as he would if the White Paper's proposals were to be enacted. If those proposals were enacted, we would have in the upper House a majority of people who were unaccountable, unelected and unrepresentative of the people that they claimed to act on behalf of.
I am of the opinion, therefore, that only one course of action would be acceptable to the people of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members should understand that we are talking about democracy and the exercise of power. If we had an elected Chamber just down the hallway from here and an elected Chamber here, they would both be elected democratically. We are really talking not so much about the democracy, but about who will exercise the power—where the final decision will be taken and who will take the decisions behind the scenes. We all know that that goes on.
Our democratic process needs to be enriched. That can be done by abandoning the White Paper proposals and ensuring 100 per cent. elected representation in the other place, or getting as close to that 100 per cent. as possible and acknowledging that, as has been said, other aspects of democratically elected government might reasonably find a place in that Chamber. I am thinking of representation from regional government, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and so on. I favour such an extension of democracy, influencing the distribution and exercise of power.
I look forward to the Government's adoption of what seems to be the dominant view in the House at the moment and is likely to be so for the foreseeable future—that the present proposals are thoroughly inadequate and do not address the needs of the people of the United Kingdom.
4.51 pm
John Thurso: Before being elected to the House this year, I had a career in the hotel industry, where our greatest desire was to achieve the highest possible degree of customer satisfaction. In our training programmes, we developed what became known as Thurso's law of satisfaction, which is, simply stated, that satisfaction is the difference between delivery and expectation. When I read the White Paper, I thought that it was extremely unsatisfactory, in part because the expectation had been so high and in part because the delivery, when it came, was so timid.
When the Leader of the House opened the debate this afternoon, however, he quite properly called on us all to look for the areas of consensus, and he enunciated two core principles and asked hon. Members to support them. I am happy to assure him that, regarding those two core principles, I shall support whatever legislation is introduced, not because I believe that the legislation will be satisfactory, but simply because some legislation is much more satisfactory than none, and because I believe that reform of the other place is an iterative process and that whatever steps are taken now can be built on in future.
The opportunity that we have in this process in the House and in the other place is to address the problem that several hon. Members have spoken about: the democratic
748
deficit that is growing between the political process in the Westminster village and the way in which the electorate perceive it. This is an opportunity to start to build back the public trust in the system.
To ensure that there is no doubt, let me make clear where I stand. I have absolutely no doubt that the second Chamber will be wholly elected one day, and I believe that that is absolutely right. I do doubt whether that will occur in this century or the next. I only hope that I live to see considerable progress towards that end.
Before the reform of 1999 there was a very real consensus for reform and on what that reform should achieve. First, there was a consensus in favour of abolition of the hereditaries. There is no defence for the hereditary principle in Parliament. It works fine for breeding livestock but it does not work very well for delivering legislators.
Secondly, there is a broad consensus in favour of a bicameral system. There is a convincing and powerful intellectual argument, made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), in favour of a unicameral system, but I believe in a bicameral system and I believe that there is a broad consensus for such a system.
Thirdly, there was a consensus that whatever we did should produce a second Chamber that was a fit and effective Chamber for a 21st century Parliament.
The consensus seems to be in danger of breaking apart, because of the weakness of the White Paper, which results from the weakness of the Wakeham commission report. That report was a great lost opportunity; rather than clearing the fog of detail, it added to it. It is a great shame that we went down the royal commission route and did not opt for a Joint Commission of both Houses at that time.
I should like to pull back from the detail to what I believe to be the single most important thing that reform of the other place should achieve, and it involves a very simple test—the test of legitimacy. Too often in another place, and now in this place, I have listened to Members plead the simple fact that the other place is illegitimate as a sole argument for not voting against something of which the Government are in favour. That cannot be the right way to run any parliamentary system. Therefore, whatever we decide to do—whether the second Chamber is wholly appointed, wholly elected or a mixture of the two—we must be able to say that what we have achieved is legitimate. We should never again be able to criticise the legitimacy of the other place here, in the media or in the country at large. If we can pass that test, we shall have done a great deal.
I shall break from the general consensus that appears to have emerged during this debate on one issue—what is described as the supremacy or the primacy of this House. I do not believe that this House needs to inflict primacy or superiority over the other place. The two Houses should act as partners. This House naturally will be the senior partner; it represents constituencies, delivers the Government and bears the result of general elections.
Because of that and because of the differences in the way the two Houses will work and the different functions that they will be required to carry out, this House will always remain the senior partner, but it should not be the dominant partner and it should not have supremacy. The other place should not be like a Victorian wife and be

749
asked to honour and obey; the partnership should be much more equal. The conventions of the two Houses and the way in which they work will allow that to happen; legislation is not needed, and I shall briefly touch on some of the details in that regard.
The other place does have certain strengths. Anyone who has sat through debates in the other place will recognise that the quality of debate is strong there and that, very often, the decisions that it takes—in particular, on less controversial matters—are wise and add to the legislation passed by this House, which is so often rushed and perhaps not digested so well as it could have been. Much of the reason for that lies in the manner, customs and way in which the other place works and is composed.
First, the Whips have no power in the other place. They ask Members very nicely whether they would mind coming in to vote and whether they would be kind enough to vote in the way that the party proposes. If the Members say no, the Whips say, "That's absolutely fine." I have heard that things may run differently in some parties in this House, although I have not yet experienced that in my own. The reason why the Whips have no power in the Lords is that membership does not end there, except in rather obvious, strange circumstances. Basically, at the moment, its Members are there for life, so they can ignore the Whips if they choose do so. That helps to provide some of the essential flavour of the House of Lords.
The second reason is the age of those in the House of Lords. It is important that its membership is of a certain, more mature age than is perhaps found in this House. That helps to create a more deliberative and less combative style there. In any solution—my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has already reflected my views on that—Members should serve for one fixed term as that would remove the problem of the Whips that I have mentioned. Although I am not hung up on any particular limit, that term should be reasonably long. I suggest a term of 12 years, because that figure is divisible by three and one could have one-third rolling elections.
Marrying elections to the other place with elections to the European Parliament would be a great mistake. The elections should be aligned with those to the national and regional assemblies, because they would then be more likely to attract a much stronger turnout.
Ultimately, I would like the entire membership of the second Chamber to be elected. Much has been said about the independence of the Cross Benchers and how wonderful it is to have the great and the good in the other place. My experience suggests that the Cross Benchers are somewhat overrated. In my time in the other place, the hereditary Cross Benchers were largely closet Tories and the great and the good were so great and good that they did not always bother to turn up. It is important to realise what actually happens. Many Members on the Cross Benches are excellent, but overall, they are not quite as great as everyone makes out—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
5.1 pm
Jane Griffiths: I do not plan to speak for long in what has so far been an excellent debate. I also do not plan to speak more than is necessary about how pusillanimous and wrong the proposals in the White Paper are. Instead, I intend to return to first principles and to
750
show how this debate, which must be the start of a considerable process and is perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, might lead us to the conclusion that we should have a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber.
I remind hon. Members that last June saw the lowest turnout at a general election since 1918. Last year saw the lowest turnout in a by-election since the second world war and the last European election showed a record low turnout as well. The Government's response is to suggest that there should be fewer elections—that the people are not be trusted. Instead, according to the proposals in the White Paper, our second Chamber should somehow be made up of placepeople.
Several hon. Members and people in debates elsewhere have expressed the view that the people who run the country—legislators and the Executive—should look around more. They should not be inward looking but should listen to what the people are saying. The analogy used—I think first by President John F. Kennedy—was that we should look out of the windows of the aeroplane. This analogy was also famously used by Vaclav Havel in his new year's day broadcast to the people of the Czech Republic—Czechoslovakia as it was then—on 1 January 1990, an important day for democracy to which I shall refer again.
To set that point in context, people in the Czech Republic had been used to broadcasts telling them how happy everyone was and how the five-year plan for tractor production had been exceeded. Those were the old certainties. However, Vaclav Havel's broadcast was the first new year's day broadcast since the velvet revolution and his election on 28 December 1989. I believe that the following excerpt is relevant to our debates today.
Vaclav Havel was talking about how the totalitarian system had been
"a sin we committed against ourselves".
He went on:
"If we accept it as such, we will understand that it is up to us all, and to us only, to do something about it. We cannot blame the previous rulers for everything, not only because it would be untrue but also because it could blunt the duty that each of us faces today, namely the obligation to act independently, freely, reasonably and quickly. Let us not be mistaken: the best government in the world, the best Parliament, cannot achieve much on its own. And it would also be wrong to expect a remedy from them only. Freedom and democracy include participation and therefore responsibility from us all."
The importance of that quotes lies in the last sentence. We cannot underestimate the importance of participation and responsibility to freedom and democracy.
Our response to the perceived lack of faith in our democracy, as shown by the fall in turnout at elections to date, has not, up to now, been fewer elections. The Government have a proud record of introducing devolution for Scotland and Wales. In those countries, the answer has been to trust the people more and to give them a greater say in the running of their affairs.
Britain also has a proud record as a country with one of the oldest Parliaments and oldest franchises. That does not mean that we know everything or that we cannot learn from other countries. Sometimes we can learn from countries that are new to democracy. Just over a year ago, I had the privilege of visiting South Africa as part of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association group. It was

751
a privilege to talk with people who had campaigned and fought so long for something about which we have become so blasé. Who can forget those pictures of the first democratic elections in South Africa—people queuing for hours to vote? That is unthinkable in this country at present.
I cannot forget holding conversations with people from the African National Congress who were interested in our second Chamber. They asked, "How do you manage it? How does it work when people are appointed? Where do you find them from? What about corruption?" They were rightly concerned about those matters. I was humbled, though, talking to those people who had seen members of their family beaten or killed before their eyes and who were now sitting in Parliament opposite people who had been responsible for those beatings and killings. They did so because they knew that it was best for their democracy and their country to sit down with people with opposing views.
I am a democrat. I believe that our freedom and democracy are the responsibility of us all and that participation is the most important part of that responsibility. We are told, and a number of hon. Members said this today, that if the second Chamber is wholly or substantially elected that will challenge the primacy of the House of Commons. I may not be a constitutional expert, but I know that many countries have a second Chamber without having such a conflict. I know of times when there has been conflict between the different Chambers here. I believe that we can learn from examples from around the world.
I cannot believe that it is beyond our abilities to establish a system with a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber in which there is no in-built conflict between the two. I do not want to propose options and get into the detail of the White Paper, because that would bog down the debate; but if the Government are concerned about a crisis in legitimacy between two elected Chambers, it would be reasonable to have a single-Chamber Parliament. I am not a unicameralist, but that would at least be the logically coherent thing to do. We do not prevent a conflict between two Chambers by having one of them stuffed full of people who are placed there under patronage.
In conclusion, I return to Vaclav Havel, because I believe that we can learn from him. He finished his broadcast by saying:
"I want to be a President who will speak less and work more … To be a President who will not only look out of the windows of his airplane but who, first and foremost, will always be amongst his fellow citizens and listen to them well … The most distinguished of my predecessors opened his first speech with a quotation from the great Czech educator Comenius. Allow me to round off my first speech with my own paraphrase of the same statement:
'People, your government has returned to you!"
Let us learn from the new democracies in South Africa and eastern Europe. Let us have an elected second Chamber as part of our Parliament. Let us return our Government to the people.
5.9 pm
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I have believed for a long time that democracy is the right way forward for the second Chamber. I will not rehearse all the arguments
752
in favour of that now. Nor will I go into the manifest shortcomings of the White Paper, because others have already done so. I want to make only one point.
Contrary to what many people thought, to what the Prime Minister suggested yesterday in the House when he said that there were as many views on Lords reform as there were MPs, and to what the Leader of the House said today when he implied that lack of agreement might be a basis for preventing any change at all, consensus is emerging in the House on the most contentious issues. Many hon. Members have alluded to that fact, including the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), with whom I had the pleasure in the last Parliament of jointly sponsoring an early-day motion on this issue that secured widespread support throughout the House.
What are the most contentious issues? First, do we really want a second Chamber? Secondly, what powers should it have? Thirdly, what composition is required to enable it to exercise those powers effectively? On the first issue, there used to be complete disagreement throughout the House. There were many unicameralists, but now even the unicameralists are saying that they are prepared to be realists. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who is no longer in his place, has made a welcome conversion to that position, and as far as I know, he was the last remaining significant unicameralist in the House. The Conservatives have always been bicameralists, and we seem now to have been joined by the whole of the Labour party. On the first fundamental issue, therefore, there is widespread agreement.
There is also widespread agreement on powers. We do not want radically to alter the existing powers. The plain fact is that the House of Lords does not feel able to use the powers that it has at present because it does not have the moral legitimacy to do so. It rarely uses the power of delay. It has used its power under the Parliament Acts only three or four times this century, and there is very little chance of its wanting to do so again on a major issue. I would like to see some of its powers increased. I would support the beefing up of the second Chamber's role as a constitutional longstop, but I would not go to the stake for that if it were the price of getting a measure through. We largely agree, therefore, that the existing powers are roughly right.
Composition is the key issue. What composition of the Lords will enable it to fulfil a bicameral role in our constitution? In the 21st century, only a House that has the legitimacy of the ballot box behind it can hope to play a meaningful role in this country. The truth is that a wholly appointed House of Lords is no more than a consultative quango. It is not a House of Parliament, and to argue that we should retain an appointed House is really an argument for a form of unicameralism. Only a largely elected House can hope to take on the Executive in this place.
That is the central flaw of Lord Wakeham's proposals. He wants an appointments commission to deal with the problem of patronage. Perhaps it would be possible to create such a body to prevent the growth of patronage, but at the very best an appointments commission would

753
be a self-perpetuating oligarchy of the great and the good. It would command no more moral authority than the existing House. That is also the fundamental flaw in the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratfordon-Avon (Mr. Maples), who argues for a House appointed by patronage, with the Prime Minister retaining all his powers of appointment. Such a House also would have no moral authority.
Many hon. Members have alluded to crucial objections to the argument that I have just made. I will not rehearse all the arguments, but I will deal with two. The first is that an elected House of Lords could duplicate what goes on here, and the second is that there is a risk of gridlock. Both those arguments are largely false. There will be duplication only if the electoral system and the terms of office are the same, but nobody is suggesting that they should be. We will of course elect Members of the Lords on longer terms—I favour non-renewable terms—and as a result the Lords will have a fundamentally different culture. In any case, the House of Commons will remain the major source of Executive authority, as the Government are formed from its Members. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central would like to beef that up by removing Ministers from the House of Lords altogether; I support that.
The gridlock argument is also false. We have the Parliament Acts and there is no practical chance of them being removed from the statute book. We shall therefore get our way after a year at worst; this House will remain supreme. I urge people who disagree to look at the detailed argument on this set out by Lord Mackay in his report; he concluded that the gridlock argument was "a sterile debate" and I largely agree.
I have outlined quite a lot of consensus on powers, composition, functions and bicameralism. There is also growing consensus on the practical steps to take us from where we are now to where we want to be. Most Members on both sides of the House would be prepared to accept the setting up of an all-party consultative body such as those established in 1948 and 1968. In 1948, consultation led to further amendment of the Parliament Act, but in 1968 it failed. However, the Government are rejecting all possibility of a joint Committee, which I deeply regret.
Once we have thought about it a bit, most of us would be prepared to accept a long transition to a substantially—that is the favoured word these days and I am a "substantially" man—elected House of Lords. There is no need for brutal or instant expulsion of current Members. People have said that the existing members of the House of Lords will be around for a long time if we do not do something more brutal, but they probably will not. There is a low drop-out rate among life peers with an average age of 70, but if they are not replaced, they start falling off the shelf rather faster once they get to 80.
Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyrie: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not.
In any case, the participation rate of the over-80s is well under half that of the rest of the House of Lords. We should be prepared to compromise on the period of transition.
Most important of all, most of us are prepared to compromise on the size of the elected element. I am a "largely" man, and favour an elected element of 80 per
754
cent. or so. There is a role for a small remaining element that is appointed or, better, co-opted. I am prepared to compromise on that, but the elected element must be more than half to command moral authority in the country.
There has never been greater consensus than we have now. The majority of the Labour party, but not those on the Government Front Bench, want to go down the road of much more election—at least 50 per cent. The majority of the Conservative party want to go down the same road, but not just yet our Front-Bench Members, although I am optimistic that they will. An overwhelming majority of the wider public want to go down that road.
I am afraid that for much of the 20th century, Parliament—both the Lords and Commons—behaved as if it were in the 19th century. We now have a tremendous opportunity to take advantage of growing support on both sides of the House and in the country to create a second Chamber for the 21st century; let us not miss that opportunity.
5.18 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I shall not use my full 10 minutes, as I know that many colleagues wish to contribute to our debate. However, there are a number of things to which I wish to draw attention.
Labour Members are being told by their own Government to support the White Paper; we are told that the Labour party supports the conclusions of the Wakeham report and will seek to implement them as effectively as possible. I do not believe that; I do not think that there is a majority in the parliamentary Labour party—I do not know, because we do not vote in the parliamentary Labour party—in favour of the Government's proposals and, indeed, those in the Wakeham report. I suspect that there is no support whatever in the wider Labour party for what is being proposed. Yesterday, however, the Lord Chancellor, opening a debate in the other place, said:
"We have not followed every detail, but we believe our basic approach to be the commission's."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 January 2002; Vol. 630, c. 563.]
What a strange state of affairs. The Government are saying that they agree with the royal commission, while Lord Wakeham is repudiating their response to his report. On page 21 of today's Daily Mail, there is a picture of Lord Wakeham in all his robes with the Government's plan, which we are being invited to support. He states:
"Labour would create a second Chamber of cronies"
and then gives his reasons for saying so.
I do not think much of the Government's White Paper, and I did not think much of the Wakeham proposals either. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) said that it was a fix. We all know that what has been proposed for the other place was just a fix. The fascinating thing now is that it is all beginning to unravel. We are getting suggestions from the leadership that nothing is preserved in aspic or set in stone and that the Government are now going to listen. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that they were going to search for the centre of gravity. That is great. They should have done that searching and looked for a consensus ages ago, because a consensus does exist out there.
What is my position? I have always believed in a small, directly elected second Chamber. We do not need an interim House of 750. What a joke. That could never be

755
sold to people outside. We do not need a House of 600. That is another joke. We need a small second Chamber. If the United States Senate can get by with 100 Members, why can we not get by with a second Chamber of 100 or 200 Members? We certainly do not need what is being proposed. I want a separate supreme court. I want the bishops to be invited to leave the other place. I definitely disagreed with Wakeham—this proposal has been turned down by the Government—that the second Chamber should be opened up to religious representation in terms of the Buddhist, the Baptist, the Jain and the Jew. We do not need that. My politics are entirely secular. What a perverse consultation exercise it must be that proposes religious representation in this day and age in a Chamber of the Houses of Parliament. Most of all, however, I was against the proposals because I am sick of the patronage state. Many of my Labour party colleagues say that it is corrupting. It is not only corrosive but corrupting that there are people here who think that if they want to get into the second Chamber, they must religiously follow the Government line even when they know that the Government are wrong. It is corrupting and completely wrong.
I want the House of Commons to retain its primacy. It is perfectly possible for it to do so, as long as the powers and functions are properly defined. That has been mentioned by colleagues in all parts of the House. Yet we get fed this stuff from the Front Bench saying that we cannot do anything too radical. I exclude the Leader of the House from that, as he is an ally. [Laughter.] I think that I have fatally wounded my right hon. Friend. Yes, I think that we need a second Chamber and I am relaxed about giving it some additional powers. I am relaxed about scrutiny of public appointments. The Liberal Democrats recommend scrutiny of World Trade Organisation treaties. Why not? I am completely relaxed about that. I do not go to bed at night saying, "We must retain all the powers that we now have in the House of Commons." I am chilled out about it, and I believe that that applies to many Labour Members. I do not accept the assertion that the Commons would be fatally undermined.
I believe that we shall move towards a largely elected second Chamber. The Liberal Democrats want 80 per cent. of it to be elected and 20 per cent. nominated. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who is not in his place, and other Conservative Members said that 75 per cent. of the Conservative parliamentary Labour party—that was a Freudian slip; I meant the parliamentary party—want a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, who carries a great deal of weight, said that his personal preference was for direct election of two thirds of Members of the other place. Although it is denied by a few at the top of the Labour party, a huge majority of the parliamentary party supports a wholly or substantially directly elected second Chamber.
How do we get there? I was disappointed in the Government when it was not possible to establish the Joint Committee. I took up the matter some time ago with the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), who said in a parliamentary reply:
"it was not possible to reach agreement with the other main political parties as to the terms of reference for the Joint Committee."—[Official Report, 6 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 508W.]
756
The Government were saying that they would set up a Joint Committee if we supported their position. It is understandable that the Conservative party and members of other opposition parties refused to participate on that basis. The shadow Leader of the House said that he was relaxed about the establishment of a Joint Committee. I want the Government to participate in that Committee and not set parameters and terms of reference that so bind other parties that it will never get off the ground.
If the Joint Committee gets nowhere, and Government obfuscation and foot dragging mean that it runs into the sand, Labour Members should demand a Bill to reform the other place. Opposition Members would support that. I would prefer a multi-option Bill. We have been down that road with Sunday trading and hunting. Such a measure would allow hon. Members to vote on an issue about which we have been prevented from expressing an opinion for years because that is not what new Labour does.
I want to end with appointments.
Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman has run out of time.
Mr. Prentice: Those comments will have to wait for another time.
5.28 pm
Michael Fabricant: I do not know how I can follow that act, apart from agreeing with most of the comments of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).
It is useful to recall the way in which we reached the current sorry state of affairs. I have been looking at other Parliaments and other nations that have gone through such procedures. We all know about the long, hot summers in the 1780s and 1790s in Philadelphia when the American constitution was discussed. I have recently come back from Australia, where Australians have been celebrating 100 years of federation. I took the opportunity to find out how they reached the current position.
The Australian constitution was written by delegates to the 1897 federal convention, which was open to the press and to the public. Its work was reported, debated and subject to public criticism and, at its completion, copies of the constitution were sent to the electors to be voted on. That was the democracy practised in Australia.
What are we doing in the United Kingdom? The second sentence of the Prime Minister's introductory remarks to the White Paper states:
"The Government began reform of the House of Lords two years ago with the removal of the rights of the hereditary peers to an automatic seat in Parliament."
How was this achieved? My personal bible is Andrew Rawnsley's book, "Servants of the People", in which he describes the process rather well. I shall read a few sentences from the relevant chapter:
"Irvine was sanctioned to up his offer to the survival of seventy-five of the hereditary peers pending the second stage of Lords' reform. 'We really do want a deal.' Cranborne had come down to 100. To bridge the gap between them, the Viscount wondered if the government would throw in the fifteen hereditaries who held offices. 'I'll talk to young Blair,' replied Irvine. The next day, Cranborne heard from Irvine: 'Done.' Cranbome asked: 'Will you give me the Earl Marshall and the Lord Great Chamberlain?' Irvine: 'Done.' The Viscount and the Cardinal, these peers of

757
the realm, bargained about the future composition of one half of parliament with the sophistication of a couple of used-car dealers. Thus was British constitutional history made."
This is where we find ourselves today, discussing the future of the other place.
I have to be honest and say that if it had been up to me, I would not even have embarked on this change. I have a sense of history, and I believe that if something works, we should not try to fix it and we should not break it. I have heard the arguments that the House of Lords did not work, that it was not fair and that it had an in-built Conservative majority, but I have also heard arguments, which I know to be true, that on many occasions during Conservative Administrations, the House of Lords blocked legislation coming from the Conservative Government.
I argue that the House of Lords did work, but I accept that the caravan has moved on and that we cannot turn the clock back. There now has to be reform of the House of Lords. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) asked whether there had been consensus in today's debate. There has not been consensus; there has been unanimity, on one issue at least: that the White Paper is wholly unacceptable because it is neither one thing nor the other. Accepting realpolitik, and the fact that the House of Lords must be reformed, I have no option but to say that it now has to be wholly elected. There is no other choice, because it needs legitimacy.
The Leader of the House asked how it would be possible for the House of Commons to have primacy if the House of Lords were wholly elected. Others have argued that that could be made possible by enshrining the appropriate provision in law. The Leader of the House argued back, "Ah, but if you make laws here, and the people are elected there and have some legitimacy, they will argue for change, and change will come about." That is merely a question of detail relating to how we structure the House of Lords. It could be structured in such a way that, even though it were democratically elected, it would not have quite the legitimacy of the House of Commons, in which we represent constituencies.
A number of people have mentioned the Senate in the United States. One possible example—I do not suggest that it is the only one—of how things might be done would be to say, "All right, we will elect one or two people per administrative area, per county or per unitary authority, regardless of population." That would involve democratic election, but because there would be an imbalance between the number of people electing each representative, such representatives would not have the legitimacy that we enjoy here in the House of Commons.
The point is that there is a range of formulae by which we can contrive to elect people to the other place, give it legitimacy and give it fairness while ensuring that primacy remains here in the House of Commons. I believe, however, that the House of Commons can have its own legitimacy only if the House of Lords is also a respected organisation, and that cannot be the case if only 20 per cent. of its Members are elected or, indeed, even if two thirds are elected.
I intervened on the Leader of the House to raise an argument that I want hon. Members to consider. There is considerable expertise in the House of Lords among hereditary and life peers and we would be unwise to reject the influence that they can have on our lives, so will he
758
seriously consider this option? If we have a wholly elected House of Lords, which I would like, and if those elected Members have a vote, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce an arrangement, which might be only transitional, giving existing Members, for as long as they are alive and able to make a useful contribution, the right to attend debates and present their arguments without having a vote?
I do not see why people should be frightened of that proposal. I accept the argument that the Leader of the House put to me when I made my intervention—that it would result in two classes of Member, voting and non-voting—but there are precedents for that in other Chambers and in company law. There is no reason for not retaining current Members of the House of Lords with expertise during the transitional period so that they may participate in debates but not vote. If nothing else, that would ensure a smoother transition than any abrupt change.
At the beginning of the 21st century, it would be unacceptable to have another Chamber in this Parliament to which only 20 per cent. of members were elected. Any figure that we may announce, whether it be 20 per cent. or 80 per cent., will be merely arbitrary. Furthermore, whether we like it or not and whether we choose 80 per cent. or not, the figure will be transitional—eventually, it will be 100 per cent. Therefore, I say to hon. Members on both sides of the House that we must accept that the caravan has moved on, whether or not we admit that the House of Lords worked as it was and whether or not we liked or admired it. There must be a wholly elected Chamber and let us move forward on that basis.
5.38 pm
Andrew Bennett: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House. The White Paper, deservedly, has had a pretty bad day and I cannot recall a single speech in favour of it. Even the Leader of the House was somewhat hesitant, so I suspect that the best future it can expect is that of a sand castle on a beach as the tide comes in—it will be washed away. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend has the courage to put it on firmer foundations and bring it back. Whatever the arrangement for achieving that—a joint committee, for example—we must consider the issue in the round. We must think about not just changing the House of Lords, but what Parliament does, because, in a sense, what we do down here is just as important. It is also part of the balance with what may go on in a second Chamber.
The House must recognise that, since the 1911 settlement of powers between the two Houses, much of the power in Parliament has drained away. It is no good us saying that that is a matter of presentation or of methods. It is a fundamental fact that this Parliament no longer has anything like the power it had in 1911 to influence the behaviour of and opportunities for constituents. We must recognise that democracy needs power to energise it. Any one who has tried to run a school council or works council, in which people have no genuine powers, knows that making democracy work in such circumstances is extremely difficult.
A declining Parliament is inevitable, because so many of the decisions that affect our constituents are no longer local or United Kingdom issues. We must face the fact of globalisation, and accept that many of the issues affecting

759
our constituents are now controlled by world organisations such as the United Nations and its agencies and the World Trade Organisation, or by multinational companies. Much as we would like to democratise such institutions, it will not be easy, so we must concentrate on trying to make Parliament relevant to circumstances in which so much of the power has drained away.
It is in those new circumstances that we want to make Parliament effective. Its energy has seeped away not just because of the changing, globalised world but because it has often allowed successive Governments and Prime Ministers to reduce us to lobby fodder. We must do something about that.
The fundamental duty of Parliament now is to consider reforming all our procedures rather than merely tinkering with the House of Lords, and certainly rather than giving even more power and privilege to Prime Ministers or party leaders, as the White Paper seems to recommend. We must bring about change in order to create an effective democratic process.
Many of my hon. Friends would say that electing far more people to the House of Lords would work, but I fear that that would be a fourth or fifth-rate solution. If necessary, I will probably vote for it on the ground that it is the least-bad option, but I feel that we should ask ourselves whether, in a changing world, we need more than 1,200 parliamentarians split between two Houses. That strikes me as a ridiculously large number. It may have been perfectly all right in 1911, when MPs were not paid, most were part-time, and people did not have the opportunities we have now; but if we want an effective Parliament, 600-plus is more than enough. We could have a very effective Parliament with just one Chamber—this Chamber—if we ensured that it performed properly the job that is now done ineffectually by two Houses.
I would not go quite as far as abolishing the House of Lords. I would leave it with a residual function—the supreme court function—along with powers to allow this House to extend the life of a Parliament beyond five years, albeit only in exceptional circumstances. I would also leave it with the power to insist that this House spend sufficient time scrutinising legislation, and that sufficient time should be allowed for effective scrutiny outside. Given that simple limiting of the powers of the House of Lords, I think that we could do everything perfectly effectively here. We do not need two Chambers.
That means, however, that this House must change its attitude. We have tried to make it increasingly exclusive; we should be trying to make it inclusive. I do not think that anyone here remembers an occasion on which someone has come to the Bar of the House to address the Chamber, but in the past—quite a long time ago—people had an opportunity to do that, and even now Select Committees ask witnesses to address them. We could take some of the expertise that—allegedly and only in small quantities—exists in the House of Lords and make it available to this House, if we wanted to.
I plead with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to examine the situation as a whole and to decide that we need a small, effective legislature, directly accountable to the electorate. That body should have the self-confidence to be inclusive and not exclusive.
760
My right hon. Friend should take away these proposals and come back with a new look at Parliament that would make it effective for the 21st century.
5.45 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett). Although I disagree with much of what he said, I agree that this is a Parliament issue and not only a House of Lords issue. The Leader of the House said that he is counting heads and seeking to find a new equilibrium and a new approach. My views on that correspond closely to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who made an excellent speech. At the beginning of the debate, I assumed that I was in a minority of one and it is good to know that others oppose, in principle, any elected Members in the House of Lords.
I strongly support the two key parameters laid out by the Leader of the House. In particular, it has been clear for a long time, despite the badinage between the two sides of the House, that the day of the hereditary peer has gone, although some would provide good service in a reconstituted House of Lords in the future.
We should begin with the question of what the House of Lords is for. Its role as a revising Chamber has become increasingly important in recent years. The Government have rightly said that pre-legislative scrutiny is becoming more important, and we need better scrutiny of Bills, which are often ill thought through when they come before the House and are not necessarily improved in Committee. Such Bills would benefit from pre-legislative scrutiny and the expertise of the House of Lords. Another function of the House of Lords is to act as a brake on this Chamber, but it should not be a definitive one. It can also, in certain circumstances, provide constitutional protection. Those are all beneficial functions, but the House of Lords should not challenge this House.
I fear that the Government's proposals are a dog's breakfast. They could have proposed a senate with 100 members and a House of Commons with 400 members, and I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) that our number should be significantly reduced, because there are far too many of us. However, if the Government's proposals are accepted—amended by what appears to be the majority view in the House—we would have more than 1,000 elected legislators, and that is indefensible.
Wider reforms have led to elected parish councils, elected district councils, elected county councils, elected regional councils, an elected Parliament in Scotland and an elected Assembly in Wales—not to mention the European Parliament—but politicians have become less and less respected by their constituents, as everyone acknowledges. If the answer to any question is that we need more elected politicians, we should look more carefully at the question in the first place.
The proposal for a mixed membership, part appointed and part elected, is—as several hon. Members have said—the worst of all possible worlds. Of course the elected members down the Corridor will press for more powers—including ones that this House would not be willing to cede—but having two different types of members would be a recipe for disaster.
The great benefit of the House of Lords as presently constituted is the quality of expertise that resides in it. As a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Lords Minister

761
many years ago, I often went to watch debates in the other place and I was genuinely astonished by the sheer quality of expertise. In debates on defence, for example, field marshals, generals and other senior former service men were taking part. In debates on education, we had vice-chancellors and others from the educational establishment speaking. There was also expertise in debates on medical matters. These were high-quality debates that are not always replicated in this House. We should not lose sight of that.
The great strength of many of those down the Corridor is that they have expertise, but, unlike all of us, they would recoil from the hustings and would be deeply unwilling to stand for election. If we were to proceed on the basis of an elected second Chamber, I ask colleagues: who will stand for election? It will not be the repositories of great expertise that are in the other place at the moment.
The point was well made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). Not enough people come into this place with genuine and deep experience of trades outside of politics. The blunt truth is that the House needs more people like the hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend.
I spent two years as the vice-chairman of the Conservative party in charge of the candidates department. The difficulty in getting people who are not part of the political scene or the political groupings in society to come into politics and take an interest is enormous. All three of the main political parties find that to be true. We will have more and more professional politicians trying to come down to Westminster, and it will be those who cannot get in here who will proceed down the Corridor to try to get elected to the House of Lords. We will have a Chamber of research assistants and special advisers; we will have an assembly of the skimmed milk of British politics. That would be a serious danger.
I am against any election to the House of Lords, for the reasons set out so excellently by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon. Remarks made about Lord Wakeham this afternoon have, on reflection, been wide of the mark. The great thing that he achieved was a consensus, from which the Government have now departed. Mention was made of a quote from Lord Wakeham, but the whole quote was not given. I would like to place it on the record, because he was right. He said that an elected Chamber
"would inevitably compromise the role of the other place as the United Kingdom's decisive political forum. It would produce a second Chamber that was a clone of the other place, full of professional politicians and dominated by the political parties."
He said that, in taking evidence
"nobody—but nobody—thought that that would be a desirable outcome. Such a chamber would either be a compliant rubber stamp for Government legislation or a source of legislative gridlock."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 January 2002; Vol. 630, c. 582.]
I do not agree with Lord Wakeham's proposals for a limited election, but to achieve that consensus he came up with a far-fetched scheme. I do not believe that it is the right way to proceed, but in order to get the consensus, no doubt he did.
Ultimately, legitimacy comes from democratic election, but democratic elections are not the only source of that legitimacy.
5.53 pm
Tony Worthington: Like all my right hon. and hon. Friends, I was gravely disappointed by the White Paper. Like many, one of the reasons that I came into politics was to enhance and extend democracy. The White Paper does not do that but extends the very damaging system of patronage that runs through our system. Rightly, we are throwing out the patronage of the past by discarding the hereditary peerage in Parliament, but we are replacing it with the patronage of the present.
At least 60 per cent. of the Members of the new House of Lords will be chosen by party political leaders without reference to the parties or to the people at all. That totally ignores what Wakeham said, and not enough detail has been given of some of the other changes proposed in that respect. The present life peers are there for life, by definition. Some go back to the early 1960s, and have been appointed by eight different Prime Ministers. Some have come through a party political route, but many have come via other routes. It is sometimes difficult to see the links that life peers who are registered with a political party have had with that party in the past.
The proposed powers of the Prime Minister and other political leaders are worth examination. The number of nominated political Members in the second Chamber will probably be 332, and page 21 of the White Paper makes it clear that the Government want them to serve for terms of only four to five years.
If it had been established in time to reflect the pattern of voting at the last election, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would have been required to find about 140 Members of the proposed new House of Lords. The Tory leader would have had to choose about 100 names, and the Liberal Democrats would have had to find more people than they have MPs. I was therefore delighted to hear the Liberal Democrat party disown that possibility.
The Prime Minister personally would have to appoint more than 140 Members of the House of Lords over a period of four or five years. The appointments would be short term and subject to the Prime Minister's definition of good behaviour. The appointments would also be subject to the whim of the electorate in terms of increased or decreased share of votes. A party could do well in the polls but people could lose their places in the Lords because one voter—the party leader—did not reckon them.
As at present, Members of the new House of Lords would receive no salary, only expenses. There would be no pension or resettlement allowance, so Members would be totally dependent on the patron. The motto would be, "Vote with me, or you're out. I shall not renew your licence."
In my view, that is far worse than the rotten borough system—at least Old Sarum had seven voters. For 140 Members of the future House of Lords, there would be one voter. He or she would decide whether a Member remained in the other Chamber.
Who would receive such appointments? To be appointed, people would have to be known to the Prime Minister or the party leader of the day. How does one get to know such people? I do not imagine that too many citizens of Clydebank and Milngavie will ever get to know a Prime Minister and thereby be appointed to a new

763
second Chamber. The power proposed to be given to any future Prime Minister or party leader does not honour the Labour party's manifesto commitment.
I do a lot of work on international development and creating constitutions for developing countries. If people in such a country as Afghanistan produced a proposal like this, they would be laughed out of court. The moral to that story is that I hope that the good Lord Irvine is never sent to Afghanistan as a peacemaker, as that would only cause more problems.
Another of the major flaws in the White Paper deserves mention. It is rightly accepted that the nations and regions of this country should be recognised in the membership system of the House of Lords. It is proposed that one fifth of the Chamber—120 Members—should be elected on that basis. That election would probably happen at the same time as a general election and be based on European election constituencies. Scotland would therefore have eight Members, Wales four and Northern Ireland three.
I think that that proposal is deeply flawed. The whole membership of the House should reflect the nation and all its regions, not just 20 per cent. of it. It is inevitable that a system of personal patronage for 60 per cent. of seats will mean that political appointments will reflect the networks and friendship patterns of London. Appointments will go to people who operate around Whitehall and are known here. Having a separate box for the nations and regions is an example of tokenism, and it exposes the realisation that the appointed Members would be based, overwhelmingly, in London and the south-east.
Also, large constituencies, such as the European constituencies, have proved disastrous when it comes to preserving the link between politicians, people and parties. They have failed for Europe.
I know that Members of a second Chamber should not do the same job as MPs, but that can be dealt with by sensible legislation and administrative rules. The list system is deeply unpopular with political parties and with the people, as it is seen to centralise power and increase patronage. Also, I am sure that the role of the party leaderships would remain evident in the regions and nations if we went down the route of having a list system. An alternative exists, however, in respect of both regional Members and of those chosen by patronage.
After the culling of the Scottish MPs, we will have about 640 Members of this House. One of the simplest ways of dealing with this would be to have one Member of the House of Lords for every two Members of Parliament. The House of Lords would then have about 320 Members which I think is too big, but many people have referred to the ludicrous system of having 750 or 600 Members of a revising Chamber. However, I do not believe that the representation of regions and nations should be dealt with in a separate box.
What is most objectionable about the proposal is the idea of patronage. We should reject it. The consensus that is emerging is the only way forward. The whole second Chamber, or a substantial proportion of it, should be made up of people who are elected in the normal way.
6 pm
Pete Wishart: On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I welcome this debate on Lords reform. I share the views of many who have spoken about the lack of democratic accountability in the proposed new House of Lords.
We see this as a lost opportunity for the Government. If they had been clever, Lords reform could have been used as an exercise to re-engage the electorate and show that the House is concerned about voter apathy and the perception that the political institutions are beyond the control of the British public. Lords reform was the Government's big opportunity to show that they are prepared to address what is seen as a widening democratic deficit between the governing Executive and the governed electorate.
With Lords reform, we could have started to re-engage the public with the whole process of government. What do we have in its place? It is proposed that the institution will have only a small minority of its membership directly elected. The unelectable House of Lords will be transformed into the indefensible new Labour house of cronies.
We already know what the public think. Only some 14 per cent. of the public support the White Paper's proposal that the second Chamber should have a majority of appointees and only a minority of elected Members. It is easy to see why. The public do not like the idea of political carve-ups and fixes in smoke-filled rooms behind closed doors. When the public have no say in who inhabits our political constitutions, it leads to immediate alienation. When the public have no sense of public ownership of our political institutions, they view them with justified suspicion.
The majority of places in the new House of Lords will be decided by a statutory, independent, Appointments Commission. Am I the only one to see that as a fig leaf for extended prime ministerial patronage? The majority of people who will serve on the commission will be Labour party members who, I suggest, will be informed by the Government. Is there any real difference between Government and prime ministerial patronage? If there is, I should like to hear what it is.
We can also presume that there will be no place for minority parties on the commission. We in the SNP and Plaid Cymru are the main Opposition parties in our nations, yet we have no meaningful role within the United Kingdom Government. I am not making a pitch to be involved in part of the process but simply showing that, given the House's careless establishment approach, any new Chamber must be a decision for the public and not subject to a centralised decision-making process.
The one question that has to be asked and which has been missing from the debate, other than being put by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), is whether there is a need for a second Chamber at all. If we asked the public what their predominant image of the House of Lords was, I would wager that a majority of the responses would describe a belligerent old soul napping while listening to an interminable speech by a fellow octogenarian. The belief that the House of Lords is viewed with any great affection is misplaced. There is genuine bemusement as to what it does and what function it performs.

765
The Scotsman helpfully reminded us recently of the chorus of the peers, as sung by Gilbert in "Iolanthe". It goes:

"The House of peers,

Throughout the years,

Did nothing in particular,

And did it very well".

The House of Lords has excited in the public an unusual and curious form of dismissive apathy. That is why I find some of the views of some Conservative Members curious. There is no Conservative Front-Bench view of what should happen with the new House of Lords, but we see from their 18 years in government that that House was sometimes presented as a paradigm of democratic virtue. I can understand why some Conservative Members feel that way. For a long time, they have had a large Conservative majority there. Even now, when their membership of this House is at its lowest and their poll ratings are at an all-time low, there is still a Conservative majority in the other place. If that is democracy Conservative-style, we are well rid of it.
Do we need a second Chamber at all? Let us look at the experience elsewhere in the world. Bicameral legislatures are in the minority. A comprehensive survey of national Parliaments undertaken by the Inter-Parliamentary Union in 1995 identified that, of a total of 178 state legislatures, about 127 were unicameral. Indeed, bicameralism seems to be some strange historic throwback to pre-democratic days—often, as with the existing House of Lords, a desire to reflect deep class differences. It is even argued that originally bicameralism was a means to incorporate different classes in government. The lesson of bicameralism that the United Kingdom has to offer is that it has ensured the maintenance and accentuation of class differences. It has done little to ensure that the Government and Executive of the day are held to proper account.
Lords reform is also an important issue for the self-government and independence movements of the United Kingdom nations. We are faced with the possibility of another layer of elected Government. In Scotland, for example, we will have elections for this place, for the Scottish Parliament, for the European Parliament, for the local authority and for this new House of Lords. The SNP's solution for this democratic smorgasbord is to have direct elections to a normal, independent Scottish Parliament and to the European Parliament, with scrutiny provided by strong pre-legislative committees in the Scottish Parliament.
The committee system of the Scottish Parliament shows that unicameralism can work. That system is one of the Parliament's main successes and, because of it, Scotland does not require a second Chamber to scrutinise the large Scottish domestic health, education and criminal justice Departments. Pre-legislative committee scrutiny means that most of the work is done before the legislation even reaches the Chamber.
Pre-legislative scrutiny by powerful committees can allow for expert witnesses to be called and for a proper examination of all the issues involved. Powerful pre-legislative committees could combine the roles of the Standing and Select Committees of this House. They could be given extra powerful functions. Those committees could initiate their own legislation, scrutinise primary and secondary legislation and conduct inquiries into matters as the Administration and Executive require.
766
That is a modern, 21st-century solution that would eliminate the need for a second Chamber. It is an illustration that what is needed is not Lords reform, but Lords abolition. I appreciate that abolition is not an option for this Government. It is a long time since there was a strong abolitionist wing in the Labour party. However, we are not too far from the days when the Labour party believed in a fully democratic second House. In its 1992 manifesto, the party promised
"the replacement of the House of Lords with a new elected second chamber".
The Labour party constitutional committee, which was co-chaired by one Tony Blair MP in 1993, reported that "proper democratic elections" should be introduced for the House of Lords.
The main line of argument that is now deployed by Ministers is that a full and democratic House of Lords would be a challenge to this place. Why did they not think of that when they were in opposition and they were suggesting full democratic elections? Why did it only occur to them when they came to government?
Furthermore, the argument is fundamentally flawed because the proposed plan for the second Chamber is to diminish its powers and not to strengthen it. If this House cannot, and should not, withstand the challenge from another element of the parliamentary system, why should we bother with a second Chamber at all?
We live at a time when the right to choose or dismiss our rulers is beginning to be seen as under threat. It is the standard refrain that the electorate are too bored or too cynical to vote. We only need to think of the turnout at the general election last year to realise that that may be the case. There is a world of difference, however, between the voters choosing whether to exercise their franchise and the politically weak using that fact as a justification for curtailing it. It would be better to have no upper Chamber than to have one that entrenches the political cronyism that is in danger of becoming such a trademark of this Government.
It is difficult to know what is being attempted by the second Chamber. It will still be a House of Lords but it will be dissociated from the peerage, and those who sit in it will not be Lords but will still be MLs—Members of the Lords. It seems to be the worst of both worlds: a Chamber that is neither democratic nor fully meritocratic.
Modernisation has proved something of a difficulty for the self-styled modernising new Labour Government. Modernisation, whether in this place or in the other House, seems to have been one long-drawn-out fudge with no focus or any clear attempt to define what it is hoped to achieve. Scrutiny is important, but so is democracy. What is proposed for the second Chamber is a shabby compromise, which will satisfy absolutely no one.
6.10 pm
Peter Bradley: I cannot pretend to be able to pack as much into 10 minutes as the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) did, but I will do my best.
Until I heard the speech by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), I did not think that I would hear one that actually strengthened the arguments for the proposals in the White Paper. However, whatever the deficiencies in the proposals, about which we have

767
heard plenty from Members from both sides of the House, we should pause and reflect, and concede that we would not even be debating the possibility of Lords reform were it not for the Government, and that they deserve some credit for that.
The Lords has required reform since the day of its inception, precisely because it has provided privileged access not just to wealth but to political power, irrespective of the merit of those who wield it and irrespective of the will of those over whom they have exercised it. It must be said that it has been a privilege that has been largely upheld, and indeed shared, for centuries by the Conservatives—those same Conservatives who have opposed Labour's attempts to reform the House of Lords for the past 100 years.
Now the caravan has moved on and we cannot turn back the clock, as was memorably said this afternoon, and the Conservatives are yet again demonstrating their unerring instinct for survival in the face of constitutional change. I welcome that, and Opposition Members have made some thoughtful and important contributions to the debate.
This is an historic opportunity, which brings with it historic responsibilities. It is not, in my view, a time for tinkering. It is not, in my view, a time for equivocation, or for incremental change that will require yet more hand-wringing and anguish and further incremental change year on year. We have a duty to get this reform right. We have a duty, indeed, to bring about a radical break with the past that shows that this Parliament—and the broader society that we represent or seek to represent—is forward-looking, confident and progressive. If that means that we must find ourselves in conflict with vested interests, whether the Law Lords or the bishops, that is unfortunate, but so be it. In the House of Lords, or the second Chamber—or the house of correction or whatever it is known as in future—no one should enjoy privileged access to their seat in our legislature.
The Government have a right to be proud of the programme of constitutional reform that they have pursued over the last four or five years and of the way in which they have ceded rights and influence to people outside Westminster. They have been much more radical than they have received credit for being. We have had the Human Rights Act 1998. We have had devolution to Northern Ireland, to Scotland, to Wales and to London. We have had the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We have had the first crucial phase of Lords reform. But in most of those measures—certainly in devolution to Wales and to London, and in the Freedom of Information Act—there has been a real difficulty for Government in simply letting go. This White Paper is constipated beyond most people's experience of anal retention.
There is a flaw at the heart of the White Paper. At paragraph 15, it poses a rhetorical question. It says:
"'Whom do you choose to govern you?' The UK's political system is built around that principle."
That is absolutely right, but if it is true of one Chamber it must follow logically that it is true of the other. However, the thesis of the White Paper seems to be to ask, "Why should the upper Chamber be elected?" rather than, "Why should it not be elected?" The proof that has to be the test of the quality and legitimacy of the second
768
Chamber is whether it is elected, and an exceptional case has to be made for its Members who are not elected. Unfortunately, the White Paper puts that proposition the other way around.
The second Chamber has to embody some key principles. It must be distinctive in its role and function, as many hon. Members have said today. It must not replicate, imitate or duplicate the work of the House of Commons. It must be complementary, not competitive, so it must inevitably have subsidiary powers. It must be legitimate, and much of that legitimacy will come through election, whether whole or substantial. It must be representative of society and the nation at large. Indeed, it must be efficient. There have been many arguments for a smaller Chamber than that proposed, which would be in the interests of efficiency, as well as those of democracy and accountability.
The problem with the White Paper is that it would not confer legitimacy of election on 20 per cent. of the membership; nor would the political patronage that it would preserve. It is absurd to claim that introducing democracy to the second Chamber would somehow undermine the democratic credentials of the first Chamber. It would strengthen the legitimacy of Parliament, and it would be good for the second Chamber, as well as for the House of Commons.
As many hon. Members have suggested, introducing such democracy would strengthen not only the confidence that the electorate have in their Parliament, but their rights to hold Parliament to account. Too little has been said not only about our vested interest in holding the Executive, the second Chamber or Parliament to account, but about the interests of the people who send us here.
Election, not appointment, must be the principle on which the second Chamber is founded. It is perfectly possible to preserve the democratic principle of election without challenging the primacy of this place. The latter is the chief argument against election made in the White Paper.
What makes our legitimacy special is the constituency link. We are elected by and accountable to defined communities, which we seek to represent. It is perfectly possible to elect people indirectly in a way that confers a legitimacy on them that is not confrontational or equal to our own in this place. However, I accept the role of appointment in improving and extending the representativeness of the second Chamber to encompass not just the regions and nations of this country, but the various walks of life and professions, whether those involved are humble—perhaps I should not use that word—are engineers or professors of medicine.
Representativeness is important, but we know that the vagaries of the electoral system cannot guarantee it. We complain and wring our hands in this place, saying that we are not sufficiently representative of the community at large, so there must be a role for appointment, but no more than a third of the second Chamber' s membership should be appointed. I agree with much of what the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said in that respect.
If the second Chamber were to have a membership of 450—I suggest that it should be smaller, but 450 is the upper limit—on the basis of the national share of the vote at the general election in June there would be 122 Labour, 95 Conservative, 55 Liberal, 28 other and 150 appointed

769
Members. Even the governing party would have no overall control, and the largest group would be appointed and, no doubt, independent Members. That would preserve the electoral principle, but it would also secure the principle of subsidiarity, representativeness and, indeed, independence.
Finally, we need a truly modern second Chamber. I spoke earlier about the need for radical reform. If we ask people to sit, or if they ask us to allow them to sit, in our legislature, they should regard that as their principal occupation, and they should be paid for it. They should be expected to attend or face disqualification. In no way should the bishops or the Law Lords believe that they have a moral entitlement automatically to be given seats in the legislature, but there is nothing to prevent them—as nothing prevented the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso)—from putting themselves forward for nomination or, in theory, election; and the same applies to all current peers.
All the peers should go, but if they wish to seek election or nomination, they should be free to do so; otherwise they should be given the same severance payments as Members of Parliament enjoy when we retire or are defeated in the polls.
The warning that I would issue to my colleagues is that we must build a consensus that goes beyond the consensus that simply opposes the White Paper. As has been repeated in the debate, previous reforms have foundered precisely because of lack of agreement about the shape of the second Chamber. That is the last defence of those who support the White Paper.
We should also warn those who support the White Paper that there is agreement on one issue: that the White Paper does not provide the basis for reform.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
6.20 pm
Norman Lamb: This has been a fascinating debate in which not a single speaker has spoken in support of the proposals in the White Paper. I suggest that that point also extends to the views of the Leader of the House. It is rare for a set of Government proposals to achieve the distinction of uniting virtually everyone outside their payroll in opposition to the proposals. The Government say that they seek consensus and, ironically, they are achieving consensus—one that circulates around something very different from what is proposed in the White Paper.
I wish to challenge a specific point that the Leader of the House made in the debate on 7 November and which he repeated today. He sought to justify the proposals on the composition of the second Chamber by praying in aid the claim that many second Chambers throughout the world are made up of a mixed membership. That is true, but in virtually all cases the balance is predominantly in favour of the elected element. I accept that, in some cases, indirect election plays a part, but in only 15 countries worldwide is appointment used as the predominant means of selection to the second Chamber.
The only western industrialised country that has a wholly appointed second Chamber is Canada. Its second Chamber is based on our House of Lords, so it is hardly
770
the model that we want to follow now. As Meg Russell of The Constitution Unit put it in her 1999 study of second Chambers, the main problem in Canada
"is the lack of public respect for the senate due to its appointed basis. It is not seen as democratically legitimate. Appointees are seen as recipients of cynical patronage."
We should listen carefully to those wise words.
The same study identifies only two countries—Malaysia and Swaziland—that combine a significant number of appointees with fewer elected Members. Those are the models that the Government seek to follow with these proposals.
The extent of patronage could be even worse. If the 20 per cent. elected element is elected using the closed-list system that operates for the European Parliament, the power of patronage would apply not just to the political appointments but to the elected element as well. The party bosses would determine who was top of the list. The second Chamber would be almost entirely created by patronage and appointment.
I want to deal with the arguments of the Leader of the House about the concern in the shift of power from one House to another. Much has been made of the Government's fear of a significant shift of power from this House to a more legitimate second Chamber. Their solution appears to be to ensure that the proposed second Chamber lacks legitimacy and, therefore, power. Experience from other countries suggests that that fear has been significantly overstated and is without substance. The assertion is made without any evidence to support it.
We all want an effective Parliament; we do not want endless gridlock. However, the correct balance can be achieved by properly designing the role, functions and powers of the second Chamber rather than by neutering it by way of membership by appointment and patronage. The net result of the proposals is not to shift power from one House to the other, but to further that shift from Parliament to the Executive, through the power of patronage. That must be fought at all costs.
Such is the opposition to the White Paper that three options are possible. I cannot imagine that the Government will legislate on the basis of a 20 per cent. elected element. The first option, therefore, is for them to rethink their case in its entirety, to listen to the developing consensus and to return with coherent proposals for reform of Parliament as a whole, including this place, to make us more effective, more democratic and more accountable. That would attract the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The second option is to attempt to buy off internal opposition by increasing the percentage marginally. The third is to withdraw the proposals with no commitment to return with an alternative. The last two options worry me most. There has been much talk of the buy-off option in recent days, with an increase in the elected element of, say, 30 or 35 per cent. It is a common ploy to start with something that will not secure support, because it can lower expectations and set the context for debate. However, the opposition would have been the same had the Government proposed 35 per cent. as a starting point. That is subject to the same criticism of being undemocratic and dominated by patronage and appointment.
To a large extent, we have to rely on the reformers in the Cabinet—if there are any, apart from the Leader of the House—and Labour Back Benchers to stop a

771
stitch-up. Well over 100 Labour Back Benchers signed the early-day motion supporting a second Chamber that is wholly or substantially elected. Please let them not go back on that principle. The country is relying on them to hold fast on that.
We also know that the Leader of the House wants something more radical. He was, self-evidently, a signatory to the Cook-Maclennan agreement that gave clear support for a democratic and representative second Chamber. The proposals do not match that test. Today the right hon. Gentleman set himself against a wholly elected second Chamber, but I listened carefully and he did not say that he is against a substantially elected second Chamber. I hope that he will lead the fight for something that is very different from what is set out in the White Paper.
The third option of keeping the status quo appears to have been threatened in the past couple of days by the Lord Chancellor. Most people would find that option abhorrent and it must be resisted. Indeed, it would directly contradict the principle, as stated today by the Leader of the House, of removing the hereditary element in its entirety.
We have an historic opportunity to reform the second Chamber, but we must get it right. There is a great deal of legitimate talk about a loss of trust in the democratic process, as demonstrated by a falling turnout and disillusionment with politics and politicians. Nothing would do more to reinforce those trends than to pack the second Chamber with political appointments. Imagine the turnout for the elected element of such a Chamber. The Cook-Maclennan report stated in 1997:
There is today a pressing need to renew democracy in Britain."
That is as true today—f not more so—s it was then. Let us consign the White Paper to the dustbin and start again with something that is more legitimate.
6.29 pm
Mr. Chris Bryant: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, not least because I think that I am the only new Labour Member to have been called. I am aware that many others would like to speak.
The case for reform was made cogently by hon. Members on both sides of the House. That is why, above all else, I hope that the Government will not come away from the debate thinking that the situation is impossible and that they cannot introduce reform that will carry the day in this Chamber, proceed to the House of Lords and create a new system.
We need reform because Britain needs a parliamentary system in the totality of which the people can have confidence. My constituents do not have confidence in the whole parliamentary system. They have worries about this House, but they have far more worries about the other House, which they see as a wholly undemocratic and unrepresentative body that regularly acts as a bar to their legitimate political aspirations. Under the new proposals, that situation would not be improved. There is an urgent need for reform because there is only one other country in the world that has the same system as us, and that is Lesotho. It is about time we struck out and joined countries that have a more open, democratic system.
772
As many hon. Members have said, the Government's proposals are misguided and wrong. First, the figure of 20 per cent. for the second Chamber's elected Members is marginal and paltry. To offer the people of Britain a 20 per cent. share in the country's democracy is to waste an opportunity. The turnout for such elections would be pathetically small; indeed, we would almost be asking people not to bother to vote. The Government's proposals would lead to a House that was far too large. Surely a second Chamber should have no more than between 250 and 300 Members.
A couple of Members talked about the period of attrition, and I must correct their figures. I am afraid that I must tell the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that the Liberal Democrat actuary is incorrect, and the rate of attrition would be a little faster than he stated, but then Liberal Democrat figures are often inaccurate. Every year, 18 Members of the House of Lords are gathered up into a place that is, I suspect, rather similar to the Lords, so the grim reaper paces rather faster than the hon. Gentleman believes. None the less, under these proposals, we would be facing at least 10 years in which the second Chamber dwindled into gagadom. The period of attrition would mean also that the Prime Minister would probably not be appointing anybody but the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Chamber in the next 10 years.
Another problem with the proposals which has already been mentioned is that although at the moment we have the same system as Lesotho, we would change to a system the same as those in Malaysia and Swaziland. Surely Britain, as the mother of Parliaments, should be able to devise a better system for the 21st century.
One of the most profound points in the debate was made by the Leader of the House when he asked for a centre of gravity. What we have seen developing today is more a centre of gravity than a consensus. It is fair to say that there is no consensus because people want to make their own specific proposals, but a clear centre of gravity is developing, first and foremost, around the idea that we should have a second Chamber, and secondly around the idea that it should be a small Chamber. Everybody who has referred to the size of the second Chamber has said that it should be small. Thirdly, the Chamber should have no more than secondary, revising powers. I do not see why it should not be called the second Chamber as a means of emphasising its secondary role. It is time we ditched the term "House of Lords". It would be particularly bizarre to call it that if it no longer contained traditional peers.
Another idea around which a centre of gravity has formed is that of offering some measure of redundancy to Members at the other end of the building. As someone in the parliamentary Labour party said yesterday, if we want our turkeys to vote for Christmas, we must offer them a lot of cranberry sauce.
Mr. Forth: What about stuffing?
Mr. Bryant: That's an idea.
I am quite happy for Members of the Lords to have club privileges. They can wine and dine there until the day they die, if they want. I am happy for them to receive some money, although perhaps we should base it on their attendance in the past two years. That would help us to get from A to Z.

773
Finally, on issues with a substantial centre of gravity, nearly everybody has spoken today about a largely elected second Chamber, which means more than 50 per cent. If the Government introduced proposals for a second Chamber with a 50 per cent. elected element, they would find considerably more support among Labour Members and, I suspect, across the Floor of the House. As a footnote, I should add that I prefer openness to a closed system; I hope that the system for electing Members of the European Parliament will be changed to an open one at the next election.
Many Opposition Members have raised the issue of the challenge to the Commons from a Chamber with a significant chunk of elected Members. That is a red herring and a simple mistake. Any new Chamber that is created, even if its Members are solely nominated, will start to challenge this one. Anyone, even if only the 20 per cent. share of elected Members, will start to challenge the moral authority and legitimacy of this Chamber, but that does not mean that they will have the power to overturn decisions made in the Commons, the bedrock of our democracy, which is based on constituency membership.
There is no reason why a strengthened Parliament Act could not make clear the exact powers of a secondary, solely revising Chamber without the need to write a new constitution, and differentiate them from those of this Chamber. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was wrong to say that a majority of two-Chamber Parliaments are not directly or indirectly elected. In fact, 31 of the 58 second Chambers are wholly elected; in none of those Parliaments is there a major problem with rowing between the two Chambers.
In conclusion—and only one person in the Chamber could say this—as a former priest in the Church of England, I think that it is time the bishops were given their marching orders. It is unlikely that the Government will include in their proposals any suggestion that they will take on the whole Church of England, but since they have moved away substantially from the Wakeham proposals, which would have created Lords Spiritual of various Christian denominations, it is time to have more courage and get rid of the whole Bench of bishops. The days of the rochet and chimere are surely over.
I hope that the Government take the opportunity to return to the House in the near future with proposals for reform. There is a potent argument in favour of reform. My constituents do not often discuss the House of Lords, but they find it bizarre that the House of Commons can vote several times with enormous majorities on issues such as foxhunting and the age of consent, yet their decisions do not become law. We need to change many aspects of the way that we do business in the House so that we can do it better. However, we need to change the House of Lords as a matter of urgency, and I hope that the Government will give us the tools to do so in the next 12 months.
6.38 pm
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I make no secret of the fact that I oppose reform of the House of Lords. There is a valid case for retaining the strong traditions that have kept our parliamentary system great for so long, including the hereditary principle on which the monarchy itself is founded.
774
I agree with many of the previous speakers—not least my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—that the Government are proposing not a second Chamber, but more of a House of cronies with more elected politicians, as if we have not got enough already. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign!"] I was a Tory gain, so I shall not be resigning. Equally, I understand that there appears to be no going back on the idea that we should have an elected element in the newly constituted second Chamber, but I believe that this new element should incorporate as many of the existing traditions of the House of Lords and the British Parliament as possible. It seems to me that the Government's proposal lacks a basis of democracy, popular support and international precedents. Their proposals suggest far more sinister motives: a cynical, electorally motivated desire to produce a second Chamber that will be an enfeebled stooge.
I hope that the House will consider alternative options, one of which I should like to suggest now. I believe that the second Chamber should be reorganised on the basis not only of the traditional elements, but of an elected territorial element. I refer not to any notion of the units designed by Labour for regional government or to the artificial boundaries contrived for the House of Commons and European elections, but to the nation's historic counties. With representatives elected from each of the historic counties, using their traditional boundaries, the second Chamber would restore pride, vitality and diversity to Britain's over-centralised system of government, giving electors local links to those in the second Chamber and possibly rekindling a sense of local patriotism without challenging the representative status of their Members of Parliament. Middlesex, Westmorland, Rutland and Huntingdonshire are just a few examples of the counties that could be restored. What an opportunity we have to do that.
The same basis can be extended to our great cities, such as Birmingham, Glasgow, Canterbury, York, Cardiff, Belfast and, indeed, London. The second Chamber could also give a voice to the overseas territories—a point that was first mooted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) in the 22 November debate on the overseas territories. Why should not Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and all British people have representation in this, the Parliament of the United Kingdom? I would also include the Crown dependencies. Indeed, territorial representation in a second Chamber would be a counterbalance to the population-based representation of the Commons, as the United States Senate is in relation to the House of Representatives.
A second Chamber giving voice to the nation's historic counties would be democratic, historically relevant and easily understood and supported by the public, and would have international precedents. It would also make geographical sense. I hope that hon. Members and especially the Leader of the House will consider my proposal. I urge a radical rethink of this most important of issues so that we get a second Chamber that is representative rather than one that merely speaks the voice of the Government.
6.44 pm
Mr. Greg Knight: The debate has been interesting but all too short. The Government should have allowed more time for our deliberations. Those of

775
us who have been part of the usual channels were not surprised that the Government conveniently scheduled a statement today, thus further curtailing our debate. The Opposition would have viewed favourably a proposal by Leader of the House to suspend the decision to end the debate at 7 o'clock.
The reasons for not holding a longer debate or a two-day debate such as that in the House of Lords are clear from Labour Members' speeches. The debate is of the Government's choosing on proposals of their choosing and at a time of their choosing. Despite all that, how many Labour Members spoke in support of the White Paper? Twelve Labour Members spoke; not one supported it. That is unprecedented in my experience. Even in the days when Lady Thatcher and John Major proposed measures that were considered unpopular in the Conservative party, there was always an element of support in the Chamber. As the debate progressed, we could see some of the edges of the White Paper's pages turning green.
It is not only Labour Members who are unimpressed with the Government's proposals. Lord Richard, the Prime Minister's first appointed Leader of the House of Lords, has described current proposals as "half-baked" and no more than "tokenism". The reason for producing such a dog's dinner was provided by Lord Stoddart, a Labour politician—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Former Labour politician."]—who complained this week about the Prime Minister's "control freakery".
If today's debate is anything to go by, the Government's preferred method of House of Lords reform is rightly lying on the Floor in tatters. The proposals have been universally condemned. No new Labour project has received such a bad press from across the media spectrum. The Mirror, which is usually an enthusiastic cheerleader for the Labour party, stated on 9 November:
"Robin Cook made a reasonable fist of presenting New Labour's 'reforms' of the House of Lords. Which is all the more surprising, say Labour MPs, because the Leader of the House doesn't believe a word of the script. This mish-mash of patronage, rigged elections and gerrymandering has gone down like a cup of cold sick. It is a transparent attempt by the government to swap the old permanent Tory majority in the upper chamber for a permanent New Labour majority."
Mr. Graham Allen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the Conservative alternative to the White Paper?
Mr. Knight: The White Paper allows until the end of the month for the conclusion of consultations. We have a position, but it has not been published yet. It will be made clear before the end of January.
On 8 November, The Times stated:
"Tony Blair has secured his place in history already as the most prolific dispenser of prime ministerial patronage in the House of Lords since life peers were created, in 1958 … In his brief four and a half years of power, Mr. Blair has appointed 248 peers, easily more than the 216 created by Baroness Thatcher in her 11-year tenure. In a House of Lords containing just over 700 peers, more than a third owe their places in Parliament to one Prime Minister."
The Evening Standard, which supports reform, has been no less critical. On 7 November, it stated:
"a principally nominated House can never command serious authority as the second chamber … Any government will feel free to override its views at will. Second, the House of Lords will be
776
increasingly dominated by peers appointed because of their relationship to the political leaders of the day … Such figures have always existed and often been honoured, but their role will now be expanded."
Many interesting points have been raised in the debate, but, sensing the difficulties that lay ahead, the Prime Minister yesterday appeared to justify his proposals by saying that there was no clear-cut alternative and by implication that the existence of a wide spectrum of views meant that the House should accept the package, warts and all. That is an interesting theory, and it reminds me of the curate's egg—an appropriate metaphor in this case.
The Prime Minister's statement reminds me of the bishop offering the curate an egg that is good in parts and bad in others. The curate must eat the egg, so as not to offend the bishop. I think that the Prime Minister was hoping that the House would do something similar today. I have to tell him that many Opposition Members do not want to eat that egg at all. On the other hand, many Labour Members are so afraid of offending the bishop that they would eat almost anything put before them. This issue, however, represents one rotten egg too far for many Labour Members. I believe that the majority of Labour Members are prepared to say, with us, "We like eggs, but we would like one that is primarily not bad, one that is substantial and that is worth waiting for. Take this away and bring us another!"
6.50 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): Lacking a public policy, my shadow chose not to address any of the issues that have been raised in today's debate. I have 10 minutes in which to try to do so. This has been a very constructive debate, and I am pleased to be responding to it on behalf of the Government. We have heard some excellent, thoughtful speeches from both sides of the House.
Constitutional reform has been one of the greatest achievements of this Government since we were elected in 1997. We have introduced the Human Rights Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the restoration of elected city government in Greater London, opportunities for communities to opt for local, directly elected mayors, the setting up of the Electoral Commission, and legislation going through Parliament at the moment to enable political parties to take positive action to increase the number of women candidates.
The goal of removing the hereditary principle from the House of Lords is one that this party has striven for since our foundation more than 100 years ago. I remember people saying to me before 1997 that, once elected, we would not proceed with constitutional reform or with the first stage of Lords reform. Well, we did. I remember, once we had completed that first stage, we were told that we would not proceed to the second. Well, we are doing so.
I welcome the fact that the Conservatives are now engaging with this issue, and that some have converted to the cause of reform. As recently as the 1997 general election, they were still defending the hereditary principle in the upper House of this Parliament, and for

777
18 continuous years of Conservative government, no proposals for the reform of the second Chamber were introduced.
Mr. George Osborne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Twigg: No, I have very little time.
We are told that the Tories have secret proposals that will be published soon. In today's debate, three Opposition Members called for a fully appointed second Chamber, three called for a wholly or largely elected second Chamber, and the hon. Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) wished that we had not started the reform process. Indeed, I got the impression that the hon. Member for Romford hankered for the good old days before the signing of Magna Carta.
Certain basic principles have been accepted by all speakers in the debate—or certainly by most. They are that there should be two Chambers; that we should remove the hereditary element; that we should assert the pre-eminence of the House of Commons; that we should have a second Chamber that reflects the balance of public opinion between the parties; and that there should not be a fundamental change in the powers of the two Chambers.
Like many who have spoken today, my personal instincts have been in favour of a fully elected second Chamber—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Aah!"] Hold on a sec! I have another six minutes to fill. The argument that persuaded me against that is that an appointed element brings expertise to a second Chamber. A number of speakers on both sides of the House made good arguments about the expertise that comes into the second Chamber via appointment, whether through party appointees or Cross Benchers.
Mr. Richard Bacon: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Twigg: No, I have only five minutes.
Secondly, an appointed element ensures the pre-eminence of the House of Commons, which is very important. Finally, it plays a part in achieving a Parliament that looks more like the public whom we serve and, in particular, in ensuring proper representation of women and diverse communities in our country. No speaker addressed that issue. I would prefer election to secure such representation, but we have only to look around us to see that election alone does not have a track record of delivering proper representation of women and minority ethnic communities. The appointed element may play an important role in that.
Wakeham proposed in option B that 87 of 550 second Chamber Members be elected, while the White Paper proposes a slightly higher proportion—120 of 600. Nevertheless, I accept that it is clear that Members on both sides of the House strongly support the proposals involving a larger elected element. I take that on board and shall feed it back in, but I want to respond to some specific points during the debate in the Government before bringing proposals before the House.
A number of Members raised the question of the method of election and spoke in favour of open lists, including the right hon. Member for North-West
778
Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant). I believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Lords is on record as saying that we have no closed mind on closed lists. This is clearly a matter still to be resolved.
There is also the question of the length of an elected Member's term and the debate is between the desire for independence as set out in the Wakeham proposals, which suggest a very long term, and the need for those elected to Parliament to be accountable. I think that a 15-year term without the right to stand again would reduce the accountability of the democratically elected element in the second Chamber, so it makes far more sense to have shorter terms for Members with the right to stand for re-election. That is a more democratic way to ensure that there is an elected element in the second Chamber.
The White Paper raises the issue of indirect representation in the new second Chamber, and various Members made proposals for achieving it. The difficulty is that, although there are Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland and a Parliament in Scotland, there is no regional representation in England. However, the proposal is worthy of consideration as the debate moves forward.
Let me briefly address the question of prime ministerial patronage and appointees to the new second Chamber. The Government carefully considered Lord Wakeham's proposal that party political appointments be made by an independent commission, but we do not believe it appropriate for party political rather than independent representatives to be appointed in that way.
There has been a great deal of talk in the debate about prime ministerial patronage, but the proposals in the White Paper represent a significant reduction in those powers: the elected element would be 20 per cent., 20 per cent. would be appointed by an independent commission and about 55 per cent. would be appointed by parties, with most of those being appointed by opposition parties.
Currently, the majority of new Members of the Lords are directly appointed by the Prime Minister, so the proposals represent a significant reduction in the powers of patronage. [Interruption.] I recognise from the noises coming from behind that it does not go quite as far as many of my colleagues would like.
This is an important debate and, as many people have said, it is about not just the future of the other place, but the reform of Parliament itself. The purpose of reform, both here through my right hon. Friend's modernisation proposals and in the Lords, is to create a Parliament that is more effective and more representative of the people we serve. The 59 per cent. turnout last year is a clear warning to us all: renewing our political institutions is not some sideshow and it strikes at the heart of why we are here in Parliament.
This Government are listening to the concerns expressed here today and in the other place yesterday. The public consultation will continue for another three weeks and the debate is an important contribution to it. I am grateful to all Members who took part.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
Motion made,
That, following the Order of 20th November 2000, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John Mc William, Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Edward O'Hara be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
Hon. Members: Object

PETITION

  Missile Defence
  7 pm
  Valerie Davey: The petition of the Bristol and West region of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, to which I add my support, declares:
  We believe that an attempt by the United States to build a missile defence system will lead to increased instability and provoke a new nuclear arms race, are alarmed at the likely involvement of facilities at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill, and that a petition of over 520 signatures expressing similar concerns has been presented to the Prime Minister. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government not to allow the use of the bases in a United States missile defence system. And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Armley (Asbestos Compensation)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  7.1 pm
  Mr. John Battle: In October 1995, two families from Leeds, one itself a victim of deadly mesothelioma, won a ground-breaking compensation case against Turner and Newall. They proved that the company was the responsible owner of the old J. W. Roberts Armley factory that had polluted our neighbourhood.
  In earlier debates here, since I first raised the issue in November 1988, I have also raised the profile of the struggle for justice for mesothelioma victims from Turner and Newall—a company that initially refused to admit it had anything to do with the J. W. Roberts factory. We showed that it owned the factory. Turner and Newall then declined to release any documents or records, arguing that it could not find them or that they did not exist. Despite denials for four years, and court orders and appeals, the company was forced to release more than 27,000 documents and records, a few weeks before the crucial trial began in 1994.
  I recall the words of Mr. Justice Holland at that trial, in the Leeds High Court. In 1995, he took the unusual step of criticising the company for
  "using any means possible, legitimate or otherwise … to wear"
  the plaintiffs
  "down by attrition".
  That is from the transcript.
  The judge awarded Mrs. Margereson and Mrs. Hancock £115,000 damages between them against Turner and Newall, ruling that although mesothelioma could not have been foreseen as a consequence of the asbestos dust that was blown out of the factory into the neighbouring streets until it closed in 1958, some form of pulmonary injury should have been anticipated by the company and it was therefore liable.
  We had won the case—or we thought that we had won. Needless to say, Turner and Newall immediately appealed against the judgment, claiming disingenuously that it was "unsound" on the basis that a distinction could be made between "guilty" and "not guilty" bits of dust—claiming that it was just some kind of lottery when people inhaled.
  That grotesque appeal, as Geoffrey Tweedale called it in his scholarly account "Magic Mineral to Killer Dust: Turner and Newall and the Asbestos Hazard", was thrown out of court, but it was another delaying tactic that bought the company a bit more time before they paid out to the plaintiffs. Tragically June Hancock died in 1997, not many months after her long heroic struggle through the courts.
  Throughout the case, Turner and Newall has striven to delay and hold back future claims, trying to deny other victims the chance to claim a precedent; but the case was won, and it was forced to pay compensation.
  Mr. Justice Holland referred to attrition. In 1995, I thought that the courts had settled it; but the war of attrition against the victims, sadly, is still going on.
  Turner and Newall was taken over by an American company, Federal Mogul, in 1998. On 1 October last year, Federal Mogul filed for voluntary chapter 11

  781
  reorganisation in the United States and for administration under the Insolvency Act 1986. From that moment, Turner and Newall ceased to respond to or pay out any asbestos disease-related claims. Even cheques issued for cases settled before 1 October have bounced according to solicitors, and one former employee, 74-year-old Thomas Harrison, deposited a settlement cheque for £38,000 that was returned cancelled.
  More than 60 Armley neighbourhood cases since 1995 have been completely settled through the courts; some are still in the process of settlement and some are still waiting to be filed. In other words, hundreds of cases are still outstanding. Turner and Newall now refuses to deal with them.
  Federal Mogul, the parent company, employs 52,000 people in 25 countries and owns famous brands such as Champion, Glyco and Ferrodo. It is far from being bankrupt. Third quarter sales in 2001 were more than $1,289 million, and sales for this financial year are likely to be more than $5 billion. According to the brilliantly researched British Asbestos Newsletter, issue no. 45—I pay tribute to Laurie Kazan Allen's tireless and selfless campaigning on the matter—Federal Mogul's newly elected chairman and executive officer, Frank Macher, claims that despite the insolvency
  "Federal Mogul will continue to serve its existing customers, fulfil current contracts and secure new business."
  On 15 October, a corporate press release boasted that Federal Mogul had secured four new contracts, valued at £20 million, from auto manufacturers and suppliers. The chairman reiterated:
  "Federal Mogul is continuing business operations without interruption and with the full support of our major customers."
  On 11 February, there will be a meeting of the creditors of J. W. Roberts and of Turner and Newall to carry that process of administration forward. Only the creditors can attend to stake their claim. The meeting is closed and is aimed at working towards a long-term global solution to all the company's asbestos claims. It is likely that the UK cases will simply be overlooked at this stage and the result will be legal paralysis for many years.
  In a written reply recently, the Economic Secretary stated:
  "Since 1 October, Turner and Newall have been operating under an Administration Order and as a consequence all legal actions against the company have been stayed. They are continuing to trade. We understand the driver for the administration is to crystallise asbestos claims in the US and UK in a consistent and fair manner so the company can arrange for their payments."
  I submit that "crystallise" is an infelicitous choice of word in this case, and it can take years for crystals to form. It can also take years to allocate funds to pay out claims through administration procedures. What will the victims be left with?
  The Economic Secretary's reply continued:
  "The administrators are exploring ways of trying to resolve this problem, and if necessary will seek direction from the courts".—[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 330–31W.]
  But in the Armley cases, we have already had crystal clear direction from the courts. The unequivocal order was, "Pay up now." In other words, the resort to administration looks like a rearguard action of complex corporate gamesmanship to avoid responsibility for paying out legitimate court-won compensation awards. It is not therefore a question of establishing liability, but simply of whether the company has the means to pay.
  782
  Federal Mogul cannot claim that Turner and Newall had no money to pay its compensation debts. If it had remained a UK company, Turner and Newall would without doubt have continued to pay out. Why, we are entitled to ask, was Turner and Newall made insolvent? It was a perfectly viable company in the UK. What information was presented to the judge in arguing the case for administration? Could it be that there is a massive question mark over Turner and Newall's insurance cover? Any lack of insurance cover must be of major concern.
  In the past, there were doubts about insurance cover. I have the minutes of the board meeting of Turner and Newall on 10 February 1977, which spelled out that it recognised it was not covered. The minutes say:
  "When the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act came into force we found ourselves in some difficulty."
  They key question is whether the company has been properly covered since that time.
  As I understand it, in 1996—after the trial—an insurance policy package was agreed with a consortium of European reinsurers to cap Turner and Newall's asbestos liabilities. The company paid for £500 million of cover, which kicked in after it had paid out a certain amount—I think it was some £373 million—from its own funds. This top-up cover was announced after the verdict on the Margereson-Hancock case in Armley. We are entitled to ask what has happened to that fund. What will happen to it now that we are in the administration process?
  At the time, the chairman of Turner and Newall, Sir Colin Hope, said:
  "The proposals are intended to bring to an end the uncertainty surrounding the asbestos issue that has overshadowed the group for so many years. Together with the provision already in the balance sheet we now have over £1 billion of cover—about three times the central estimates of the present value of liabilities."
  Why do my constituents and other victims not now have access to that insurance fund with their claims? Should they not have first claim on that fund? They have gone through the court procedures to get justice. They have legal proof that they are entitled to compensation for negligence, and they ought to receive first call on that insurance money immediately. Where is it? Why cannot it be ring-fenced and made available?
  More recently, Turner and Newall has claimed to be "self-insured", or covered by what I understand is called captive insurance—its own in-house arrangements. According to solicitors, before the administration order on Turner and Newall was approved, the company paid out the asbestos claims itself. The cheques were issued by Turner and Newall, not by an insurance company. That is unusual. In other words, the company's insurance cover is indeed like murky water—far from transparent.
  Furthermore, questions about that insurance cover have now been ruled out of order as commercially confidential. Even under administration, why cannot the insurers be traced, named and contacted by the victims' representatives? This issue is crucial: has Turner and Newall provided proper insurance cover for itself, or not?
  If it has not, why has the company not been investigated for failing to comply with the law? Why is it allowed to sidestep its legal insurance responsibilities? Did it ever apply to Government Departments for exemption from insurance? If it does have insurance, why are payments to those owed compensation now being denied?

  783
  Why should funds set aside to pay out to victims who take the company to court and win compensation be held back now in administration? Surely that is a defiance of the legal process for justice. As it is, lawyers representing victims cannot contact the insurer. Turner and Newall claims that it is self-insured and it is in administration. This is tantamount to an insurance self-protection racket.
  Turner and Newall should have proper cover and should be able to pay. If not, it seems that we are facing devices to reassure investors rather than to protect and compensate victims. No wonder the insurance industry weekly journal—called the Post—is proclaiming in its headlines "Asbestos purse closed". This is not about benevolent funds and donations; it is about justice, and justice that has already been won against the company in the courts. Obviously, the war of attrition goes on; resisting the pay-outs to reassure the funding markets seems to be the priority.
  I wish now to put some specific questions to the Minister of which I have given her notice. At the time Turner and Newall was purchased by Federal Mogul, were any investigations undertaken by Government Departments into the terms of the sale? With regard to insurance, although several solicitors representing asbestos plaintiffs have attempted over the years to see copies of the certificates issued to the company under the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, they have not succeeded. Why is it not possible for claimants' representatives to see the certificates? Why cannot we know about the history of Turner and Newall's employer's liability coverage? Has the Health and Safety Executive over the years been satisfied that Turner and Newall has had insurance that is compliant with legislation? Who were the insurers? What were the dates and nature of the policies? Can the insurance information be put in the Library of the House of Commons so that I can see where my constituents stand?
  Does the arrangement under which a company is self-insured and has a so-called captive insurer comply with the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969? Finally, under the administration order, why cannot insurance funds be ring-fenced so that UK victims of UK companies who have won their cases in court can have first call on it? Is it lawful to bounce compensation cheques when a company is still trading? Is there any way for funds to be released so that claims can be paid out in cases that have been won?
  I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to give detailed, chapter-and-verse answers to all those questions, which serve to highlight the issues. However, I should like her to tell me that her Department is to set up an immediate public inquiry into all the issues arising from the application to put J. W Roberts and Turner and Newall plc into administration in the UK.
  The effect of that action has been to prevent victims from getting justice. A public inquiry is needed to unlock any funds specifically set aside now, as asbestos victims are both vulnerable and totally innocent. Mesothelioma means that they die of the worst form of cancer imaginable. They do not bring that on themselves, and they deserve compensation. Tragically, those victims do not have years to live and cannot afford to wait.
  784
  If a company such as Federal Mogul has found a way of using administration and bankruptcy procedures to ditch its asbestos liabilities and to refuse to pay anything more to victims, that is a scandal that the Government must address. Making the polluters pay obviously means not only that responsibility must be proved, which we have done, and that the moral and legal arguments must be won—we have done that too; it now means taking on the high-level, international corporate gamesmanship that continues the war of attrition against asbestos victims.
  I shall close with words from the heartfelt letter that I received from Mrs. Hancock's daughter. She wrote:
  "The recent announcement that Federal Mogul has filed for Bankruptcy has, as I am sure you will understand, come as a great shock to myself and the rest of June Hancock's family. To call this a scandal is an understatement and I am writing to urge you to take immediate Parliamentary action on behalf of those innocent victims of Armley who have died, or who are suffering, who will die in the future, as a result of exposure to asbestos that Turner and Newall have been legally held responsible for. My mum battled through her last painful years to achieve legal recourse for compensation for those exposed to environmental asbestos … how can it ever be acceptable for a company to ring fence its assets while at the same time using … a convenient loophole for washing its hands of its well known asbestos liabilities??? Federal Mogul are clearly very proud that they are 'continuing to serve its existing customers, fulfil current contracts and secure new business'. What about the human suffering? I know, sadly, too well the pain and grief caused by the deadly disease mesothelioma because I have lost my Mum and Grandma to it … victims cannot be left in the position of not being able to take legal action, is that not a violation of one's Human Rights?
  The situation must be addressed by your Government now, and I would ask you to use your position and influence to bring this local, national and international disgrace to the forefront of the political agenda."
  This is a struggle for a just society that must be won. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to move the whole machinery of Government to see that justice is done as well.
  7.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on securing the debate, and on the way in which he continues to represent his constituents in this most important and serious matter. The Government fully understand the concerns that he raises. Those who suffer from this dreadful condition have my utmost sympathy, as do those who may have come into contact with asbestos in the past and who still live with the uncertainty that they may be affected in the future by its potentially lethal legacy. I fully recognise the anxieties of those affected, and I welcome this opportunity to respond to the issues raised by my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend spoke about Turner and Newall. I can confirm that, on 1 October 2001, partners of the accountancy firm Kroll Buehler Phillips were appointed by the court as administrators of 133 out of 182 of the Federal Mogul UK group of companies, as part of a global rescue plan in parallel with chapter 11 proceedings in the United States of America. The company known as Turner and Newall Ltd. is the largest trading company in this UK group of companies.
  The Federal Mogul group, which I will refer to as the FM group, is an automotive and vehicle parts manufacturer which carries on business from approximately 295

  785
  locations in 53 countries. It is the sole-source provider of one or more critical components for most automobiles produced in the USA and Europe. The business, as my hon. Friend says, is indeed profitable. Global turnover for 2000 was approximately US․6 billion, with 31 per cent. of the total sales made in Europe. The UK group of companies had a turnover in the year to 31 December 2000 of approximately £400 million. It currently employs about 4,500 people.
  I understand that the FM group's involvement in the UK commenced, to a significant extent, with the acquisition of Turner and Newall Ltd. in November 1997. That acquisition greatly increased the FM group's exposure to asbestos-related claims from claimants in both the USA and the UK. It is my understanding that those actual and contingent asbestos-related liabilities are threatening the solvency of the FM group. As of 30 June 2001, the FM group estimated its future total asbestos-related liability at US․1.6 billion.
  The administration order has been made for the purpose of achieving one or more of the following—the survival of the company and the whole or any part of its undertaking as a going concern, the approval of an arrangement or compromise with creditors, and/or better realisation of the company's assets than would be achieved on a winding-up.
  Administration is a collective insolvency procedure involving all creditors and giving all creditors a say. Proposals are put to creditors for their approval in the initial stages. Creditors also have ongoing rights during the course of the administration procedure. They may set up a committee to represent them, for example, and the committee may require the administrator to attend its meetings to give it information.
  The creditors also have the power to apply to the court if they consider that the company's affairs are being managed by the administrator in a manner that is unfair or prejudicial. In this case, the administrators of the UK group consider that it is in the best interests of the creditors that the companies should survive so that they can pay their debts from future income—as I have sketched out, there is clear future income and profit in this case—and that the companies should continue to be managed as a group.
  In consultation with the administrators, the FM group intends to commence discussions in relation to the development of an agreed global plan or reorganisation, designed to be approved by all classes of creditors. It is expected that this plan will provide a mechanism for managing the asbestos liabilities and propose an arrangement for payment or compromise of all claims.
  I am told that the FM group decided to file for chapter 11 protection in the USA because of a growing number of asbestos-related law suits in which the plaintiffs claim to have suffered injury owing to exposure to products containing asbestos. In most cases, the defendants are companies that were acquired by the FM group through merger and acquisition.
  In the USA, those members of the FM group that have the bulk of the asbestos liabilities, including Turner and Newall, are defendants in more than 300,000 pending asbestos-related personal injury claims, as of 30 June last year. Additionally, Federal Mogul Corporation, as the current corporate parent of these entities, is named in certain of these law suits, as are several other companies
  786
  in the FM group. Certain members of the FM group, particularly Turner and Newall, are also defendants in a substantial number of asbestos-related actions in the UK.
  I make these points because I understand that the increasing amount of litigation has been due to a number of factors, including the filing of chapter 11 petitions by numerous other parties alleged to be potentially responsible for the injuries suffered by asbestos plaintiffs; many of the former are co-defendants with the FM group in numerous lawsuits. The resulting stay of litigation against such parties has placed increased financial pressure on the group in the form of higher settlement demands from plaintiffs as well as efforts to force it to cover the contributions of now bankrupt co-defendants in existing settlement agreements.
  As I said, as of 30 June 2001, the FM group estimated its total asbestos-related liability at ․1.6 billion for claims pending and those that can reasonably be expected to be asserted in the future, with ․350 million of such liability payable within the following 12 months. The FM group further estimated that more than ․900 million of that amount would not be covered by insurance.
  The point of going through the detail is to show that, on that basis, it is not difficult to see that the cost of the litigation could overwhelm the FM group. I am told that the magnitude of the litigation left it with no realistic alternative but to seek reorganisation under chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code in the United States and administration under the Insolvency Act 1986 in the United Kingdom.
  I understand my hon. Friend's concern and his arguments about attrition and the history of the case. However, there has been a change and I have set out the circumstances that now face those who are trying to achieve their just compensation.
  The costs faced by the FM group are greater owing to the approach adopted by the US legal system. It allows individuals to receive compensation even though they are not and may never become ill—there is a marked difference between the US and the UK, as here, only those who are ill receive compensation. Furthermore, in the US, the cases of those who show no signs of illness are grouped with those who have been diagnosed and already show signs, in the hope that juries will sympathise with and award compensation to all, which cannot happen in the UK. Also, large punitive damages to punish a company's activity are awarded in the US even though asbestos production stopped in the early 1970s, which does not happen in the UK. Those factors all drain money away from that available to pay people suffering from asbestos-related illnesses, both in the US and the UK.
  I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend is representing many people who are already suffering the effects of the illness.
  Mr. Battle: I appreciate the detail in my hon. Friend's response, but what worries me is that cases won already in Leeds and elsewhere will be swamped by those yet to come in America. Will it be possible for her, perhaps with her officials, to meet the lawyers who represent people who have already won cases, to see if we can find a way through this? Administration can take between two and 11 years and all the people claiming will be dead before they get any further forward.
  Miss Johnson: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the urgency for those affected. Initially, I will be

  787
  happy to meet him and discuss those matters in further detail. He has made a number of points about the nature of administration. The compensation cheques that are already outstanding bounce even though a company can still be trading. When a company goes into administration, all payments to creditors are stopped. That is a feature of the administrative arrangements.
  I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the fact that the administration could take a long time, but we believe that it is in the best interests of all those with outstanding claims for the company to continue to trade, and that a way is found through administration for that to happen.
  I cannot say much about the insurance position, which is extremely complex. My hon. Friend endeavoured to sketch out some of that. The legal specialists are working hard to resolve it. There are a number of possibilities and I am assured that the administrators will make a formal announcement as soon as they can. The Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 made it mandatory for certain firms to take out policies when it came into effect in 1972. I understand that Turner and Newall has assured the administrators that it has always complied with its obligations in that regard.
  788
  The administrators are working hard to establish the full position as regards both employer's and public liability insurance.
  I would like to restate that the Government understand and sympathise with the concerns expressed in the debate about those who are suffering from asbestos-related diseases. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the group is profitable and successful—I believe that we have both said so—and that the interests of claimants will not be served by driving it into liquidation.
  The approach adopted by the FM group seems to us the most sensible in the circumstances, but what is important is that the administrators and those representing the interests of all concerned get on with the job quickly. With that in mind, I have asked my officials in the Department's insolvency service to keep me in close touch with the progress of the case, and in response to the arguments that he has made, I invite my hon. Friend to come and discuss further with me in the Department the aspects to which he wants to draw attention.
  The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Wave and Tidal Energy
[Relevant documents: Seventh Report from the Science and Technology Committee Session 2000–01, HC 291, and the Government's response thereto, HC 377.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. McNulty.]
2.30 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: It is a pleasure to open this afternoon's debate on behalf of what is acknowledged to be one of the brainiest, political and successful Select Committees in the Palace of Westminster—humble as I am. During the last Parliament, the Committee produced 24 reports on subjects such as cancer services, genetically modified organisms, mobile telephones, British Biotech and scientific advice to the Government. It was difficult for us to manoeuvre through those thorny subjects, but the Committee's sterling work has been acknowledged by the professions, the media and the public, who are all grateful that the parliamentary system is seen to be examining
problems of great interest to them.
During this Parliament, the Committee will be inquiring into matters such as the research assessment exercise in higher education, and science education in schools. I am sure that that will be the start of another successful four-year journey, which will add substance to Government debates and policies during that time.
I pay tribute to some Committee members who are no longer with us. Our sterling Chairman, Dr. Michael Clark, is no longer Member for Rayleigh; we often said that he kept us all in order—we could be quite obstreperous at times—and I am sure that he is watching us today from Essex and enjoying his Committee's performance. I pay tribute also to my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones). They are no longer members of the Committee, but they did some great work in preparing our report and played a key role in setting up the inquiry.
I pay tribute to a member of the Committee who is here today, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), although it grieves me somewhat, because it was my hon. Friend who provoked us into making this inquiry. You will find out why I say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when his enthusiasm for and knowledge of the subject are displayed this afternoon.
I thank the many officers of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the witnesses, those who wrote to us, and the staff and expert advisers who helped us. Our expert advisers were Professor Ian Bryden, Professor John Chesshire and Dr. John Hassard. All have contributed to an erudite report.
270WH
Finally, I must thank the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain), who was Minister for Energy and Competitiveness when we conducted our inquiry; he was very supportive of our efforts and appeared before the Committee.
We received 63 written memorandums and held three evidence sessions with six groups of witnesses. We have with us today the Minister for Industry and Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). We look forward to hearing his comments.
Let us get down to it: what is the background for today's debate on our report on wave and tidal energy and the Government's response? In a way, the report takes us back to the 1970s and 1980s, when discussions on energy provision centred almost entirely on nuclear power. The supporters of nuclear power were often eminent scientists, who were fascinated by the technology and its cleanliness, and its buildings with wonderful domes and other features. Its potential for cheap energy production was sold by royalty and others. Indeed, it was claimed at one point that electricity would cost nothing; I remember being told that, as a schoolboy, when Calder Hall opened.
There was an element of that enthusiasm in the notion of forging a new Britain in the "white heat of technology" in the 1960s. The focus on nuclear power in the energy policies of those times had much to do with the commitment of some political parties to rid us of the mining communities and the coal industry. However, quiet voices were arguing even then for green or renewable energy. They criticised the failure to invest in research into alternatives to nuclear power, and highlighted the astronomical sums of money that were needed for nuclear energy and for dealing with the problem—still unsolved—of storing and disposing of nuclear waste. There was talk—it always turned up at the end of speeches—of solar, wind and wave power but they were rarely treated seriously in those days.
Our inquiry into wave and tidal power set out to examine its viability—technological and commercial—and to look at the current level of activity and the part it might play in the Government's renewable energy strategy, and to consider the research and development programme and any environmental consequences. Finally, we investigated how we compare with other nations in this sphere.
We received some clear, positive answers. They included the response from the then Minister for Energy and Competitiveness. There was much solidarity and agreement about the issues. Our report reviews the scientific and technological work in the field, explains how the energy is created and highlights the fact that the oceans and seas—throughout the world and surrounding the UK—are a vast potential source of energy. In paragraph 23 of our summary, hon. Members will read the positive message that was confirmed by the Committee and our academic and industrial advisers, and with which the Government were in substantial agreement.
Recent headlines suggest that we are literally catching the wave, and the Minister has confirmed that renewable energy targets are to double. Not only is the proportion of our electricity generated by renewable sources to reach 10 per cent. by 2010, but there is a loose commitment for it to reach 20 per cent. by 2020. The EU has moved along similar lines with its recent directive

271WH
insisting that sources of electricity should be clearly identifiable. There is talk of further wind turbines and wind farms, and progress in that regard is certainly visible in areas of our coastline—no doubt we shall hear from hon. Members about what is happening in their part of the country.
For example, in East Anglia, both on and offshore wind farms are being developed. I find the wind turbines rather attractive. I should like to nail my colours to the wind mast; I have a lot of time for those wonderful structures. Although I see them when I go up to north Norfolk, I do not hear much about them—however, they are wonderful. I would rather have one of them at the bottom of my garden than a telecommunications mast.
There are three new wind turbines in Norfolk to provide electricity for 3,500 Norfolk homes—representing an investment of £4 million. That electricity production prevents the emission of 9,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is a large contribution to the fight against climate change and global warming.
With the latest technology, there is enough easily accessible offshore wind energy to meet all Europe's electricity needs. Apparently, the US has enough accessible wind energy to satisfy its electricity needs in just three states—North Dakota, Kansas and Texas.
Our inquiry concluded that a revolution is required in planning procedures to facilitate a fundamental change in our energy policy. That is true not only for wave and underwater tidal energy, but also for wind and other renewable energy. It is clear that "one-stop shops" for renewable electricity generation should be a consideration, given the many common problems.
A central problem seems to be the connection to the grid. We cannot really talk about the national grid any longer—any more than we can talk about British Rail. The grid has been privatised. Many different energy suppliers use it in a diversified and fractured market. That creates huge problems when it comes to feeding renewables into the system, and that is addressed in the report. Many renewable energy sites are in remote places; they tend to be fairly small and a long way from the nearest connections, so massive investment is needed to turn the energy market around.
The pivotal question is how such huge restructuring can be facilitated. There is obviously the question of who is going to pay for it but, perhaps even more important, a question about the role that the Government will play—beyond mere finance—in making such a concerted effort possible.
The Government response dodges to a certain extent the question as to their role in solving the problems of fair access to the grid. It is naive to assume that the private sector will do everything. Even if the private sector is made to pay for the necessary investment, a centralised, publicly backed-up co-ordination of private investments will probably be needed. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.
The parallel with the railway system is a real one. That system started off with dispersed, fragmented investment by private companies, but centralised control was needed to turn it into a functioning,
272WH
efficient, national network. The system was nationalised. It is not likely that that will happen to the grid now, but it is obvious that localised, competitive companies will not make huge long-term investments, reflecting a change in energy policy, if they are to receive only indirect benefit.
The Government response to the Select Committee report does not really address that important question and I look forward to a reply to it. It is not enough to assume that the market will sort everything out. The Government may not have to put in all the money, but they will probably have to facilitate the concerted extension of the grid.
The problem is not unique to wave and tidal energy; it also affects wind energy. Wind energy looks likely to be the main supplier of renewable energy to meet the new, higher Government target, because it is already at the application stage rather than that of research and development. Our report recommends an increased influx of money, especially for the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, to create critical mass for wind and tidal energy research and development in the UK.
The grid problem will hamper the further development of wind energy, too. The Government response does not discuss wind energy and the parallel problems, even though the technical and political problems are similar and would be best tackled jointly. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to some of those issues in today's debate.
We all agree, I think, that a change in energy policy is needed, despite or because of George W. Bush's disastrous rejection of the Kyoto agreement. Renewables must play an important role in tackling the causes of global climate change. Many forms of renewable energy are available, but wave and tidal energy seem to have moved up the agenda considerably. The Committee looks forward to the Government energy review, which is due shortly, and would like to know when it will be ready, and what follow-up there will be. Will there be a White Paper? A debate is raging behind the scenes, but it must move to the front. We look forward to real debate on energy provision in this country. I am sure that the House will play a big part in that debate.
Other hon. Members will argue more fully some of the points that I have made, and will probably make others. Some might say that we need an energy tsar a champion to drive renewables. I am in favour of tsars—tsars to the right of them, tsars to the left of them, and a tsarina if we can get one—but we certainly need a champion to drive the process forward. Big issues are at stake.
I am glad that our report fits with the Government's decision to embark on a wave energy programme to develop the technologies further. We can build on engineering skills and experience developed during 50 years of offshore gas and oil exploitation. The Department of Trade and Industry has chipped in with £1.7 million. The Government reply states that, since we reported, they have granted funding—or are in the process of granting it--to three wave energy projects and two tidal current schemes. I compliment them on that. The funding is worth more than £3.2 million.

273WH
We warmly welcome the wonderful new project on Islay. The Committee was disappointed not to have the chance to visit it. The hotel was booked, the malt whiskies were lined up for our arrival, but I am afraid that a general election got in the way, so we did not go. I apologise if I mispronounced "Islay". We are also grateful for the establishment of the national offshore wave and tidal test centre, and we look forward to hearing how all the units are developing.
A good start has been made and the Committee is pleased to have played a part in that, but we think that more needs to be done to develop the potential of the wave and tidal energy industry. I hope that the Minister will provide more detail about how the Government have begun to move matters forward, and about their plans.
The questions I have raised are urgent because Britain is uniquely placed to get ahead in this promising new technology and to succeed in a competitive international energy market. There is a huge potential export and domestic market, which could do much for this country's industry. The questions are also urgent because we cannot waste any time in our response to global climate change. Let us seize the time. I promise not to ask a question on this subject at Prime Minister's Question Time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We are attempting to sort out the problem of the noise, which is coming from somewhere beneath us. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting through his speech unfazed by that disturbance, which I hope can be terminated as soon as possible. In the meantime, however, I apologise to hon. Members.
2.44 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I warmly welcome the Committee's excellent report, which was presented to the House on 30 April 2001. We have had to wait a long time for this debate, but I am sure that hon. Members' contributions will show how worth while that wait has been.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), the Committee Chairman. I hope that he is as successful in his bid for more wind farms in his constituency as he was yesterday in his bid for more hospital cash.
I welcome the presence of the Minister for Industry and Energy, which at least guarantees that the debate will be fully reported in the West Highland Free Press, in which I first came across him many years ago. That is not a flippant comment. Certain things did not happen in the west highlands and the islands 20 or 30 years ago, but had they done so the development and transmission of electricity might have been very different.
I should state unequivocally at the start that the Conservative party is strongly in favour of devoting much more effort to developing renewable, carbon-free energy sources. It is a happy coincidence that the
274WH
headline of today's leader in the London Evening Standard reads "Conservatives rejoin planet earth". Indeed, we have.
The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): I welcome the hon. Gentleman back.
Mr. Key: I am grateful to the Minister. In a few years' time, we shall have exchanged roles, and the issue before us will be my happy responsibility.
The Chairman of the Select Committee rightly introduced the issue by giving us a little history lesson. He mentioned Calder Hall, which opened in 1957. I was 12 years old then, and I remember it well. I still have a piece of paper on which I wrote that Her Majesty the Queen was opening Calder Hall at that moment—it was something that caught the imagination of young people. At the time, I was also paddling round the burns of west Scotland building dams. My ambition was to be a civil engineer and to build hydro-electric schemes in Scotland and, indeed, elsewhere. However, that did not happen, which is why I am here.
Using waves as a method of electricity generation received a lot of research funding in the 1970s, just after the first oil crisis. A feasibility study on four proposals for wave-power generating devices reported in 1978. The Severn barrage committee was set up to explore the possibility of extracting power from the tides in the Severn estuary. Those schemes were shelved because of unfavourable economic conditions at the time.
Mr. David Drew: As a Severnside Member, I should mention that they were shelved because of great opposition to some of the environmental implications and to the development costs. It was implied that it would come at the cost of an awful lot of housing development.
Mr. Key: Absolutely. I remember it well, and I shall return to that. However, much of that housing development has taken place irrespective of the presence of the barrage.
Some of the most consistently energetic waves in the world are found on the British and Irish coastlines. That is important because consistency is one of the problems that we face. It therefore makes good sense to exploit that resource, and I warmly welcome recommendation 1 of the report. I assure hon. Members that I shall not go through all the recommendations.
Wave energy converters extract wave energy and convert it into a useful form, usually through mechanical motion or fluid pressure. There is a lot of mystery about that and, unless they do a lot of homework, many enthusiastic amateurs, including me, find the process a complete mystery. There is much hand-wringing among professional engineers about such misunderstandings on the part of the public.
It is significant that only a handful of tidal power schemes operate anywhere in the world. The biggest is in the Rance estuary between Dinard and St. Malo in France, where I was only last week. Its barrage of 240 MW of turbines was completed as long ago as 1966, as a pilot scheme for a prospective larger barrage across the bay of Mont St. Michel. That was shelved, but the Rance scheme has operated reliably for more than

275WH
20 years. The French have decided not to pursue the larger scheme because they have invested heavily in carbon-free generation by nuclear power instead.
I remember the Bay of Fundy project in 1984 well. It is only 20 MW, which is small by any standards. Nevertheless, it was an important project, and I recall its glamour at the time. The concentration in Norway is on small applications on remote islands. The contrast between the large barrage schemes and the small, Norwegian-style plants immediately illustrates the huge diversity of such schemes. Toftestallen was an important wave-power plant until it was swept away by the sea, which illustrates another problem with the technology.
In Australia, Energetech has worked on schemes and already achieved a power purchase agreement with local utilities. In the United States, floating wave-energy devices have been tested on a large scale in the eastern Atlantic. Closer to home in Scotland, the oscillating water column in Islay has caught people's imagination. The project was carried out by a team from Queen's university, Belfast, in 1991 and many lessons were learned from it. The technology in Scotland could generate considerable amounts of energy—about 14 GW from waves and 7.5 GW from tidal streams. By and large, the amount of energy that we could produce from such sources is put at a modest 20 per cent. of consumption, according to Les Duckers in his readable chapter of the Open university's book, "Renewable Energy—Power for a Sustainable Future", which was published in 1998.
Greenpeace is much more ambitious, as one can see on its website, which states:
"The energy that could be utilised from the wave resource around the Scottish coastline has been estimated to exceed the total electricity demand for the UK three times over".
Policy makers must face the problem of the hugely varying views of what could be achieved. The Minister must be wise to such hugely divergent views already, and must find them difficult. Greenpeace's optimism is important. Its evidence to the Select Committee was interesting, and I am sure that Lord Melchett is briefing the clients of Burson-Marsteller on the subject as we speak.
In the UK, three projects have already been awarded contracts under the third Scottish renewables order. I hope that we shall hear from Scottish Members about that, as it is significant. It was the first renewables order open to wave power. However, one relevant problem is that the prices paid for the electricity from those projects are commercially confidential. I can understand why that is so, but it is tricky to evaluate projects without the numbers. That should not put the Government off, however, as they are comparable with predicted electricity costs from the first offshore wind farms.
The first of those projects—the Limpet device—is now operating. It is a 500 kW oscillating wave column deployed by Wavegen on Islay, as we have heard. We must also consider the Pelamis scheme, a 750 kW floating device that Ocean Power Delivery of Edinburgh is developing. It plans to deploy the device this year, and is working on research and development. The third Scottish renewables obligation contract is for a Swedish wave-power design. All those are hugely important, as we are at the start of a new era.
276WH
Late last year, I asked the Minister or the Secretary of State to identify the sites of tidal stream generation. I was delighted to receive an answer after 30 October that gave about 44 sites around the coast. The fact that the potential generation sites are a long way from where there is the greatest consumption comes as no surprise to any of us. Some identified sites can only be described as difficult and dangerous; they include the Mull of Kintyre, Corryvreckan, Loch Linnhe-Corran and, in Cornwall, Cape Cornwall, Land's End and the Lizard. Portland Bill is another case in point. Perhaps the most dangerous of all are the Casquets and the Channel Islands. However, it is a significant step that we at least know where we might start looking for that tidal power.
I turn to some problems that we shall face in pursuing that energy source. First, although the lack of emissions is a great benefit, sustainability is undoubtedly a real problem for the electricity market. I was not aware of the situation until I saw some of the new operators, such as TXU in London, carrying on their business. Some of us have an old-fashioned idea about electricity markets, even post-privatisation. The way in which such companies operate with a very fine time threshold is remarkable, but it causes them huge problems, as the wind does not blow consistently and the waves do not wave consistently. Nevertheless, we should welcome the amount of thought that goes into the use of very small time frames. As we see from the sharpest of the energy supply and generation companies, such projects are commercially viable.
There are huge advantages to wave and tidal power, including security of supply, reduction of gas emissions and of regional and local pollution, sustainable development, industrial competitiveness and so on. Therefore, we should welcome wave, wind and water energy. There are few technological barriers to development that could not be solved by transferring expertise, as the Committee suggests in recommendation 4. However, a great deal more research must be done.
I am grateful to Richard Wilson, who, in briefing me on the subject, said that the greatest challenge facing the new and exciting technology of renewables was that of human resources. If renewable energy production is to grow, so must the renewable industry labour force. In this country, we have a small skills base relating to renewable energy, and do not have the human capital resources to fuel the expansion. We must have that if renewable energy is to become a reality. In the short term, renewable energy employers will be obliged to search abroad and in parallel markets for the necessary skill sets.
Mr. Drew: It is sad that the greatest technological expertise in this country is in the nuclear industry, whether we love it or hate it. There are few things that one can tell nuclear engineers about how to generate electricity, but the interchange between nuclear and renewables is almost nil. Would the hon. Gentleman commend binding those industries together to get renewables under way so that they can generate electricity properly?
Mr. KeyThe hon. Gentleman is right. The skills base in the nuclear industry is large and, as the Committee identified, many of those skills are transferable.

277WH
However, we still have a substantial shortage. Businesses must be more adept at importing human capital to handle that, just as they would import any other necessary inputs. We need a huge policy change to develop a broader skills base for the renewable energy industry.
A while ago, I asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about that matter in a parliamentary question, which was transferred to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. I asked what plans the Government had to promote increased access to training and development in disciplines related to renewable energy. I wish that the DTI had answered the question, because its answer would have been relevant. However, I was told by the Minister for Lifelong Learning:
"Higher education institutions are autonomous organisations which design and determine their own courses, in response to market forces. A substantial number of higher education institutions are offering a range of courses in renewable energy-related disciplines in the current academic year. The Government are keen to promote an interest in science and technology generally. Science Year…will raise the profile of science and increase pupil engagement with science".—[Official Report, 22 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 35W.]
That is all very worthy, but it did not answer the question. It stimulated me to ask many questions about science teachers, or rather the lack of science teachers in our schools, which is crucially relevant. It also, however, leads me to suggest that the Government should not simply rely on market forces. Indeed, nor should education institutions, and I hope that the Government will not just take the line that it is up to education institutions to respond to market forces. I hope that in light of this report, the higher education sector will seek to stimulate courses and research in alternative energy. That will be a challenge.
Another technical aspect that must be addressed, which was dealt with very thoroughly in recommendation 3, concerns the transmission of electricity and the national grid system. About 9 per cent. of power is lost in transmission from the source to the consumer. The problem is being dealt with by the national grid, and the Chairman of the Committee referred to it. I have often wondered—I do not know the answer to this—whether the UK's highly efficient energy markets, which are way ahead of any other European energy market, are riding on the back of the old national grid. I hope that the monopoly that now controls that, the National Grid Company, is fully renewing the grid and extending it. That will be hugely important, as I shall show in a moment.
The problem of transmission is very important. People get confused about the different levels of transmission of energy. First, there are very local embedded supplies of energy, perhaps the most local being a shipping buoy generating its own electricity. Solar energy now drives lights for traffic signs on roads. Certain farms have been generating their own electricity for some time, particularly on the Falkland Islands, where I have seen such arrangements. The transmission costs of energy in such cases are negligible.
Also, much energy is generated at home level. I recall, 40 years ago, in a Perthshire village called Comrie, seeing a house that had had a hydro-electric scheme since the end of the 19th century. Not so far from home,
278WH
in the Woodford valley outside Salisbury, Heal house had its own hydro plant; but that is very unusual. There are many local networks for villages, towns and valleys, for which the electricity transmission costs are very low.
The problems start when one moves beyond that and considers the national grid. Transmission issues start to clash with environmental problems, notably those of landscape or aesthetic problems. The latest figures given to me by the National Grid Company show that the cost of an overground line is roughly £500,000 a kilometre, whereas an underground line costs £10 million a kilometre. North Yorkshire has shown us how controversial such power lines can be, although I think that they would be less so if the gull wing design of pylon, which I happen to favour, was chosen—but that is a matter of personal aesthetics.
The cost of transmission methods is very important. Internationally, there is another kind of system—I am thinking particularly of the Norway interconnector. In spring 2000, the European Commission funded a feasibility study on that interconnector, which is designed to be 730 km long, carrying 1,320 MW. Implementing such an interconnector would be very expensive, and I shall come to the west coast interconnector in a while.
Dr. Brian Iddon: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of it, but after our report was produced, National Grid wrote to the Committee—the letter appears in an appendix to the Government's response—making it clear that the devices that we are discussing would be unlikely to connect to the national grid but would connect to the local supply networks instead.
Mr. Key: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. In appendix 2 of the Government's response, National Grid said:
"We are concerned that the text of the report causes unwarranted confusion between the national Grid's high voltage network for England and Wales and the other electricity networks to which wave and tide projects are far more likely to connect."
Scotland, which is already a net exporter of energy, is to be a litmus test. It exports to the rest of the UK 25 per cent. of the electricity that it generates. The Scottish Executive renewable energy networks study said:
"It is anticipated that the addition of renewable generation located in Scotland could increase the power transfers from Scotland to England and may necessitate an upgrade of the existing Anglo-Scottish interconnector."
We must ensure that much more research is done on that, because it will be very important. I cannot understand why the Scottish National party is opposed to exporting surplus energy from Scotland. It seems to me to be a good thing to export.
Mr. Michael Weir: The Scottish National party is not opposed to the export of energy; it is opposed to the generation of energy by nuclear reactors.
Mr. Key: That obfuscates the problem and does not answer the question, but we shall return to that.
Mr. Wilson: May I de-obfuscate? Scotland gets more than 50 per cent. of its electricity from nuclear power, so if that 50 per cent. is taken away, there will not be much left to export.
Mr. Key: There lies the challenge to the Minister in his energy review. What will he do about its replacement?
Mr. David Chidgey: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the point. I should be grateful if he would keep to the subject of the debate.
Mr. Key: May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Chidgey? Now I shall have to mind my Ps and Qs, because this is a subject that you know something about.
The problem of planning is a huge issue. We know that there are objections to wind farms, not only to onshore wind farms—perhaps not in Norfolk from what we have heard, but certainly in Cornwall and elsewhere—but to offshore wind farms. Generally, that is on not aesthetic but practical grounds. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force object to some wind farms for various obvious reasons. It would not be good to have a wind farm offshore at Warton in Lancashire, near the main runway, as is proposed.
For a long time, there have also been planning objections to barrages. Those are addressed by the Government in a document published only a few weeks ago by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on major infrastructure projects. In conjunction with the Select Committee report, it is interesting to read in that document how the Government propose to tackle the issue. It is also interesting to see how new parliamentary procedures for processing major infrastructure projects will work, sidestepping the current system. Various criteria are laid down, under which projects will qualify, but as I understand it, the Secretary of State will first decide whether a project fits the criteria for parliamentary approval and then a national policy statement will be developed, following public consultation. The third step will be for the public to make their views known before Parliament debates the issues—a sort of pre-legislative scrutiny, which I hope will also be available online. The fourth step would be the parliamentary process itself. The fifth step would be a public inquiry on the detailed aspects of the scheme, on which people would express their views in the normal way. The final step would be the Secretary of State's decision.
One might ask what are the criteria and why they would affect renewable energy. Annexe C of the Government paper states that
"'major infrastructure project' means the carrying out of development to provide any of the following".
The criteria in section 2 are: (a) thermal power stations; (b) nuclear power stations;
"(c) Construction of overhead electric power lines with a voltage of 220 kV or more and a length of more than 15km"—
that is not a very big line; and
"(d) Installations for the production of energy from renewable sources of more than 150MW electricity".
Again, that is not very big.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with the subject in an erudite way. Will he concede that, in relation to wave and tidal power, virtually all those projects will be beyond the jurisdiction of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and that the real problem is with the Crown Estate, which is the barrier to rapid development of the sea floor and investment in renewables?
Mr. Key: I certainly concur about the Crown Estate; I was going to come to that. However, I do not believe
280WH
that the hon. Gentleman is right; if he will let me finish my point about the document he will see why. Section 5 deals with dams and other installations; section 10 deals with the extraction of petroleum and natural gas; section 11(a) deals with pipelines for the transport of gas, oil or chemicals; section 11(b) with terminals or extensions to existing terminals, compressor stations or gas storage facilities designed to improve gas transmission and distribution; and section 14—this is where Parliament must be extremely careful—with major development by or on behalf of the Crown judged to be of national significance. In other words, it deals with anything that the Secretary of State thinks is a good idea. We might find some clashes when it comes to transmission. Although the planning for a modest tidal flow system off Portland Bill may not intrude significantly, one must still get the electricity ashore in a major tourist area—one of high landscape quality. That challenge will be repeated around our shores. We shall have to watch carefully.
I have yet to make up my mind, as does the Conservative party, on the merits of the proposed new planning system and, in particular, the new parliamentary procedures. We shall listen with great interest to the discussion nationally as well as in Parliament. It could be significant for alternative energy sources, even wave and tidal power, when it comes to the transmission of electricity.
The DTI is looking at the viability of placing an undersea interconnector down the west coast. I was excited when I heard that the Minister was doing that. It could be the key to unlocking a great deal of potential down the west coast. I look forward to the report being published; I understand that it is with the Minister. I hope that it will be published in the near future so that we can all see what it says. If the undersea interconnector is financially impractical, that could have a severe negative impact on the development of renewable energy.
The ATLAS project is a major initiative aimed at establishing an information base on behalf of Directorate-General XVII of the European Commission. It has published papers on wave energy devices and discussed the environmental impact. That is referred to in recommendation 14 of the Select Committee's report, which states:
"The adverse environmental impact of wave and tidal energy devices is minimal and far less than that of nearly any other source of energy, but further research is required to establish the effect of real installations".
Here I join the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who mentioned the Crown Estate Commissioners. They are largely involved with wind farms and the regulations are complex. They also have responsibility for what happens to the floor of the sea, particularly in estuary areas. One problem is that hydrodynamic devices can impact on the flow patterns of sediment, which could result in the need for very sensitive site selection.
Such devices have other environmental impacts. Of course, there are navigational hazards, but we should not underestimate the impact on inshore fishing in, for example, the Bristol channel, and certainly the Irish sea. I have received many representations from Fleetwood inshore fishermen, who are concerned about wind farms off Barrow-in-Furness. Wave energy devices, in

281WH
particular, could also have an impact, but so could tidal flow devices such as those off Lynmouth, in Devon. Moreover, we should consider the visual impact.
Broadly speaking, however, this is a most exciting development, and I have no doubt that there will be a big increase in such activity. I share the Minister's view that Britain has been technically advanced in this area for many years, but in the past 20 years we appear to have lost a lot of that advantage to foreign competitors, notably the Danes. I very much hope that we can regain it. It is true that wind energy technology has been developed on the Isle of Wight, for example, and there have been projects for manufacturing plants on the Mull of Kintyre, but I hope that we will seize the opportunity to develop wave and tidal power equipment. As well as providing an environmental benefit through carbon-free energy generation, such developments are important because they will generate new jobs in traditional technologies, as well as the higher technology to which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred. Such technologies can also be transferred from nuclear energy, which constitutes a great source of supply and strength in engineering.
I agree with the Select Committee that the export market has enormous potential. I should remind the Chamber that the Institution of Mechanical Engineers has been at the forefront of educating the public about such matters. In general terms, anything on this planet that moves needs a mechanical engineer at some point. I salute the enthusiasm and vision of the institution, which has enthused successive generations of children, including me, about the ways in which the application of science can benefit mankind. Today's developments are just another chapter in that story, from Brunel onwards.
I shall end with a corny quote, as I could think of nothing better in considering the way forward. As Shakespeare put it so much better than the rest of us:
"There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune".
3.18 pm
Dr. Desmond Turner: This debate is particularly timely, anticipating as it does the publication of the report of the performance and innovation unit on the future of UK energy supplies. Now is the time to look at the prospective place of wave energy and tidal energy on the spectrum of energy supply.
In answer to a point made by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I want to make it clear that the report under discussion specifically excludes tidal barrages, which introduce a completely different set of problems. It is a huge irony that one of the most important criteria considered by the PIU is the security of energy supply, because it is difficult to think of a more secure energy source than wave or tide. It is true that wave is somewhat variable, according to weather conditions, but an Atlantic swell sufficient to generate some power is always running, and tidal streams are wholly predictable, varying in speed only with the lunar cycle. The tides will be with us for as long as the solar system exists.
Both sources are completely immune from outside interference or market variation, and they have no price tag. Both sources are absolutely clean and free of
282WH
emissions. It is unlikely that any other prospective energy source will emerge that is as truly renewable and sustainable as wave or tide power.
That is why, 18 months ago, we thought it important to assess the current state of development and exploitation of those resources and to undertake the report. The total size of the resource is enormous. As the hon. Member for Salisbury noted, there is a wide range of predictions. However, whichever estimate one subscribes to, it can be said with full confidence that the UK is in the fortunate geographical position of having almost the best wave resources and certainly the best tidal stream resources of any country in the world. That is a good starting point.
In 1999, the DTI's energy technology support unit estimated that the energy that was easily and practically accessible was 50 TWh per year from offshore wave power and 36 TWh per year from tidal power—and that from only the 10 most promising sites. Even on extremely conservative estimates, more than a quarter of the UK's total energy consumption of 330 TWh per year is available and exploitable. In fact, I am inclined to err towards the Greenpeace estimate and predict that there is sufficient exploitable energy resource to supply our total energy consumption requirements.
Another important aspect of energy provision is a regular baseline supply. The prime argument of the nuclear lobby is that nothing can supplant nuclear reactors in supplying steady, predictable baseline load. We received evidence from energy generators that they could see few problems for electricity companies in integrating both wave and tidal energy supplies into the grid owing to the reliability and predictability of their output. That certainly applies to tidal power because, apart from the short interval of slack water between tides, there is available power for 24 hours at every site. Not only that, there will eventually be constant supplies due to tidal variations—as long as sites are scattered along the coast. Tidal power is uniquely capable of supplying the baseline load that the nuclear industry claims as its prerogative.
The marine environment is harsh and challenging. However, in the UK we start from a position of advantage, because we have decades of experience in offshore oil exploration and production. We have the expertise and technology base to deal with the problem. We have an enormous transferable skills set and an enormous and readily available work force. We concluded in our report that there were no major technological barriers to the effective deployment of wave or tidal energy devices that cannot be dealt with by transferring existing knowledge within the UK. It seems strange that such an attractive resource has not been tapped before, but perhaps it is not that strange if one considers the history.
As has been mentioned, a UK Government research and development programme was started in 1974 as a response to the oil crisis. Most of us can remember Salter's nodding ducks, and it was gratifying to see Professor Salter back before the Committee as one of the witnesses because he has survived the political vicissitudes of research and development support. That programme led to a trial device that operated successfully for 10 years, but in 1982 the work was terminated because it would never—allegedly—have been commercially viable. Figures may be subject to

283WH
manipulation, and I suggest that a greater factor was pressure from the nuclear energy lobby for the construction of more nuclear power stations, which is exactly what happened.
Another big mistake at the time of commissioning the original wave energy programme was that it was conceived as replicating large power-generating plants. Now we can see the absurdity of thinking that a 2,000 MW power-generation plant could be plonked into the sea. That thinking led to tidal barrages because only they, if implemented on a large scale at a location such as the Severn or Morecambe bay, could produce that amount of power in one installation. However, the picture becomes different if one examines smaller units, as we do with wind energy generation. Happily, in 1999 wave energy research and development started again because the Department of Trade and Industry realised that a major mistake had been made in the early 1980s by stopping research and development.
Denmark's achievements with wind power began in 1982. Its technological development of wind turbines has reached a state of commercial viability, and in the process it has gained an industry that employs about 15,000 people, which, given Denmark's small population, is significant. It is the world market leader in the export of wind turbines and it is responsible for producing about 90 per cent. of the wind turbines that are currently installed throughout the world.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my hon. Friend agree that one important ingredient in Denmark's success was its minimisation of damage to the environment? In particular, cables were buried underground so as not to have a tissue of pylons and voltage cables, which led to wider acceptability of wind power in Danish society than would have been the case if it had had a criss-crossing network destroying the landscape. We should learn from that example.
Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention with which I agree. That is one of many lessons that we can learn from Denmark's development of wind power technology.
What position would we have been in if instead of terminating wave power research and development in 1982 we had invested more in it? If we had continued and invested more in it, we might now have as proud an industry in wave power as the Danes have in wind power.
Mr. Wilson: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said about the short-sightedness of the decision that was taken then. It is also worth recording that the same thing happened with wind power. We had a technological lead in wind power and threw it away.
Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for emphasising the point.
We face a different set of imperatives from those of 20 years ago. The prime drivers now, in addition to the need for energy supply, must be the response to environmental change and climate change, and the need for sustainability. The report makes an overwhelming
284WH
case for putting the maximum energy and financial resources into the development and rapid implementation of wave and tidal power to meet the challenges that we face in the next 50 years and beyond.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Queen's university in my constituency has analysed past delays and I pay tribute to its work over the years. There were upsets in the early days, but it has gone ahead. What obstacles are now holding back development that would increase employment opportunities, bring other people into the market and enable us to export those facilities?
Dr. Turner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I would say that the obstacles are none. If we took the same determined approach that the Danes took to wind power and applied it to wave and tide power, there is no reason why we should not replicate the success that the Danes have achieved with wind-generated power.
I think we can safely say that no energy source befits this country so well as wave and tide, uniquely because of our geography. Luckily, despite Maggie, we still have a lead in wave technology. We are still just at the front and we have a unique skills and technology base to apply to the problem.
Wave, tide and wind energy go together because they are true sustainables and can be used in a national context to contribute to the grid. Photovoltaic energy is also truly sustainable but is probably a non-starter as a contributor to the grid. I want to make a comparison with other sources, because it is strikingly obvious to me that wind and tidal power are outstanding candidates.
Photovoltaics could make a contribution, but the cost is currently high. Photovoltaic tiles on a roof would cost a bomb and would not make a commercially viable contribution to large-scale power generation. Not only that, we do not have the best source of solar energy in the world and at night it is turned off, so there are definite physical limits to what can be expected from solar power and photovoltaics.
Biomass is also in the frame and at the moment it is receiving more support than wave and tide power. That is questionable, so perhaps the Minister will comment on that. Biomass is less technologically challenging than other renewable options, although we should qualify the word "renewable" in respect of biomass because it has drawbacks. For example, its economics are uncertain. I am not aware of any reliable, published figures on the economics of electricity generation by biomass. Unresolved issues of environmental impact and potential pollution exist, and any application in generating plants of a large scale would raise a storm of planning issues. The same can be said for waste incineration. At the moment, municipal waste incineration is also counted as part of renewables, which I find highly questionable.
Both options are described as CO2, neutral and that is rather simplistic because they involve rapid CO2 emission—far more rapid than the speed at which CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere to produce the materials that are being burnt. To describe them as CO2 neutral is therefore putting it strongly.
In respect of municipal waste, the part of the waste stream that will be incinerated is also the part that is most amenable to recycling—newsprint is one example.

285WH
Incineration therefore becomes a counter-productive approach in environmental terms. The preliminary document from the PIU refers to the need for new energy crop technologies to be developed, which underlines the fact that biomass technology lags behind wave and tidal paths and, even when developed, it cannot guarantee non-CO2 emitting energy production in the way that wave and tide can. If any hon. Member had the possibility of a large incinerator being sited in or near their constituency, they would know exactly what I mean as regards public response.
The nuclear lobby has been highly active. It is pressing for a new chain of reactors to replace the ageing Magnox stock. Experience tells us that any cost estimates—[Interruption.]
Mr. Drew: It is the nuclear lobby.
Dr. Turner: I apologise, Mr. Chidgey. I think that that phone call was from my daughter—she always chooses the right time—[Interruption.]
Dr. Gibson: Switch it off.
Dr. Turner: I am trying to. My humble apologies.
Bitter experience tells us that any cost estimates from the nuclear lobby should be taken with tonnes of salt, as should its assessments of whether its technology would work and be safe. As history shows, we can believe almost nothing that the nuclear lobby tells us; it has left a legacy for many generations to come. In the paper this morning, I noticed comments—I forget exactly from whom they came—about the threat of Sellafield. It said that if anyone detonated a big bomb there, a vast area of Britain would be made uninhabitable for 100 years. Safety considerations are therefore overwhelming.
Wind power remains the only truly sustainable source and, in its current state of development, it represents a wonderful example of what can be achieved through a determined, single-minded effort, and of the enormous benefits that can accrue. After 15 years, it contributes 13 per cent. of Denmark's power needs and has created a magnificent industry. However, its exploitation in the United Kingdom has been mainly limited by planning resistance, which has been considerable. Its best opportunity for exploitation lies in offshore installations.
There is a further point to be made in comparing wind with tide. The biggest practical wind installations currently generate 2 MW with a single turbine. Although the machine is rather elegant, it is very big. The blades have a 60 m diameter and they stand on a mast about 50 m high. That can never be inconspicuous. Such machines are elegant, but inconspicuous they are not. By contrast, water turbines generate 2 MW from a 15 m diameter set of blades, completely immersed in the water. Nothing can be seen above the water but a sort of pylon, which would look like and be about the same size as a buoy.
In terms of visual impact, tidal power starts with an enormous advantage and in terms of development costs it is promising. When wind power started out, in about 1982, the generating costs were extremely high. In today's prices they were about 15p per kWh. Since then, those costs have come down progressively through
286WH
technological development, exploitation and economies of scale. They have now just about gained the upper reaches of commercial viability.
At a comparably immature stage of development, the generating costs of wave and tidal power are already at or around 5p per kWh. Development and large-scale exploration will inevitably bring those costs down to less than 2p an hour, which puts them fairly and squarely within the cost range of present electricity generation from fossil fuels.
The fossil fuel costs, even if one wanted to continue in that direction for other reasons, would not be sustainable at that level, because they depend on almost artificially cheap coal imports and on gas supply contracts that will not stay at their current artificially cheap level. Those costs are bound to rise in the future, and with the development and large-scale application of wave and tide power, we could find that, in addition to all its other merits, it is the cheapest electricity source.
What, then, should be the mix of power sources for the future? The option of replacing nuclear capacity should be ruled out for all time; not only because of the safety and environmental problems and the dodgy economics, but because if we entered into a new nuclear programme, the massive capital investment involved would swallow up the capacity of the market to invest in newer technologies. We would run the risk of satisfying the nuclear lobby by saving perhaps 10,000 jobs in a dying 20th-century industry at the expense of generating, say, 50,000 jobs in a new, 21st-century industry with a sustainable future.
We should look to a wholly non-carbon, sustainable spectrum of energy sources, on which wind, wave and tide should take the main place. That desirable impact level would not happen of its own accord. As the Danes did with wind power, the UK Government would have to will the means to make it happen rather than standing by and waiting for the market with a little development capital. At the moment, only £5 million is on offer. In the context, that is a drop in the ocean.
A short-term option that is not necessarily desirable in the longer term will always attract the market. I was grateful to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Salisbury, who clearly agreed with that point. We cannot simply rely on the market to solve problems, especially future energy problems.
Mr. Drew: I speak from the experience of a visit to Denmark a year ago by the parliamentary renewables and sustainable energy group. One interesting aspect of it was the different approach to raising capital there. Copenhagen's wind generation is paid for in the form of a co-operative. The people of Copenhagen own many of the wind generators. It should be remembered that, in addition to the market or the state, mutual solutions can be advanced.
Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend. I, too, took part in the PRASEG visit, and saw that other features also helped the exploitation of wind power. We visited farms where farmers had wind turbines on their land in exchange for taking a cut of the proceeds. Everyone

287WH
benefited. There are more ways to skin a cat than those we normally think about. We must be reasonably free-thinking about it.
Dr. Gibson: What about animal welfare?
Dr. Turner: Perhaps that was an unfortunate analogy.
The difficulty of grid connections has been mentioned. As we say in the report, the Government would need to intervene to help in the extension and modernisation of the grid to meet the problems. The downsides of privatisation have been mentioned, and that is one. Another difficulty faced by companies with demonstrator machines has been the lack of a suitable test site with available connection to the grid. That has meant that companies have had to look to other countries for sites, such as Greenland and Portugal, which is extremely unfortunate. If they have to continue doing so, the industry could move abroad. I am glad that the Government are moving to implement our recommendation to help to provide a test site.
Mr. Key: I would welcome the hon. Gentleman's view on the Norwegian interconnector. I am not asking a trick question. It might be possible to import substantial quantities of electricity from Norway generated by wind, wave or hydro-electric power via the interconnector. Might that be an even more economic answer to our country's problem of energy resources?
Dr. Turner: That would not necessarily be the best answer, although it might be a short-term one. Our country would be far better served by generating its own sources offshore and being self-reliant. In that way, we would also maximise the industrial potential that goes with energy-generating technologies.
We stand on the threshold of exciting changes in energy production for the future. If we make the right choices and back them vigorously—I am convinced that wave and tide are two of the key choices—we can forge not only a sustainable future for the UK in clean energy, but a massive new industry with enormous export potential and the capacity to contribute towards reducing UK and world CO2 emissions. That is the ultimate conclusion of our report, and I am happy that the Government acknowledged it in their response. What we now need is serious action from the Government. If they give a clear lead, the country could, for quite a modest input of Government money, achieve massive returns.
3.49 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: We have been privileged to hear three well-informed and well-researched speeches. I am not sure whether I can maintain the standard, but I welcome the debate. It is important for the House and the country. I welcome the report, too, and the introduction that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) gave it. It makes some timely points, which I hope can be incorporated in the thinking of the performance and innovation unit and in the Government's response via the energy review.
288WH
It would be remiss of me not to welcome also the Minister for Industry and Energy. I note the reference in the report and in the remarks of the hon. Member for Norwich, North to the possibility of appointing an energy tsar. I hope that the Minister will not mind my saying that while I do not know whether we need such a tsar, we need an Energy Minister who lasts longer than a year. The Minister is the fourth Energy Minister in four years.
As we know—it has already been mentioned—the energy policy-making function in government is by no means in the hands of one Minister, or even one Department. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and apparently the Cabinet Office are all involved. Such fragmentation is not conducive to a coherent energy policy, whoever the Government.
The underlying reason that the report has been brought before the House is a gathering awareness of the significance of climate change and the damage that it does to our national and international environment—it is in many ways life-threatening and it is certainly threatening to society—and of the resulting need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and, therefore, to change the way we use energy. The Liberal Democrats are strongly committed to the development of a sustainable, long-term renewable energy policy that can link wealth creation and growth to environmental protection. Those objectives do not have to be in conflict.
Such aims mean that we must examine a wide range of renewable options, and some have already been outlined. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) ran through a list: solar, wind, biomass, wave and tidal—I do not think that he mentioned geothermal. There are many options available for exploitation here and in neighbouring countries.
We need to take care, in considering this subject, not to fall into the trap that the hon. Gentleman to an extent fell into of treating alternative renewable sources as being in competition. We are in an evolutionary process, in which some resources are available and well developed, at market price levels, so that they should be used and exploited now, while others still need work, but will provide opportunities in the long term. We shall need increasing amounts of renewable energy as fossil fuel runs out and nuclear power drops out of use. We do not need to be combative or competitive in our claims for different renewable technologies.
Two years ago, I published a small booklet on the subject of energy policy. Its title, "Energy—Clean and Green to 2050", encapsulates the key issues for a United Kingdom energy policy. It should be clean in its immediate effects, green in its use of resources and long term. The year 2050 is a long way away, but not in energy policy terms. The design life of the majority of plant that is built now is expected to be more than 25 years and, in many cases, 50 years. If we are to have a sustainable and renewable energy policy by 2050, we must take decisions now.
The argument that I have deployed is that we must consider the medium and long terms. The first stage is to ascertain how we ensure that carbon dioxide emissions do not rise as nuclear power drops out of use. It is

289WH
therefore important that a first generation of renewable energy technologies comes into use at market rates, develops and delivers to the energy industry. The Government's horizon currently appears to stop at 2010, although they have wound it forward a little in recent weeks, and the hon. Member for Norwich, North mentioned a loose target for 2020.
We should, however, establish a much longer-term target. It need not be radical or hugely ambitious, as long as it projects far enough forward. If we added just 1 per cent. to our renewable energy stock year by year beyond 2010, 50 per cent. of generation would come from renewables by 2050. Incidentally, that rate of change in sources of generation is slower than the rates of change in sources of electricity generation between 1900 and 1950 and between 1950 and 2000. Some say that we cannot achieve such an aim between 2002 and 2050 because it would require too great a rate of change and an excessive degree of technological development. Those people should consider what has happened to the generation, distribution and use of electricity over the past 100 years. What is being proposed is very modest.
One reason why we need a more coherent and co-ordinated energy policy is that we are talking about not only generation, but the use of energy. I have not yet heard the word "conservation" in the debate. There is tremendous scope for the more efficient use of energy and the conservation of resources, which would be more than sufficient to neutralise the effect of the growth in the use of energy outside the transport sector. I hope, therefore, that the debate will be about not only the Select Committee's report or the viability of wave and tidal power, but the much wider issue of how we develop a renewable and sustainable energy industry.
The interesting point is that we can trigger most of the necessary changes comparatively simply, while still relying on market forces. I am afraid that some of us are not fully reconstructed and not completely wedded to the idea that market forces can deliver everything. However, there is no doubt that they must play a significant part in the energy industry, which is inevitably an international industry. To a large extent, financing and investment for new facilities and conservation must come from private sources, which need a return on their investment.
Later, I want to hear what the Minister has to say about the introduction of the renewables obligation and about what stage we have reached. That measure has, albeit haltingly, put in place an increasing incentive for the private sector to invest in renewables.
Mr. Wilson: May I clarify that the renewables obligation will be introduced on 1 April?
Mr. Stunell: I thank the Minister for that. The last date that I heard was 3 October 2001, so things are slipping a bit, but I am pleased that he can give us an assurance that the proposals will come into effect.
A desirable outcome could be achieved by placing an escalator on the renewables obligation. If the obligation requires 10 per cent. of electricity to be purchased from renewable sources by 2010, we should aim for 11 per cent. in 2011, 12 per cent. in 2012 and so on, so that the obligation gives investors the certainty that a market will exist for their product and that the drive continues towards renewables.
290WH
That brings me to some of the issues in the report, as there is a difference between what it recommends and what the Government's response says is acceptable. The writers of the report suggest that it would be a good idea to have a banded renewables obligation. In other words, some technologies should be given a preferential rate or a requirement should be made for a preferential purchasing regime for some technologies as against others. The Government say that they do not believe that that is the right way forward, for reasons that they adduce in their response.
Broadly speaking, I agree with the Government's response, in that a banded renewables obligation would present serious difficulties. In the past, Governments have had a bad record in picking winning technologies. The introduction of banding presupposes a capacity by legislators to guess correctly which technology will be the one that delivers for Britain. Despite the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, it is wise for us to keep available a mixed economy of renewable sources. If we chose only one or two technologies in the renewables field in which to invest, we might make the same mistake as was made in the 1950s and 1960s, when we put everything on the nuclear horse.
A better way of regarding the matter is to think of the evolutionary nature of technologies, rather than their competitive nature. Again, there is a difference between the report and the Government's response on that matter. The report says that "the majority" of the £100 million promised for renewable technologies should be put into wave and tidal power. The Government's response lists all the things that they are doing in that regard—as I would if I were the Minister—giving a price tag at the bottom of £2.3 million. That is a lot less than the majority of £100 million.
If we are to consider technologies from an evolutionary standpoint, we must recognise that some technologies, such as onshore and offshore wind power, are at about market level and can respond favourably to a regime dictated by the renewables obligation. Other technologies, of which wave and tidal are examples, are quite a long way—a very long way, one might say—from being at market level. In those cases, twiddling with the renewables obligation is unlikely to produce effective results in the short or medium term. However, investing significant amounts of money to develop prototypes and pilot projects would be worth while. I accept that they would not themselves bring us electricity at a marketable price, but they would allow the industry to develop and expand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) drew my attention to the problems of one of his constituents. That person is an investor in a wave and tidal company, but the company has found that there is a significant gap between what it can achieve at the bench, in the research laboratory, on the computer or in theoretical micro-projects and what is needed to develop a sufficiently robust technology to begin to move towards marketability. There is a gap between the funding available for pure research and that necessary to develop marketable models. The Government's response points in the right direction, and they clearly have good intentions, but they suggest £2.3 million against the Committee's majority wish for £100 million. I hope that the Minister will reconsider that response and that he will give significantly more money to developing prototype and pilot projects.

291WH
The third issue where there appears to be a difference—not necessarily between the Committee and the Government but between the Committee and the national grid—is location. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) dwelt on the subject at some length, but I do not want to cover the same ground. The figures given in the Committee's report are based on the national grid's general presentation and other presentations that it has made. The national grid was built at a time when the culture of the country was to have a small number of very large electricity generating plants, either nuclear or coal, and latterly oil. Those plants were built relatively close to the fossil fuel sources that would feed them, and also as close as possible to the heavy industry that would use the electricity.
During the past 25 years, the consumption of electricity has been diffused and more widely dispersed. The most significant consumption has moved to the south-east and we have lost most of our heavy engineering and manufacturing base, with its single-point sources of consumption. The national grid is now pointing in the wrong direction. Electricity is being generated in the north of England and in Scotland, yet most of it is being consumed in the south-east of England, where we have seen the most rapid expansion of population, of service industries and of commerce.
The next generation, the replacement of our existing stock of generating capacity, needs to comprise smaller, more dispersed units. It would be a mistake to do as the nuclear industry argues, because most of its sites are large and on the coast, well away from consumption areas, and any risk—or objection—would be reduced by 50 per cent. as a result, because there would be no population on the seaward side. It is a mistake to think that the solution to our problem would be to put more large plants on existing sites in the north and on the coast. Those are the wrong places. We need dispersed generation capacity, and if possible it needs to be closer to where it is used.
It is not a trivial problem. It is not a question only of whether the grid is needed. As much as 8 per cent. of our generating capacity is lost between the place of production and generation and the consumption point. Shortening lines of communication would be an important way of conserving energy and achieving a reduction in the need to generate it.
One of the earliest uses of water power was only a few hundred yards from this place on London bridge, where every arch had a water mill in it. There was tidal flow because the river flowed up and down—power from tide was available practically 24 hours a day at London bridge until about 1820.
That brings me to the Government's energy review and the performance and innovation unit report. I hope that that will produce an outcome that will balance the United Kingdom's intended direction on policy across a wide range of renewables, which will be seen as the way of replacing, in the first generation of replacement, the nuclear industry as existing plant comes to the end of its safe life and, in the second stage, fossil fuel as that, increasingly, runs out and its availability for the UK declines.
292WH
I have some questions for the Minister. Can he confirm that the loose target for 2020, mentioned by the hon. Member for Norwich, North, will be firmed up? I hope that he will agree that the proportion of renewables used should increase percentage point by percentage point, year after year beyond that. That is the way to make sure that investors have the certainty of a market. I hope that the Minister will say that the financial support package will be increased from the figure that is in his response—is it 2.3 per cent. or £2.3 million, or perhaps the £5 million mentioned by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown?—to rather closer to the figure recommended by the Committee, which was in excess of £50 million. I hope also that he will confirm that, as the other side of that financial support, he will use the renewables obligation in an innovative way to create a market for all renewables, and that he can encourage us by saying that export opportunities are strongly borne in mind as the Department of Trade and Industry develops its policies.
One of my difficulties over the past four years has been in understanding why the DTI, with the responsibilities that it has for energy, has always appeared to regard renewables as a drag on the market—something that it has to pay for because it is expected to—rather than as the foundation stone of a major export and wealth-creating industry. The example of the Danes has been mentioned. They did not capture the entire international wind turbine market because they had a great technological lead. The companies that lead their production and marketing are former agricultural machinery firms—not high-tech firms—that took on the commitment of the Danish Government for a steady, continuous growth in the requirement for renewable energy. They founded a solid domestic market, and managed to reduce their prices and production so that they could make a great deal of money internationally.
Attention has been drawn more than once to the stark contrast between the Danish situation and that in the UK. I was pleased to hear of the strong commitment of the hon. Member for Salisbury to renewable energy in the future, although he rather glossed over what happened in 1994, when the whole thing was chopped off at the roots. My point is that any energy policy needs to be not bipartisan but tripartisan. There must be objectives that are taken for granted by all the political parties and that are sustained decade after decade.
We have been able to do that with some of our major public services, with occasional wobbles and differences of emphasis but a common understanding that some things are so important that they have to be delivered come what may. I hope that we can make that what happens with energy policy.
We have an excellent report; it is challenging and innovative. I look to the Government to build on their encouraging first response and to put the UK on course for a sustainable, profitable and efficient energy industry.
Mr. David Chidgey: Order. Many hon. Members wish to speak. I ask those whom I call to limit their speeches to about eight minutes so that as many hon. Members as possible may contribute to the debate.
4.14 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: I am pleased to be able to make a short contribution to this timely debate. We have reached a milestone in the development of energy policies through the ages. However, some important decisions must be taken in the next few weeks and months, and I would not like to be in the position of the Minister and the Secretary of State, because they are being lobbied hard by those who represent all sides in the energy debate. I trust that my right hon. and hon. Friends will make the right decisions.
Unlike the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), who has sponsored the Select Committee's consideration of this topic, I am not in favour of baseline supply coming from a single source. We have had that in the past. We had a dash for nuclear energy, as has been mentioned. Then, under the Conservative Government, we had the dash for gas. I am in favour of diversity of supply, and I shall try to explain why. I also believe that there is a place for nuclear energy, although perhaps not on the scale that we envisaged in the past.
There has been mention of a tsar. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) that the only tsar with whom I have ever worked closely met the same end as the Russian tsars. The reason why he met that end was that he did not have the power of the Russian tsars. In fact, he had no power whatever. I am not in favour of tsars; I am in favour of leaving power with the Minister and the Secretary of State.
I declare an interest as a chemist. I was a chemist, and possibly still am, and I have never been in favour of burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. Not only is it an inefficient way of developing energy, because most of the energy goes up the chimney in the form of heat, but the precautionary principle has told us recently that we must reduce emissions of gases such as carbon dioxide. However, the more important reason why I object to the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil is that, as a chemist, I know that they are extremely valuable sources of the basic building blocks of all the more complex chemicals that we make from them, including pharmaceuticals and dye stuffs. These days, every advanced chemical that we manufacture starts from oil—it used to be from coal—so it makes sense to me to leave those resources in the ground for as long as possible. They should be trickled out to the widest possible benefit of future generations, at least until we develop alternative chemical economies.
The Government's target is for 10 per cent. of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2010. I want to emphasise that, for every 1 per cent. in market share from renewables, there is a 2 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. That is one of the reasons why I fully support the report. I am also in favour of security of supply, which is why I favour diversity of supply. Several times in the previous century, we saw what happened when oil supplies were disrupted, and I want us to be free from circumstances under which we are told what to do by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. That would eventually affect the price of oil, so there are wider reasons for developing diversity of supply.
As treasurer of the all-party group on warm homes, I cannot help but underline what the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has already said: the best
294WH
energy policy is not to use the energy in the first place. I am pleased that the Government are making massive advances in energy-efficiency policy.
There is a third reason why we, as an advanced country, should develop renewables—not only for our benefit but to transfer those renewable and cleaner technologies to the third world. Nobody has mentioned the third world. If everybody in the whole world used the same amount of energy that people in this Chamber use every day, we would be in a right mess. That is the most essential reason for developing renewable and cleaner energy technologies. We have the scientists and engineers with the skills to do that. We can then transfer those technologies to the rapidly developing countries, which have a right to use as much energy as we do.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown said, the wind, the sun and the natural movement of any large quantity of water present huge untapped resources of energy. In the past, we have lost out to Denmark on wind power, and we should not lose out on wave and tidal developments.
The development of the North sea oil and gas industry generated much work for our engineering industry at the very moment when the shipbuilding yards were closing down. We lost huge quantities of shipbuilding capacity to countries such as Japan, which subsidised it, and third-world countries using cheap labour. The developments in the North sea were the salvation of many of those shipyards, especially the small and medium-sized companies that relied on engineering.
We all know what is happening in the North sea at the moment: output is declining. The development of alternative engineering businesses is therefore vital. Wave and tidal power may be the next diversification for those engineers, who have already been saved once, but will soon need to be saved again. We have one of the longest coastlines of any country of a comparable size, and consequently one of the best development possibilities for wave and tidal power anywhere in the world.
I shall leave it to the Minister to recount what the Government have promised in the development of wave and tidal power. However, I am pleased that the Government response to our report, which was published on 21 November, considers five sites for the development of a national test centre, with the conclusion that a marine energy test centre should be located at Stromness on Orkney. That is a significant announcement, and I am pleased that it was made.
I turn to the challenging demands of any development at sea. This country, among others, has overcome the challenges of the sea. We can tether large oil and gas platforms to the sea bed and transport their products to the shore. We can resist the corrosion of the sea on the metal from which they are constructed. We can resist marine fouling—by barnacles, for example—and restrict, or even eliminate, damage from the most severe weather conditions that can be found anywhere in the world. We do not want to lose those skills, because they can be transported to the wave and tidal development that we are calling for. One problem is that anti-fouling paints have become very unpopular because they usually contain tributyl tin, which damages the marine environment. Research on alternatives for tributyl tin is

295WH
well under way. I am pleased to say that Leigh's Paints in Bolton is one of the largest manufacturers of marine paints in this country.
The west coast is obviously the best place to develop wind and tidal power, because the prevailing winds come in off the Atlantic. I was pleased to be at the conference where the Minister announced the west coast interconnector, which the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned. That could be a significant development. I urge the Minister to get the two sides of the industry—the wind side and the wave and tidal side—to work together on the interconnector if it proves to be feasible in the long run.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown ably described the peaks and troughs of seasonal and daily demand, the baseline that supports most of our electricity supply, and how renewables can tap into that.
At least one company, Seapower Ltd., is already preparing for the hydrogen economy through generation of electricity from wave and tidal devices, and through electrolysis of sea water. Electrolysis produces hydrogen and oxygen, and the hydrogen is then stored in large sea containers and transported to shore. I am convinced that one day soon, the hydrogen economy will begin to take off.
The message about planning consents, which hon. Members have already mentioned, came over loud and clear in evidence from witnesses. If planning constraints prevent us from getting these developments off the ground, it is likely that such companies will go elsewhere—witnesses mentioned Portugal, for example—to develop and test their mechanisms.
In the end, electricity generation is driven by the sale price. Of course, liberalisation of the UK's energy market has affected the sale price: it has gone down, much to the annoyance of environmentalists, who would have liked it to rise. As the price has gone down, people have used it more and more, without thinking about the environmental consequences. Significantly, Dr. James Martin, generation director of Scottish and Southern Energy plc, which generates 48 per cent. of its supply from hydro, told the Committee on 21 March last year that he was studying the decommissioning of hydro in part because of the price drop, but also because the company had reached a difficult stage at which much old plant—it had been in place for 30, 40 or 50 years—was about to be replaced.
At a current estimated cost of 4p to 8p per kWh, wave and tidal energy is significantly more costly than electricity from fossil fuel plants, which costs about 2p to 3p per kWh. The price of wave and tidal energy has been halved in the past 20 years, however, and as test rigs come on-stream it will undoubtedly be more than halved again. What we should really be considering is pounds per tonne of carbon dioxide avoided, which is an important cost component that has not been referred to this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove has already discussed banding in detail, so I shall not rehearse the argument, except to say that I used to be in favour of it. As treasurer of the warm homes group, I have listened to the arguments concerning banding. At one time, I
296WH
was fairly convinced that we had to have it, but once I heard the Government's arguments I came down on their side. The best method is to grant aid to those technologies that are furthest away from development. Otherwise, as the Government said in their response to our report, we might send the wrong signal and imply that some renewable technologies are more important than others. I do not want to do that.
Mr. McWalter: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Committee has sent out such a signal by suggesting that wave and tidal power is a potential British industry of the future? That will not happen, however, unless the right decisions are taken now, so it is necessary for the Committee to underwrite a preference for such technologies.
Dr. Iddon: I fully support the report and the development of wave and tidal power to its maximum capacity. I do not believe, however, that it might prove an important contributor to baseline supply, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown seemed to suggest.
In conclusion, I hope that today's debate and the Science and Technology Committee's report on wave and tidal technology will give added stimulus to development of this important renewable resource.
4.29 pm
Mr. Michael Weir: I welcome the report, which makes a good case for wave and tidal power without minimising the difficulties that it faces. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) mentioned the cost of nuclear energy on its introduction, but I should remind him that the same was said of hydro-electricity. When hydro-electricity was first introduced in Scotland, it was said that it would be too cheap to be worth metering. However, I still get my quarterly bill from Scottish Hydro-Electric, which is to become Scottish and Southern Energy plc.
The report makes it clear that there is considerable potential for wave and tidal power within the UK, not least in Scotland. It is, however, unclear how much energy can be produced by that method. Although we have heard a great deal about Greenpeace's estimates, until we have a large-scale working model we cannot tell how much energy would be produced. That model must come through Government investment, which would be an investment in all our futures.
I draw hon. Members' attention to recommendations 2 and 16, which discuss previous funding. Recommendation 16 states:
"The current level of public spending on wave and tidal energy research is insufficient to give the technology the impetus it needs to develop fully."
Therein lies the rub: wave and tidal energy is only a potential, and more research and money is required before it can be realised, which is a crucial point.
In an intervention on the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the Minister mentioned the level of nuclear energy generated in Scotland. Although we may quibble about the figures, the important point is that we have a window of opportunity fully to invest in renewables to meet future energy needs.

297WH
We are told that the energy review conducted by the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit will report shortly, but I am sure that the Minister will not accept my invitation to tell us this afternoon what its report will say. Initial leaks suggested that it would lean towards nuclear energy, but later leaks suggested other alternatives.
We in Scotland know that existing nuclear power stations are due to be decommissioned in the near future, with the newest, Torness, due to be decommissioned within the next 20 years. We have a window of opportunity to get new and renewable sources of energy up and running to meet the gap that might appear once these stations are decommissioned.
The Minister will not be surprised to learn that the Scottish National party is resolutely opposed to nuclear power and believes, as I explained to the hon. Member for Salisbury, that existing power stations should be decommissioned at the end of their technological lifespan, and that no new power stations should be built. We are examining how we can get renewables into place within that period.
I mentioned earlier that Government investment will be required, and the Minister pointed out that £100 million is invested in renewables, but that pales into insignificance compared with past investment in the nuclear industry and the current quotes for £85 billion to deal with existing nuclear waste, let alone waste that might be produced by new stations. This would not be the first time that Government money has been put into the energy sector—never forget that the national grid was originally constructed with such money. Paragraph 31 of the report states:
"Previous Governments ensured the very costly connection to facilities such as the Dounreay nuclear fast reactor."
Renewable energy concerns not only our future energy needs, but the problem of CO2 emissions and the planet's future. If this is not a suitable case for the investment of Government money, it is difficult to imagine what is.
We have heard about the national grid's problems, and it is a problem in that most wave and tidal energy is in the north and west of Scotland, while the grid is on the other side of the country. I was taken by Professor Salter's comment in his evidence that it is depressing how inconveniently the Scottish grid has been arranged. It is as though it was designed by someone who did not like nuclear power. That problem must be addressed because none of us believes that the privatised electricity companies will invest sufficient sums to enable the grid to be extended to include energy from wind and wave power. That needs a kick start from the Government and if Government funds are not provided, I suspect that wave and tidal energy will never get far from the drawing board. The most cynical among us might begin to suspect that the meeting at the Randolph hotel, to which Professor Salter referred, might have been reconvened. The Government must provide investment.
The report recognises the huge potential for investment in existing industries in the United Kingdom, particularly Scotland. Shipbuilders could construct the machines, and oil-related industries could diversify into wave and tide power. That will become increasingly important in the north-east of Scotland and parts of my constituency as the exploration phase of oil development runs down.
298WH
Recommendation 9 states the position succinctly:
"The enormous potential export market for wave and tidal energy devices easily justifies the public investment now needed to ensure success."
The Government must provide that investment, because the economic viability of the technology for other areas is considerable.
Another potential environmental benefit of wave and tidal power is that it could help to combat coastal erosion. Reference to that is made in the report and specifically in the evidence from RV Power Company Ltd. and Ian Henderson, but is not pursued in detail. I understand that Professor Salter referred elsewhere to the potential benefits. Although the report discusses the matter in connection with east England, there are serious problems with coastal erosion in other areas, including Angus in eastern Scotland, which have required a considerable amount of money. Investment in wave and tidal power would provide benefits for the supply of energy, the environment and the reduction of CO2.
I wanted to refer to other matters, but time is short, so I shall wrestle with the hon. Member for Salisbury for the worst quote of the afternoon by reminding Members that time and tide wait for no man. If we do not grasp the opportunity now, we may end up being beached.
4.38 pm
Mr. David Drew: I am aware of the time, Mr. Chidgey, and will try to remain within my eight minutes because I know that other Members want to speak. I do not have a doctorate and I am aware that I am mixing with members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, so my comments will be prosaic rather than erudite—[Interruption.] I have my own views on genetic modification, which we will not enter into.
I cannot resist the digs at the nuclear industry. I make no apology for saying that I am an advocate of nuclear energy—partly because it is the largest employer in my constituency—and the technological interface that is offered by the industry. As I tried to say to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), we do not make enough of that understanding. The issue is not nuclear versus renewables; we should be moving in both directions to get rid of fossil fuels as early as possible. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), because the tragedy is that if we try to pretend that it is one or the other, there will be a slower rundown in fossil fuels than the world should permit us.
Apart from his views on nuclear power, the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) were spot on. I agree that we need to consider wave and tidal energy, not tidal barrages. The debate over the Severn barrage has shown how difficult it is to convince consumers that they should move towards new technologies. In all other respects, especially given my interest in fuel poverty, I would welcome the fact that energy prices are lower, in real terms, than they have ever been before, but it makes it more difficult to make the necessary changes because people always think that there is a reason to hold fire. The movement that has taken place has not been an

299WH
unalloyed success. It has done the opposite of what many of us wanted, in that it has made the move to renewables more difficult.
I shall dwell for a moment on what the major report on the Severn barrier told us. I challenge anyone to say that they have read it. It was hardly environmentally friendly, because many trees must have been taken down in its preparation. The project failed because it did not address how to convince people that environmental technologies were right and necessary. The hon. Member for Salisbury gave two instances of why that consciousness was not delivered. Although I do not pretend to have expertise in wave and tidal energy, the experience of wind energy tells us that what is seemingly God-given and must therefore be capable of being tapped into is not always popular. We must accept that not everything in this area will achieve consensus or even, in some instances, majority support. That does not mean that it is wrong for us to explore and to carry out certain things, because the options are much worse.
I do not mind being associated with the nuclear industry. It has many faults, of which lack of transparency is the greatest. It rues the day when it locked itself into a bunker mentality, and I hope that it realises that it must come out of it. If we can harness that technological expertise, we can begin to crack some of the problems in the renewables industry, not all of which are locked into specific parts of it. For example, some relate to how we can link technology to business acumen. I do not pretend that the nuclear industry has been very successful in its ability to come up with the economic answers per se. However, there are some who understand how to meet market conditions and how technology can be advanced without looking entirely in that direction. We ignore that at our peril.
Energy has an obsession with the big answer. That was a mistake in terms of nuclear power. We must look for smaller-scale nuclear solutions, not necessarily large ones. Some hon. Members may have heard "In Our Time" on the radio this morning, which was about nuclear physics. The dream is fusion. Although it is almost 40 years away, it would be silly to throw away the chance to achieve that dream—not for ourselves, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East said, but to deliver energy for the next generation and the third world.
We must look for options, which is why I commend different solutions to embedded generation. These would involve looking not simply to the market or the state, but to co-operative solutions. I say that as a cooperator. We can convince the general public, but not necessarily through the market; that they must feel that they have a stake in the development of the industry.
The report is a good one, and it is crucial that it plays its part in the energy review and the PIU investigation. I hope—and it is not impossible—that we can fill some of the technological lacunae, such as group connections. If we can harness expertise across the energy industry, we can make use of wave and tidal power and the other renewables, and not a day too soon.
4.45 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the report from what should henceforth be known simply as the Select
300WH
Committee for clever people. I do not know whether it is necessary to have a PhD to be a member of the Committee, but it is clearly of considerable assistance.
The debate has been immensely enjoyable, and I have enjoyed it even more than I expected. It has covered renewable energy, which has long been a personal and political interest of mine. It has also featured several references to Islay, where I was born and brought up and where my family still live. [ Interruption.] I shall come to that in a minute. It will also allow me a brief canter on one of my favourite hobby horses—bashing the Crown Estate Commission. One could not ask more from a debate than that.
The report and, in particular, the recommendation for a national marine energy test centre, were welcome in my constituency. As the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said, the centre will be situated in Stromness. Regrettably, the members of the Committee failed to get to Islay, but they might want to visit Orkney during this Session to ascertain what progress has been made. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) referred repeatedly to investment, and credit must be given to Highlands and Islands Enterprise and to the Scottish Executive for funding the centre. As it moves into its later stages, I hope that it will find the same sympathetic response in Whitehall that it has so far in Edinburgh and Inverness.
The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who introduced the debate, referred to recognising the potential for energy from tidal and wave power, although anyone who has tried to go round the Mull of Oa or through Corryvreckan in a boat would know about that—it is there for us all to see. I hope that some imagination will be used in developing that form of renewable energy. It has long been said in Shetland that Bluemull sound and Yell sound, two of the tidal races referred to by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), have immense potential. In Shetland, there is also significant, although not unqualified enthusiasm for fixed links—bridges between the different islands. If we are to have fixed links between Yell and Unst, it is eminently sensible that they should incorporate turbines for generation. They could use the extraordinary power in that tidal stream.
To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Angus about investment and that made by the hon. Member for Salisbury about the west coast interconnector, I gently remind the Minister that I wrote to him about those issues on 14 November last year. According to my files, however, I do not appear to have had a reply. I made the point that, although I welcomed the idea of a west coast interconnector, I did not see why even at the stage of a feasibility study it did not go further north than appeared to be proposed. The hon. Member for Salisbury referred to a list of 44 tidal stream sites, which includes no fewer than 12 in the northern isles and a few others along the north coast of Caithness. At the least, the feasibility of taking the interconnector round to Orkney and on to Shetland demands investigation. I ask the Minister to deal with that. As the hon. Member for Angus said, investment in infrastructure such as the west-coast interconnector would be a litmus test if we were to be serious about the development of wave and tidal generation.

301WH
Will the Minister tell us what discussions his Department has had with the Crown Estate Commissioners about the laying of a cable down the west coast? From bitter constituency experience, I know that they are jealous of their right to charge rent for use of the sea bed for laying of cables. It seems arrant nonsense for Government money to be invested in infrastructure on one hand to encourage the generation of electricity from wave and tidal power, and taken out with the other in rent to the Crown Estate. If there have been no discussions, as I suspect might be the case, I commend to the Minister that they start sooner rather than later.
The northern isles view the debate with some anxiety. We have been in the vanguard of research and development before, especially with the wind turbines on Burgher hill in Orkney. The Minister may be familiar with them. The project was developed to the point at which it was opened for commercial exploitation, only for the Conservative Government to fail to put in the investment necessary to make it commercial. The excellent work done there was lost, especially to Denmark, which invested further and saw commercial potential realised. We and the Western isles are carrying out the research, and it would be nothing short of sinful if the potential, once realised, was not fully developed.
4.53 pm
Mr. Calum MacDonald: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words. I start by congratulating the Committee on producing a superb report. For non-scientists such as me, it is enormously useful. From talking to non-governmental organisations during the past couple of months, I know that they see it as a significant step forward in the debate. I want to touch on how to maximise the benefits of the technology for the entire country, and for the local communities in which the power will be generated.
One of the most striking figures in the report is that Denmark, because of its investment strategy over time—several hon. Members have referred to it—controls 75 per cent. of a global market worth £3.5 billion a year. That tells us that the wind-power industry is not small or frivolous, but of enormous economic importance. We can see that investment strategy in Scotland, in that the manufacturing facility for wind turbines in Kintyre is being developed by Vesta, a Danish company. In my constituency, where AMEC and British Energy are thinking of developing a large wind farm, the Danish and German company Nordex is interested in developing the turbine manufacturing side of the project.
Those examples show the potential of the proper sort of Government policy, intervention and support in the industry for bringing large-scale economic benefit to the country as a whole. I would encourage the Government to think in terms not only of national targets for development of wave and tidal and offshore wind energy, but to keep an eye on what other countries are doing throughout the world. We should make it our target, given our national resources in wind and tidal energy, to emulate what the Danes have done with wind power. We should be controlling, 10 years from now, 75 per cent. of the global market in wave and tidal energy. I would encourage the Government to think not only in
302WH
terms of what we will need in the UK, but to watch what happens throughout the world. They should watch what our competitors are doing and ensure that our policy moves on, if necessary, to match that, so that we develop a lead in the years to come.
The proposals by AMEC and British Energy in my constituency have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), and several other Members have spoken about what is now called the west-coast interconnector. I remember the evening that the idea of the interconnector emerged. It was at a seminar organised by the Minister in my constituency, where people from the private sector, from Government and from the Scottish Executive were all present. The first evening of the seminar took place at a nice restaurant overlooking the cliffs of Uig, called the Bonaventure, and the idea of the west coast interconnector was born in those congenial circumstances.
It is amazing that what seemed to be a wild aspiration back in July has so quickly taken on the flesh of a practical proposal, so much so that AMEC and British Energy are now looking to invest £700 million to realise a project to run cable down the west coast of Scotland to harness the massive resources there and plug them into the real market, in the south of England. To run that cable over that distance is a very expensive proposition, which will require about £400 million of investment. That is why AMEC is proposing a wind farm of such a scale in my constituency. It needs the cash flow that that will provide to fund the interconnector. If that wind farm happens, as I hope it will, it will be the biggest in the world.
One of the benefits and prime attractions of the proposal, from my point of view, is that it will not only contribute to the country's environmental targets and develop our industrial infrastructure in a significant way, but it will also bring genuine, tangible and substantial benefits to the local communities where the development would be located. The final question that I would like to raise with the Minister is that of how we can maximise that local benefit.
Examining the development of wind power, and I suspect that the same will be true of wave and tidal power, one finds that it does not take many people to run a wind farm—it is not manpower intensive. However, to install such a farm requires many people and creates many construction jobs. To build turbines also requires many people. To manage an export industry in the way in which the Danes do it employs many people. The proposed biggest wind farm in the world, a 600 MW farm with some 300 turbines, will need only 30 people to run and maintain it. The benefit to the local community is not really in job creation; that has to be sought elsewhere.
Wind farms—the same would be true of other renewable energy developments in my constituency—will produce a rich rental stream for developers, thanks largely to Government policy. This development will be located on land that belongs to the local community. It is owned by a body called the Stornaway trust, the board of which is elected every three years by every elector in the district. The rental stream that comes to the landlord in this instance will be recycled into social and economic development in the local community and will indirectly create further jobs. The benefits are real. How can we ensure that similar benefits will be enjoyed as we go on

303WH
to develop wave and tidal energy? The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) mentioned the role that the Crown Estate Commissioners play. That will be critical. We have a model on the west coast of Scotland in which Crown Estate Commissioners are very much involved in the development of a key local industry— fish farming—which gives them a very rich rental stream. Sadly, very little of that rental stream is recycled into the local communities, which is a source of considerable grievance there.
That is a just about tolerable situation in terms of fish farming, because—
Mr. David Chidgey (in the Chair): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is drifting slightly away from the topic of the debate.
Mr. MacDonald: I just want to make the point that fish farming in the Crown Estate is tolerable in that instance because it directly creates thousands of jobs. Wind farms and wave power will not give that direct benefit to local communities, therefore we must achieve that in other ways. That is why we must consider, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland urged, the role of the Crown Estate Commissioners, and how the rental stream that they will draw upon can be recycled into local communities. In many instances—although not necessarily all the way round the coast of Britain—developments will take place in the middle of communities that are suffering depopulation, that exist on the margins with relatively low incomes and that are losing their young people due to a lack of job opportunities.
If we develop a massive new industry adjacent to declining and depopulated communities, we shall not have succeeded in the wider public policy objectives that we should be setting ourselves. I urge that that should be a major consideration in the Government's forward planning.
5.3 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter: I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister will not have much time to reply, so I shall try to be brief. I am concerned, as a member of the Committee, that during the debate there has been a drift away from what it has been recommending. I hope to try to put it back on course.
The last three speakers from outlying areas of Scotland have understood the drift of the report, but I am worried about the remarks of my Committee colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). He suggested that wave and tidal power will continue to be Cinderella suppliers, although he did not use that term, in that he did not expect those sources of power to provide baseline supply.
We cannot do other than say that our aim is to tap a huge energy source in sufficient quantities to make up for the carbon-bearing fuels that we currently burn and the nuclear fuels that none of us wishes to replace by building more nuclear power stations. We are considering a long-term strategy to create an industry that does not use fossil or nuclear fuels. That is the
304WH
general drift of the Committee's report. It worries me that anyone can suggest that the report is not targeted at the baseline supply; it must be. However, having said that, we must accept that many of the previous actions of the Department of Trade and Industry are not consistent with that.
There has been an imaginative response to many of the Committee's recommendations, accompanied by generous funding, but only for research projects. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) was right when he said that this is not only about research projects. We need large-scale prototypes. I do not know whether we need one large-scale prototype the size of this Room, which incorporates methods of harnessing both latitudinal and longitudinal motions in the sea, or whether we need one model for each method, but if we do not have large-scale models, we will not know whether we can begin to think about generating electricity in the volumes that are necessary to implement the Committee's vision in the report. Large-scale models require us to think about not just a Salter duck, but a very large-scale Salter duck, which even Professor Salter says might or might not work. We are talking about very large-scale ventures, venture capital on a very large scale, and uncertain outcomes, albeit with extremely strong and rich potential.
That was the Committee's vision, which the Department has not so far accepted. That was made clear by the Minister's remarks about our renewables obligation. At present, if an electricity supplier needs a renewable component in the fuels that are burned to generate electricity, he will choose the most economic form of that fuel and chisel it in at whatever percentage level is required to meet that obligation. New technology, in its infancy, generates electricity that is much more expensive than that. As wind power reduces in price, it provides tremendous opportunities for the Danes, but we believe that wave and tidal power needs to be protected at this stage. On the renewables obligation, the Government say, in paragraph 11 of their response, that we cannot buck the market. I agree that we cannot do that in the long term. [Interruption.] I am aware that the Minister wants to start his speech at 5.10 pm.
What one can do is simply not conform to a market. However, we are talking about committing investment beyond research and making a market in which it will be feasible for people to make the first moves towards creating a large wave and tidal power industry. That was the Committee's vision. Some of the Scottish Members seemed to understand that well, and I hope that, in his response, the Minister will support that ambitious target.
5.10 pm
The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): It is a cliché for the Minister, in replying to the debate, to comment on what an excellent exchange of views there has been. However, without any resort to cliché, I can say that it has been a first-class, valuable debate and an enjoyable afternoon. We cannot often say that in this place.
As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said, an added bonus of the debate is that we have taken a pleasant geographical tour. I want

305WH
to give my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) the good news: he may have had to delay his visit to Islay and the world's only commercial wave station, but the nearest distillery, at Bruichladdich, has reopened in the meantime. He will easily be able to visit both locations in the course of a day.
I was also delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) took us to the Bonaventure in Uig, which is another of my favourite locations. I like to think that it will be associated historically with the evolution of the ideas that we have been discussing, as well as a few good nights.
1 have had a long-standing interest in the subject of our debate. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) spoke of his early and, alas, wasted education in reading the West Highland Free Press. Some 20 years ago we published articles by a Mr. David Ross, who was a great proponent of wave power, and I have had an interest in the subject since then. The two papers for which he wrote professionally were the Daily Express and the Tribune, which I always thought was a slightly odd combination, but one could say that he was following in the Michael Foot tradition. However, he was a great advocate of the source.
As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said, it is pleasing that Professor Salter gave evidence. We all remember the hopes that were vested in Salter's duck many years ago. Sadly, for reasons that have been mentioned, it never came to anything. However, I have had a long-standing interest and belief in the source, so to be in a situation in which I may be able to do something about it—albeit marginally and, as the hon. Gentleman implied, perhaps briefly—is a real privilege. It represents an opportunity that I hope I can usefully take.
I am glad of the opportunity to debate an excellent and stimulating report. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North on the way in which he presented it and the Select Committee as a whole on its work. We are at an exciting point in the choices that we can make over energy, and decisions made now will affect our energy mix for many years and will influence the lives of our children and grandchildren, which is not always the way in this place.
The main drivers for change are the need to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on climate change, along with the need to maintain diversity and security of energy supply. Renewables have a huge amount to offer on those issues. Achieving 10 per cent. by 2010 from renewables eligible for the obligation is expected to result in carbon saving of about 2.5 million tonnes a year by 2010. That is a useful contribution to emissions savings. I do not know whether the target will increase by 1 per cent. a year or whether it will stand at 20 per cent. at 2020, but there is no need or intention to stop at 10 per cent. in 2010. We must set more ambitious targets thereafter, but I am not a believer in setting targets for the sake of it—the targets must be reachable. We must monitor closely between now and 2010, at each stage and in each part of the country, what progress has been made towards meeting targets rather than simply paying lip service to them. A wide range of technologies exists within renewables, and we heard about most of them today. They include hydro-electricity, which is my favourite.
306WH
Scotland has a higher proportion of renewables because people in the 1940s and 1950s, notably Tom Johnston, the Secretary of State for Scotland in the postwar years, had the vision to set up a great social scheme—it was ridiculed at the time and was bitterly opposed by land-owning interests in the highlands, which should be remembered in the context of other current debates—that brought power to the remotest straths and island communities decades before it would have arrived otherwise. That was real vision. If we can match it now with other renewable energy sources, we will have done a good job for future generations.
Renewable energy sources include hydro energy, onshore and offshore wind energy, energy crops and biomass, landfill gas, and wave, tidal and solar energy. We should not be picking winners at this stage. We must let them all flourish to their optimum, and then decide which has the greatest potential for use in the United Kingdom. The market will decide to some extent, but we will have a much more realistic view in a few years' time of which systems can provide significant and economic sources of power. As well as having an environmental benefit, that extra 10 per cent. of renewable electricity will add significantly to the diversity and security of our sources of supply.
I do not have the time to answer the debate fully, but I want to answer a point raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and others. Renewable energy is not only about what is required in the United Kingdom. We will have a huge exporting opportunity, and I shall say more about that in the near future. If we develop the technologies and maintain our technological lead for our markets, we can create many thousands of jobs in manufacturing industries. We can also do a lot of good in the outside world by selling to developing countries the sort of technologies that they need rather than trying to flog them ones that they do not.
We intend that the energy review will be published by the end of the month, or soon after. It is now in the hands of Downing street, because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commissioned it, and it has yet to be decided whether a White Paper should follow. It is agreed that the energy review process is transparent, open and inclusive. I intend that what follows after publication of the review will be in the same spirit, and that it will stimulate further debate. The energy review is a report to the Government rather than by the Government, and it should stimulate further debate. It is not the end of the story, but the beginning.
As part of the energy review, a survey has been carried out to assess potential renewable energy resources in Scotland. That study suggests that as much as 60 GW of new renewable energy capacity might be available in Scotland by 2010 at less than 7p per unit, with large amounts of new capacity coming from wave and tidal energy if the technologies are successfully developed. That, too, is an interesting contribution to the wider renewables debate, and further evidence, if it were required, of the extent of the UK's vast renewable energy resources. We must now decide how much of it can be developed practicably and at affordable prices.
The Select Committee's main finding was that we are not doing enough for wave and tidal energy. It is hard to resist that criticism; the historic argument is that those energy sources have not received support proportionate to the sort of capacity that the Committee has identified

307WH
and that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) has described. We must now look forward and ensure that they have support. I will not get into the percentages game for the reason that I will not say that these are the two horses on which we should be betting. We should be supporting—and we are—the range of renewables to explore their potential. As the potential of wave and tidal is identified, and more proposals come forward that look to be significant contributors, sufficient flexibility must be in the system to provide additional support.
It is wrong to focus on the figure of £2.3 million and say that that is what we are doing for wave and tidal energy. For example, an additional £5 million has been dedicated to wave and tidal from the Prime Minister's £100 million for renewables. Some of the £10 million that has been allocated for blue skies research can also be used for wave and tidal. Those are new budgets in addition to the £3.8 million committed from the DTI's research and development programme and the grants of more than £1 million from the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council. Significant sums of money therefore already exist, not least because of the Select Committee's report, but those have not been quoted this afternoon.
Before I make a couple of announcements that will be warmly welcomed, it is a good starting point to have had such large cross-party consensus today. We all seem to be kicking towards the same goal and I, in an unusual fit of charity, am prepared to let bygones be bygones; I will not remind the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that that should have been happening earlier—oh, I have said it.
It will be of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman that we will be contributing more than £1 million of the total cost of the almost £1.5 million stingray project, which is aimed at demonstrating a novel concept for extracting energy from tidal currents. The stingray device prototype generates electricity from the oscillatory movement of hydro-planes driven by flowing tidal currents—I thought that the technical specialists in the audience might want to know that. The project is being developed by the Engineering Business, a Wallsend company, which plans to test its device in Shetland. It is the third demonstration project in the wave and tidal stream area to be supported by Government during the past six months.
I hope that hon. Members agree that that represents a significant Government commitment to the industry. It also answers the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) about moving beyond the research and development stage and getting something in the water. The stingray project may herald the start of an exciting new episode in tidal power but, as we have repeatedly heard, we already have a commercial wave power station operating on Islay, which is the only such power station in the world with a capacity of 500 kW. That was developed and installed by an Inverness company, Wavegen. We have announced support for the same company for the development of an offshore device—we are putting £1.7 million into the development of offshore wave—which is likely to be tested at the new centre in Orkney.
308WH
When I visited the Islay station, I was struck by the fact that something that had been talked about for decades had been built and now works. It is remiss not to build on what exists already because that gives it commercial and operational credibility. I do not want to lose the momentum for shoreline and near-shore systems, and I want to encourage the refinement of that technology. I am therefore pleased to announce that one of the UK's major electricity companies, Scottish and Southern Energy plc, is working with Wavegen to develop a proposal for a cluster of shore-based stations in the Western isles. The intention is that they will be technically innovative and act both as demonstration plants and commercial generators to supply Scottish and Southern.Wavegen is currently undertaking surveys in the Western isles to establish suitable sites for these developments and is working on outline project proposals. It hopes and intends that a key feature of the plans will be the use of the former Arnish fabrication yard for manufacturing.
Wavegen is now in touch with the owners of Arnish—the Stornoway trust. Its use for this purpose is entirely compatible with the intention of AMEC and British Energy to use the yard for manufacturing purposes related to their proposed wind farm on Lewis. My Department supports the principle of further development of shoreline and near-shore-based wave power, and I expect that we shall be asked by Wavegen to consider its proposals within the next three months. I know that these comments will be particularly welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles, whose commitment to the development of renewable energy is well established, and also by Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, the Western Isles council whose initiative in creating an energy innovation zone has helped to stimulate all this activity.
The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council has a substantial research and development programme on renewables, which is running at £6 million in this financial year and focuses on fundamental science and engineering issues. Of that, just over £1 million is committed to wave and tidal energy. It is important to maintain a healthy fundamental research base to generate further innovation. The chief scientific adviser has undertaken a review of Government support for research and development, and demonstration activities as a contribution to the wider energy review. We shall carefully consider its recommendations.
A host of issues has been raised during our debate and I do not have a hope of getting through them. However, I promise the hon. Member for Salisbury, who speaks for the Opposition, and other hon. members that I shall write to them responding to the points that I have not covered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North asked about the Government's role in steering investment into the transmission and distribution system. The world has changed and it is a matter for the private sector, but that is not to say that the Government do not have a role in discussing with the industry where improvement and investment are needed. I assure my hon. Friend that we have already instigated a number of studies because the strength of the grid and its relevance to current and future needs is crucial.

309WH
I also agree that it is necessary to have a planning process that matches the country's needs, particularly when major infrastructure projects are involved. We simply cannot wait five years for decisions to be made. We need a more flexible system that respects people's right to contest proposals but does not lead to unreasonable delays. We already promote a positive approach to planning for renewables and my Department is working with colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to review the planning arrangements for renewables, particularly PPG22.
The hon. Member for Salisbury referred to the role that a Norwegian interconnecter could play in meeting renewable energy targets. The potential of such a project is interesting and there will be a meeting next week with the parties involved to discuss the matter further. It is essential that we do not rely on imports from Norway or elsewhere. The renewables obligation does not cover imports because the stimulus would not exist for our
310WH
indigenous industry and we must make the most of our expertise, particularly in wave and tidal power, which the Committee identified.
I have raced through some of the many points that were raised and I shall write to hon. Members about the others. The matter is big and exciting, but there may be honourable disagreement about which renewables we should concentrate on. I do not accept the renewables versus nuclear dichotomy. It would have been at least as relevant today if we had talked about gas as much as we have talked about renewables. Do we want to be 90 per cent. dependent on imported gas by 2020? The energy review must consider that, but there is loads of room without divisive argument for progress on renewables in general and specifically. Our objective should be to maximise their potential and their contribution. If we do that, we shall not only safeguard the energy needs of this country—
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Access to Information
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Solicitor-General what measures she has taken to improve access to information in her Department by those outside her Department. [23871]

  The Solicitor-General
  In the interest of accountability, the Attorney-General is determined that the Departments for which he is responsible should take steps to extend access to official information, the assumption being that such information should be released except where disclosure would not be in the public interest.

  The Law Officers' Departments—the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the Treasury Solicitor's Department—all continue to increase access to information through various avenues.

  CPS publicity materials now include more extensive information about CPS policies and the prosecution process. A key recent example is the publication of a booklet providing the background to prosecution policy on domestic violence cases.

  The potential for releasing information via the internet will be explored to the full. The website maintained on behalf of the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers is currently being reviewed and 2002 will see a new, improved, CPS website. The SFO website has recently been substantially expanded and the Treasury Solicitor has also improved access to information through two dedicated websites.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Solicitor-General what efforts are being made to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service works effectively with the police and local authorities to secure successful prosecutions in antisocial behaviour cases. [23873]

  The Solicitor-General
  The CPS work with the police and local authorities through the local partnerships set up under the Crime and Disorder Act.

  In February 2000 all key agencies launched the antisocial behaviour protocol and there have been joint training seminars and joint guidance.

  Between April 1999 and September 2000:

  466 Antisocial Behaviour Orders were made by Magistrates Courts.

  53 defendants were prosecuted for breach of such Orders.

  47 were convicted.

  948W
  An application by the police or local authority for an ASBO is a civil matter and not for the CPS. The CPS are involved when an ASBO is breached as this is a criminal offence.

  Serious Fraud
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Solicitor-General what criteria are applied in deciding whether to prosecute serious fraud. [23874]

  The Solicitor-General
  Criteria for consideration of prosecuting serious fraud are the same as for all criminal cases: (i) is there enough evidence and (ii) is it in the public interest.

  Offences involving serious or complex fraud are prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). In deciding whether the SFO rather than CPS should accept a case for investigation, the factors taken into account include:

  1. The sum at risk is estimated to be at least £1 million (this is simply an objective and recognisable signpost of seriousness and likely public concern rather than the main indicator of suitability).

  2. The case is likely to give rise to national publicity and widespread public concern. These include those involving Government Departments, public bodies, the Governments of other countries and commercial cases of public interest.

  3. The case has a significant international dimension.

  4. There is a need for legal, accountancy and investigative skills to be brought together as a combined operation.

  5. The suspected fraud appears to be complex and one in which the use of section 2 powers might be appropriate.

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Solicitor-General with which organisations she has had discussions on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill relating to the prevention of terrorism. [23875]

  The Solicitor-General
  Policy responsibility for the Act, including for consultation, lies with the Home Secretary. Any discussions that I, or the Attorney-General, have had about aspects of the Bill were therefore conducted in the context of our role as Law Officers, such as in discussion with the Crown Prosecution Service regarding some of the prosecution/criminal law aspects. Quite separately from this, the Attorney-General provided assistance to the Home Secretary in taking parts of the Bill through the House of Lords.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement about the performance of the Crown Prosecution Service. [23870]

  The Solicitor-General
  During the period April-September 2001 the Crown Prosecution Service secured convictions in respect of 98 per cent. of defendants whose case proceeded to a hearing in magistrates courts and almost 89 per cent. of defendants whose case proceeded to a hearing in the Crown court. During the same six-month period, the service had already met its 2001–02 targets for the timeliness of committal papers and of briefs to counsel, and for reduction in non-injury acquittals attributable to failings in the prosecution. In addition, the service made a vital contribution towards halving the time
  949W
  taken to deal with persistent young offenders, from an average of 142 days in 1996 to 70 days in the quarter ending September 2001.

  While these figures show that the Crown Prosecution Service is continuing to work to a high standard, its priorities for 2002–03 are more demanding still, including: delivering more effective prosecutions; developing a greater public service ethos; developing its own professional role; building partnerships to drive up the performance of the criminal justice system as a whole; and developing a modern, diverse organisation which staff take pride in.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Teaching Vacancies
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent meetings she has had with the National Union of Teachers to discuss the number of vacancies in secondary schools. [23835]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend meets representatives of the NUT along with other unions from time to time to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent meetings she has had with the Association of Colleges to discuss the number of(a) teachers and (b) lecturers in further education. [23853]

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent meetings she has had with the Association of Colleges to discuss the numbers of(a) teachers and (b) lecturers in further education. [23857]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Secretary of State met David Gibson from the Association of Colleges (AoC) on 14 November 2001 and also addressed the AoC Conference on 20 November. Additionally, my colleague John Healey and I have each met twice with representatives from the AoC on 12 July and 10 October and 15 June and 31 July, respectively.

  Discussions with AoC representatives are wide reaching, including recruitment and retention difficulties for lecturers in some subject areas and initiatives such as the Teaching Pay Initiative, Golden Hellos, Student Loan Write Off and Training Bursaries, which the Government have introduced to attract new staff to the profession and reward and retain excellent teachers and lecturers.

  Teaching Vacancies (Hertfordshire)
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many vacancies there are for teacher posts in maintained schools in Hertfordshire. [23836]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on the number of teacher vacancies in local education authorities is collected once a year in January as part of the annual census of teachers and vacancies. In January 2001, the vacancy rate for Hertfordshire LEA was 0.6 per cent. compared with 1.4 per cent. nationally.
  950W

  Further Education Funding
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she intends to achieve equal funding for students at sixth form colleges and in school sixth forms. [23841]

  Margaret Hodge:
  The Government are firmly committed to bringing up the level of funding for colleges towards that of school sixth forms. As we have repeatedly made clear, this will take time and must be done as resources allow.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to increase funding to further education colleges; and if she will make a statement. [23862]

  John Healey
  £527 million extra funding is available for further education colleges this year compared with 2000–01. This is a 12 per cent. real terms increase and there will be a further 3 per cent. real terms increase in 2002–03. The increase in funding is designed to support widening participation in learning, higher standards of teaching and learning leading to improved success rates, the introduction of centres of vocational excellence, a step change in capital investment in the sector and the modernisation of pay arrangements in further education.

  Education Funding (Swindon)
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to increase education funding in Swindon. [23842]

  Mr. Timms
  Swindon's Education Standard Spending Assessment will be increased by 4.65 per cent. next year, and the sums available through the Standards Fund and in direct grant to schools will also increase.

  University Research Funding
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has for the distribution of university research funding. [23843]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government's policy is selectively to support high quality research in universities and colleges. The detailed distribution of public funds for research is a matter for the research councils, the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the other UK funding councils.

  Nursery Provision
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement about nursery provision. [23845]

  Margaret Hodge
  Since September 1998, all four-year-olds have been able to access a free early education place.

  We have increased the percentage of three-year-olds able to access free places from 34 per cent. in 1997 to 62 per cent. in 2001. From September 2004 all three-year-olds will have access to a free early education place.

  The funding available for early education will be increased from £1 billion in 1996–97 to £2 billion in 2003–04.
  951W
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of children aged between three and five years are in full-time nursery education. [23861]

  Margaret Hodge
  My Department estimates that eight per cent. of three and four-year-old children were in full-time nursery education1 in England in January 2001.

  However, the vast majority of children engage in nursery education on a part-time basis. If these children are included, my Department estimates that two in three children aged three and four are in either full or part-time nursery education. Of these, 32 per cent. of the population attended private and voluntary providers, four per cent. attended independent schools, 30 per cent. attended maintained nursery schools or nursery classes within maintained primary schools and less than 0.5 per cent, special schools.

  We are committed to guaranteeing free part-time places for all four-year-olds whose parents want one and by September 2004 free part-time places for all three-year-olds.

  Children in nursery education comprise those educated in schools and private and voluntary early years settings, but does not include children educated in infant classes in maintained primary schools.

  Pupils Without Qualifications
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the proportion of pupils reaching the end of compulsory schooling without qualifications. [23846]

  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the proportion of pupils reaching the end of compulsory schooling without qualifications. [23860]

  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the proportion of pupils reaching the end of compulsory schooling without any qualifications. [23850]

  Mr. Timms
  In 2001 the proportion of pupils reaching the end of compulsory schooling without any qualifications fell for the sixth year in a row to 5.5 per cent. This reflects a continuing rise to 94.5 per cent. in 2000–01 in the percentage of pupils achieving one or more GCSEs at grades A*-G (or equivalent).

  Teachers (Administrative Burden)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to reduce the administrative burden on teachers. [23848]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department is committed to making teaching a more manageable profession and keeps administrative requirements on all schools under continuous review. Following the recent PricewaterhouseCoopers study on teacher workload and its recommendations on reducing administrative burdens, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has invited 952W
  teacher representatives, local authorities and other key education figures to join her on a working party to take forward work on remodelling the teaching profession.

  Education Funding (Wiltshire)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on funding for education in Wiltshire. [23849]

  Mr. Timms
  In 2002–03 Wiltshire's Education SSA will be £189.72 million, an increase of £11.58 million or 6.50 per cent.—above the national average. Wiltshire will also benefit from the increase in Standards Fund grant of almost £160 million; and in the direct grant for schools of at least 2.75 per cent..

  University Status
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the process for awarding university status to higher education colleges. [23851]

  Margaret Hodge
  The criteria and processes for the award of university title to higher education colleges were revised in 1999 following full consultation with the academic community and others. I am satisfied that they are working effectively balancing, as they must, the legitimate wishes of some colleges to become universities with the need to protect the reputation of the United Kingdom university title.

  Further Education
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she is taking to increase participation in further education among 16 to 18-year-olds. [23852]

  John Healey
  We are investing substantially in a wide range of policies designed to raise participation among 16 to 18-year-olds, including in further education. We have established the Learning and Skills Council to drive these forward and have put in place a number of measures which provide the support and incentives young people need to take up and succeed in learning. These include the Connexions Service, education maintenance allowances, new generation modern apprenticeships, and the new Connexions Card to be launched nationally in autumn 2002. Further education colleges will also play a central role in our plans to develop a coherent 14–19 phase of learning for young people. We will be publishing a Green Paper shortly setting out our plans in this area. Finally, with the Learning and Skills Council, we are continuing with our drive to improve standards in further education, underpinned by a rigorous, independent inspection regime.

  Higher Education (Wales)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions she has had with regard to the future of higher education in Wales. [23854]

  Margaret Hodge
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning at the National Assembly for Wales covering a range of issues, including higher education.
  953W

  Adult Learning
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what strategy her Government have to increase participation in adult learning. [23858]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government's strategy is to ensure that learning is available in a form and at a time and place that best suits the needs of adult learners; to provide targeted financial support to adult learners; and to extend the information, advice and guidance available on learning. The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) has a statutory duty to encourage adults to learn. It will publish its strategy for workforce development by the end of March 2002. The National Target for Participation in Learning has been achieved one year early, with 500,000 additional learners since 1997.

  University Attendance
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to encourage more children from lower socio-economic backgrounds to attend university. [23859]

  Margaret Hodge
  We are spending over £190 million on the Excellence challenge programme, which will provide extra help and information for young people in areas with traditionally low participation to reach higher education. In addition, education maintenance allowances and our reforms to qualifications for 14 to 19-year-olds will assist young people from lower socio-economic backgrounds to stay in education and training and to reach the level to access higher education.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she intends to lift the suspension of individual learning accounts. [23863]

  John Healey
  Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs) will not be reinstated in their present form. However, I can give a cast-iron guarantee that this is not the end of Government funding for adult learning, or of Government support for all those who find a lack of money a barrier to returning to education, learning or training. We are developing future plans which build on the successful elements of the ILA programme.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how the premises of training organisations dealing with ILA holders were inspected with regard to(a) the training stations available and (b) the training qualifications of staff. [23436]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: The premises of training organisations dealing with ILA holders and the training qualifications of their staff were not inspected. However, as part of the registration process learning providers were asked to provide a copy of a valid health and safety certificate and their public liability insurance. In addition we required all learning providers to sign a learning provider agreement. A key part of the agreement asked providers to offer a clear explanation to account holders of any accreditation held (in respect of the course, the qualification or the provider), the qualification a course undertaken may lead to, and the awarding body.
  954W
  ILAs aimed to encourage more people into learning by helping tackle the financial barriers to learning. To help meet the policy objective the ILA system was designed to be simple and easy to use and non-bureaucratic.

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what compensation her Department is providing to colleges in respect of losses incurred by the withdrawal of individual learning accounts. [23831]

  John Healey
  The Department has no plans to compensate learning providers in relation to the closure of individual learning accounts.

  School Science Statistics
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the numbers of(a) girls and (b) boys taking science subjects at A and AS-level in each of the last five years. [23864]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The number of girls and boys that took science subjects at A and AS level in each of the last five years was as follows:

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  A Level (legacy)

  Girls

  53,975

  55,768

  55,102

  54,568

  51,826

  Boys

  65,588

  65,845

  62,951

  60,053

  57,054

  Advanced Supplementary (legacy)

  Girls

  3,508

  3,360

  3,465

  3,598

  1,973

  Boys

  3,799

  3,939

  4,011

  3,748

  1,989

  Advanced Subsidiary (new)—2000–01

  Girls

  57,780

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Boys

  61,917

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ICT
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress is being made to equip schools with resources in information and communications technology. [23865]

  John Healey
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) on 10 January 2002,Official Report, column 657.

  Parenting Orders
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many parenting orders have been sought by schools based in the Buckingham constituency. [23731]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.

  We understand from the Youth Justice Board that between October 2000 and June 2001, 10 parenting orders were sought and granted in Buckinghamshire following convictions of adults for failing to send children to school.

  Student Domicile Statistics
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the trends in the numbers of students domiciled in(a) Scotland who attend English universities and (b) England who attend Scottish universities, in the last five years. [23844]
  955W
  Margaret Hodge
  In the five years to 2000–01 the number of full-time Scottish undergraduate students in England rose from 5,277 to 5,834 while numbers of full-time English undergraduates in Scotland fell from 16,336 to 14,723. However, UCAS entry figures for 2001–02 suggest these trends have changed with decline of full-time Scottish students in England of about three per cent. and an increase in full-time English students in Scotland of about five per cent.

  Teacher Recruitment and Retention
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement about teacher(a) recruitment and (b) retention in London. [23855]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on the number of teacher vacancies in local education authorities is collected once a year in January as part of the annual census of teachers and vacancies. In January 2001, the vacancy rate for London was 3.5 per cent. compared with 1.4 per cent. nationally. We are aware of the particular problems in London and are making considerable efforts to address them. In 2001 the Government made nearly £20 million available to London LEAs through its recruitment and retention fund. This amounted to more than half the total national funding. In 2002 we will increase that funding in London to £22 million. In addition we have increased pay for all teachers above the rate of inflation for the third successive year. London allowances have been raised by 30 per cent. so that teachers in inner London now receive a starting salary of £20,000.

  Threshold Allowance Awards
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many teachers received backdated threshold pay before 1 April 2001, broken down by local authority; A [25844]

  (2) how many teachers received backdated threshold pay after 1 April 2001; A [25845]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the number of teachers who paid higher rates of tax as a result of their backdated pay being paid after 1 April 2001. A [25846]
  956W
  Mr. Timms
  The information requested has not been collected centrally and could be gathered only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 259W, on what evidence she based her answer on the numbers of teachers having to pay higher rates of tax; and how this is reconciled with her answer of 30 November 2001, Official Report, column 1213W, on threshold allowance awards. [25861]

  Mr. Timms
  To pay higher rate tax as a result of receiving threshold back pay from 2000–01 in the current financial year a teacher would have to earn at least £32,768 this year before any threshold back pay was added. Estimates derived from the teachers' pensions scheme indicate that a substantial majority of teachers who have crossed the threshold are not paid as much as this. So even though we do not have detailed information about when they were paid, we can nevertheless say that most post-threshold teachers would not pay higher rate tax even if they received threshold back pay this year.

  Faith Schools
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils attended faith schools in(a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997, (d) 1998, (e) 1999 and (f) 2000. [19199]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: The available information is shown in the following table.

  Number of pupils1 in maintained primary and secondary schools in England

  2000

  2001

  Primary

  Number of pupils in non-religious schools

  3,199,355

  3,173,926

  Number of pupils in faith schools

  1,235,991

  1,232,289

  Secondary

  Number of pupils in non-religious schools

  2,694,103

  2,736,891

  Number of pupils in faith schools

  487,710

  494,936

  1 Headcount of pupils

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census and Register of Educational Establishments

  No directly comparable data are available for 1995 to 1999.
  957W

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Pakistan
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with President Musharraf on the situation in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [23714]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  During his visit to Pakistan on 22–23 November, the Secretary of State discussed the situation in Afghanistan with President Musharraf. The Secretary of State expressed our continuing appreciation for President Musharraf s courageous decision to support the fight against terrorism and the practical assistance that Pakistan has provided. The Secretary of State also discussed the situation in Pakistan and sought President Musharraf s advice on how best to achieve our shared objective of a broad-based multi-ethnic government in Afghanistan.

  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what encouragement he has given to President Musharraf to return Pakistan to democracy during 2002. [25431]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary encouraged President Musharraf to return Pakistan to democracy during their recent visits to Pakistan. We welcome President Musharraf s public reiteration of his commitment to stick to his roadmap to democracy and hold national and provincial elections by October 2002.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out for each of the conclusions in section 6.4 of the Performance and Innovation Unit report, "Winning the Generation Game",(a) what progress his Department has made and (b) what future plans his Department has for acting on them; and if he will set out against each of the conclusions the targets and deadlines that have been set. [24200]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 335W.

  Indonesia
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Indonesian Government on the protection of Christians; and if he will make a statement. [24418]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We take every opportunity, including with our EU partners, to urge states to foster tolerance and mutual respect and to protect religious minorities. In the case of Indonesia, we raised our concerns about violence in Maluku and Sulawesi most recently on 29 November when the British Chargé d'Affaires in Jakarta called on Manuel Kaisiepo, the Minister for Eastern Indonesia. I myself raised the issue with Vice-President Haz when I met him in August.
  958W
  The Department for International Development (DFID) has pledged more than £4 million to help establish the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Conflict Prevention and Recovery Unit in Jakarta. The unit will build up capacity in conflict reduction and recovery in the provinces torn apart by ethnic conflict, particularly north Maluku. The British Government have also recently funded a series of Conflict Reporting training workshops for journalists in various provinces in Indonesia, including north Maluku and Sulawesi. We will continue to work with the Indonesian authorities and UNDP to promote reconciliation, begin wider reconstruction work and to offer practical assistance where we can.

  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the treatment of Christians in Indonesia. [25730]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are a number of regional conflicts in Indonesia with a religious dimension. Their origins are complex. The UK's message to the Indonesian Government has been consistently clear: a long-term solution can be achieved only through political dialogue and consultation with the people.

  The Department for International Development has pledged more than £4 million to help establish the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Conflict Prevention and Recovery Unit in Jakarta. The Unit will build up capacity in conflict reduction and recovery in the provinces torn apart by ethnic conflict. The British Government have also recently funded a series of Conflict Reporting training workshops in various provinces in Indonesia. We will continue to work with the Indonesian authorities and UNDP to promote reconciliation and offer practical assistance where we can.

  We will continue to monitor cases of inter-communal violence closely and raise our concerns with the Indonesian Government at every appropriate opportunity. I myself raised the issue with Vice President Haz when I met him in Jakarta in August.

  Middle East
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role the EU is playing in seeking to make progress towards peace in the middle east. [25415]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The EU plays an active role in efforts to secure peace in the region, in parallel with US, UN and Russian efforts. EU Foreign Ministers and High Representative Solana visit the region frequently to deliver strong messages to both parties about their responsibilities to put an end to the violence and resume negotiations. Solana began a further visit on 6 January. The EU' s position is clear: the Palestinian Authority should dismantle terrorist networks; the Israeli Government should withdraw their military forces, end operations against Palestinian institutions and lift restrictions.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations
  959W
  he has made to the Vietnamese Government concerning the treatment of Christians in Vietnam. [25295]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Secretary of State raised general human rights issues in Vietnam when he met the Vietnamese Foreign Minister, Mr. Nien, in London in September 2001. The EU Human Rights Working Group in Hanoi, in which our embassy plays a leading role, raises the treatment of religious groups and individuals, during its regular dialogue with the Vietnamese authorities.

  Overseas Assistance
  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on UK assistance to militaries and police forces overseas. [26900]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  UK training and assistance to militaries and police forces overseas has been provided through the ASSIST (Assistance to Support Stability with In-Service Training) scheme, the ASSIST Challenge Fund and English language training programme. In total £6.8 million in FY 2000–01 supported some 220 training and assistance projects for the military, law enforcement agencies and civilian bodies in over 65 countries, with a strong emphasis on human rights and good governance. Examples include the attachment of a UK chief constable to the Indonesian police service to help it establish a new structure and code of ethics; English language training for central and eastern Europe militaries to support their international peacekeeping capabilities and NATO candidature; and a project to help UK and South Asian police forces work together on the issue of forced marriages.

  Following a review last year of the Government's conflict prevention and resolution activities, the ASSIST budgets have been subsumed into the interdepartmental Conflict Prevention Pools, which continue to fund ASSIST-type activities.

  The review of the ASSIST activities for 2000–01 gives more detail. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Nepal
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to offer military support against terrorism in Nepal by supplying(a) equipment and (b) personnel. [24747]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are very concerned at the situation in Nepal and have fully supported the Nepalese Government's efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Maoist insurgency. The United Kingdom has been equally supportive of the Nepalese Government, which has a duty to protect its citizens from Maoist violence, over the crisis caused by the Maoists' return to violence in November 2001. Our armed forces have close links with the Royal Nepalese Army and already provide them with training and are currently providing logistic equipment. We remain in close contact with the Nepalese Government.
  960W

DEFENCE

  Type 45 Destroyer
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Sea Dart anti-aircraft missiles on Type 45 destroyers can be used against surface targets; if Sea Dart missiles will be fitted to Type 45 destroyers; if the Aster anti-aircraft missiles on the Type 45 destroyers can be deployed against surface targets; what effect the move to littoral operations has on the need for anti-surface weapons capabilities; and if he will make a statement. [24022]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Sea Dart missile is fitted only to Type 42 destroyers. It has a limited anti-surface unit capability. It will not be fitted to Type 45 destroyers. The Aster missile system, with which the Type 45s will be equipped, will not have an anti-surface unit capability. The Type 45 Destroyer's anti-ship capability will be provided by the Sea Skua missile fitted to its Lynx helicopter, together with the 4/" Mk8 Mod 1 Gun and twin 30mm guns. The Type 45 Destroyer is being designed to facilitate the incremental incorporation of additional capabilities, including a surface-to-surface guided missile should the requirement for one be demonstrated.

  Our ships have always needed to operate in the littoral, but the emphasis on ensuring that we can operate in this environment has increased, not least to take better advantage of the contribution of maritime forces in the force projection role. The Type 45, in its primary role of maritime air defence, will significantly enhance our ability to operate in this environment. For anti-surface capability, however, the main effect is to increase the emphasis on robust measures to protect ships operating in this area against the threat from fast inshore attack craft.

  Regimental Strengths
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will state the(a) strength and (b) establishment of the Coldstream Guards; [24569]

  (2) if he will state the strength and the establishment of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment; [24916]

  (3) what the (a) establishment and (b) strength is of the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment. [25467]

  Mr. Ingram
  The establishments and actual strengths for the Coldstream Guards, the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment and the Worcestershire and Sherwood Forester's Regiment as at 1 November are shown in the table.

  Establishment strength

  Actual strength

  Coldstream Guards

  609

  604

  1st Battalion of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

  669

  602

  2nd Battalion of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

  667

  613

  Worcestershire and Sherwood Forester's Regiment

  610

  597

  The establishments and actual strengths for the regiments above include the cap-badge strength as well as attached personnel from other Corps who are supporting the regiments in their current location.
  961W

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many enlisted personnel have sought early retirement after serving less than the maximum period for a full pension in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [25831]

  Mr. Ingram
  Full pension for enlisted personnel is payable after completion of 37 years' service. However, those who complete 22 or more years' service are eligible for an Immediate Pension which, broadly, is calculated on a pro rata basis. The latest figures in each category are set out in the table.

  For the last three years, the total numbers of enlisted personnel who have retired before completing the necessary 37 years' service for full pension entitlement, but after having served the required 22 years for immediate pension are as shown in the table.

  Personnel having served 22 years

  1 November 2000 to 31 October 2001

  897

  1 November 1999 to 31 October 2000

  752

  1 November 1998 to 31 October 1999

  709

  The total numbers who retired before completing the necessary 22 years for payment of immediate pension and were therefore entitled to a preserved award only are given in the table:

  Personnel having served less than 22 years

  1 April 2000 to 1 March 2001

  78,823

  1 April 1999 to 1 March 2000

  79,412

  1 April 1998 to 1 March 1999

  78.638

  NBC Equipment
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Fuchs NBC defence vehicles and CAM-level 3s are(a) in service and (b) operational. [125701]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 9 November 2001,Official Report, column 434W, regarding the Fuchs NBC Defence Vehicle.

  A number of hand-held Chemical Agent Monitors (CAM) have recently been refurbished and sufficient stock is held to meet current defence planning assumptions. I am withholding the information with regard to specific quantities in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Defence Analytical Statistical Agency
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies the Defence Analytical Statistical Agency has carried out in the last four years which have involved data on servicemen and women who had already retired. [23957]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Analytical Services Agency routinely analyses data on men and women who have left the service to obtain historical information on the strengths and characteristics of the services and to help in 962W
  predicting the future numbers and types of leavers. The source data are obtained from departmental pay and personnel systems.

  Retired service personnel may also be included in more general surveys conducted by the agency, for example if a retired officer is employed by the department in a civilian post or if a survey includes reservists.

  In the last four years the agency has also carried out some special studies involving retired service men and women. In 1999–2000 a study of people who die in service or are invalided out was undertaken to support the Joint Compensation Review, and information on leavers in general was used to support the Armed Forces Pension Scheme Review. The agency is currently carrying out a study of ex-service men with pensions and preserved pension rights to provide information on pension troughs in the Armed Forces Pension

  National Air Traffic Services
  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has completed negotiations with NATS on the contract for the new Scottish centre. [23560]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is currently engaged in discussions with National Air Traffic Services about the future provision of military area radar support services. No decision has yet been made about whether it will conduct military area radar operations from the new Scottish centre.

  National Security Adviser
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to establish an office of a national security adviser. [25857]

  Mr. Hoon
  None.

  Pensions
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to his Department to service current pension commitments in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [25833]

  Mr. Ingram
  Contributions towards retired pay and pensions from the Ministry of Defence in each of the last three years, for civilian and Service personnel, were as follows:

  £

  1998–99

  1,155,334,581

  1999–2000

  1,203,738,081

  2000–01

  1,257,556,631

  Warship Support Modernisation Project
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the bidding companies for the Warship Support Modernisation Project have been allowed to amend their bids since the closing date following subsequent discussions with Warship Support Agency officials. [25864]
  963W
  Mr. Ingram
  Proposals were received in September 2001 from the Dockyard companies for potential partnering arrangements at each of the Naval Bases as part of the Warship Support Modernisation Initiative. Since then, the normal process of post-tender clarification, negotiation and assessment has been taking place. This has involved discussions by officials with representatives from each of the companies. As a result of these discussions, the proposals have been amended in places to clarify matters that had not been fully explained and to reflect the latest state of play in these negotiations.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the trade unions' alternative proposals for the Warship Support Modernisation Project demonstrate value for money; if value for money will be the sole criterion for the final decision; and if he will make a statement. [25868]

  Mr. Ingram
  Officials in the Ministry of Defence are currently assessing the alternative proposals from the MOD trade unions for warship support modernisation, alongside the in-house efficiency proposals from the Naval Base Management and the proposals from the Dockyard companies. All options are currently being compared for value for money, together with their technical, commercial and Human Resource implications.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which naval personnel can be used by a private company to provide a profit-making service to the Royal Navy; [25865]

  (2) what arrangements have been put in place to secure the continuing service rights of naval personnel who will be working for a profit-making private company on the Warship Modernisation Project; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [25866]

  Mr. Ingram
  If partnering is the agreed way forward, a number of naval personnel will be seconded to work with the companies, chiefly in the area of engineering support. They will remain available for standard military duties, training and for other ad hoc military or emergency tasks. The use of these personnel will be charged to the companies on an annualised hours basis, whereby the companies will pay for the available working time of those personnel at local commercial rates. All naval personnel employed within the partnering arrangements will continue to be subject to the essential terms and conditions of service which apply to all Royal Naval personnel irrespective of where they serve.

  Military Vehicles
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) All Terrain Mobility Platforms, (b) Hagglund BV 206, (c) Truck Utility Light/Medium, (d) Battlefield ambulances, (e) Truck Utility Medium, (f) Drops, (g) Truck Cargo 8 Tonne 4 x 4, (h) Truck Cargo 16 Tonne 8 x 4, (i) Foden GS 6 x 6 Recovery Vehicles, (j) Tank Transporter Unipower Commander and (k) Centurion Beach Armoured recovery vehicles are operational. [25700]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is held quarterly. The information for the quarter ending 31 December 2001 will be available at the end of this 964W
  month. I will write to the hon. Member at that stage and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Military Aircraft
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) offensive fighters, (b) defensive fighters, (c) heavy bombers and (d) transporters were operational in (i) October and (ii) November 2001. [25698]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of aircraft of the types specified, in the RAF's Operating Fleet, as at 1 October and 1 November 2001, is detailed in the table. The Actual Operating Fleet comprises all aircraft which are fully operational or in 1st and 2nd line maintenance. Dedicated training aircraft of the aircraft models comprising the answer, have been excluded.

  Number of aircraft

  Aircraft type

  1 October 2001

  1 November 2001

  Offensive fighter

  208

  204

  Defensive fighter

  115

  113

  Transporters

  75

  76

  Heavy Bombers

  0

  0

  RAF Navigators
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many fully-trained navigators would be required by the RAF if it was fully recruited; how many are available; what steps he is taking to improve training facilities for navigators; and if he will make a statement. [25154]

  Mr. Ingram
  The requirement for trained navigators in the Royal Air Force on 1 December 2001 was 973. The trained strength was 1,176. However, the figures mask a deficit of 83 at junior officer level.

  The Military Flying Training System project is planned to provide the updated facilities required to train the navigators of the future. Other measures introduced over recent years to improve the training output include the introduction of new and redesigned training modules to ensure the syllabus continues to reflect the training needs, and the provision of extra flying training for students where necessary.

  Government Actuary
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use his Department has made of services provided by the Government Actuary's Department in each of the last four years. [23956]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence regularly uses the services provided by the Government Actuary's Department. These services include receiving actuarial advice in respect of the armed forces pension scheme, advice regarding continuing pension provision for civilian staff transferred to a new employer under the TUPE regulations and also specific advice on casework involving both Service and Civilian staff pensions.

  The Government Actuary has provided these services for many years.
  965W

TREASURY

  Inland Revenue (RSI Claims)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the firm of solicitors acting for the Inland Revenue in respect of the RSI Compensation Scheme are also acting for the PCS Union representing employees claiming compensation. [25767]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The solicitors who act for the PCS Union, representing staff who use the Inland Revenue's RSI Compensation Scheme, do not also act for the Inland Revenue. As with all litigation involving the Inland Revenue, the Solicitor to the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue acts on the Department's behalf in respect of the scheme.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the correspondence between the Inland Revenue and Solicitors Russell, Jones and Walker, in respect of the RSI Compensation Scheme. [25768]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It would be inappropriate to publish the correspondence between the Inland Revenue and the solicitors acting for the PCS Union in respect of the RSI Compensation Scheme, in accordance with Exemptions 4 (law enforcement and legal proceedings) and 12 (Privacy of an individual) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of RSI have been settled since the announcement of the Compensation Scheme for employees of the Inland Revenue in 1996; and how many are outstanding. [25766]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Inland Revenue's RSI Compensation Scheme was set up on 20 December 1995. Since then, 638 claims have been submitted under the scheme. Of these, the remaining 243 claims are still being processed.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people living in the London borough of Wandsworth are in receipt of the working families tax credit. [25900]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The number of recipients of the working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit in each region, local authority and parliamentary constituency are shown in "Working Families' and Disabled Person's Tax Credit Statistics. Geographical analyses." This can be found on the Inland Revenue website, www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk, under "Statistics", and in the Library.

  Fraud
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) of 12 November 2001,Official Report, column 585W, what assessments have been undertaken which show that the level of fraud on inactive national insurance accounts is no higher than for live accounts. [24247]
  966W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In 1999, as part of the NI Integrity Programme, a review of inactive accounts (where no national insurance contributions or credits have been recorded for three or more consecutive tax years) on NIRS2 was carried out. Most of these accounts relate to women who do not have paid employment. Others relate to people who have gone to live abroad.

  Part of the review resulted in an analysis of 100 accounts of contributors found guilty of fraud and 22 were inactive (22 per cent.) and 78 were live accounts. The number of fraudsters using inactive accounts appears to be in proportion to the number of inactive accounts held on NIRS2 (14 million of the 66 million accounts held on NIRS2 are inactive, which equals 21 per cent.).

  We have initiated further work under the banner of the `National Insurance Number (NINO) Work Programme' sponsored by the NINO board (a joint Department for Work and Pensions and Inland Revenue project). This will look at all areas of vulnerable accounts held on the NIRS2 and Departmental Central Index systems.

  Taxation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross earnings was accounted for by(a) income tax, (b) national insurance contributions, (c) VAT, (d) other indirect taxes and (e) local taxes for (i) a single person, (ii) a married couple who are both working and (iii) a married couple with two children on (A) 50 per cent., (B) 75 per cent., (C) 100 per cent., (D) 150 per cent., (E) 200 per cent., (F) 500 per cent. and (G) 1,000 per cent. of average earnings in each year since 1997. [25296]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The available information, which shows income tax (including child benefit and working families tax credit from its first full year of implementation) and national insurance contributions for multiples of median earnings up to 200 per cent. was published in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on 30 March 2001, Official Report, columns 843–44W. The same information for 500 per cent. and 1,000 per cent. of median earnings is given in the table. The estimates of median earnings used here are the same as those in the earlier answer, £19,600 per annum in 2001–02

  Estimating the impact of indirect taxes on these very specific family types is meaningless because spending patterns vary considerably between households of the same type and income. The level of council tax payments also varies depending on where families live.

  Multiples of median earnings

  500 per cent.

  1,000 per cent.

  Single

  1997–98

  £ per week

  Gross income

  1,603.65

  3,207.30

  Income Tax

  522.65

  1,164.11

  NICs

  41.54

  41.54

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  32.6

  36.3

  NICs

  2.6

  1.3

  Tax and NICs

  35.2

  37.6

  967W

  Multiples of median earnings

  500 per cent.

  1,000 per cent.

  1998–99

  £ per week

  Gross income

  1,663.50

  3,327.00

  Income Tax

  542.05

  1,207.45

  NICs

  43.38

  43.38

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  32.6

  36.3

  NICs

  2.6

  1.3

  Tax and NICs

  35.2

  37.6

  1999–2000

  £ per week

  Gross income

  1,722.25

  3,444.50

  Income Tax

  560.27

  1,249.17

  NICs

  43.40

  43.40

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  32.5

  36.3

  NICs

  2.5

  1.3

  Tax and NICs

  35.1

  37.5

  2000–01

  £ per week

  Gross income

  1,799.75

  3,599.50

  Income Tax

  584.35

  1,304.25

  NICs

  45.90

  45.90

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  32.5

  36.2

  NICs

  2.6

  1.3

  Tax and NICs

  35.0

  37.5

  2001–02

  £ per week

  Gross income

  1,880.74

  3,761.48

  Income Tax

  611.30

  1,363.60

  NICs

  48.80

  48.80

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  32.5

  36.3

  NICs

  2.6

  1.3

  Tax and NICs

  35.1

  37.5

  Two-earner married couple, no children

  1997–98

  £ per week

  Gross income

  1,603.65

  3,207.30

  Income Tax

  398.57

  1,040.03

  NICs

  83.08

  >83.08

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  24.9

  32.4

  NICs

  5.2

  2.6

  Tax and NICs

  30.0

  35.0

  1998–99

  £ per week

  Gross income

  1,663.50

  3,327.00

  Income Tax

  413.23

  1,078.63

  NICs

  86.76

  86.76

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  24.8

  32.4

  NICs

  5.2

  2.6

  Tax and NICs

  30.1

  35.0

  1999–2000

  £ per week

  Gross income

  1,722.25

  3,444.50

  Income Tax

  427.84

  1,116.74

  NICs

  86.80

  86.80

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  24.8

  32.4

  NICs

  5.0

  2.5

  Tax and NICs

  29.9

  34.9

  2000–01

  £ per week

  Gross income

  1,799.75

  3,599.50

  968W

  Multiples of median earnings

  500 per cent.

  1,000 per cent.

  Income Tax

  448.81

  1,168.71

  NICs

  91.80

  91.80

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  24.9

  32.5

  NICs

  5.1

  2.6

  Tax and NICs

  30.0

  35.0

  2001–02

  £ per week

  Gross income

  1,880.74

  3,761.48

  Income Tax

  470.31

  1,222.61

  NICs

  97.60

  97.60

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  25.0

  32.5

  NICs

  5.2

  2.6

  Tax and NICs

  30.2

  35.1

  Single-earner married couple, two children

  1997–98

  £ per week

  Gross income

  1,603.65

  3,207.30

  Income Tax

  517.37

  1,158.83

  NICs

  41.54

  41.54

  Child Benefit (CB)

  20.05

  20.05

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  32.3

  36.1

  NICs

  2.6

  1.3

  Income Tax

  33.6

  36.8

  1998–99

  £ per week

  Gross income

  1,663.50

  3,327.00

  Income Tax

  536.57

  1,201.97

  NICs

  43.38

  43.38

  Child Benefit (CB)

  20.75

  20.75

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  32.3

  36.1

  NICs

  2.6

  1.3

  Income Tax

  33.6

  36.8

  1999–2000

  £ per week

  Gross income

  1,722.25

  3,444.50

  Income Tax

  556.48

  1,245.38

  NICs

  43.40

  43.40

  Child Benefit (CB)

  24.00

  24.00

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  32.3

  36.2

  NICs

  2.5

  1.3

  Income Tax

  33.4

  36.7

  2000–01

  £ per week

  Gross income

  1,799.75

  3,599.50

  Income Tax

  584.35

  1,304.25

  NICs

  45.90

  45.90

  Child Benefit (CB)

  25.00

  25.00

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  32.5

  36.2

  NICs

  2.6

  1.3

  Income Tax

  33.6

  36.8

  2001–02

  £ per week

  Gross income

  1,880.74

  3,761.48

  Income Tax

  611.30

  1,363.60

  NICs

  48.80

  48.80

  Child Benefit (CB)

  25.85

  25.85

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  32.5

  36.3

  NICs

  2.6

  1.3

  Income Tax

  33.7

  36.9

  969W
  Notes:

  1. Income tax payments are calculated on the basis that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only have income from employment. All earners are assumed to pay Class 1 national insurance contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  2. Earnings are taken to be the median gross weekly earnings of all full-time employees on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. (Median earnings are more representative of the population as whole than mean male full-time earnings).

  3. In line with the convention in the Tax Benefit Reference Manual, Child Benefit is treated as negative income tax.

  4. For the two earner family it is assumed that earnings are split 60 per cent.: 40 per cent.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent developments have taken place in the United Kingdom to reduce child poverty.[25904]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government are committed to abolishing child poverty within a generation and halving it by 2010. In support of this, it recently published a strategy document on child poverty, "Tackling Child Poverty—giving every child the best possible start in life", which will inform the Budget and Spending Review 2002.

  The Government's strategy involves:
  helping to ensure a decent family income, with work for those who can and support for those who can't;
  delivering excellent public services for all neighbourhoods and targeted interventions for those with additional needs;
  supporting parents so that they can provide better support for their children; and
  harnessing the power and expertise of the voluntary and community sectors, providing support for innovation and good practice and building strategic partnerships with these sectors to fight child poverty.

  As a result of personal tax and benefit measures announced in the last Parliament, it is estimated that there are 1.2 million fewer children in poverty than would otherwise have been the case. The Government have also made substantial new investments in services for children. Over the four years to 2004, average real-terms annual growth in spending on education and training in England will be over 5.5 per cent. In addition, extra funds have been made available for SureStart, Neighbourhood Renewal and the Children's Fund.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations will apply in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement on the application of this directive to England, Scotland and Wales. [25919]

  Alan Johnson
  In Northern Ireland, implementation of employment legislation is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. Responsibility for regulations on part-time workers rests with the Minister for Employment and Learning. I understand that the Part-time Workers 970W
  (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 came into operation on 1 July 2000.

  The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 came into force in England, Scotland and Wales on 1 July 2000 and ensure that part-timers are treated no less favourably than comparable full-timers in their terms and conditions unless this is objectively justified.

  The measure ensures that Britain's six million part-timers can no longer be treated as second class citizens.

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what mechanism was used for measuring the uptake of parental leave in the last three years; and what was the(a) uptake of parental leave and (b) proportion of those eligible who took parental leave in the same period. [25879]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department commissioned a survey of working parents to inform the Government's review of maternity and parental leave. Initial results were published in the Green Paper "Work and Parents competitiveness and choice", published in December 2000, and in the accompanying document "Work and Parents competitiveness and choice—Research and Analysis". The survey found that, by autumn 2000, at least 3 per cent. of working parents had taken parental leave since December 1999.

  Questions on take-up of parental leave have recently been introduced in the Labour Force Survey. Results are expected later this year.

  Sustainable Development
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's definition is of the term sustainable development. [25311]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: The DTI's definitions of sustainable developments and the Department's strategy was published in October 2000 and is also available on the DTI's website www.dti.gov.uk/sustainbly.

  Graduates
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact on productivity of the increased proportion of graduates in the work force. [25472]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: Levels of educational attainment, including attainment at a tertiary level, are one of a range of factors which impact on productivity and competitiveness that are identified in the DTI's UK Competitiveness Indicators (Second Edition, February 2001). A copy is available in the Libraries of the House. The economic benefits of increased participation in higher education are widely recognised. For example a recent report from the OECD states that:
  High tertiary entry and participation rates help to ensure the development and maintenance of a highly educated population and labour force. Tertiary education is associated with better

  971W
  access to employment and higher earnings. Rates of entry to both types of tertiary education are an indication, in part, of the degree to which the population is acquiring high-level skills and knowledge valued by the labour market in knowledge societies (Education at Glance—OECD Indicators, 2001).

  Nuisance Faxes
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to investigate nuisance faxes; and what charges can be made against those who continue to send unprompted material. [25005]

  Mr. Alexander
  Unsolicited direct marketing by fax is regulated under the Telecoms Data Protection and Privacy Directive, implemented in the UK by the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999. Under these regulations, unsolicited direct marketing faxes to individual subscribers are banned unless they have given their prior consent. Corporate subscribers, including limited companies, are entitled to register with the Fax Preference Service or instruct particular senders not to send them any further faxes. (Individuals may also reinforce their protection by registering). Any faxes which advertise premium rate services are in addition subject to self-regulatory control by the industry regulator, ICSTIS, and must comply with the ICSTIS code of conduct.

  The Information Commissioner enforces the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations. The Commissioner may send an enforcement notice to anyone who sends faxes to individuals who have not given their consent, or to subscribers who have registered on the Fax Preference Service; ultimately, failure to comply with enforcement notices is a criminal offence punishable by a fine.

  Consignia
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the latest annual bonuses paid to managers of Consignia in each business unit of Consignia, broken down by(a) gender and (b) ethnic origin. [24460]

  Mr. Alexander
  Since the company was given the commercial freedom it had long sought, operational issues like bonus payments are a matter for the company.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the size of the Consignia work force is. [24451]

  Mr. Alexander
  I am advised by Consignia that the average number of staff, calculated on a full-time equivalent basis, including part-time employees, employed by the company in the year ended 31 March 2001 was 217,964.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average rate of pay is for(a) the work force, (b) managers and (c) non-managers of Consignia, broken down by business unit, and in each business unit by (i) gender and (ii) ethnic origin. [24453]

  Mr. Alexander
  Rates of pay are an operational issue for Consignia.

  I am advised by the company that this information is not available in the format requested.
  972W

  Exporters
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria need to be met by British manufacturers if they wish to obtain preferential status. [22812]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government do not give preferential status to particular exporters.

  Postal Archive
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement about the(a) status of and (b) future of the postal archive and the property of what was formerly the Postal Museum. [24570]

  Mr. Alexander
  This is an issue for Consignia plc. I am advised by the company that the archives of the Post Office from 17th to 20th century, including historical documents, maps and posters, are open to the public at Freeling House at Mount Pleasant in London on weekdays with no need of an appointment.

  The artefacts of the national Postal Museum are stored at Freeling House and most of the philatelic material may be viewed by appointment. Various options are currently being considered for enhanced philatelic study facilities and improved public access to the museum collections.

  Computer Hardware
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of computer hardware suppliers tying their customers to a particular software operating system, with particular reference to small businesses. [24514]

  Mr. Alexander
  All UK consumers of computer hardware are free to make purchases from a range of suppliers and to choose one providing a package that will meet their individual software requirements. I am not aware of any limitation of consumers' choice in this area. If, however, there is any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour this should be forwarded to the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in meeting the Government's commitments(a) in response to recommendation (d) of the Eighth report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, UK Online Reviewed: The First Annual report of the E-Minister and E-Envoy, dated March 2001 and (b) in response to recommendation (e) of the Fourteenth report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the Electronic Communications Bill, dated October 1999. [27107]

  Mr. Alexander
  (a) Progress in response to this commitment was reported on pages 18–19 of the UK Online Annual Report 2001, and in a memorandum to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry dated 20 December. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

  (b) Departments have until recently proceeded with the task of identifying statutory requirements of writing for updating on the basis that an order under section 8 of the Electronic Communications Act, or other amending

  973W
  legislation, was necessary to authorise or facilitate electronic communication in fulfilment of the requirement. The Law Commission published an Advice to Government on 19 December which gives a different view on what constitutes 'writing' in the context of electronic communications. The Government are still considering the implications of this advice. The Government have, however, in the light of the advice and other developments, modified their approach to updating the law to authorise or facilitate electronic communication. Their revised policy is set out in the memorandum to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry dated 20 December, which also includes lists of legislation so far identified by Departments for updating.

  ECGD
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she intends to publish the ECGD's Annual Report and Resource Accounts for 2000–01. [27108]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department's (ECGD's) Annual Report and Resource Accounts for 2000–01 were laid before the House this morning. I am pleased to say that they demonstrate once more that British capital goods exporters and investors have been successful in winning valuable overseas orders with Government insurance and guarantee support worth £5.6 billion. Furthermore, they show that ECGD is in a good financial position from which to continue supporting further business while protecting the interests of the taxpayer, in what is a difficult period for the global economy.

  Trade Credits
  Andy Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what was the value of trade credits to heavily indebted poor countries guaranteed by the UK Government which were cancelled in each year since 1983. [25238]

  Nigel Griffiths
  No such debts in relation to trade credits were cancelled between 1983 and 1990 inclusive. Amounts cancelled in each year since were as follows:

  Year

  £Million

  1991

  6.62

  1992

  17.80

  1993

  26.89

  1994

  8.76

  1995

  23.74

  1996

  180.69

  1997

  22.49

  1998

  33.04

  1999

  56.91

  2000

  48.13

  2001

  135.04

  Total

  560.11

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Performing Arts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the(a) new companies,
  974W
  (b) new work and (c) new venues that have been funded by her Department in order to increase access to the performing arts in the last 12 months. [22541]

  Dr. Howells
  We have contacted the Arts Council of England to request the information required, and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of her letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the libraries based in the Buckingham constituency which have received funding from the(a) Public Library Volunteer scheme and (b) People's Network programme indicating (i) the nature of the project, (ii) the date of the award and (iii) the amount provided in each case. [23743]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department, in conjunction with the Home Office Active Community Unit, is match funding the "Lending Time" scheme led by CSV (Community Service Volunteers) to promote the use of volunteers in libraries. Expressions of interest were invited from libraries through the Library Association and six libraries have been selected to pilot the scheme. Buckinghamshire did not express an interest in this scheme.

  All eight public libraries in Buckingham constituency have been awarded funds from the New Opportunities Access to Lifelong Learning Programme to support the People's Network programme. The funding will have provided, by summer 2002, 24 new terminals within Buckingham. The award was announced on 11 April 2001. Awards for individual libraries are not available. In total, Buckinghamshire library service will receive £827,138 to connect all its libraries to a high speed broadband network, and provide new PCs and appropriate training for librarians.

  Sports Drug Tests
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussion she has had with UK Sport about the number of drug tests on British triathletes. [25529]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no direct discussions on the number of drug tests on British triathletes, although she receives UK Sport's annual reports of the testing programmes for all sports covered by their anti-doping programme.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions UK Sport has had with the International Triathlon Union about drug testing; and if she will make a statement. [25530]

  Mr. Caborn
  UK Sport works in partnership with the national federations in the UK to deliver testing programmes both in and out of competition. There are a small number of events in the UK which fall under the international federation's responsibility and on these occasions UK Sport liaises with the international federation direct. The last such event was the London Triathlon in September 1998.

  In 2000–01 triathlon was introduced to the Olympic Games in Sydney. The focus of the testing programme was on the pre-Olympic testing of UK triathletes both in

  975W
  the UK and in Australia. This programme was arranged in partnership with the British Triathlon Association. In 2001–02, so far two triathlon events in the UK have been tested and one World Class Squad Training Day making a total of 37 tests to date.

  Discussions are on-going about triathlon introducing an out of competition testing programme for individual triathletes, and the British Triathlon Association have been actively working towards increasing their anti-doping efforts.

  Royal Parks Agency
  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what performance targets were set for the Royal Parks Agency for 2001–02.[26901]

  Dr. Howells
  The following performance targets were set for the Royal Parks Agency for 2000–01:Financial and Efficiency
  To increase income by 10 per cent. from the 2000–01 level, from all sources except recharges and VAT refunds.
  Stay within the revised running costs allocation.
  Seek to bring the hourly cost of a Royal Parks Police Constable on duty in line with the recommendation in the Speed Report.
  Visitor satisfaction
  Achieve an overall quality rating of 89 per cent. from visitors to the parks. The minimum rating for any one park should be no lower than 85 per cent., compared with 83 per cent. in 2000–01.
  Fabric
  Achieve an average rating from visitors of at least 89 per cent. on cleanliness in the parks. The minimum rating for a park should be no lower than 85 per cent.
  Maintain an average score of 89 per cent. for soft landscape presentation, compared with a score of 88 per cent. in 2000–01. The minimum score for a park should be no lower than 85 per cent. compared to 82 per cent. in 2000–01.
  Re-appraise maintenance priorities, and set annual targets and meaningful indicators for reducing the backlog of works and maintenance.

SCOTLAND

  Euro
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the results of a future referendum on British membership of the euro will allow identification of votes cast for and against according to(a) parliamentary constituency, (b) local authority area and (c) Scotland. [25870]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The conduct of referendums has, since 16 February 2001, been the responsibility of the Electoral Commission, following the coming into force of provisions in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

  Computer Crime
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of computer(a) hacking, (b) fraud and (c) theft her Department recorded in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001; and on how many occasions in those years computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers (a) within and (b) outside her Department.[13132]
  976W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. During the specified period, there were no cases of computer fraud, no incidents of computer hacking, and no systems were illegally accessed; neither were there any cases of computer theft reported by the Scotland Office.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Waste Policy
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much additional money will be available for local authority recycling and composting in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03, (c) 2003–04 and (d) 2004–05, as a result of the increases in SSA for environmental, cultural and protective services after allowing for (i) cost increases in landfill and incineration and (ii) inflation. [22323]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: SR2000 provided real terms increases for the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS) block of the Standard Spending Assessment which includes these services. By the third year the EPCS will have risen by £1.1 billion. Landfill and incineration costs will be affected by factors such as the volume of waste, pressure on landfill gate fees and the landfill tax, which is currently £12 per tonne for active waste and will be increased by £1 per year through to 2004 05. Their effect on local authority costs will also depend on how much waste is recycled or composted. It is for each local authority to decide how much of the revenue support grant it receives, and its other resources including the amount raised through council tax, should be directed towards any particular service.

  Vehicle Lights
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact that the introduction of mandatory day-time running lights on all vehicles will have on the number of road-related(a) accidents and (b) fatalities. [24294]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions commissioned the Transport Research Laboratory to carry out a review of the methodology used by the SWOV Institute in the Netherlands for their report on the safety effects of daytime running lights. This report, carried out on behalf of the European Commission, which combined the results of 24 published studies, suggested that the universal use of daytime running lights in the United Kingdom in 1995 would have saved 648 lives. This would represent a 17 per cent. reduction in fatal accidents. The hypothetical overall casualty reduction would be 29 per cent.

  The Transport Research Laboratory's review concluded that the claims for potential accident savings appeared exaggerated because daytime running lights can only be effective in preventing a limited type of accident.

  The Department is proposing to carry out further research into the effectiveness of daytime running lamps.
  977W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made towards the fitting of daytime running lights on all new vehicles. [24293]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A commitment to fit daytime running lamps was included in the European Commission's proposals to introduce pedestrian protection features in new cars by a negotiated agreement with car manufacturers.

  This element of the proposals has been deferred for further consideration.

  Transport Projects
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which transport infrastructure projects given formal approval since 1997 will affect the Buckingham constituency; and if he will indicate the cost of each project. [24843]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are a number of significant infrastructure schemes, either within the Buckingham constituency or nearby, which will affect the constituency. Further information is given in the table.

  £000

  Scheme

  Cost

  1998–99

  A43 Towcester—M40 dualling1,3

  56,600

  2000–01

  Stoke Hammond and Linslade Western Bypass2

  32,400

  M40 Handy Cross improvement measures

  3,000

  A41 Aston Clinton Bypass3

  21,000

  2001–02

  Berryfields—new right turn lane3

  250

  A5 Old Stratford Roundabout signalization3

  250

  2002–03

  Complementary works for M40 Handy Cross junction

  400

  Ml J14 minor improvements3

  100

  Total

  114,000

  1 Scheme confirmed in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England" published in July 1998

  2 Provisionally accepted local authority major scheme

  3 Highways Agency Scheme

  Railtrack
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the relationship is between the Strategic Rail Authority and Partnerships UK with respect to the proposed bid to take over Railtrack plc by a not for profit company. [24871]

  Mr. Byers
  The Strategic Rail Authority is now the sponsor of the bid by the proposed company limited by guarantee (CLG) which will put forward a proposal to the administrator to take over the assets and liabilities of Railtrack plc and its role as network operator. It is for the CLG bid team and the SRA to decide what further assistance they may require.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many affordable 978W
  housing units there were; and what was the proportion occupied in rural areas by (a) constituency, and (b) local authority for each year since 1990. [24895]

  Ms Keeble
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  New affordable homes in rural settlements in England with a population of 3,000 or less are funded by the Housing Corporation and by local authorities, or through the planning system without public subsidy.

  From 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992 and each of the following years up to and including 1 April to 30 November 2001 the following affordable homes in rural settlements in England with a population of 3,000 or less were completed and funded, by the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme and Local Authority Social Housing Grant

  Year

  Total

  1991–92

  803

  1992–93

  2,268

  1993–94

  1,567

  1994–95

  1,341

  1995–96

  1,811

  1996–97

  1,678

  1997–98

  2,020

  1998–99

  1,792

  1999–2000

  1,533

  2000–01

  1,278

  2001–02

  463

  The number of affordable housing units completed through the planning system is not collected centrally. I will write to the hon. Member with a breakdown by local authority of the affordable housing completions shown above.

  London Underground
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answers of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 560W, on London Underground, what were the comparable figures for 2000. [25163]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These are operational matters for London Underground who inform me that there were:

  (a) 85 signal failures causing delays to services on the District line between Earl's Court and Wimbledon during 2000; and

  (b) 38 train delays of over 15 minutes and 155 peak time cancellations of District line trains because of train defects during 2000.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 15W, on London Underground, if the terms of reference referred to were the final terms of reference agreed with Ernst & Young; and if he will make a statement. [25862]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The precise timing of the Ernst & Young report is under review as it depends on London Underground's progress with its evaluation of bids. Otherwise, the terms of reference referred to are final. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear that he will publish Ernst & Young's report before any decisions are taken on whether to sign contracts.
  979W

  Millennium Dome
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how much is to be paid for the Dome structure by English Partnerships' exclusive partner; [25112]

  (2) how much is to be paid for the building land adjacent to the Dome by English Partnerships' exclusive partner; and when the payment will be made. [25111]

  Ms Keeble
  Through the proposed deal between English Partnerships and Meridian Delta Ltd., English Partnerships expects to receive hundreds of millions of pounds, over the lifetime of the project, including a guaranteed minimum price for the land that English Partnerships is putting into the joint venture. The amount to be received by English Partnerships will be determined further during negotiations with Meridian Delta Ltd., and will also be dependent on timing and quantum of future development.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guarantees he is seeking from English Partnerships' exclusive partner about the circumstances in which they would be permitted to demolish the Dome structure. [25113]

  Ms Keeble
  The proposed deal with Meridian Delta Ltd. envisages a review of the Dome's physical structure in 2019, in the light of the then commercial conditions and the projected maintenance costs of the Dome.

  Anschutz Entertainment Group, part of the Meridian Delta Ltd. consortium, and who would be responsible for building and operating the arena inside the Dome, have stated, publicly, their intention to retain the Dome for many years more than this.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many motorists were detected driving with a blood alcohol level beyond the permitted maximum broken down by bands of 20 mg in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [25159]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of positive or refused breath tests recorded in England and Wales in each of the last three years are shown in the table. This information is obtained from the Home Office. Information is not collected centrally on blood alcohol levels.

  Positive or refused breath tests recorded in England and Wales

  Year

  Number

  1998

  102,300

  1999

  94,100

  2000

  94,600

  Housing (Tower Hamlets)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what factors account for the reduction in the major repairs allowance available for housing repairs in the London borough of Tower Hamlets. [25878]
  980W
  Ms Keeble
  The major repairs allowance is calculated on a per dwelling basis. Between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001 the number of local authority dwellings in Tower Hamlets fell by almost 6 per cent. However, a 2.4 per cent. increase in the allowance per dwelling for next year restricted the overall reduction in Tower Hamlets' 2002–03 allocation to 3.6 per cent.

  Homelessness
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the estimated number of homeless living in(a) London and (b) cities outside London in each of the last 10 years. [25030]

  Ms Keeble
  I have arranged for a table to be placed in the Libraries of the House. This present information on households accepted as homeless and in priority need in each financial year, and households resident in temporary accommodation at the 31 March of each year, as reported by English local authorities on their annual Housing Investment Programme returns.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many homeless people aged between 16 and 18 years were registered on local authority housing lists in each of the last 15 years. [24970]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department collects information on the number of households accepted by local authorities in England under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts as being eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need. Available estimates of those cases where the authority considered the presence of a "vulnerable young person" to be the most crucial category in determining priority need are given in the table. This category was not separately identified in statistics collected prior to June 1991.

  Information collected by the Department on local authorities' housing registers does not include an analysis by age of head of household.

  Homeless households accepted by local authorities in England 1991–92 to 2000–01

  Households with vulnerable young people

  As a percentage of total

  1991–92

  3,400

  2.4

  1992–93

  4,650

  3.4

  1993–94

  4,360

  3.5

  1994–95

  3,850

  3.3

  1995–96

  3,780

  3.2

  1996–97

  3,520

  3.2

  1997–98

  3,200

  3.1

  1998–99

  3,560

  3.4

  1999–2000

  3,590

  3.4

  2000–01

  5,170

  4.5

  2001–021

  2,870

  4.8

  1April-September

  Notes:

  Vulnerable young persons are typically, but not exclusively, aged 18 or under. Households headed by 16 to 18-year-olds but accepted under another priority-need category (such as with dependent children or with a pregnant woman) cannot be separately identified and are not included in these figures.

  Source:

  DTLR P1(e) housing returns (quarterly)
  981W
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many homeless households are in(a) temporary and (b) bed-and-breakfast accommodation in each region of the country; what steps are being taken to reduce these numbers; and if he will make a statement. [25737]

  Ms Keeble
  At 30 September 2001, the numbers of households in each region in temporary accommodation (which includes bed-and-breakfast) and in bed-and-breakfast (rounded to the nearest 10) were:

  Total

  Of which bed-and-breakfast

  North East

  1,540

  60

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,080

  270

  East Midlands

  2,050

  70

  Eastern

  5,520

  200

  London

  44,340

  8,540

  South East

  12,860

  1,410

  South West

  5,590

  1,160

  West Midlands

  1,820

  120

  North West

  2,150

  150

  England

  77,940

  12,290

  The Homelessness Bill, when enacted, will require local authorities to conduct a review of the levels, and likely future levels, of all forms of homelessness in their area and to develop a strategy for preventing homelessness and ensuring that sufficient accommodation and support is available for those who are or may become homeless.

  The Minister for Housing and Planning also announced on 3 December that a new Homelessness Directorate will be set up to bring together and invigorate existing work to help homeless people, as well as develop new work to help prevent homelessness, and investigate its underlying causes.

  Additionally, we are determined to reduce local authority use of unsatisfactory accommodation to accommodate the homeless. Over the next two years the new bed-and-breakfast unit will work with partners to introduce measures to reduce the need to place families, especially those with children, in bed-and-breakfast. The unit will shortly be publishing targets.

  Rent Arrears
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the level of rent arrears was in each local authority in each of the last 10 years. [24966]

  Ms Keeble
  I have placed in the Libraries of the House a table showing the level of rent arrears as reported by each local authority in England at the end of the financial year, for each of the last 10 years.

  Council House Sales
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of capital receipts raised from the sale of council houses has been spent on building and renovating council stock in each of the last 20 years. [25012]
  982W
  Ms Keeble
  The information requested is not available. The receipts from council house sales available for new capital expenditure are used, along with other un-hypothecated capital resources (eg other capital receipts, borrowing supported by basic credit approvals), to finance authorities' overall capital programmes.

  Housing
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people have been housed in(a) local authority housing, (b) social housing and (c) the rented private sector in each of the last 15 years. [25010]

  Ms Keeble
  The information requested for England is shown in the following table. Annual figures are available only from 1993 onwards when the Survey of English Housing started. Figures for earlier years come from a periodic supplementary questionnaire on housing topics that was included in the Labour Force Survey. For years before 1993 figures in terms of persons are not readily available so the information requested has been provided in terms of households. If information about housing in Wales is required inquiries should be made to the Office for the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Housing tenure in England 1984 to 2000

  Thousand

  Local authority

  Registered social landlord

  Private rented sector

  Households

  1984

  4,660

  374

  1,920

  1988

  4,246

  460

  1,702

  1991

  3,872

  564

  1,824

  1993

  3,672

  726

  1,876

  1994

  3,677

  767

  1,936

  1995

  3,494

  910

  2,011

  1996

  3,482

  1,010

  2,047

  1997

  3,333

  987

  1,991

  1998

  3,324

  1,028

  2,044

  1999

  3,137

  1,161

  2,099

  2000

  2,941

  1,279

  2,003

  Persons

  1984

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1988

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1991

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1993

  8,505

  1,466

  4,225

  1994

  8,411

  1,645

  4,143

  1995

  7,938

  1,928

  4,383

  1996

  7,887

  2,245

  4,424

  1997

  7,485

  2,165

  4,387

  1998

  7,513

  2,240

  4,415

  1999

  7,085

  2,479

  4,514

  2000

  6,520

  2,792

  4,369

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many local authorities will be in a position to implement an arm's length management organisation for their housing stock in the next two years. [25109]

  Ms Keeble
  It is open to any local authority with housing stock to manage that stock through arm's length arrangements, subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State to the delegation of their housing management functions. We do not hold information on the number of authorities that may be considering this option. On
  983W
  Thursday 29 November 2001, we announced conditional funding allocations to eight local authorities which intend to pursue this option Official Report, column 1064W. These allocations will be confirmed during 2002 if the authorities meet the necessary criteria. Applications for the next round of conditional allocations are due by the end of February 2002.

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many housing units were cleared in the public and private sector in the last five years, broken down by region. [25248]

  Ms Keeble
  According to information supplied by local authorities, the number of dwellings demolished in the private and public sector in England by region in the last five financial years is given in the table.

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  England

  10,852

  14,030

  13,579

  15,218

  17,969

  North East

  1,517

  1,432

  1,786

  2,446

  2,222

  North West

  3,206

  3,549

  2,678

  3,459

  5,713

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  1,100

  1,825

  2,637

  2,282

  3,615

  East Midlands

  265

  373

  191

  139

  674

  West Midlands

  1,601

  2,135

  1,679

  2,646

  1,332

  East

  355

  700

  345

  220

  325

  London

  1,679

  2,797

  2,819

  2,870

  2,400

  South East

  791

  910

  943

  832

  960

  South West

  338

  309

  501

  324

  728

  Disabled Facilities Grants
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of the review of disabled facilities grants. [24952]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: There has been no review of disabled facilities grants as such. However, the Government have been considering the maximum limit for grant, and preparing new guidance.

  The Government have decided that the maximum limit for mandatory disabled facilities grant in England should be increased from £20,000 to £25,000. This change will take effect from 21 January 2002. Government resources to local authorities for the disabled facilities grant budget for 1992–93 will be increased to £88 million and we will shortly be announcing individual DFG allocations to local authorities for that year.

  In conjunction with the Department of Health, my Department is also preparing new statutory and good practice guidance for local authorities covering all aspects of housing adaptations for disabled people. We hope to publish this new guidance in the spring of 2002.

  Multiple Occupation
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will publish a summary of the responses he received to the consultation paper on Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation in England, issued by his Department in 1999; and if he will place copies of the responses in the Library; [25541]
  984W
  (2) when he intends to undertake formal consultation on reforms to the Housing (Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Regulations 1990; and if he will make a statement. [25543]

  Ms Keeble
  I hope to publish both of these papers in the near future. However, what we say on these matters will need to have regard to the position reached on the Home Energy Conservation Bill, currently before Parliament, which among other things would provide for a revised definition of a house in multiple occupation and introduce mandatory registration and licensing of such properties.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a)households and (b) people in private rented HMO dwellings there are in England, broken down by (i) traditional and bedsit HMOs, (ii) shared houses and flats, (iii) households with lodgers and (iv) HMO buildings converted into flats. [25542]

  Ms Keeble
  The table provides the most recent estimates (1996) for number of households and people in private rented HMO dwellings in England.

  1Estimates of the number of households and people in private rented HMOs in 1996

  Households

  People

  Traditional or bedsit HMOs

  165,000

  267,000

  Shared houses and flats

  188,000

  547,000

  Households with lodgers

  202,000

  2253,000

  HMO buildings converted into flats3

  302,000

  472,000

  Total4

  857,000

  1,539,000

  1 There is a margin of error involved in the estimates arising from the sample nature of the English House Condition Survey and from the complexities of classifying some types of HMO.

  2 The number of people refers to the number of lodgers and excludes the landlord and members of the landlord's household.

  3 Shared converted flats, households with lodgers in converted flats and bedsits in converted flats are included in the respective columns and not in the converted flat total.

  4 Please note that the total excludes households and people within private rented, purpose built HMOs for which the EHCS sample size is too small to produce reliable estimates.

  Source:

  English House Condition Survey 1996: Houses in Multiple Occupation in the private rented sector (DTLR: 1999)

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many private rented houses in multiple occupation accommodation units and dwellings there are in England, broken down by(a) traditional and bedsit HMOs, (b)shared houses and flats, (c) households with lodgers and (d) HMO buildings converted into flats. [25590]

  Ms Keeble
  The table provides the most recent estimates (1996) for the number of private rented house in multiple occupation accommodation units and dwellings in England.

  Estimates1 of the number of private rented HMO accommodation units and dwellings in 1996

  Accommodation units

  Dwellings

  Traditional or bedsit HMOs

  219,000

  56,000

  Shared houses and flats

  189,000

  189,000

  985W

  Estimates1 of the number of private rented HMO accommodation units and dwellings in 1996

  Accommodation units

  Dwellings

  Households with lodgers

  202,000

  202,000

  HMO buildings converted into flats2

  337,000

  337,000

  Total3

  947,000

  784,000

  1 There is a margin of error involved in the estimates arising from the sample nature of the English House Condition Survey and from the complexities of classifying some types of HMO.

  2Shared converted flats, households with lodgers in converted flats and bedsits in converted flats are included in the respective columns and not in the converted flat total.

  3 Please note that the total excludes accommodation units and dwellings within private rented, purpose built HMOs for which the EHCS sample size is too small to produce reliable estimates.

  Source:

  English House Condition Survey 1996: Houses in Multiple Occupation in the private rented sector (DTLR: 1999)

  Housing Fitness Standard
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to replace the housing fitness standard by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System; and if he will make a statement. [25610]

  Ms Keeble
  The Housing Health and Safety Rating System will set out a new approach to the assessment of housing conditions. The Government intend to legislate, as soon as parliamentary time allows, so that local authorities can take action against properties posing health and safety risks on the basis of the new system.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish a summary of the responses he received to the consultation paper on the replacement of the housing fitness standard by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. [25611]

  Ms Keeble
  We consulted last year on a framework of legislation and guidance within which local authorities would use the Housing Health and Safety Rating System as the basis for action against unacceptable housing conditions. I am placing a summary of the responses in the Library of the House. It will also be available shortly on the Department's housing website at www.housing.dtlr.gov.uk/information/index08.htm.

  Alternative Fuels
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many(a) LPG and (b) natural gas refuelling depots there are in (i) the UK and (ii) Wales; and if he will provide a list of where these points in Wales are; [25632]

  (2) what measures he is taking to ensure that the availability of grants to convert vehicles to run on liquidified petroleum gas which are available from PowerShift is widely publicised; [25624]

  (3) how many applications there have been for PowerShift grants for converting vehicles to run on LPG; and how many grants have been approved. [25623]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Energy Saving Trust run the PowerShift programme, covering Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as England, on behalf of the 986W
  Government. There is a comprehensive marketing strategy to raise awareness of LPG and other alternative fuels, and publicise the conversion grants available. There is an interactive website, and regular articles in national and regional newspapers and magazines.

  Since the PowerShift programme began in 1996, the trust has received a UK total of 3,809 applications, of which 2,642 were approved as eligible, covering the conversion of 12,404 vehicles to run on LPG. Of these, the figures for Wales are 157 applications received, and 124 applications approved as eligible, covering 559 vehicles.

  Powershift grants have been limited to conversion of vehicles up to one-year-old, but have recently been extended to be available for vehicles up to five-years-old for which quality LPG conversions are available.

  The number of LPG refuelling points have been growing rapidly and now stands at around 1,000, of which 91 are in Wales. Natural gas is used in heavy vehicles. There are around 30 refuelling points in the UK, mainly at vehicle operators' depots. None is in Wales. Information on LPG refuelling points is available on the PowerShift website at: www.transportaction.org.uk, and I have placed a copy of the present list in the Library. There is no published list of CNG refuelling depots.

  New Dwellings
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the number of new dwellings to be completed by(a) local authorities and (b) registered social landlords using the funds provided for this purpose in each of the years of the current Comprehensive Spending Review. [25742]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department estimates that under the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme, Registered Social Landlords will produce a total of around 65,000 new or rehabilitated homes for low cost renting or home ownership over the period of the current spending review, 2001 to 2004. The precise number depends critically on the costs of land and construction. This does not include Starter Home Initiative funded new dwellings.

  In addition, my Department estimates that local authorities, through local authority social housing grant, will fund around 20,000 affordable homes. This does not include the release of local authority dwellings through the cash incentive scheme. These are estimates based on current investment patterns. How local authorities decide to allocate resources in the future is a matter for local discretion.

  Estimates of the number of homes to be provided in each of the three years are not available.

  Parish Polls
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to amend the rules on parish polls to require any voter adding his or her name to the request for a poll on a particular issue to declare any interest that they may have in the subject of the poll; and if he will make a statement. [25400]
  987W
  Dr. Whitehead
  As part of our initiatives, following the Rural White Paper (Cm 4909), to strengthen local democracy at parish level we will be reviewing the operation of parish polls including the proposal that any voter adding his or her name to the request for a poll on a particular issue should declare any interest that they may have in the subject of the poll. Any change to the current requirements will require primary legislation.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the local authorities in(a) England, by region, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales that own housing stock indicating in each case (i) how many properties they manage, (ii) how much debt they have in their housing revenue account and (iii) what plans they have to deal with their investment and repair backlogs. [25886]

  Ms Keeble
  The information requested on the numbers of dwellings owned by each local authority in England and the associated Housing Revenue Account debt, has been placed in the Libraries of the House. Details of the information provided on plans to tackle renovation and improvement backlog is in the Housing Revenue Account Business Plans that authorities were required to produce for the first time last summer and is available in the Library of the House (see Section E of the Statistical Appendix to the Business Plan).

  The quality of these initial plans varies considerably and not all authorities have been able to provide backlog figures in line with the definitions set. Government Offices however, are working closely with authorities to improve the robustness of the assessment of investment needs and expenditure plans.

  Responsibility for housing matters in Scotland and Wales rests with the Scottish and Welsh Offices.

  Asbestos
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what countries ban white asbestos. [25757]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Under the European Commission Directive 1999/77/EC white asbestos is due to be banned throughout the European Union by 1 January 2005. Many member states, including the UK, have introduced the ban in advance of that date.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the relative risks of(a) white and (b) blue asbestos. [25753]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In line with most scientific opinion, the Government have always taken the view that white asbestos presented a lower risk per unit of exposure than blue asbestos. However white asbestos still represents a risk and is classified as a Category 1 carcinogen by the European Union.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the cost of implementing the register of asbestos conditions from 2002 to(a) British businesses and (b) public buildings. [25755]
  988W
  Dr. Whitehead
  The total compliance costs for the proposed new duty to manage the risk from asbestos are estimated to be £350 million for public buildings and £2.9 billion for British businesses from 2000 over the next 50 years.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many prosecutions there have been in the UK in each of the last 10 years by the Health and Safety Executive, involving use of white asbestos. [25759]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE)'s prosecution statistics are based on the information laid by health and safety inspectors before the courts in England and Wales and on the charges preferred in Scottish courts. Each information laid or charge preferred relates to a breach of an individual legal requirement and a duty holder may be prosecuted for more than one of these breaches.

  The table sets out proceedings taken over the last five years by HSE under the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987, the main regulations applying to asbestos activities. Access to older data is not readily available and would require restoration of archived databases. HSE's system for recording prosecutions does not differentiate between the different types of asbestos. In this table, figures for informations laid include charges preferred in Scotland.

  Informations laid

  1996–97

  37

  1997–98

  45

  1998–99

  40

  1999–2000

  120

  2000–011

  82

  1provisional

  Note:

  Data is from HSE's Field Operations Directorate (FOD), Hazardous Installations Directorate (HID) Land Divisions (excluding Mines, Pipelines and Explosives) and Nuclear Safety Division (NSD) (conventional safety only)

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what records his Department has of asbestos-related illness linked to encapsulated asbestos cement in the last 50 years. [25756]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The available records of asbestos-related disease are not sufficiently detailed to identify the separate effect of asbestos released from different kinds of asbestos products such as encapsulated asbestos cement.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has for increasing restrictions on white asbestos use. [25758]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government have no plans to increase the current restrictions on the use of white asbestos and of products containing it, apart from the derogations contained in the Asbestos (Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 1999 that will cease to have effect after 1 January 2005.
  989W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the scientific advice to the Health and Safety Executive on which it has based its risk assessment of white asbestos. [25754]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Health and Safety Executive has over the years taken account of a range of scientific evidence in reaching its view on the proper control of health risks from white asbestos exposure. Important recent elements of this evidence have been the 1985 Doll and Peto paper on the effects on health of exposure to asbestos, the Institute of Environmental Health's 1997 report on fibrous materials in the environment, and the 2000 Hodgson and Darnton paper on the quantitative risks of mesothelioma and lung cancer in relation to asbestos exposure. All have been published and copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what meetings his Department has had with representatives of building product companies or trade bodies to discuss the hazards of white asbestos. [25760]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) held a number of meetings with representatives of the Asbestos Information Centre, prior to formal consultation on the proposals to ban the marketing, supply and use of white asbestos in 1998. The HSE held further meetings with them following consultation. At none of the meetings were the hazards of white asbestos specifically discussed. HSE has also met a representative of the Asbestos Cement Product Producers Association in 2000 to discuss their concerns about the white asbestos ban.

  Aircraft (Air Quality)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidelines are in place to monitor the air quality of commercial aircrafts arriving or departing within the United Kingdom; who regulates the effectiveness of high-efficiency particulate air filters; and if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of HEPA filters on the transmission of turberculosis. [25216]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are at present no guidelines relating to the monitoring of air quality in aircraft. There is no statutory requirement for the use of filters in aircraft ventilation systems but where such filters are used, the CAA requires that they do not adversely affect the prime functions of the aircraft systems to which they are fitted and that airlines conduct maintenance in line with the aeroplane manufacturers' instructions. According to tests carried out by a manufacturer of High Efficiency Particulate Air filters, they have been found to remove microbiological organisms with an efficiency greater than 99.999 per cent.

  The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology in its report on air travel and health concluded that the modern aircraft cabin environment generally poses no greater risk of transmission of infection between its occupants than crowded situations elsewhere—and may, indeed, be healthier than most of them.
  990W

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Hunting
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if(a) private and (b) non-Governmental organisations have been given access to the Veterinary Risk Assessment report on hunting prior to its official publication; and if she will make a statement. [12023]

  Alun Michael
  No one from private or non-government organisations was given access to the Veterinary Risk Assessment prior to publication although some draft recommendations emanating from the Risk Assessment were discussed with both pro and anti-hunting groups.

  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what types of unusual incidents hunts are expected to report when returning their certificates of compliance to her Department. [25486]

  Alun Michael
  Hunts would be expected to report episodes such as the disturbance of deer or other animals unrelated to the hunt or anything else unexpected which would pose a risk to the disease control requirements.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on(a) farm cash flow and (b) farmers' livelihoods in the Macclesfield constituency of delays in the (i) despatch and (ii) processing of (A) livestock and (B) South West Peak ESA scheme (1) claim forms and (2) payments from the Rural Payments Agency in Worcester; and if she will make a statement. [15808]

  Mr. Morley
  For some ESA cases there has been a delay in despatching claim forms because of queries that need resolution. However the majority of claim forms were sent out in September. This is about one month later than normal and was due to the restructuring of ex MAFF regions. Payments are however expected to be made within the two month Citizen Charter target.

  There has been no delay in despatching livestock claims but a number of factors, including the loss of experienced staff to foot and mouth disease (FMD), industrial action, the need to cross check claims against the FMD database to establish entitlement and the need to update computer software to reflect some changes have affected the speed of processing. Advance payments on SAPS and BSPS are on target, and advances on SPS are currently ahead of last year's performance. No advances on SCPS have yet been made but are expected to start shortly with the intention of them all being paid by the deadline.

  Farmers' cash flows and livelihoods should not therefore be significantly affected.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 17 December 2001, Ref 20948, what savings have been made since the establishment of the Rural Payments Agency. [24974]
  991W
  Mr. Morley
  The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) was established on 16 October 2001. By 2004 it will have implemented a major change programme that will deliver cost efficiencies in key aspects of CAP administration. During this period there will be two phases of office closures coupled with progressive delivery of changed business processes supported by modernised IT.

  The first phase of office closures will be completed by the end of February 2002. However, the remaining site rationalisation and development of new IT system are not due for completion until 2004. As a result, the full scale of savings will only be realised at the end of the change programme.

  Sheep Premium
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on(a) farm cash flow and (b) farmers' livelihoods of delays in the despatch of sheep annual premium to farmers who have had a partial contiguous cull of sheep as a result of foot and mouth. [20023]

  Mr. Morley
  Payment of Sheep Annual Premium is payable only when entitlement has been established. All claims, where entitlement was established, were paid on time.

  Pesticides Tax
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the impact of a pesticides tax on the profitability of UK agriculture. [23065]

  Mr. Morley
  Proposals for a pesticides tax are not currently under discussion, pending evaluation of the success of a voluntary initiative by industry. In the 2001 budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer welcomed the package of voluntary measures for minimising the adverse environmental impacts of pesticides submitted by the Crop Protection Association, farming unions and other stakeholders and said that the Government wished to see it implemented nationwide as soon as possible. The 2001 pre-Budget report published on 27 November sets out the Government's latest position and the relevant paragraphs are as follows:Extract from 27 November 2001 pre-Budget report
  Pesticides
  7.86 Pesticide use is associated with damage to biodiversity and water contamination. The Government is committed to minimising these impacts, consistent with adequate crop protection. The statutory product approval system and the Pesticides Forum make important contributions to achieving this objective. The Government also believes that a tax on pesticides could, in conjunction with other measures, be a useful tool in addressing the environmental impact of pesticides.
  7.87 In Budget 2001 the Government welcomed the voluntary proposals from the agrochemical industry and the commitments made by various stakeholders to address these issues, and encouraged their early implementation. The voluntary package was implemented from 1 April 2001 and will run initially for five
  992W
  years, nationwide. It is overseen by a steering group comprising the signatories to the package and representatives of an equivalent number of environmental organisations, under an independent chairman. The Government will review progress on the package in the run up to Budget 2002, to assess whether it is delivering significant environmental benefits over and above those that would result from introducing a pesticides tax.

  Sheepmeat Regime
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations the Government have made in Europe since the last meeting of the European Union's Agriculture Council for reform of the sheepmeat regime. [23967]

  Mr. Morley
  The Commission's proposals for reform of the sheepmeat regime have been the subject of discussion at ministerial and official levels with a number of other member states and the European Commission. The proposals were agreed by the Council of Ministers (Agriculture) on 19 December.

  Foot and Mouth
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what calculations she has made of the change in the public moneys expended in the foot and mouth disease areas during the outbreak; and what that sum would have been had no outbreak occurred. [24385]

  Mr. Morley
  The Chancellor's pre-Budget report shows that the Government are spending an additional £2.7 billion to tackle foot and mouth disease (FMD) and its implications for the rural economy. This includes the cost in compensation paid to farmers affected by FMD and additional support to the rural economy.

  It is not possible to estimate the total public moneys that would have been spent in FMD areas in the absence of the outbreak.

  Farmers' Markets
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department is taking to promote consumer awareness of farmers' markets in town and city centres. [25188]

  Mr. Morley
  The promotion of individual farmers' markets is primarily a matter for market organisers. However, the Department has provided funding to the National Association of Farmers' Markets to help re-launch farmers' markets following the foot and mouth crisis. The Countryside Agency, which we grant aid, is also providing support to the National Association.

  Biofuel Production
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to encourage biofuel production; what total oilseed production output was in each of the last 20 years for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [25195]
  993W
  Mr. Morley
  Figures for UK harvested production of oilseeds are as follows:

  Thousand tonnes

  1984

  924

  1985

  897

  1986

  966

  1987

  1,323

  1988

  1,033

  1989

  946

  1990

  1,207

  1991

  1,283

  1992

  1,213

  1993

  1,084

  1994

  1,243

  1995

  1,234

  1996

  1,415

  1997

  1,527

  1998

  1,566

  1999

  1,737

  2000

  1,157

  2001

  11,138

  1Provisional

  Following the Green Fuels Challenge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that a new duty rate for biodiesel, set at 20p per litre below the rate for Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel, is to be introduced in Budget 2002. This Department also supports solid biomass crops through the Energy Crops Scheme, part of the England Rural Development programme. This Department has recently commissioned a six-month study, on behalf of the Government-Industry Forum on non-food uses of crops, to provide an independent, comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the comparative energy, environmental and socio-economic costs and benefits of biodiesel production in the UK. The study will compare results with those for other relevant green fuels and relevant energy saving measures.

  Crop Protection Products
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she will take to monitor the enforcement of regulations relating to the application of agricultural crop protection products for non-approved amenity uses.[25033]

  Mr. Morley
  All pesticides are subject to strict regulatory control and must be approved by Ministers before they can be marketed or used in the UK.

  Pesticides must be used in accordance with the approved conditions of use specified on the pesticide label, which include directions for the situations in which the pesticide may be used. Failure to comply with a condition of use is an offence and may be subject to enforcement action. The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for enforcement in respect of the professional use of pesticides in amenity situations, and will decide on any necessary action on the basis of evidence that arises.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to regulate the use of marker chemicals when pre-mixed with crop protection chemicals for use in amenity situations; how many prosecutions there have been from such use in each of the past five years; and if she will make a statement. [25008]
  994W
  Mr. Morley
  All pesticides are subject to strict regulatory control and must be approved by Ministers before they can be marketed or used in the UK.

  No pesticide may be mixed with a marker or other additive prior to sale or supply unless approval has been granted for the sale or supply of that mixed product. However following sale users may mix approved products with other chemicals, or arrange for mixing to take place on their behalf, provided they comply with all conditions governing use described on the pesticide label. An appropriate risk assessment must also be carried out prior to use. No prosecutions have been taken against users for the illegal use of mixed products.

  Guidelines regarding the mixing of pesticides —"Guidelines on the Provision of Pesticide Mixing Services and Sale of Pesticide Twin Packs and Kits" were issued by the Pesticides Safety Directorate on 17 August 2000. These are being reviewed and it is intended that revised guidelines will be distributed to approval holders, distributors, retailers and user groups in 2002.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken to strengthen the role of the HSE in the enforcement of laws relating to illegal import of crop protection products for use in agriculture and horticulture. [25032]

  Mr. Morley
  All pesticides are subject to strict regulatory control and must be approved by Ministers before they can be marketed or used in the UK.

  The Health and Safety Executive already have extensive powers to enforce against the illegal storage or use of pesticides, including those illegally imported into the UK. Local authorities have similar powers to take enforcement action against illegal advertisement, sale or supply. Where evidence establishes that illegal activity has occurred enforcement action is taken.

  Flooding
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what action is being taken to assist the Environment Agency to complete the detailed report on the flooding across the UK in October and November 2000; when these reports are expected to be completed; and if she will make a statement; [25746]

  (2) when the Environment Agency is expected to complete an assessment of the flooding in Edmonton in October 2000; and if she will make a statement. [25745]

  Mr. Morley
  On 20 March 2001 I announced publication of the Environment Agency's Lessons Learned report on the 2000 floods. The agency subsequently produced a series of regional reports on the flooding including one for the Thames Region which covered the flooding in Edmonton.

  Recommendation 1.4 in the Lessons Learned report was that
  "The Agency will use all available information, to catalogue the flooding that took place in Autumn 2000, the local causes of flooding and how solutions or responsibility for action can be successfully attributed".
  995W
  The agency has been progressing this work in all the areas affected by the flooding.

  As regards flooding at Edmonton, the agency commissioned consultants in July 2001 to investigate the flooding problems associated with Salmons Brook. Their study is now expected to be completed later this month (January 2002). Options to reduce the risks that are identified will be investigated in a detailed feasibility study which is expected to be completed by the end of 2003.

  Agri-environment Schemes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been spent on agri-environment schemes in each year since 1997. [25621]

  Mr. Morley
  Total payments to agreement holders in the English agri-environment schemes in each financial year from 1996–97 are as follows:

  £ million

  1996 –97

  44.5

  1997 –98

  55.4

  1998 –99

  64.2

  1999 –2000

  85.8

  2000 –01

  90.8

  Data for payments made under agri-environment schemes in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland can be provided by the relevant Departments.

  Flood Defence
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what allowance has been made in the revenue support grant for 2002–03 for flood defence for councils in the River Severn catchment area.

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: Provisional Standard Spending Assessments for flood defence in 2002–03 were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, on 4 December 2001 and are available in the House Library

PRIME MINISTER

  Review Body on Senior Civil Service Pay
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Special report and recommendations of the Review Body on Senior Civil Service Pay. [27055]

  The Prime Minister
  As part of the long-term programme of reform for the Civil Service, the Senior Salaries Review Body was asked in April 2001 to provide an independent assessment of the appropriate pay rates as a basis for the new Senior Civil Service pay system coming into effect in April 2002. The aims of the new 996W
  pay system are to enable the Civil Service to compete more effectively to recruit and retain top managers; and to reward sustained performance and the delivery of results.

  The Government accept the Review Body's recommendations for the minima and maxima of the new ranges. The target rates recommended will also be incorporated in the new system for the best performers.

  Copies of the SSRB Special Report, along with a summary of the new SCS pay system are in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. I am grateful to the Chairman and the members of the Review Body for their work.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Trade Credits
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the value of debt and interest paid to the UK Government on trade credits to heavily indebted poor countries guaranteed by the UK Government in the last five years. [25239]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.

  During the period from 1 January 1997 to December 2001 £57 million of principal and £68 million of interest was paid by heavily indebted poor countries under bilateral debt agreements resulting from defaulted trade credits.

  All but £10 million was received from only eight countries—Ghana, Kenya, Yemen, Tanzania, Cameroon, Zambia, Guyana and Bolivia. Under the HIPC Initiative and the Government's 100 per cent. forgiveness policy no further payments are expected from the last five of these countries. Kenya and Yemen are deemed to have sustainable debt levels and Ghana is currently applying for HIPC debt relief.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the value of trade credits to heavily indebted poor countries guaranteed by the UK Government which were cancelled in each year since 1983. [25238]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.

  No such debts in relation to trade credits were cancelled between 1983 and 1990 inclusive. Amounts cancelled in each year since were as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1991

  6.62

  1992

  17.80

  1993

  26.89

  1994

  8.76

  1995

  23.74

  1996

  180.69

  1997

  22.49

  1998

  33.04

  1999

  56.91

  2000

  48.13

  2001

  135.04

  Total

  560.11

  997W

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Scotland receive a pension from contributions to final salary occupational pension schemes. [24932]

  Mr. McCartney
  The available information is in the table.

  Number of pensioners in Scotland receiving pension from occupational pensions

  Number1

  Males

  434

  Females

  251

  Total

  685

  1Figures to the nearest thousand

  Note

  The FRS does not distinguish between pensions from final salary and money purchase schemes. It also does not distinguish between those receiving occupational pensions due to their own contributions and those who are receiving survivors benefits.

  Source

  Family Resources Survey 2000–01

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what calculations he has made of the number of persons of retirement age who have(a) one and (b) more than one (i) personal, (ii) private and (iii) occupational pension schemes; and in the case of (b) how many such schemes they have. [15496]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is shown in the tables. Information is drawn from the Family Resources Survey (FRS), and may be subject to a margin of error due to the size of the FRS sample and the fact that the Survey relies on self-reporting of pension income.

  Separate figures are not given for 'private pensions', because this is a generic term for any non-state pension.

  Number

  (a)Individuals receiving income from one occupational or personal pension

  Occupational pension

  3,900,000

  Personal pension

  400,000

  Individuals receiving income from more than one occupational or personal pension

  Occupational pension

  600,000

  Personal pension

  50,000

  Individuals with two of each type

  Individuals with three or more of each type

  Occupational pensions

  550,000

  50,000

  Personal pensions

  50,000

  1 —

  1Indicates less than 25,000

  Note

  These figures are for individuals above State Retirement Age only. Figures for occupational pensions include individuals in receipt of a widow's pension from an occupational pension scheme. Due to sampling methods, the survey does not generate data for individuals in receipt of a widow's personal pension.

  Some individuals will be in receipt of both personal and occupational pensions.
  998W
  All figures rounded to nearest 50,000

  Because of sampling sizes and the relatively small numbers of individuals, separate figures for those with four or more pensions have not been included.

  Receipt of pension income is self-reported in FRS; figures may therefore differ slightly from those found in the Industry.

  Source:

  FRS 1999/2000

  Pensioners
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will calculate the date at which a single woman of 65 years retiring today relying solely on pensions savings of £100,000 buying an indexed linked single annuity at market rates can be expected to become eligible for income support if the minimum income guarantee for pensioners continues to be linked to earnings. [15495]

  Mr. McCartney
  The length of time that will pass before the individual in the question becomes entitled to minimum income guarantee (MIG) will depend on a number of assumptions. These assumptions are the annuity rate, the rate of price inflation and the rate of real earnings growth.

  It should be noted that the introduction of pension credit will ensure that this individual receives a direct reward for her saving. Pension credit will provide additional weekly income on top of any income derived from the annuity.

  It should also be noted that over 95 per cent. of women have some entitlement to state pension and that if this individual had entitlement to full basic state pension, entitlement to MIG would not arise for 48 years.

  Based on the assumptions of an annuity rate of 6.0 per cent. (the most favourable available on 15 November 2001), price growth of 2.5 per cent. per annum and real earnings growth of 1.5 per cent. per annum, it is estimated that a single woman of 65 years retiring solely on pension savings of £100,000 would become eligible for MIG after 16 years.

  Benefits Agency Staff
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what were the staffing levels for each of the last five years in the Benefits Agency offices at(a) Elthorne road, London N19, and (b) Seven Sisters road, London N7, the number of callers per day for the equivalent period and the average waiting time. [23637]

  Malcolm Wicks
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Jeremy Corbyn, dated 9 January 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking, if he will state the staffing levels for each of the last five years in the Benefits Agency offices at (a) Elthorne Road London N19 and (b) Seven Sisters Road London N7, the number of callers per day for the equivalent period and the average waiting time.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information that is available is in the attached table.
  999W

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Seven Sisters road, Finsbury Park office

  Average staff days per month (number)

  443

  377

  348

  379

  369

  Average number of callers per month (number)

  5,912

  5,631

  5,217

  5,695

  5,039

  Initial waiting time 10 minutes or less based on the average number of callers (shown as a percentage)

  57

  57

  43

  34

  41

  Initial waiting time 30 minutes or less based on the average number of callers (shown as a percentage)

  82

  94

  91

  87

  85

  Elthorne road, Highgate office

  Average staff days per month (number)

  315

  329

  304

  402

  427

  Average number of callers per month (number)

  5,340

  4,936

  4,602

  5,050

  4,553

  Initial waiting time 10 minutes or less based on the average number of callers (shown as a percentage)

  72

  43

  68

  70

  63

  Initial waiting time 30 minutes or less based on the average number of callers (shown as a percentage)

  98

  85

  100

  100

  97

HEALTH

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary for Health what proportion of national health service personnel was represented by(a)nurses, (b)doctors,

  All NHS staff, including all doctors and nurses, as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Total NHS Staff1

  1,058,690

  1,071,560

  1,098,350

  1,118,960

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  100

  of which

  Total NHS doctors

  89,620

  91,840

  93,980

  96,320

  Percentage

  8.5

  8.6

  8.6

  8.6

  GMPs (excluding GP Retainers)2,3

  29,390

  29,700

  29,990

  30,250

  Percentage

  2.8

  2.8

  2.7

  2.7

  All HCHS medical and dental staff4

  60,230

  62,140

  63,990

  66,070

  Percentage

  5.7

  5.8

  5.8

  5.9

  of which

  Total NHS Nurses5

  550,900

  556,480

  565,620

  574,850

  Percentage

  52.0

  51.9

  51.5

  51.4

  of which

  Qualified Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting Staff (including Practice Nurses)

  318,860

  323,460

  329,640

  335,950

  Percentage of which

  30.1

  30.2

  30.0

  30.0

  of which

  Midwives

  22,380

  22,840

  22,800

  22,570

  Percentage

  2.1

  2.1

  2.1

  2.0

  Unqualified Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting staff6

  231,380

  232,420

  234,700

  238,960

  Percentage

  21.9

  21.7

  21.4

  21.3

  Qualified Allied Health Professionals

  45,020

  46,450

  47,920

  49,360

  Percentage

  4.3

  4.3

  4.4

  4.4

  Others7

  373,140

  376,790

  390,820

  398,430

  Percentage

  35.2

  35.2

  35.6

  35.6

  1 This figure includes GP Retainers.

  2 GP Retainers were collected for the first time in the 1999 census, for comparability these have been excluded from GMPs.

  3 The 1999 figure excludes 972 GP Retainers and the 2000 figure excludes 1,117 GP Retainers.

  4 Excludes Medical Hospital Practitioners and medical Clinical Assistants, most of whom are also GPs working part-time in hospitals.

  5Total includes unclassified staff.

  6 Unqualified nursing staff includes Health Care Assistants and Support staff.

  7 Others includes administration and estates staff, ambulance staff, Health Care Assistants, Support staff, nursing, midwifery and health visiting learners, other scientific, therapeutic and technical staff, others, other practice staff and GP Retainers from 1999.

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Due to rounding totals may not equal sum of component parts.

  Figures exclude agency staff.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Department of Health Non-medical workforce census
  1000W
  (c) midwives, (d) other professions allied to medicine and (e) other employees, in the financial years (i) 1997–98,(ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000 and(iv)2000–01 [23662]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data showing the number and proportion of nures, doctors, midwives, qualified allied health 2000, are shown in the table.
  1001W

  Voluntary Work
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the financial value to the NHS of the voluntary work performed by(a) the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and (b) the National League of Hospital Friends in the last three years for which figures are available. [24575]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not collected by the Department in the form requested.

  It was recently reported in "Voluntary Sector" magazine that the Women's Royal Voluntary Service estimates that the organisation's 100,000 plus volunteers gave around 12 million hours to helping others which they value at about £70 million during the 12 month period from 2000 to 2001. During that time volunteers delivered 9 million hot and frozen meals, opened five new and refurbished hospital trading outlets and assisted at 70 emergencies and disasters.

  The National Association of Hospital and Community Friends have advised that in their latest survey, conducted in 1999, Leagues of Hospital and Community Friends had 36,000 members who actively volunteered and contributed 8 million hours a year to the national health service. The survey also found that the leagues gift back £36 million per year to NHS hospitals. In addition to running traditional volunteer services such as shops, visiting and transport the leagues have increased their work in the community, both therapeutic and social support, and this now accounts for 40 per cent. of volunteers' activities.

  The very significant contribution made to the health service and social services by volunteers from the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the National Association of Hospital and Community Friends complement the efforts of staff and enhance the patient and service user experience.

  Cross-border Treatment
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many English NHS patients were treated in Scotland in each of the last five years. [24572]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on English residents treated in Scotland is collected by the information and statistics division of National Health Service Scotland. Information on the number of English residents receiving treatment in NHS hospitals in Scotland as either outpatients or as inpatients and day cases is shown in the table.

  Information on English residents treated in a primary care setting in Scotland is limited. Over the past five years, on average, there have been around 2,200 patients who reside in England on the lists of Scottish general practitioners. These patients may or may not have attended their GP for a consultation in that time. The average number of face to face consultations per head of population per annum in Scotland is 3.2.

  "English residents1 treated in NHS hospitals in Scotland

  Year ending 31 March

  First outpatient appointments2,4

  Inpatients and day cases3,4

  1998

  2,049

  7,048

  1999

  2,428

  7,432

  2000

  2,185

  6,991

  1002W

  English residents1 treated in NHS hospitals in Scotland

  Year ending 31 March

  First outpatient appointments2,4

  Inpatients and day cases3,4

  2001

  2,141

  6,578

  2002 (to date)5

  1,319

  3,750

  1 Includes a small number of residents in Wales and Northern Ireland.

  2 First outpatient appointments in consultant-led clinics (SMR00). Excludes A&E and genito-urinary medicine. Information on return outpatient appointments is not collected centrally by area of residence.

  3 Discharges from acute specialties (SMR01), maternity specialties (SMR02), mental health specialties (SMR04), neonatal care for sick babies (SMR11) and long stay facilities in the specialty of geriatric medicine (SMR50). The majority (92 per cent.) of discharges are from acute specialties.

  4All information shown is based on "episodes" of care rather than individual patients. A patient with more than one episode of care in any year or across years will be counted every time they receive an episode of care.

  5Records held centrally at 20 December 2001. It is estimated that available figures for year ending March 2002 represent approximately 60 per cent. of total activity for the year.

  Source:

  ISD Scotland, Scottish Morbidity Records (SMRs) 00, 01, 02, 04, 11 and 50.

  Reference:

  Acute Care Information Group, 20011414.

  Congestion Charges
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has made about the exemption of health visitors from congestion charges in London. [24584]

  Mr. Hutton
  While supportive of the need to reduce congestion in central London and the resultant benefits to Londoners' health, a number of concerns have been raised with the mayor and Transport for London regarding the impact the congestion charging scheme will have on the ability of the NHS to provide high quality patient care.

  The London Regional Office of the Department has been working closely with Transport for London on developing a reimbursement scheme for a number of categories of staff, including health visitors and staff providing community based services, so that they are not disadvantaged in any way. The scheme is currently out for consultation until the 18 January 2002.

  Nurses
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the number of whole time equivalent nurses who will be performing non-clinical duties with(a) the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, (b) the Commission for Health Improvement and (c) the NHS Modernisation Agency. [24598]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) and the National Health Service Modernisation Agency are responsible for improvements in quality across the NHS. Nurses are employed within these agencies to provide the frontline perspective and to influence development.

  Numbers are subject to change but there are currently two nurses employed in the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 149 nurses employed in CHI and 51 in the Modernisation Agency.
  1003W
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many specialist TB nurses were employed(a) in the NHS and (b) in each health authority in London by the NHS in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2001. [24448]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure school nurses are paid at F grade. [24592]

  Mr. Hutton
  Nurses employed in the national health service under national terms and conditions are graded according to the clinical grading definitions agreed between the management and staff sides of the Nursing and Midwifery Negotiating Council in 1988.

  Decisions concerning grading of individual posts including those of school nurses are the responsibility of local managers who, with advice from professional colleagues are in the best position to consider the work to be done and the skills needed to do it. The clinical grading definitions reflect the different levels of responsibility and clinical expertise required in different posts. It is for local employers using the agreed definitions and in the light of particular job content to grade posts according to responsibilities.

  In the advance letter promulgating the pay award for 2001–02 employers were reminded of their obligations to ensure all jobs are graded in accordance with the existing grading guidance

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if school nurses are defined by his Department as autonomous practitioners. [24593]

  Mr. Hutton
  Professional standards are a matter for the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  General Practitioners
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial assistance he has planned to encourage flexible training in general practice. [24596]

  Mr. Hutton
  In line with Government guidance, "The General Practitioner Registrar Scheme: Vocational Training for General Medical Practice: the United Kingdom Guide", a copy of which is in the Library. Directors of Postgraduate GP Education will facilitate flexible (i.e. part-time) training for general practice wherever possible. In order to be accepted for general practice certification purposes, flexible training must be undertaken, week by week, at 60 per cent. or more of the weekly full-time training commitment and include a period (minimum one week) of full-time training in both the general practice and hospital components.

  Pathology Modernisation Programme
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis the authorities invited to bid for the phase III pathology modernisation programme were selected. [24447]

  Mr. Hutton
  Through our pathology modernisation programme, the Department is considering the appropriate model for pathology services in the light of "Shifting the 1004W
  Balance of Power" and the proposed changes to national health service structures under the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill. Therefore, the aim of pathology modernisation funding in 2001–02 is to support up to four larger reconfiguration projects exploring the development of managed clinical networks in NHS pathology services, covering a population of 1.5 million. This year it was essential to support areas that were already advanced in planning for modernised pathology services. It was clear from existing work on the programme that 12 areas met this criterion, and they were invited to bid through a limited tender exercise

  Access Targets
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what penalties will be imposed on primary care trusts who fail to implement 48-hour access targets by March 2003. [24591]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trusts will be subject to performance ratings during 2002. Access and primary care will form a key target within this rating system. Rewards, through earned autonomy, targeted support or intervention will be based on performance ratings.

  NHS Professionals
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what domestic publications the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency will use to advertise those contracts relating to NHS professionals. [24423]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency will advertise the contracts for NHS professionals in domestic publications relevant to the particular staff sector. For instance contracts for nursing staff will be advertised in the Nursing Times and contracts for doctors in the British Medical Journal.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS trusts will be required to use NHS professionals to meet their temporary staffing needs. [24422]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is an expectation that national health service professionals will be used as the provider of choice within the NHS, supported by tight contracts with our providers in the private sector.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken to inform private nursing agencies about the tendering processes attached to NHS professionals. [24424]

  Mr. Hutton
  The tenders for the contracts for national health service professionals being carried out by the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency will be advertised in relevant domestic journals and in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

  The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency is in consultation with the following trade associations that represent private nursing agencies: the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the Federation of Independent Nursing Agencies, and the Nursing Agency Association.
  1005W
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding NHS professionals will receive in financial years(a) 2001 –02, (b) 2002 –03 and (c) 2003 –04. [24421]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service professionals received £4 million to support start up, £3 million in the financial year in 2001 –02, and £3 million has been identified in 2002 –03 to support NHS trusts through the implementation process. The service will be self-sustaining in the long-term and recoup costs directly from the NHS organisations using NHS professionals on a non-profit making basis.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency will use the Official Journal of the European Community to advertise the regional contracts it is negotiating on behalf of NHS professionals. [24420]

  Mr. Hutton
  Yes.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the tendering process inviting private nursing agencies to agree their terms and conditions of supply to NHS professionals will be launched in the(a) Trent, (b) south east, (c) south west, (d) eastern, (e) north west and (f) northern and Yorkshire regions; and what nursing services will be covered. [24426]

  Mr. Hutton
  The timetable for tendering for agency staff has not yet been finalised. It is expected that the projects for nursing staff in the south west, the south east, and the north west of England will be launched in early January and the end of February this year. Projects for the remaining regions will begin at a later date that is yet to be decided.

  The contracts will cover all grades of nurses, midwives and operating department practitioners.

  Orthopaedic Surgeons
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average mean waiting times were(a) to see an orthopaedic surgeon and (b) between seeing an orthopaedic surgeon and having an operation where that was necessary in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [24740]

  Mr. Hutton
  The mean average waiting times for orthopaedic patients waiting for in-patient and out-patient treatment are given in the table. Data collected on waiting times by specialty are collected quarterly. The data given are for the latest available quarter, September 2001.

  Mean average waiting time for first out-patient appointment/in-patient treatment, trauma and orthopaedics speciality, England

  Health authority based

  Average (mean) waiting time

  Quarter: September 2001

  Out-patient appointment1 (weeks)

  14.35

  In-patient treatment2 (months)

  5.15

  Sources:

  1 Department of Health form QMO8R

  2Department of Health form QFOI
  1006W

  Racist Attacks
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many racist attacks have taken place in English(a) NHS hospitals and (b) other medical facilities, broken down by health authority in each of the last three years. [25231]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information about racist attacks on staff working in the national health service is not collected centrally, but may be held at a local level by national health service employers.

  The Department conducted a survey of national health service trusts in England in 1998 –99. The survey found that, on average, seven violent incidents were recorded each month per 1,000 staff. This is equivalent to approximately 65,000 violent incidents against NHS trust staff each year. Details of the survey can be found in Health Service Circular 1999/229: "Managing Violence, Accidents and Sickness Absence in the NHS", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Figures for recorded violent incidents in 2000–01 are currently being analysed by the Department

  Whittington Hospital
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation he has made of the costs of the proposed PH for the Whittington hospital compared to direct Government funding; and if he will publish the information on which this analysis is made. [25235]

  Mr. Hutton
  The evaluation of the proposed private finance initiative funding of the redevelopment of the Whittington hospital national health service trust compared to direct Government funding is currently being prepared by the trust and its advisers as part of the preparation of the full business case for the scheme and is not yet complete.

  All information relevant to this analysis, and the final decision to fund the project under PFI or direct Government funding, will be included within the trust's full business case. This will be made publicly available within one month of the final approval of the case, which is currently planned to be in April 2002. Only information which may breach personal privacy or is judged to be genuinely commercially sensitive will be omitted.

  Copies of the case will he provided at the trust's premises, with the chair of the Trades Unions representing staff at the trust, the local Community Health Council, the local authority, the local main public library and the Library. The trust will also place an advertisement in the local paper at the time of publication explaining that the documents are available and where they have been placed.

  This is in line with the code of practice on openness in the NHS introduced by this Government.

  Head Injury Specialists
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many head injury specialists have been recruited to the NHS in each year since 1997. [24352]
  1007W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 January [2002]: Neurosurgeons and neurologists deal with head injuries as part of their wider responsibilities. The table shows the number of hospital medical neuro-surgery and neurology staff, including consultants, employed by the national health service within the specified years.

  Hospital medical neurosurgery and neurology staff, England as at 30 September

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  All neurosurgery staff

  360

  370

  370

  410

  of which:

  Consultants

  130

  130

  140

  140

  All neurology staff of which:

  640

  640

  660

  690

  Consultants

  280

  300

  300

  330

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental Workforce Census

  Doctors (Disciplinary Action)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors have been(a) disciplined and(b) sacked for (i) drug-taking offences and (ii) stealing medical drugs in each year since 1997.[24305]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: The Department does not routinely collect information regarding the disciplinary proceedings carried out in national health service organisations. Disciplinary action is a matter for local employers. NHS employers have a responsibility to investigate alleged breaches of acceptable standards by staff, and to consider whether any disciplinary action is required as a result of such allegations.

  NHS Staff Files
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances an NHS trust can withhold the employment history of staff seeking employment in another part of the NHS.[25490]

  Mr. Hutton
  All national health service employers are expected to carry out thorough pre-employment checks on all staff they employ. The checks include taking up references which must be accurate and truthful.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Radio Advertising
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much the COI spent on radio advertising in the last year; what percentage of this was spent on black minority ethnic media advertising; and what the five main campaigns that the COI financed that involved radio advertising were.[26756]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Central Office of Information undertook no radio advertising on its own behalf in the last year.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many complaints have been reported in his Department 1008W
  under paragraph 11 of the Civil Service Code since 13 May 1999; and how many of them related to special advisers.[25330]

  Mr. Leslie
  The procedures for making complaints under the civil service code are set in the Department's staff handbook. Civil servants are encouraged, in the first instance, to raise complaints made under paragraph 11 of the civil service code with their line manager. If for any reason this is not felt to be possible, perhaps because the line manager is part of the complaint, individuals may take their complaint to a nominated official (or officials). It is not possible to provide a comprehensive figure for the number of complaints made within this Department under paragraph 11 of the code as there is no requirement for managers to report to the centre details of complaints which are resolved within the management line.

  Civil Service
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what delegations and authorisations have been made in 2001 under the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992; to whom they were made; and what were the main conditions attached to them. [26854]

  Mr. Leslie
  Since the last report to Parliament, 6 February 2001,Official Report, column 489W, new delegations/authorisations have been made to the Food Standards Agency and the Postal Services Commission from 1 April and 1 May 2001 respectively. These were subsequently subsumed within a later delegation/ authorisation which was necessary to reflect the machinery of government changes following the general election. Ministers, certain bodies and office holders in charge of Departments1 were given delegated authority from 1 September 2001 under the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992 by that delegation/ authorisation to:

  (a) prescribe the qualifications (so far as they relate to age, knowledge, ability, professional attainment, aptitude, potential, health and coping with the demands of the job) for the appointment of home civil servants (with the exception of the Fast Stream Development Programme) in their respective Departments or bodies; and

  (b) determine in respect of home civil servants in their respective Departments or bodies the number and grading of posts outside the senior civil service, and the terms and conditions of employment in so far as they relate to the following:

  (i) classification of staff, with the exception of the senior civil service;

  (ii) remuneration, with the exception of the senior civil service;

  (iii) allowances;

  (IV) expenses;

  (V) holidays, hours of work and attendance;

  (VI) part-time and other working arrangements;

  (VII) performance and promotion

  (VIII) retirement age and redundancy;

  (IX) re-deployment of staff within the home civil service.

  In some cases, where the Minister for the civil service is statutorily required to give consent to terms and conditions of service for staff appointed by statutory bodies or office holders, it was effected by waiving that requirement, subject to the condition attached to delegation/authorisation.
  1009W
  The delegation/authorisation was subject to the condition that recipients comply with the provisions of the Civil Service Management Code as amended from time to time. Copies of the Civil Service Management Code are available in the Library of the House. All previous delegations and authorisations made under the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992 (other than those relating to the Arbitration, Conciliation Advisory Service, the Health and Safety Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Administration) were revoked with effect from 1 September 2001.

  1The statutory bodies and office holders are:

  Commissioners of Inland Revenue

  Chief Charity Commissioner

  Commissioners of Customs and Excise

  Crown Estate Commissioners

  Director General of Fair Trading

  Director of National Savings

  Director of Passenger Rail Franchising

  Director General of Telecommunications

  Director General of Water Services

  Director of Public Prosecutions

  Director of the Serious Fraud Office

  Food Standards Agency

  Gas and Electricity Marketing Authority

  Government Actuary

  Head of the Registry of Friendly Societies, being the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies and the First Commissioner of the Building Societies Commission

  International Rail Regulator

  Postal Services Commission

  Public Works Loan Commissioners

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioners

  Rail Regulator.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employees of(a) his Department and(b) agencies sponsored by his Department work in (i) London, (ii) areas benefiting from EU Objective 1 status, (iii) areas with Objective 2 status and (iv) other areas. [16108]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 19 November 20011: I apologise for the delay in answering this question. Information on permanent serving staff working in London, areas benefiting from European Union (EU) Objectives 1 and 2 status and other areas is provided in the table.

  Area

  London

  EU Objective I areas

  EU Objective 2 areas

  Other areas

  Total

  Home Office

  8,532

  1,172

  3,350

  109

  13,163

  Agencies:

  FSS1

  753

  1,624

  2,377

  UKPA2

  540

  597

  1,398

  121

  2,656

  Prison Service

  5,947

  770

  34,569

  796

  42,082

  Total

  15,772

  2,539

  40,941

  1,026

  60,278

  1 Forensic Science Service

  2 United Kingdom Passport Agency

  1010W

  Regulation
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many regulations his Department has proposed to Parliament since June; what regulatory impact assessments have been made for those regulations his Department has implemented in 2001; and what plans his Department has to reduce the number of regulations affecting small businesses. [21971]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We have proposed to Parliament since June some 31 statutory instruments and three Bills. Regulatory Impact Assessments have been made for the Proceeds of Crime Bill and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill and these have been lodged in the Library.

  In our forthcoming regulatory reform action plan we have no specific plans for reducing the number of regulations affecting small business. Where Home Office legislation or regulations affect business, we aim to proceed through dialogue and consultation in order to ensure that any effects on business are proportionate.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the projects planned under the Ghent Statement on Terrorism, Point 5,(a) to store evaluations of (i) risks, (ii) alert and (iii) intervention,(b) for the prevention of chemical and biological attack and (c) on the appointment of a European Co-ordinator for Civil Protection Measures. [22887]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to hon. Members on 9 November 2001 setting out the comprehensive review of arrangements for protecting the public that I am leading. I explained that a ministerially led sub-group was reviewing contingency and other arrangements to protect the United Kingdom against the effects of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) means but that it is not sensible for me to elaborate on all of the arrangements we are putting in place.

  More generally, a short-term action plan was agreed by the Directors General of Civil protection and this called for, among other things:
  The identification of rapid response teams and setting up a group of experts available 24 hours a day, to offer advice;
  Enhancement of the existing network of 24-hour contact points to handle any request for or offer of assistance; and
  Gathering information on serum, vaccines, antibiotics and availability of hospital beds for those seriously affected.

  Additionally, a workshop was set up under the Belgian Presidency for 17 and 18 December 2001. That brought together experts in this field who will draw up proposals for action plans for the medium and longer term.

  The Civil Protection Co-ordinator has yet to be appointed. Members states await details of the duties and responsibilities proposed for this post and whether these are to be purely administrative or whether an operational role is envisaged. The question of where the Co-ordinator should be located and what the reporting arrangements should be have also yet to be finalised.

  Media Briefings (Race Riots)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department(a) briefed and

  1011W
  (b) made copies of the reports available to the media on inner city riots and urban race relations before they were published on 11 December. [23216]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The information is as follows:

  (a) I gave a broad interview to The Independent on Sunday newspaper on Friday 7 December 2001 on the subject of citizenship. Nothing in the article had not already been said or written by me, including in the publication of my book 'Politics and Progress' on 26 September 2001. The resulting article provoked considerable interest from the media particularly those looking to associate issues arising from this interview with the publication of reports into the summer disturbances, due a few days later. To ensure people clearly understood my position on this and in response to media inquiries, the press office gave a general explanation of how the subject of citizenship was reflected in reports into the disturbances.

  (b) No copies of the reports were made available to the media before they were published. The first time media had access to the reports produced by the Home Office was when they attended a press briefing on the morning

  Prison name

  Escapes

  Assault rate (Percentage)

  Random mandatory drug testing rate (Percentage)

  Purposeful activity1

  Average days lost to staff sickness

  Cost per place

  Cost per prisoner

  Acklington

  0

  1.8

  16.1

  23.6

  11.2

  15,493

  16,207

  Albany

  0

  2.3

  0.0

  25.3

  10.9

  20,909

  21,112

  Altcourse

  0

  14.9

  10.1

  33.7

  —

  57,272

  44,272

  Ashfield

  0

  70.8

  16.5

  29.0

  —

  35,712

  38,968

  Ashwell

  0

  1.8

  8.3

  32.1

  12.7

  15,357

  19,716

  Askham Grange

  0

  2.8

  3.5

  41.8

  8.2

  20,202

  21,629

  Aylesbury

  0

  17.8

  5.8

  17.2

  21.1

  25,594

  30,856

  Bedford

  0

  10.7

  16.8

  21.3

  20.1

  22,238

  19,656

  Belmarsh

  0

  14.6

  13.6

  11.1

  23.3

  35,860

  34,286

  Birmingham

  0

  11.1

  17.0

  18.7

  18.2

  22,138

  19,195

  Blakenhurst

  0

  11.7

  28.2

  19.8

  5.6

  22,552

  17,477

  Blantyre House

  0

  0.0

  3.8

  50.3

  9.4

  20,777

  21,520

  Blundeston

  0

  3.3

  10.1

  25.6

  7.9

  22,947

  23,665

  Brinsford

  0

  50.9

  10.7

  27.6

  9.2

  15,897

  16,932

  Bristol

  0

  11.8

  12.6

  20.7

  16.6

  34,068

  30,171

  Brixton

  1

  13.2

  8.6

  16.6

  27.4

  29,492

  24,850

  Brockhill

  0

  28.2

  6.5

  16.5

  22.4

  30,515

  33,295

  Buckley Hall

  0

  3.2

  20.5

  31.9

  14.9

  17,795

  16,446

  Bullingdon

  0

  7.2

  15.0

  13.7

  11.4

  19,125

  16,761

  Bullwood Hall

  0

  37.9

  8.8

  26.8

  16.1

  22,667

  24,348

  Camp Hill

  0

  4.5

  13.9

  22.5

  12.1

  20,846

  19,006

  Canterbury

  0

  4.3

  12.6

  17.9

  16.4

  30,876

  21,923

  Cardiff

  0

  7.3

  25.6

  21.2

  13.2

  23,511

  19,588

  Castington

  0

  69.3

  7.2

  24.8

  16.4

  27,963

  37,611

  Channings Wood

  0

  1.8

  6.5

  33.8

  13.2

  18,581

  18,857

  Chelmsford

  0

  14.0

  16.1

  20.0

  13.0

  25,057

  24,813

  Coldingley

  0

  1.9

  14.3

  39.0

  8.7

  21,253

  21,740

  Cookham Wood

  0

  24.3

  3.0

  22.1

  16.5

  28,475

  23,021

  Dartmoor

  0

  6.0

  2.1

  21.4

  12.5

  20,831

  24,050

  Deerbolt

  0

  11.2

  6.1

  21.8

  9.3

  20,098

  24,948

  Doncaster

  1

  9.9

  11.2

  20.1

  —

  28,169

  20,268

  Dorchester

  0

  11.1

  19.1

  16.4

  10.4

  31,219

  23,117

  Dovegate

  0

  8.2

  8.1

  31.6

  —

  2—

  2—

  Dover

  0

  18.5

  17.0

  27.7

  16.5

  21,211

  30,115

  Downview

  0

  0.0

  4.9

  26.7

  19.1

  20,337

  26,296

  Drake Hall

  0

  1.5

  12.8

  36.4

  10.7

  16,147

  22,333

  Durham

  0

  11.8

  13.6

  20.7

  12.0

  33,937

  31,449

  East Sutton Park

  0

  0.0

  3.0

  43.3

  14.9

  21,396

  21,560

  Eastwood Park

  0

  20.8

  8.4

  20.1

  25.7

  21,888

  20,601

  Elmley

  0

  6.2

  11.8

  19.4

  11.1

  18,910

  15,766

  Erlestoke

  0

  0.0

  17.7

  27.7

  14.7

  18,777

  19,224

  1012W
  of publication. I did not make my speech in Birmingham until 11.30 am to ensure that this did not pre-empt publication of the reports.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what results were achieved by the Prison Service on each of its key performance indicators in each prison between April and October. [23903]

  Beverley Hughes
  Provisional key performance indicator (KPI) results for the period April-October 2001 are shown in the table. The overcrowding KPI is formulated in terms of overall Prison Service results and is not applicable to individual prisons.

  Figures for cost per place and cost per prisoner reflect establishment costs only and do not include headquarters' overheads. Data are expressed in resource terms. These figures are not comparable with the overall Prison Service cost per place and cost per prisoner KPIs (which include headquarters' overheads).

  Private prisons are not required to submit sickness or minority ethnic staffing data. The proportion of minority ethnic staff data relates to September 2001.
  1013W

  Prison name

  Escapes

  Assault rate (Percentage)

  Random mandatory drug testing rate (Percentage)

  Purposeful activity1

  Average days lost to staff sickness

  Cost per place

  Cost per prisoner

  Everthorpe

  0

  3.0 15.7

  26.9

  11.1

  17,756

  16,829

  Exeter

  0

  10.0 19.1

  23.4

  14.4

  30,530

  20,442

  Featherstone

  0

  2.9 11.9

  24.2

  15.5

  20,434

  20,847

  Feltham

  1

  42.0 13.3

  27.0

  15.7

  20,818

  27,236

  Ford

  0

  0.0 7.5

  40.4

  14.7

  12,019

  15,496

  Forest Bank

  0

  16.2 20.0

  21.0

  —

  26,981

  27,622

  Foston Hall

  0

  11.4 2.4

  26.7

  8.6

  25,302

  27,628

  Frankland

  0

  3.5 9.3

  21.5

  10.8

  36,144

  37,102

  Full Sutton

  0

  2.6 6.6

  17.9

  11.2

  37,340

  38,339

  Garth

  0

  4.0 15.2

  24.5

  14.9

  20,066

  21,175

  Gartree

  0

  2.4 4.8

  30.4

  10.2

  23,377

  30,157

  Glen Parva

  0

  19.4 10.8

  18.0

  9.0

  24,010

  20,717

  Gloucester

  0

  7.1 12.9

  22.6

  17.1

  30,060

  26,656

  Grendon

  3

  0.0 5.9

  36.1

  17.5

  18,898

  21,519

  Guys Marsh

  3

  5.8 14.7

  22.7

  14.0

  15,685

  15,100

  Haslar

  0

  1.1 0.0

  16.6

  15.3

  16,900

  18,061

  Hatfield

  0

  3.0 14.9

  37.7

  7.5

  22,712

  23,947

  Haverigg

  0

  3.2 18.9

  32.2

  10.4

  16,453

  17,047

  Hewell Grange

  0

  0.0 12.4

  43.0

  7.9

  14,702

  17,469

  High Down

  0

  9.6 11.2

  16.3

  15.1

  25,532

  23,138

  Highpoint

  0

  10.1 13.7

  18.8

  10.5

  18,991

  19,920

  Hindley

  0

  14.7 11.8

  19.2

  19.9

  23,058

  26,570

  Hollesley Bay

  0

  36.6 8.7

  39.2

  12.5

  16,819

  24,098

  Holloway

  0

  19.9 11.8

  20.7

  24.1

  38,406

  40,574

  Holme House

  0

  3.3 10.8

  16.1

  9.5

  17,700

  17,610

  Hull

  0

  13.6 6.6

  21.8

  7.1

  21,759

  24,187

  Huntercombe

  0

  63.2 15.5

  25.8

  18.1

  25,528

  27,994

  Kingston

  0

  0.0 8.8

  24.4

  15.8

  23,800

  25,318

  Kirkham

  0

  0.7 17.8

  44.4

  14.2

  18,117

  22,107

  Kirklevington

  0

  0.0 0.8

  53.3

  6.3

  15,188

  15,830

  Lancaster

  0

  4.6 9.2

  25.5

  12.3

  22,609

  24,101

  Lancaster Farms

  0

  15.9 3.7

  23.4

  13.9

  15,318

  15,327

  Latchmere House

  0

  0.0 1.6

  63.2

  10.2

  14,813

  16,874

  Leeds

  0

  10.4 18.8

  18.9

  17.6

  30,135

  18,949

  Leicester

  0

  9.6 23.1

  21.9

  11.8

  36,192

  23,351

  Lewes

  1

  8.6 31.9

  17.6

  14.1

  19,494

  20,604

  Leyhill

  0

  0.0 10.4

  37.9

  12.7

  19,924

  22,241

  Lincoln

  0

  9.9 9.6

  18.9

  10.7

  28,829

  26,065

  Lindholme

  1

  1.2 11.8

  26.9

  9.2

  23,081

  25,052

  Littlehey

  0

  2.5 12.0

  23.7

  16.3

  16,329

  16,453

  Liverpool

  0

  4.1 12.5

  18.9

  14.3

  20,659

  19,112

  Long Lartin

  0

  4.3 9.3

  18.2

  11.2

  32,141

  44,187

  Low Newton

  0

  19.2 14.4

  24.5

  11.9

  29,389

  27,381

  Lowdham Grange

  1

  0.4 11.0

  26.6

  —

  29,795

  30,673

  Maidstone

  0

  1.8 4.5

  21.1

  13.8

  18,157

  27,267

  Manchester

  0

  5.8 10.7

  19.7

  17.5

  28,188

  23,746

  Moorland

  0

  10.4 4.1

  25.3

  13.1

  20,042

  19,504

  Morton Hall

  0

  3.0 2.0

  31.6

  10.0

  25,363

  28,477

  Mount

  0

  3.8 8.6

  19.9

  10.0

  16,077

  15,679

  New Hall

  1

  32.8 7.9

  23.5

  14.5

  24,389

  22,439

  North Sea Camp

  0

  0.0 16.9

  42.1

  11.0

  15,910

  19,482

  Northallerton

  0

  10.7 8.5

  22.0

  14.9

  34,185

  27,103

  Norwich

  0

  17.4 18.9

  19.2

  11.3

  24,306

  19,174

  Nottingham

  0

  6.9 18.5

  17.0

  9.4

  21,896

  20,563

  Onley

  0

  47.4 3.7

  17.3

  19.3

  13,127

  14,695

  Parc

  0

  8.9 11.2

  28.0

  —

  38,587

  35,850

  Parkhurst

  0

  13.9 2.6

  20.6

  13.7

  25,613

  29,505

  Pentonville

  0

  11.5 21.1

  16.1

  15.7

  24,028

  18,723

  Portland

  0

  23.1 6.4

  24.2

  12.6

  14.960

  15,641

  Preston

  0

  10.5 15.0

  21.5

  12.0

  29,330

  22,765

  Ranby

  0

  3.5 7.6

  24.5

  13.4

  17,383

  17,373

  Reading

  0

  18.1 8.8

  25.3

  16.7

  32,249

  28,598

  Risley

  0

  2.8 18.8

  25.0

  15.1

  19,305

  19,808

  Rochester

  0

  18.5 3.8

  23.1

  13.7

  19,940

  25,235

  Rye Hill

  0

  6.5 6.6

  29.0

  —

  21,952

  22,810

  Send

  0

  11.1 10.4

  33.0

  18.5

  20,271

  20,633

  Shepton Mallet

  0

  0.0 9.8

  23.6

  7.3

  23,383

  28,923

  Shrewsbury

  0

  4.7 9.5

  25.5

  14.1

  34,832

  19,612

  Stafford

  0

  5.3 22.2

  26.6

  13.7

  16,134

  16,388

  Standford Hill

  0

  0.0 9.4

  40.2

  10.5

  18,416

  20,895

  Stocken

  0

  2.4 16.1

  23.4

  7.7

  15,775

  15,304

  1014W 1015W

  Prison name

  Escapes

  Assault rate (Percentage)

  Random mandatory drug testing rate (Percentage)

  Purposeful activity1

  Average days lost to staff sickness

  Cost per place

  Cost per prisoner

  Stoke Heath

  0

  47.6

  2.7

  24.8

  19.1

  14,673

  17,319

  Styal

  0

  22.7

  15.2

  25.9

  15.9

  25,745

  24,626

  Sudbury

  0

  0.7

  7.6

  41.4

  7.6

  14,835

  15,376

  Swaleside

  0

  5.5

  16.5

  24.2

  14.3

  17,011

  17,174

  Swansea

  0

  1.6

  18.3

  26.7

  11.1

  28,393

  33,735

  Swinfen Hall

  0

  20.9

  0.5

  28.6

  7.9

  21,734

  22,353

  Thorn Cross

  0

  7.0

  13.2

  43.2

  10.2

  16,910

  24,086

  Usk

  0

  0.5

  2.6

  38.3

  8.3

  26,221

  20,233

  Verne

  0

  0.9

  2.1

  28.1

  14.7

  16,775

  16,405

  Wakefield

  0

  4.0

  1.4

  18.1

  12.3

  25,910

  34,729

  Wandsworth

  0

  6.9

  7.9

  17.2

  19.7

  21,165

  18,349

  Wayland

  0

  2.7

  4.5

  21.5

  7.7

  15,511

  15,401

  Wealstun

  1

  1.7

  12.7

  32.8

  11.6

  16,309

  16,941

  Weare

  0

  1.4

  12.3

  19.0

  13.4

  17,841

  18,994

  Wellingborough

  0

  0.3

  12.4

  27.7

  13.4

  17,009

  17,661

  Werrington

  0

  53.2

  6.1

  33.4

  12.3

  42,586

  45,799

  Wetherby

  0

  34.5

  4.7

  26.9

  14.5

  22,297

  24,851

  Whatton

  0

  0.0

  2.1

  29.5

  8.9

  15,116

  15,470

  Whitemoor

  0

  10.6

  10.8

  19.9

  20.5

  41,181

  54,360

  Winchester

  0

  7.7

  17.2

  18.3

  13.7

  26,056

  19,635

  Wolds

  0

  5.2

  3.2

  28.4

  —

  27,023

  24,540

  Woodhill

  0

  10.2

  14.7

  16.1

  17.1

  29,696

  30,714

  Wormwood Scrubs

  0

  7.2

  18.2

  19.5

  19.1

  18,884

  22,500

  Wymott

  0

  1.5

  7.8

  28.0

  14.1

  18,383

  18,901

  Prison name

  Basic skills awards: literacy

  Basic skills awards: numeracy

  Key word skills

  Total offending behaviour programmes

  Sex offender treatment programmes

  Proportion of ethnic minority staff (Percentage)

  Acklington

  56

  77

  229

  25

  0

  0.5

  Albany

  15

  7

  274

  50

  4

  0.0

  Altcourse

  42

  37

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Ashfield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Ashwell

  145

  118

  103

  29

  0

  1.3

  Askham Grange

  27

  31

  131

  0

  0

  0.0

  Aylesbury

  2

  6

  78

  15

  0

  4.7

  Bedford

  35

  26

  18

  10

  0

  1.7

  Belmarsh

  27

  26

  139

  7

  0

  7.2

  Birmingham

  46

  20

  18

  7

  7

  11.9

  Blakenhurst

  35

  62

  0

  20

  0

  2.3

  Blantyre House

  17

  10

  77

  0

  0

  2.9

  Blundeston

  35

  19

  154

  0

  0

  2.1

  Brinsford

  0

  0

  469

  0

  0

  6.3

  Bristol

  30

  22

  351

  35

  0

  1.9

  Brixton

  7

  4

  27

  23

  0

  19.1

  Brockhill

  6

  0

  82

  0

  0

  4.9

  Buckley Hall

  31

  41

  29

  29

  0

  3.5

  Bullingdon

  61

  100

  115

  34

  0

  2.4

  Bullwood Hall

  60

  10

  4

  10

  0

  3.2

  Camp Hill

  51

  45

  362

  0

  0

  0.4

  Canterbury

  30

  15

  17

  0

  0

  1.0

  Cardiff

  121

  118

  50

  19

  0

  1.5

  Castington

  21

  9

  1171

  0

  0

  0.0

  Channings Wood

  115

  93

  429

  60

  16

  0.3

  Chelmsford

  15

  5

  34

  26

  0

  3.4

  Coldingley

  44

  62

  670

  34

  0

  2.0

  Cookham Wood

  31

  3

  66

  17

  0

  2.1

  Dartmoor

  82

  56

  405

  40

  0

  1.1

  Deerbolt

  98

  78

  988

  23

  0

  0.4

  Doncaster

  41

  7

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Dorchester

  15

  16

  191

  18

  0

  0.6

  —

  Dovegate

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Dover

  4

  5

  107

  6

  0

  1.9

  Downview

  60

  38

  287

  19

  0

  3.3

  Drake Hall

  57

  27

  112

  15

  0

  1.3

  Durham

  44

  16

  404

  37

  0

  0.4

  East Sutton Park

  6

  12

  56

  0

  0

  1.6

  Eastwood Park

  35

  23

  405

  9

  0

  1.8

  1016W

  1017W

  Prison name

  Basic skills awards: literacy

  Basic skills awards: numeracy

  Key word skills

  Total offending behaviour programmes

  Sex offender treatment programmes

  Proportion of ethnic minority staff (Percentage)

  Elmley

  95

  33

  0

  66

  0

  1.8

  Erlestoke

  19

  7

  291

  6

  0

  0.5

  Everthorpe

  81

  51

  52

  23

  0

  0.4

  Exeter

  30

  67

  103

  27

  0

  0.7

  Featherstone

  48

  46

  499

  10

  0

  3.2

  Feltham

  61

  41

  10

  5

  0

  14.0

  Ford

  67

  46

  245

  15

  0

  1.8

  Forest Bank

  8

  19

  138

  16

  0

  —

  Foston Hall

  13

  12

  111

  16

  0

  2.7

  Frankland

  37

  21

  336

  31

  3

  0.4

  Full Sutton

  11

  6

  153

  12

  4

  0.4

  Garth

  35

  13

  52

  0

  0

  0.5

  Gartree

  39

  45

  184

  1

  0

  1.1

  Glen Parva

  89

  34

  680

  17

  0

  4.0

  Gloucester

  27

  18

  87

  0

  0

  0.9

  Grendon

  31

  14

  451

  0

  0

  2.8

  Guys Marsh

  51

  39

  637

  34

  0

  0.4

  Haslar

  I

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1.2

  Hatfield

  25

  25

  449

  17

  0

  0.0

  Haverigg

  33

  30

  53

  0

  0

  0.3

  Hewell Grange

  42

  31

  0

  0

  0

  1.2

  High Down

  17

  6

  321

  68

  15

  9.2

  Highpoint

  66

  45

  10

  27

  0

  1.2

  Hindley

  34

  42

  818

  15

  0

  1.8

  Hollesley Bay

  20

  12

  18

  0

  0

  0.6

  Holloway

  32

  26

  66

  8

  0

  25.6

  Holme House

  79

  63

  1,672

  28

  0

  0.6

  Hull

  72

  40

  0

  12

  2

  1.2

  Huntercombe

  4

  0

  131

  0

  0

  3.6

  Kingston

  17

  16

  18

  23

  0

  0.7

  Kirkham

  23

  26

  19

  0

  0

  0.0

  Kirklevington

  40

  40

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  Lancaster

  19

  1

  252

  9

  0

  0.6

  Lancaster Farms

  17

  7

  389

  32

  0

  0.3

  Latchmere House

  14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6.5

  Leeds

  37

  22

  296

  7

  0

  3.2

  Leicester

  56

  25

  395

  10

  0

  3.3

  Lewes

  20

  7

  40

  0

  0

  3.1

  Leyhill

  47

  50

  654

  43

  14

  0.0

  Lincoln

  56

  59

  115

  26

  0

  0.6

  Lindholme

  52

  41

  137

  18

  0

  0.3

  Littlehey

  103

  71

  198

  30

  0

  1.7

  Liverpool

  86

  42

  133

  17

  0

  0.8

  Long Lartin

  56

  22

  69

  22

  0

  1.5

  Low Newton

  27

  11

  0

  20

  0

  0.4

  Lowdham Grange

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Maidstone

  106

  56

  106

  33

  8

  2.1

  Manchester

  52

  33

  13

  35

  8

  2.3

  Moorland

  115

  94

  2,559

  35

  0

  1.5

  Morton Hall

  0

  0

  16

  0

  0

  0.7

  Mount

  60

  40

  486

  9

  0

  3.9

  New Hall

  81

  31

  361

  17

  0

  0.7

  North Sea Camp

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  Northallerton

  34

  18

  14

  0

  0

  0.0

  Norwich

  62

  60

  82

  39

  0

  1.2

  Nottingham

  25

  17

  242

  0

  0

  3.3

  Onley

  56

  57

  482

  31

  0

  3.0

  Parc

  12

  36

  0

  9

  0

  —

  Parkhurst

  9

  5

  97

  46

  0

  0.6

  Pentonville

  35

  37

  72

  78

  0

  25.0

  Portland

  41

  14

  223

  44

  0

  0.9

  Preston

  30

  20

  137

  0

  0

  1.3

  Ranby

  28

  31

  23

  75

  0

  1.8

  Reading

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3.1

  Risley

  52

  58

  0

  10

  0

  1.0

  Rochester

  20

  15

  75

  18

  8

  2.0

  Rye Hill

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Send

  65

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2.3

  Shepton Mallet

  20

  22

  89

  10

  0

  0.7

  Shrewsbury

  23

  26

  48

  19

  0

  1.5

  1018W 1019W

  Prison name

  Basic skills awards: literacy

  Basic skills awards: numeracy

  Key word skills

  Total offending behaviour programmes

  Sex offender treatment programmes

  Proportion of ethnic minority staff (Percentage)

  Stafford

  127

  83

  146

  28

  0

  0.6

  Standford Hill

  15

  10

  25

  26

  0

  0.5

  Stocken

  41

  47

  633

  8

  0

  1.4

  Stoke Heath

  39

  35

  778

  14

  0

  2.5

  Styal

  37

  29

  0

  16

  0

  4.0

  Sudbury

  36

  11

  248

  20

  0

  2.7

  Swaleside

  29

  33

  94

  69

  0

  2.9

  Swansea

  35

  40

  242

  42

  0

  0.4

  Swinfen Hall

  18

  8

  362

  40

  0

  1.7

  Thorn Cross

  28

  6

  278

  85

  0

  0.9

  Usk

  60

  64

  59

  71

  41

  0.5

  Verne

  17

  24

  28

  0

  0

  0.7

  Wakefield

  25

  24

  286

  43

  8

  1.1

  Wandsworth

  40

  68

  91

  16

  0

  13.4

  Wayland

  70

  73

  10

  45

  9

  0.4

  Wealstun

  145

  94

  402

  9

  0

  1.0

  Weare

  32

  15

  253

  0

  0

  1.0

  Wellingborough

  49

  38

  178

  35

  0

  2.2

  Werrington

  13

  15

  0

  0

  0

  0.7

  Wetherby

  13

  14

  0

  15

  0

  1.2

  Whatton

  51

  35

  245

  41

  11

  0.7

  Whitemoor

  20

  9

  235

  20

  0

  1.9

  Winchester

  30

  11

  48

  33

  0

  0.6

  Wolds

  0

  0

  0

  16

  0

  —

  Woodhill

  30

  14

  169

  16

  1

  3.6

  Wormwood Scrubs

  143

  72

  248

  19

  0

  17.0

  Wymott

  54

  18

  241

  50

  5

  0.7

  1Hours per prisoner per week

  2Cost per place and cost per prisoner data for HMP Dovegate are unavailable

  EU Extradition Warrants
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the EU agreement on extradition warrants will take effect in each country of the EU. [24872]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Article 27 of the Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states requires member states to take the necessary measures to comply with it by 31 December 2003. Article 27 also provides that the Framework Decision can come into force between two member states on a bilateral basis, once they have made the necessary declaration.

  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which countries do not deport their own nationals to the UK under existing extradition treaties but will be obliged to do so under the common European arrest warrant proposals. [25419]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Of the European countries to whom the European arrest warrant proposals will apply Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg and Norway will not currently extradite their own nationals under any circumstances. Belgium, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden will do so on a discretionary basis and attach varying degrees of conditions to doing so. The Republic of Ireland and

  Home Office area

  1 April 1998

  1 April 1999

  1 April 2000

  1 April 20011

  Home Office main (excluding agencies)

  8,070

  7,710

  9,270

  13,020

  Fire Service College

  250

  190

  180

  2190

  Forensic Science Service

  1,240

  1,640

  1,780

  2,190

  1020W
  Italy will extradite their own nationals provided there is reciprocity. The United Kingdom attaches no such conditions to the extradition of British citizens.

  Under the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant, it will no longer be possible for a country to refuse to extradite an individual on the grounds that he or she is an own national. The one exception to this is Austria whose executing judicial authorities will be permitted to refuse the enforcement of a European arrest warrant if the requested person is an Austrian citizen and if the act for which the European arrest warrant has been issued is not punishable under Austrian law until such time as Austria has modified its basic law. They are required to do this under the framework agreement by 31 December 2008.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were employed in his Department in each of the last four years. [23784]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The available information for 1 April 2001 was published by the Cabinet Office on 8 November 2001. Figures for the previous three years are set out in Civil Service Statistics for 2000 which is available in the Library.

  For ease of reference, the available data are set out in the table. The figures given are full-time equivalents.
  1021W

  Home Office area

  1 April 1998

  1 April 1999

  1 April 2000

  1 April 20011

  UKPA3

  1,280

  1,250

  1,320

  2,270

  HM Prison Service

  39,360

  38,750

  40,560

  41,490

  Total

  50,200

  49,540

  53,110

  59,160

  1 1 April 2001 figures come from the Cabinet Office National Statistics briefing published on 8 November 2001.

  2 2 Most of the increase in the non-agency Home Office is as a result of expansion within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.

  3United Kingdom Passport Agency.

  Note:

  The April figures include some staff (like those of the Fire Service College) who later moved from the Home Office in the machinery of Government transfers of 8 June 2001

  Source:

  Civil Service Statistics 2000

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the reasons for the difference between the final voted departmental expenditure limit and provisional outturn for financial year 2000–01, as listed in the Treasury document, Public Expenditure 2000–01: Provisional Outturn, for Vote IV, Home Office and Charity Commission, subcategory 1 Home Office administration, police, probation, immigration and other services, England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [24112]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Full details of outturn against 2000–01 voted provision will be published in the appropriation accounts to be presented to the House of Commons by 31 January. The departmental resource account on an accruals basis will also be presented to the House of Commons before 31 January. Updated estimates of the outturn for Departmental Expenditure Limits in 2000–01 on an accruals basis were published in the 2001 pre-Budget report (Cm 5318), Table B16

  Anti-terrorism Legislation
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the costs for UK communication and internet service providers in storing data required under Part II of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. [24509]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is published on the Home Office website. Further consideration of additional costs which may be incurred will take place during consultation with communications service providers.

  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what volume of data he expects internet service providers and communication service providers to retain under Part II of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. [24504]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The type of data to be held and the retention period will be determined in consultation with service providers and the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies. This will in turn determine the volume of data to be retained.

  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure effective cross-border co-operation on data retention periods and disclosure under the Code of Practice on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. [24507]
  1022W
  Mr. Blunkett
  We have had discussions with our European and other international counterparts on communications data retention in various fora including the G8, the European Union and informal bilaterals, and will continue to do so.

  The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 does not cover disclosure of communications data, which is provided for by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects discussion on the Code of Practice under Part II of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to be completed. [24506]

  Mr. Blunkett
  We aim to publish a draft communications data retention code of practice after consultation so as to allow a three-month period of public consultation before laying the code before Parliament before the summer recess.

  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if data stored outside the UK, by UK companies, will be covered by the Code of Practice on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. [24505]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The communications data retention provisions in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 apply to communications providers providing a telecommunications service in the United Kingdom wherever the data are retained. The full practical considerations will be examined during the consultation on the code of practice and agreements, in partnership with the industry.

  Internet and Communication Service Providers
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to meet representatives of the internet and communication service providers industry; and if this meeting will include smaller companies. [24508]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Officials are now beginning consultation with industry contacts. Service providers of all sizes will have the opportunity to make individual representations, both while the code is being prepared and during consultation.

  At an appropriate juncture, when discussions have proceeded to a point where this would be constructive, there will, as always, be an opportunity for the industry to meet with Ministers.
  1023W

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of whether the targets set in the 10-year anti-drugs strategy will be achieved by 2008; and if he will make a statement. [24386]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We are currently reviewing progress against all the Drugs Strategy targets to ensure that we still have the right balance and focus. We have made good progress in establishing programmes to drive forward the Strategy and in delivering our short-term goals. Drug use in the general population remains stable with some significant reductions in the proportion of young people aged 16–19 taking drugs, although there has been a small increase in the proportion of 16 to 24-year-olds reporting cocaine use

  We know we need to be even more effective at tackling the harm caused by Class A drugs. That is why, as he indicated in his evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 23 October 2001, the Home Secretary is seeking advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on their assessment for reclassifying cannabis from Class B to Class C. We are also implementing a series of harm minimisation measures, in partnership with the Department of Health, such as the publication of an action plan to reduce drug-related deaths.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out for each of the conclusions in section 6.4 of the Performance and Innovation Unit report, "Winning the Generation Game",(a) what progress his Department has made and(b) what future plans his Department has for acting on them; and if he will set out against each of the conclusions the targets and deadlines that have been set. [24207]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]: The Home Office is committed to equality of opportunity for all staff, and our policies are designed to avoid unfair discrimination on any irrelevant grounds, including age. We are reviewing those policies in the context of the Performance and Innovation Unit recommendations, as follows:

  Conclusion 6: Consider ways of increasing downshifting in the Civil Service.

  The Home Office offers support to any member of staff who chooses to revert to a more junior grade for personal reasons, irrespective of age. Each application is given sympathetic consideration.

  Conclusion 7: Consider creating a work pool of retired civil servants to retire at 65.

  The Home Office uses retired civil servants for recruitment and selection boards on an ad hoc basis. We also invite retired members of staff with appropriate experience to carry out reports, enquiries and investigations from time to time.

  Conclusion 8: Each Government Department should look at the case for allowing its civil servants to retire at 65.

  The Home Office has recently completed a comprehensive review of age retirement, resulting in a change in age retirement policy throughout the Home Office, including agencies (except for the Prison Service,
  1024W
  which will announce details of its own age retirement review in due course). The new policy, which will come into force on 1 April 2002, will allow staff the option of retiring at any point between the ages of 60 and 65.

  Conclusion 9: Civil service departments should consider whether a short-service concession for those with less than 20 years' service should form part of its policy on normal retirement age as an interim measure.

  Not applicable, as conclusion 8 recommendations have already been implemented.

  Conclusion 10: Departments should take steps to integrate age into their equal opportunities policies.

  We are currently drafting a new equal opportunities policy statement. We will consider carefully how to include age in this statement.

  Conclusion 11: The Cabinet Office should develop a process for monitoring age-related employment practice.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 335W.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when she expects to reply to the Question of 5 December, ref. 21346, from the hon. Member for Buckingham, on sickness absence. [24753]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The question to which the hon. Member is referring was answered on 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 91W.

  Driving Disqualifications (EU)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the prospects for adopting mutual recognition of court-ordered disqualifications from driving across the EU. [24985]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government have consulted widely on options for ratification of the European Union (EU) Driving Disqualification Convention, which was signed by all 15 member states during the United Kingdom's Presidency of the European Union in 1998. The convention requires EU member states to enforce disqualifications imposed on their residents by other member states.

  The Government are now considering the responses they have received to their consultation paper and will announce their decision as soon as possible. Ratification of the convention will require primary legislation. The convention will enter into force when it has been ratified by all 15 member states, but the Government intend to explore the possibility of early implementation on a bilateral basis with those countries that have ratified it.

  Styal Womens' Prison
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the ratio of prison staff to inmates at Styal Womens' Prison in each of the last 10 years. [25494]
  1025W
  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is shown in the table. Information is not held on staff numbers prior to 1997. Staff in post and prisoner population are shown as at 31 March each year and at the latest available date.

  Date

  Prisoners

  Staff in post

  Staff: inmate ratio

  31 March 1997

  254

  210

  1: 1.21

  31 March 1998

  285

  235

  1: 1.21

  31 March 1999

  277

  325

  1: 0.85

  31 March 2000

  438

  329

  1: 1.33

  31 March 2001

  436

  318

  1: 1.37

  31 December 2001

  379

  335

  1: 1.13

  Lewes Prison
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the prison population at HMP Lewes in each month since January 2001; and what the(a) recommended and(b) absolute capacity of the prison is. [25378]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: The uncrowded capacity (Certified Normal Accommodation) of Lewes prison is 485 and the operational capacity is 496. The table provides the population figures during 2001.

  Month1

  Population

  January 2001

  411

  February 2001

  414

  March 2001

  445

  April 2001

  446

  May 2001

  435

  June 2001

  443

  July 2001

  471

  August 2001

  478

  September 2001

  471

  October 2001

  468

  November 2001

  467

  December 2001

  2458

  1 Figures relate to the last day of the month

  2 Provisional data

  Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the compatibility of the provisions within the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 permitting the blanket retention of data with the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights. [25817]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: The provisions of Part 11 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 comply with all European and International binding conventions. It is not our practice to assess compatibility with other, non-binding conventions.

  Sussex Police
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what funding has been made available to Sussex police specifically to combat drugs; [25762]
  1026W
  (2) what additional funds he is making available to the Sussex constabulary to deal with crack cocaine; [25765]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Within the police force grant, there is not a ring-fenced allocation for tackling the misuse of drugs. Neither is there additional money allocated for dealing with crack cocaine specifically.

  In the year 2001–02, central funding was made available to the Sussex constabulary for specific drug-related programmes. This comprised £258,400 from the Crime Reduction Programme to deliver and maintain drug Arrest Referral schemes, and slightly in excess of £1 million from the Communities Against Drugs (CAD) programme, which can be used for more CCTV, funding for crime stopper schemes and working with pharmacists, to tackle drug-related crime at a community level

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his assessment is of the increase in the use of crack cocaine in the Sussex constabulary area in the last five years. [25764]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information is not available in the form requested. The British Crime Survey (BCS) asks a representative sample of 16 to 59-year-olds (sample size of 13,300 individuals in 2000) about their drug use in the last year. The percentage who report using crack was 0.3 per cent. in 2000. Because of the small sample size and the low prevalence of reported crack use it would be unreliable to try to provide estimates for the numbers of crack users for small geographical areas, eg police force areas. Our best estimate of the number of 16 to 24-year-olds who used crack in the last year nationally is 50,000.

  Again nationally, the BCS suggests that there has been a significant increase in crack use between 1996 and 2000. In 1996 0.1 per cent. of 16 to 59-year-olds reported using crack in the last year, but by 2000 this had increased to 0.3 per cent. The same figures for 16 to 29-year-olds show an increase from 0.2 per cent. to 0.8 per cent. of the age group.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of arrests have been made by Sussex police in the last year for drug offences. [25763]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Home Office Statistical Bulletin 19/01 "Arrests for Notifiable Offences and the Operation of Certain Police Powers under PACE, England and Wales 2000/01" shows that 6 per cent. of the total persons arrested for notifiable offences by the Sussex constabulary were for drug offences.

  Milk Tokens
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will consider awarding milk tokens to asylum seeker mothers who are HIV positive; [24556]

  (2) if he will entitle all asylum seekers with children aged under five years to receive milk tokens. [24557]
  1027W
  Mr. Hutton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Families with children aged under five who receive certain social security benefits (income support or an income-based jobseeker's allowance) are entitled to
  1028W
  receive milk tokens. Families of asylum seekers who do not receive social security benefits are supported by the national asylum support service. There are no plans to change these arrangements.

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

Business Regulation
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they respond to the European Commission's internal market scoreboard about the extent and complication of business regulation in the United Kingdom.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the UK is one of the leading EU member states in trying to improve the European regulatory environment. The survey reported in the internal market scoreboard is one of a number and covers only a narrow range of firms. Figures show that the UK is the largest recipient of inward investment in Europe and several other studies by the OECD, Arthur Andersen and the Economist Intelligence Unit show it to have one of the most lightly regulated of the world's economies.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he remember that when the Government took office in 1997 they pledged themselves to reduce red tape and regulation? Can he therefore explain to the House how it is that during their First term in Parliament the Government introduced more than 14,000 new regulations—a record-breaking number—and an extra burden on businesses of more than £15 billion; and how during that period we slipped from 9th to 19th in the global competitive league, according to the highly respected International Institute for Management Development?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I question the total of 14,000. It has been alleged by the Opposition party that 3,500 new regulations have been introduced in the past year, but that figure confuses the number of statutory instruments with the number of regulations on business. The number of statutory instruments introduced each year has ranged from 3,200 to slightly under 3,500 during the last decade. More than 95 per cent of those SIs have no impact on business and many have a local or temporary effect—for example, road traffic orders. I should point out that, despite the assertions made about the state of our economy, it has been said by Digby Jones of the CBI that low interest rates, low inflation and low unemployment make us the most successful economy in western Europe.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a paradox in the attitude of noble
684
Members opposite? On the one hand, they are increasingly Eurosceptical and, on the other, they want to quote every critical view that emerges from the European Commission. That paradox is somewhat highlighted when one recalls the words of the then leader of the race for the Conservative leadership, Mr Michael Portillo. Is my noble friend aware that he said on the "Today" programme on 5th July 2000 that, even after three years of Labour government, relatively we are, on average, less taxed and less regulated than our continental partners?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, my noble friend asked me whether I recall the quote. I do indeed—with some relish. We are making good progress inside the European Union through the Mandelkern Group, which has been working to harmonise the regulatory environment across the EU. In that, it is taking its lead in many matters from the precedent that we have set in Britain.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to give him an even softer ball than the one given to him by his colleague? Does he agree that the previous government imposed a significant element of business regulation on this country which manufacturing industry, in particular, still regrets? Having given him that soft ball, which I am sure he will serve with his normal prowess, does he also accept that it is about time that Her Majesty's Government indicated when they will make the bonfire of regulations that they promised in their election manifesto?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, let me list for the noble Lord's benefit the number of initiatives that we have taken. We have, for instance, strengthened the Regulatory Impact Unit; we have brought in an enforcement concordat which has allowed business to work more closely with local government; we have mandated regulatory impact assessments, as noble Lords will know through dealing with the legislation in the House; and we have a ministerial panel for regulatory accountability. The Regulatory Reform Act has been passed and has produced regulatory reform orders. The first order—which, the House will be pleased to hear, extended New Year drinking—was passed in December. We anticipate that there may be 50 to 100 of these fast-track regulatory reform orders in prospect. We also have regulatory reform action plans, which we anticipate publishing shortly, which include about 300 measures. In addition, of course, we have set up a small business service to ensure that the interests of business are served in the regulatory sphere.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords—
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords—
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords—
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords opposite for giving way. Can the Minister say

685
whether the harmonisation of the time-scale of the United Kingdom with that of Europe is part of the harmonisation programme to which he referred?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am not sure that I fully understand the question, and for that I apologise. As I said, we have been working with other countries in the EU on the Mandelkern Group. We strongly support its final report, which sets out a series of recommendations. It was brought before the Laeken summit in December and will be taken forward to Barcelona in March. We are also trying to improve our record on the transposing of EU single market directives. We have fallen very slightly behind other countries in transposing European law into British law. I regret that we have not been quite as zealous as was the party opposite in that respect. We have therefore gone down the league table a little as regards imposing European regulation in Britain.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, if, as they say, the Government have been so helpful to business, and to small business in particular, will the Minister explain the position? He did not answer the main point put to him by my noble friend Lady Miller. If the Government have been so helpful to business, how has this country slipped from 9th to 19th in the world competitiveness league?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the quotes from the CBI indicated, in its words, that this country presently has the most successful economy in western Europe. Deloitte & Touche expressed the view that the UK will escape a recession proper, and that it is the best-performing country in the G7. Those are not quotes attracted by an under-performing economy. The Economist Intelligence Unit found that, rated against 70 factors, including flexibility of the labour market and openness to foreign investment, the UK ranked third among the 60 largest economies in the world according to how good they are to do business in. Arthur Andersen's ranked the UK first for its policy towards private enterprise and competition. Those are both recent reports.

Devolved Administrations
3.14 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether devolved administrations are free to make their own decisions within their competences without intervention from central government.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I believe that I can safely assure the noble Lord that devolved administrations are free to make their own decisions within their competences without intervention from central government.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. What explanation, therefore,
686
can the Government give for the Scottish First Minister's remarks, quoted in Scotland on Sunday—namely:
"I think we have to move on in Scotland. To get to the stage where we are not looking over our shoulder every time we want to make a decision".
Will the Minister tell the House in precisely what way Scottish First Ministers have been looking over their shoulder and, if they did so, whether there was anyone there? Will he give the House a categorical assurance that the initiative for none of the 24 Sewel Motions that have been placed before the Scottish Parliament came from departments and Ministers in London, and that in future no such initiative will be taken?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, if the First Minister in Scotland was looking over his shoulder, I think it was to ensure that continuing support was still in sight. We should all be pleased at the remarkably seamless transition during devolution since 1999. It is all too easy to lose sight of the magnitude of what we have achieved. I can say from personal experience as a Minister that we have had a remarkably affable and effective relationship with the devolved administrations. I cannot answer the more detailed question on the Sewel amendments. I shall make inquiries and write to the noble Duke.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, after 50 years, devolution in Northern Ireland became unsatisfactory and so was abolished. Do the Government have any plans to intervene in a more intermediate way in the event of unsatisfactory activity by a devolved institution?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I know of no plans for such intervention. The experience of the past few years has shown that devolved administrations can take different positions from that of the UK Government. All of that simply adds to the richness and opportunity that we had hoped that devolution would produce.
Lord Jones: My Lords, does my noble friend say categorically that central government do not intervene?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Yes, my Lords, we do not intervene. We leave matters inside the jurisdiction of the devolved administrations.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the Minister's reply mean that the Scottish Executive can provide free care for elderly people in nursing homes, in contrast to the situation in England? If so, are the Government ready for an exodus of senior citizens northwards across the Border, for the good of their pockets as well as their health?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, it is not only in long-term care for the elderly that we look to a different policy in Scotland now; it is also the case with student tuition fees. Wales has a different policy on

687
prescription charges. That is within the rights of the devolved administrations. Presumably those decisions, taken democratically, were judged to be best for the local situation in those administrations. That is exactly what the devolutionary settlement was produced to provide. We are happy to see the devolved administrations take those kinds of decisions if they are in the interests of their citizens.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords—
Lord Sewel: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross Benches!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I speak from the perspective of the National Assembly for Wales. Do the Government have plans to ensure that draft legislation applying to England and Wales will, in future, contain an appendix summarising the parts of a Bill which do or do not apply to the National Assembly for Wales in order to ease the interpretation of complex legislation in those two areas of the UK?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am not aware of any plans of that nature. If it is the case, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Sewel Motions are very good things, in that they show that the two Parliaments are working together? They exist to enable the Westminster Parliament to legislate in a devolved area with the approval of the Scottish Parliament. In other words, the devolution settlement has brought about exactly the right type of co-operative, efficient working between two parliaments.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for clarifying that matter. I restate my experience as a Minister and assure your Lordships that there is an easy relationship between Ministers in the devolved administrations and those here in London.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, which contains Substantial Clauses relating to Wales, received its second reading in the other place before it was fully approved by the National Assembly for Wales? While there is nothing illegal about putting the cart before the horse, does the Minister agree that it is not an ideal way to proceed and that the issue might well be considered by the Constitution Committee, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and his Select Committee on the constitution are looking at
688
these matters. I welcome their closer scrutiny. Devolution has been in place since 1999. There will be lessons to be learnt and if there are better ways forward I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, will point us towards them.

The Church of England and the Sex Discrimination Act
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the time is right for a review of the Church of England's exemption from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we have no plans to review Section 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, relating to organised religions generally.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree with her right honourable friend the Home Secretary that it is unacceptable that there should be discrimination against women in any part of British society? Is it not therefore unacceptable that women priests in the Church of England are subject to humiliating discrimination in their conditions of employment? Why is it still possible for a parish to decide that they will not even consider a woman for the position of their parish priest? Is it not time for the Government to reconsider that point?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the Home Secretary's statement that it is unacceptable for women to be discriminated against. However, your Lordships will know that it has been the policy of successive governments, particularly since the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974, to leave internal church affairs to the Church itself. The position of women priests is a matter for the Church and I am confident that the Church of England is dealing with the issue, mindful of the Government's commitment to promoting equality. We shall continue to keep the legal position under review in the light of developments in EU law.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if the clergy were treated as employees and covered by the relevant sections of employment legislation, the problem of gender discrimination would not be as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, has described?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have a difficulty, because there is case law that indicates that members of the clergy are not employed in the normal sense of the word, but are following a vocational calling. They do not fall within the normal

689
construction of an employment contract. That is the reality of the situation. Since the establishment of the Church of England during the reign of Henry VIII, the introduction of women priests has been an issue. However, recently that issue has been resolved in part by the Church.
Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords—
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Bishop!
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: After the noble Baroness.
Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, I hate to fight it out with my noble friend the right reverend Prelate. In framing her reply, did the Minister take into account any of the experience in the Anglican Communion in other places or experience in other free Protestant Churches in this country, which have had women in leadership positions for a long time without any noticeable disintegration?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am confident that the right reverend Prelates and others who make up the General Synod are conversant with that view. Your Lordships will know that a debate in the General Synod in November 2001 drew attention to what some would see as an anomaly in the safeguards for parishes in the 1993 Measure. Following that debate, some individuals and organisations within the Church of England have begun to suggest the need for a review of the Measure, or parts of it. Careful consideration is being given to the best way of responding to those suggestions. Whatever is decided will need to take into account the views of those in favour of the priestly ministry of women and those who have conscientious objections to it, as well as the continuing need to preserve the unity of the Church, while also ensuring that women priests are fairly and properly treated. Perhaps reconciliation is something that the Church will have to practise as well as preach.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that less than eight years since the General Synod's legislation permitting women priests came into force, the latest figures show that out of a total of 13,200 parishes in the Church of England, fewer than 1,000 rely on the safeguards for those with conscientious objections? I am glad that the Minister accepts that the Church itself should decide whether and when it would be appropriate to review those provisions, which were closely scrutinised by no less a body than the Ecclesiastical Committee at the time. I am also pleased that the Minister accepts that the Church will he able to safeguard its unity by taking into account the conscientious objections of some to women priests and by encouraging the ministry of those who have been given such encouragement by the
690
widespread acceptance of women priests. Is she aware that we are already talking about the possibility of including women in the episcopate?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am indeed aware of that. The Government recognise that the Church has already made great strides. There are more than 2,000 ordained women in the Church of England. As the right reverend Prelate says, only 1,000 of the more than 13,000 Church of England parishes have sought to rely on the restriction. I hope that, having listened to these exchanges, they will be further encouraged and that the 1,000 may reconsider their position.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we must have a good deal of confidence in the Church's willingness and enthusiasm for recruiting women priests, but that is not necessarily the most relevant issue? The working conditions of those women could be adversely affected—consciously or unconsciously. Those women might not then have recourse to the appeal available to other women under the equal rights legislation.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, although I sympathise with what the noble Baroness has said, I repeat that the Church of England has to listen to the debate. It must take account of what will best meet the needs of its congregation and how to keep that congregation. We can be encouraged by the steps that the Church has taken to address the issue, but it is a matter for the Church, not for the Government.

Mobile Phone Thefts
3.29 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they are holding with manufacturers and operators to identify measures to nullify and counter the upsurge in crime related to mobile phones.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Government set up the mobile phone theft steering group in January 2001, bringing together the industry and police to identify steps to tackle the increase in mobile phone theft. The group is pursuing aspects such as raising public awareness of existing phone security, encouraging greater co-operation between the industry and police and the development of enhanced security features in the current and the third generation of mobile phones.
Lord McNally: My Lords, although I recognise the initiative taken in establishing that committee, does the Minister agree that much of the onus lies with manufacturers not only to ensure that the public are aware of current anti-theft measures in mobile phones, but to implement, as standard practice, new anti-theft technology? Will the Government consider imposing a

691
lower VAT rate on consumer products containing anti-theft devices as a major contribution to deterring crime?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, although the general thrust of the noble Lord's comments is correct, the Government do not envisage subsidising this highly profitable industry. The mobile phone market has grown by 600 per cent in the past five years and profits for the manufacturers have been enormous. Some manufacturers, however, seem to give no consideration at all to the security of the products that they sell.
The same applies to service providers, as is well known from discussions held this week. The technology used by BT Cellnet and Vodafone does not easily enable phones to be switched off when they are stolen, whereas that used by the other three providers—Virgin, Orange and One2One—does. Those two providers say that it is not financially viable to introduce the necessary technology and that we should wait until the next generation of phones is introduced. The customer, however, is king. After it was discovered that cars were easily broken into, motor manufacturers discovered that they were selling fewer cars.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, manufacturers and operators must have their proper responsibilities brought home to them. This Question is therefore welcome. Phone users themselves, however, have some responsibility to behave sensibly, and not to act, as one often sees, as if they were almost inviting someone to take their phone from them on the street. Do the Government have any plans to publicise what I can only describe as sensible personal behaviour for those using mobile phones? I cannot help but feel that the problem could be reduced considerably simply by more sensible behaviour by most of us as individuals.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the answer is, yes. As the report published earlier this week—Mobile Phone Theft—shows, many of those affected by mobile phone crime are quite young, school-age people, because of the way in which the market has developed. Part of the group's work in the past year has resulted in the publication of a leaflet entitled Protect Your Phone, 2 million copies of which have been distributed in schools and youth clubs, providing good advice on sensible precautions. Work is being done on the issue. A couple of days ago, at St. Olave's school, John Denham, the responsible Minister, noted that that school had addressed the issue by encouraging children to mark their phones with a postcode and to retain a note of code numbers so that action could be taken if a phone was stolen. However, as I said, some suppliers cannot switch off phones even if code numbers are available because they refuse to update their technology.
692
If youngsters, and those who buy phones for youngsters, are aware of the facts, the chances are that they will buy or upgrade only phones that can be easily switched off if stolen in a robbery or lost. However, phone users also have a responsibility.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the Minister's supplementary reply was rather more satisfactory than his initial, rather dry one. I was not trying to protect the manufacturers; I agree with him that there is a heavy onus on them to participate in addressing the issue. I therefore encourage the Government to increase VAT on products that offer no protection. Many new technologies could, if manufacturers chose to use them, deter crime in relation not only to phones but other consumer goods. Where such anti-crime technologies exist, they should be a standard part of the appliance. That is the point I was asking the Minister to support.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the answer is that I do. As for the first part of the noble Lord's comments, the initial reply to a Question is often dry because it is written down for one, whereas, using the notes provided for one—although that depends on the supplementary question—one can answer supplementary questions in a much more precise and targeted fashion.
The noble Lord is quite right. In the next two years, third generation technology will radically change the way in which mobile phones are used. Our implicit objective is to ensure that available security features are incorporated not only in mobile phones but in all consumer goods. People can, for example, buy car tracker devices that lie dormant but can be switched on if the car is stolen, enabling its recovery at the docks or elsewhere. Although there is a cost to such technology, which was not available 10 years ago, it increases security. That benefits manufacturers because it is a unique selling point for the product. The Government should not have to subsidise that technology. In a competitive consumer society, manufacturers can market safe products capable of being disabled or easily recovered if stolen. We should, however, also encourage the public to take normal, sensible precautions to avoid items being stolen in the first place.

House of Lords Reform
3.36 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday by the Lord Chancellor that this House takes note of the White Paper The House of Lords: Completing the Reform (Cm 5291).
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am conscious that there is a long list of speakers today, the second day of our debate. I assure the House that I shall try to be as brief as possible.

693
Yesterday's debate seemed to centre substantially on the strength of the elected element in the new second Chamber. I must say, on that key issue, that my background has conditioned me to be in favour of a substantial elected element in the reformed Chamber. I am also very conscious that very little has been said about the role of the directly elected regional Members, or whether the reformed second Chamber should be related statutorily or informally to the devolved Assemblies. I shall focus my brief comments on those issues.
One of the Royal Commission's main recommendations is set out at paragraph 3.30, which states that the reformed Chamber,
"should give the United Kingdom's constituent nations and regions, for the first time, a formally constituted voice in the Westminster Parliament."
I have to admit that that vision gave me considerable pleasure as it seemed to be taking us in the right direction. I regret that, later in the report, it becomes clear that the new Chamber will not exercise a distinctive regional role, although it is acknowledged that such a role might well develop over time. As for the present, however, the proposal that there be directly elected regional Members means no more and no less than that every area of the United Kingdom is guaranteed representation in the second Chamber, just as every area is guaranteed representation in the House of Commons.
It is a fact that, currently, there are no regional democratic institutions in England apart from the Greater London Assembly. I am bound to accept that regional consciousness within England seems to be weak. But it seems likely that the setting up of the Scottish Parliament and the devolved Assemblies in Wales, Northern Ireland and London, may lead to important alterations in public attitudes in England. Meanwhile, I accept there is much force in the argument which has been voiced in your Lordships' House that we should not look to a reformed second Chamber on its own to provide an English dimension in the devolutionary arrangements.
If we accept that point, as I do, I trust that it will not be suggested that the reformed second Chamber should have no special role to play in relation to the devolved Assemblies which are in being, or which may emerge in the future. Indeed, your Lordships will recall that the Royal Commission was required to take particular account of the new devolved institutions. With the devolution settlement in mind, the commission recommended that the second Chamber should consider establishing a committee to provide a focus for consideration of the issues raised by the devolution settlement. For my part, I wish the Royal Commission had been holder on that issue. But I am gratified that the House set up the new Select Committee on the constitution, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth.
In addition to an issue which was raised during Question Time today, two other issues of considerable importance are already emerging in relation to
694
legislation passed by Parliament affecting the functions and powers devolved, or to be devolved, to the Welsh Assembly. In paragraph 6.21 of its report, the commission foresaw one of the issues:
"There could well be circumstances in which the National Assembly for Wales would like to promote Westminster legislation on matters outside its competence. It might be helpful to have people in the second chamber who could speak in support of such a Bill".
I want to mention a second issue of importance to the Welsh Assembly which has emerged, and of which the Constitution Committee is already aware. When the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon—the distinguished chairman of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee—gave oral evidence to the Constitution Committee on 28th February last, he drew attention to the fact that a general problem in drawing the balance of primary and secondary legislation was of particular importance to the Welsh Assembly because it does not have primary legislative powers. The noble Lord said:
"Wales may have a real interest in wide enabling powers, thus enhancing its secondary legislative powers but, on other grounds, it may not be appropriate to have such wide powers".
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, then asked this pertinent question:
"How does one resolve that tension?".
That question cannot be abolished or, in my view, ignored for long. The problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, will almost certainly become more pronounced than it is today as the National Assembly for Wales finds its feet and becomes more confident, and it could certainly become more serious between a Conservative United Kingdom government and a Labour, Liberal or Plaid Cymru administration in Cardiff.
That links up with a fundamental point with which many noble Lords, and many who spoke in yesterday's debate, will have sympathy: how to achieve the right balance between primary and delegated legislation. According to my rough estimate, since the setting up of the Welsh National Assembly, over 40 Acts of Parliament have been passed which affect the subjects devolved to the Assembly. I believe that the smooth running of devolution in Wales and the well-being of the United Kingdom should lead to a new function in Westminster of scrutinising all primary legislation in the devolved subjects with the object of confining it to broad and major questions of policy, thus ensuring that the functions of the Assembly are not unnecessarily limited.
It occurs to me that one possible way forward would be to build a new Select Committee, or possibly a Sub-Committee of the Constitution Committee but drawing 50 per cent of its membership from Welsh Members, to introduce such a procedure into the procedures of this House. That will enable the committee to scrutinise and report to the House on Bills affecting the devolved subjects. There might even be a provision that a Welsh Assembly Minister should be entitled to attend a meeting of such a Select Committee to give evidence as to how the Bill affects the Assembly and to suggest or advise on what changes

695
are needed to meet the reasonable needs and aspirations of the Assembly. That would be a great improvement on the current situation.
I wish, in conclusion, to ask my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House whether the Government have any comment on the general point that I have raised: that is, how the proposed reform of the House will give the United Kingdom's constituent nations a formally constituted voice in the Westminster Parliament.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will forgive me if I do not follow him in his special scrutiny of the provisions for our homeland in Wales. But I may draw some comfort, perhaps, from the fact that the first three speakers in today's debate are all from the Principality, and out of the first five speakers yesterday, three were from Scotland. So there is some representation at least from both countries in the House as it is presently constituted, and there is that virtue in the present position.
Of course there are other virtues as well, which should not be overlooked. The right place from which to start was identified yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, when she drew attention to the much wider issue outside this specific debate relating to the considerable crisis of confidence in the parliamentary system. That is a view widely shared. Professor Anthony King, in a piece he wrote for the Economist's survey of the year ahead a few weeks ago, pointed out that,
"the main line of political division in Britain will lie, not between traditional right and left but between political class and the people, between all of 'us' and all of 'them'".
Having made that general point, it is important to understand where and how that dismay, that withdrawal of confidence, is at its most serious. I was surprised to see that analysed just after the debate in this House on the anti-terrorism Bill by a well-respected and, in this context, surprising witness, Hugo Young, in his column in the Guardian when he said this:
"What happened last week to the Anti-Terrorism Bill supplies a model … the House of Lords has shown itself far more willing than the Commons to bring the basic tools of democracy to bear on the making of big new law … Something important is being said about democracy when the only legislative chamber to perform the functions the people expect—deliberation, revision, improvement—contains not a single elected politician".
One has to start with that understanding. I refer also to the point made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, when he drew attention to his appreciation of the debates in this House on that very Bill. I was struck by it myself. I believe that in no other assembly in the world does one see such an intense, purposeful concentration of a diversity of talent seeking the best answer to some difficult questions.
It is against that background that one has to set out in the search for the consensus which all the leading speakers have said we ought to seek. I refer to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the noble
696
Baroness, Lady Williams, and, of course, to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I join him and others in regretting the fact that the Government appear to have chosen to discard the use of a Joint Committee of both Houses as the proper vehicle for seeking that consensus. I hope that they may yet repent of that unwise decision.
But even without that consensus there are large areas of common ground in the debate. The essential constitutional position is that it is the other place alone which disposes of power. This House, in a strictly advisory role, may propose how that power may be exercised and ask the other place to think again. But it is the other place that in the last resort has the power to decide. The Government have throughout—this, at least, is virtuous—acknowledged (I quote from the original White Paper, Cm 4183) that extreme care is necessary and is, indeed, of particular importance to ensure that the present balance between the two Houses is not disturbed.
The other thing that it is important to examine when considering the next step is the general acceptance—which surprised me at the outset of the debate years ago—of the present functions and powers of this House. The performance of this House is described in the original White Paper and in the background papers now before us in almost superlative terms. In the original White Paper the most valued features of the present House are summarised in epithets that I have never heard applied to any other institution. I refer to such epithets as "most valuable", "real expertise", "distinctive", "well-regarded", "distinguished" and "particularly valuable". Those were the tributes paid to the work of this House and to the way in which it works by the Government at the outset of the debate. They are all echoed in the later papers now before us. The basic case made from the outset for this present round of discussions has always been the so-called lack of legitimacy of this House due to its anachronistic composition—the presence, in other words, of the hereditary element and, in the eyes of some people, of its Conservative majority.
However, in almost every other respect—this is the important feature that I want to underline—the Government have claimed and still claim to be ready to retain the advantages of the status quo. That is an important premise for our discussions. I do not dissent from that, nor does anyone who has spoken in the debate. The question before us now is, what more, if anything, needs to be done to enhance and consolidate the basic change; that is, the removal of the hereditaries? Most specifically, what, if anything, needs to be done to enhance and consolidate the legitimacy of this House given that it already commands, as Hugo Young pointed out, substantial respect among wide sections of our society?
Obviously, a legitimate question is raised—and is at the heart of the debate—by serious people who claim that the House would not command the authority that it should have in the absence of a substantial elected element. I do not doubt that many people argue that case sincerely. We were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the opinion polls also point in that

697
direction. However, I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, will agree with those who say that opinion polls are not always infallible, bearing in mind the view that he and, indeed, I take on the question of capital punishment and many other questions where we do not go along with opinion polls.
I start from that analysis. The important principle then is how we set about looking for consensus on the next stage. To do that it is important to understand the history of how we arrived at where we are. We have not arrived at where we are by revolution or upheaval but by incremental steps, the importance of which was hardly recognised at the time. The introduction of life Peers in 1959 began a transformation of the House. The decision at the outset of part one of stage one to remove the hereditaries was another incremental step which was almost immediately followed by a third incremental step in the opposite direction—the deal arrived at between the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, my noble friend Lord Cranborne and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the resurrection and survival of a substantial tranche of hereditary Peers. Those were three incremental steps. The baton has been passed smoothly from one reform to the next, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out in an article in the Sunday Times colour supplement in November 2000.
We have had enough continuity over the decade to secure the benefit of incremental change. We have borne in mind an observation that Winston Churchill once made about the shaping of the new Europe when he said that we are not designing a machine but nurturing a growing plant. I believe that that approach is the right one to adopt towards the reform of an institution which has proven itself as well as has this House.
Against that background what is my position? Despite the enthusiastic advocacy of those who take the opposite view, I have not been persuaded that this Chamber should contain any elected Members. Even if it were to do so, I am sure that Members of this House should not be salaried. The present allowance system, coupled, as others have pointed out, with the significant attraction of the title of "Lord"—which I myself should retain—works. It works with a degree of informality perhaps, but it sustains a better attendance in this Chamber, for example, than in the other place. It does so not least in conjunction with the absence of Standing Committees taking so much work away from this House.
There are positive reasons for taking that view. I refer to the two contributions to the debate that made that most clear. First, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford in a deeply moving speech pointed out, as did my noble friend Lord Norton, that we can be an effective, full-time House with part-time Members. As the right reverend Prelate said, noble Lords need him to be involved in his business in the community if he is to be of any value to the House. I agree with that sentiment absolutely and not just as
698
regards those on the spiritual Bench. On all Benches this House needs people who cannot be here all the time. That is an important component of it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I hope that I may ask him a question. I am persuaded by what he says about the quality of debate, but the positive effect on the quality of the debate of the existing system goes with a negative effect on our ability to persuade another place. Is he able to address the trade-off between those positive and negative effects?
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I am not at all sure that there is a negative effect on our ability to persuade the other place. If we were established as a largely elected Chamber, the confrontation would be more violent and more direct and conciliation would be less easy. It is the Government's insight as originally set out that the present balance, imprecise as it may be, gives us our influence and impact and leaves the final decision to the other place. I do not believe that that would be altered for the good by accepting the implication of the noble Earl's question.
The other reason was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf; that is, that we need to have people here who are truly independent and are not dependent on the wishes of party masters and who, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, pointed out, should have no reason either to fear dismissal or to hope for reappointment.
Years ago, Christopher Hollis—some will remember him as the Member for Devizes; he was a very distinguished figure in the days when my noble friend Lord Renton first entered the House of Commons—pointed out in a rather dramatic phrase that:
"If the House of Commons is the House table d'hôte, it is all the more important that the Lords should be the House à la carte".
That degree of independence, difference and distinction was very important.
The opposite case was argued most eloquently by yet another Welshman, the noble Lord, Lord Richard. He asked: if democracy is legitimate elsewhere, why not here? He pointed out that independence and membership of political parties are not necessarily incompatible. Well, they are not necessarily incompatible but such membership effects a powerful restraint on independence, as he must have found out frequently. I am not saying that that is illegitimate, but it is inconsistent with the distinctive nature of this distinct place, which has a different role, to have a similar pattern of choice for the people who will sit in it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, put the matter in a different way. She said that if you do not like patronage, the only alternative is election. That plainly is not so. My noble friend Lord Wakeham and the commission over which he presided with such distinction identified and spelt out two alternatives—either nomination by the commission that they described or election on the basis that they described.

699
Those are legitimate ways of trying to achieve a different structure for this House, although I do not agree with them.
The thought that the Royal Commission put into the matter was spelt out and elaborated not only by my noble friend Lord Wakeham but also by my noble friend Lord Hurd and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. If that approach is adopted, it is of the utmost importance that the qualifications and conditions that were spelt out have to be followed in absolutely every respect; perhaps more so.
One matter seems to loom as an island of unanimity in the debate so far. Of all of the possibilities, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde pointed out, the closed list is a democratic monstrosity. Our experience of the European elections shows how numbingly the procedure is—it seems to compel would-be candidates to compete for what they perceive as their party's centre of gravity and it operates as a charter for conformity of the narrowest kind. Indeed, it is a charter for the deceit of those whose preferences one is seeking.
I think that it was Disraeli who described the Reform Act 1867 as "a leap in the dark". By comparison, a move towards the closed-list system for this House would be not a leap in the dark but the clearest brightly illuminated step in entirely the wrong direction. We have the experience of the European elections to underline that.
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is looking at me. He will recall his patron saint, Aneurin Bevan, saying many times, "Why read the crystal when you can read the book?". So far as closed lists are concerned, we can read the book all too clearly. I hope that we all agree on that.
My closing theme is that I do not believe that the country will be served by reproducing in this House what we now see at work in the other House. I say that with great regret, as someone who had the privilege of leading the other place for at least 12 months. I come back to my brutal, ill-mannered summary—the last thing that people want to see here are clones of the clowns in the Commons.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, although I do not often trouble noble Lords these days, I thought that I should say a few words in this debate. Five decades ago, my political reputation, such as it was, became founded on two incongruous pillars. The first was the liberalisation of the law relating to allegedly indecent literature, which resulted in the Obscene Publications Act 1959. In that task I had the invaluable assistance—there are several incongruities here—of the (not-then-ennobled) noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, whose aphorism-studded speech we listened to with great interest yesterday.
The second of the props—arguably it is more relevant to our deliberations today—was the publication in 1954 of a little book entitled, Mr Balfour's Poodle. It dealt with the powers and composition of the House of Lords in relation to the
700
Lloyd George Budget of 1909 and the Parliament Act 1911. Work on that, fortified by subsequent biographical writings, left me with a sustained interest in the relations between the two Houses and in the composition of this House.
All of that made me a firm supporter of the culling of the hereditaries in 1999. I felt few twinges of historic sentiment. I agree with the dismissive remark—I cannot now remember who made it—that the cure for admiring the old, unreconstructed House of Lords was to go and look at it. When a lady who I otherwise greatly liked and admired was reported to have said, "Poor dears! They never did anybody any harm", I profoundly disagreed. No harm? I take one simple example—the vote of 419 to 41 against the second Home Rule Bill of 1893. By the scale of its obscurantism, it was one of the most disgraceful votes in the history of Parliament. It effectively killed the hope of Anglo-Irish reconciliation within a common polity. That was not just a sentimental regret. The subsequent deprivation of the so-called treaty ports in the south-west of Ireland in the winter of 1940–41, when America was still hesitating, very nearly lost us the battle of the Atlantic and hence the war.
Therefore, of the Government's record on the Lords up to 1999, we could say, "So far so good". I sometimes think that the best House of Lords that I have known in my short 14 years here was that immediately following the cull and before the subsequent big reinforcements. However, that is no doubt a typical example of wishing to pull up the ladder which one has oneself climbed.
In Mr Blair's defence, it should be remembered that nearly all of our most famous Prime Ministers have been great creators of Peers. Pitt was accused by Disraeli of making Peers of,
"second-rate squires and fat graziers".
Others, he said, were,
"caught from the alleys of Lombard Street or clutched from the counting-houses of Cornhill".
Gladstone made 100 Peers, which process left him with no desire to impose the indignity upon himself. Asquith had threatened to make 500 Peers and Lloyd George was not exactly austere in his honours lists.
Three years on, we have the White Paper proposals. They perhaps came quicker than I had expected. However, it is 90 years since the preamble to the First Parliament Act stated,
"It is intended to substitute for the Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of an hereditary basis".
There cannot be an accusation of excessive haste in this regard.
However, there can be an accusation of muddle and an inability to use the framework of clear thought to consider how Parliament as a whole—both Houses—should operate in the 21st century. It must be said in mitigation that getting right the reform of the House of Lords is an intractable task, which has eluded all statesmen who applied themselves to it in the 20th century. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should not be too downcast about his

701
experiences yesterday, although the lack of support was deafening. He has a lot of achievement to his credit. In my view, his high judicial recommendations and appointments have been outstanding and his influence on other constitutional arrangements have been wise and liberal. But he will have to start again on the White Paper. I forbear from harbouring the suspicion that it was put together as an immensely subtle ploy on the part of the Government to show the difficulty of agreement and hence to put the whole matter of composition to bed again for another 90 years.
What do I believe should be done? In spite of the way that various winds are blowing, I remain sceptical about a wholly or largely elected Chamber of anything like the present size. With regard to the scheme put forward in the White Paper, I am not really sceptical; I believe that it is total nonsense. It proposes a 20 per cent elected element, paid unlike the rest of us, having to be called or addressed in a different way and subject to a party caucus and a reselection process every five years. It is almost the recreation of the old system of cricket professionals, even to the extent of their initials having to go after their names rather than their titles before them. No doubt they could help by rolling the pitch in their spare time!
What quality of people would one get under such a system and in such a category? I agree with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, in his excellent speech yesterday. One would certainly be unlikely to get a contribution towards the qualities outlined by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, in a letter to The Times this morning. He states that the point of having a second Chamber is,
"namely to remedy some of the defects of popular democracy … short-termism, over-dependence on the party system, and lack of experience outside politics".
That leads me to a further difficulty about constructing an acceptable new shape for an elected second Chamber at present. There is a widespread view, which, on balance, I share, that such a second Chamber should not be a rival to the House of Commons as the primary democratic forum. But the House of Commons has recently reduced itself to a lower level in public esteem, a less effective watchdog of the executive and a weaker magnet for the talent of the nation than I have ever known, whether in my own direct experience of 54 years in Parliament or in my modern historical writing and reading. It has become little more than an electoral college for the choice of the government of the day. To try to construct and fit in a House of Lords underneath the level to which the Commons has reduced itself is a feat of political engineering which would tax even greater men than those who currently sit round the Cabinet table. They sit round it, I understand, often for little more than half-an-hour a week. Perhaps that is part of the reason why such an ill-thought-out scheme has reached a White Paper.
702
Therefore, in my view, we must consider the advantages as well as the disadvantages of a nominated Chamber. One can have nominees of great distinction. The most extreme example of which I can think was the Italian summit in the post-unification period of the Savoy monarchy. There, at different times, sat Verdi, Puccini, Mascagni, Carducci, the great orator, and Marconi, the great telephonist. They were all members—a spectacular list. But I am not sure how great a part they played and they certainly did not prevent Mussolini coming to power.
I turn to a rather more modern, and perhaps more pedestrian, example. Harold Wilson, with whom I sometimes agreed and sometimes disagreed, did not finish up very well with the "lavender list". However, he had previously shown great discrimination—even imagination—in nominating mostly non-party, public service Peers of distinction and independence, some of whom are still with us: the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, Lord Croham, Lord Richardson of Duntisbourne, Lord Roll, Lord Bullock and Lord Briggs, and Lord Roberthall and Lord Kahn. Even Prime Ministers, with a little encouragement and assisted by new rules about categories and an independent body, can behave responsibly.
I recognise that the tide of opinion may have been encouraged to flow too far and too fast for that. If that is the case, I believe that we must contemplate something much more drastic than the White Paper or even more drastic than a 50 or 80 per cent-elected second Chamber of roughly its present size. I believe that we should contemplate a small, regionally based, wholly elected—either directly or indirectly by those who have themselves been elected—equivalent of the United States Senate or the German Bundersrat. If 100 members are enough for the Senate with its quarter of a billion population, I consider 60 to be enough for us.
One would hope to persuade people of real local influence and power to stand. But I am sure that one would not find 600 or 700 such people. They would all have to be the product of a party list. I agree very strongly with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, said about party lists. Therefore, I would keep it small. In my view, it would be inappropriate to retain this Chamber with its gilt, its red and its flummery. In those circumstances, we should find for it a nice, cosy, utilitarian council chamber.
I must confess that, partly out of self-interest and partly out of tweaks of traditionalism, I would prefer that we stay roughly where we are but with considerable further restrictions on party patronage. But I am sure that we should face the logic of one course or the other and not fish around in the ill-thought-out and muddled middle.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, it is always a daunting task to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, given his great experience and the huge historical sweep of his remarks, as it is to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. I have worked

703
for both of them at various stages of my career. Since the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is chancellor of my university, I suppose that in one sense I still work for him today.
Those of us who had the privilege of serving on the Royal Commission, so ably led by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, must feel a certain degree of sympathy for the Government if they are disappointed that their proposals have not met with universal acclaim. I start with such a degree of sympathy, but I am afraid only a degree. For the truth, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, pointed out, is that while claiming to act on the recommendations of the Royal Commission, the Government have in fact gone cherry-picking among those recommendations. In doing so, they have destroyed their coherence, and in some respects produced proposals which are internally inconsistent, as I shall endeavour to show.
Nevertheless, unfair criticisms have been made both of the Government's and of the Royal Commission's proposals. It is very easy for critics to set their requirements for this House by looking at it in isolation. I agree with those who say that that is a profoundly misleading way to set about the task.
The only way to look at the future of the House is to proceed as the Royal Commission did, and as I believe the Government have tried to do, within the context of the parliamentary system within which it must operate. For that reason, I share the view of those who say that too much weight should not be put on opinion polls which show such high support for an elected House. If the question put had been whether people wanted a House composed of Members of independent mind and entirely free of political domination, I believe that the number responding "yes" would have been just as great. It is the privilege of those who answer opinion polls not to have to provide for a reconciliation between inconsistent objectives.
I suggest that the starting point must be that, despite the long and distinguished history of this House, there is no divine ordinance that there must be a second Chamber. A second Chamber must add value to the work of Parliament. Like other speakers, I suggest that we need to start by asking what that added value should be.
The Royal Commission took a good deal of evidence on that point. The evidence suggested that there was value which this House could add to the work of the other place. That value fell under three headings: first, a range of expertise and experience, not necessarily available in the other House; secondly, a fair representation of groups in our society, which, as a matter of record, has not been achieved in the other place; and, thirdly, an independence of the executive which in present circumstances manifestly does not exist in the elected House.
Perhaps I may briefly take those three aspects in turn. It is clear that a full range of experience and expertise will not necessarily be produced by the chances of election. It is also a fact that all groups in our society have not been adequately represented
704
through election. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that if we leave these matters to the electorate, the electorate, like the market, will somehow sort the matter out. For that to happen requires the electorate to act in a considered and a co-ordinated way across all its constituencies in a way which is clearly impracticable.
In theory, it would be possible for such interests to be represented by indirect election—election from prescribed groups. But, for all the speakers in the debate, and certainly for the Royal Commission, the problem of selecting such groups, establishing the quotas for representation, defining the constituencies of electors and ensuring that elections are properly conducted in each group surely makes such a course impracticable. That is certainly what the Royal Commission concluded.
However, the Royal Commission felt that for one type of representation, election is not only possible but desirable. That is the type of representation for which it exists already—geographical representation. If it is felt—it surely should be felt—that all regions of this country should have a voice in this Chamber, it is not only practicable but, as the Royal Commission felt on balance, desirable, that those representatives should be elected. But for the rest, there is no alternative to appointment through an exercise of judgment by a body—an appointments commission—charged with ensuring that as many as possible areas of expertise and interest are available to your Lordships' House.
I understand, although I cannot share, the view of those who argue that in a House of Parliament the only proper source of authority is election. On this view it does not matter that election would produce a replica of the other House; that it would not add anything in expertise; and that it would not produce fair representation of minorities. Democratic legitimacy for such advocates becomes the mantra and election the only means to it.
I shall not weary the House by repeating the arguments against duplicating the House of Commons. That argument has been made many times in this debate. But I want to ask those who attach such importance to elections whether, in the circumstances in which election is conducted in this country, it should be accorded the sanctity in this context which this approach attributes to it.
In our circumstances, where candidates are chosen by the political parties and the only power of the electorate is to decide in what proportion each party's nominees should occupy the Benches of power, is election so very different from appointment that we should subordinate everything else to it? Of course election is the only proper way to choose a government. But that is not what we are about here. I simply ask whether a cross in the box is such a sine qua non that everything else must be subordinated to it.
So far I am with the Government's proposals. But in three respects I feel that they fall short of what is required and in one respect I believe that they are internally inconsistent. They centre on the third of the requirements for this House—its independence.

705
Independence depends on the executive not commanding a majority in the House. The Government's proposals achieve that. But independence also requires the independence of individual Members, a quality which has been a valued feature of your Lordships' House down the centuries.
The Government departs from the Royal Commission's proposals by saying that those who take a party's Whip should be appointed by that party. There is clearly some force in that. But the effect of it, combined with a closed list system for elections, which so many speakers have criticised, means that political parties would effectively determine the identity of 80 per cent of this House.
That opens up the crucial inconsistency in the Government's proposals. The Government accept the Royal Commission's suggestion that the independent appointments commission should be responsible for ensuring that,
"the appointed members are broadly representative of British society".
How can the commission do that if it only appoints 20 per cent of the House?
In arguing that parties must be able to choose those who represent them, I believe that the Government are raising a false fear. That fear is that, if the appointments commission determines the political appointees, all kinds of people will be appointed whom the parties do not want to take their Whip. The fear is groundless. Of course, in considering whom to appoint to take the sides of the political parties, the appointments commission will give great weight to the nominations of party leaders. But it will not be bound by them. That will give the appointments commission greater leverage to ensure that those whom the party leaders put forward will provide the breadth of representation which the House requires and the Government say they support. It will also give greater assurance to the world outside that those put forward by party leaders are not placemen nominated only in return for some political service.
Finally, I join with my colleagues on the Royal Commission in urging the Government to provide for elected and appointed Members to serve terms which are not only long enough to ensure their independence but which are also as similar as possible. Apart from the method of entry to the House, all Members should be as equal as possible in every other respect.
I believe that this Government and future governments have less to fear and more to gain from an independent House than they believe. Many times in my career I saw governments irritated when the upper House delayed or amended their legislation. But in the end governments are not judged by the quantity of the legislation which they pass or the speed with which they pass it. They are judged by its quality. However irritating it may be at the time, scrutiny by an effective revising Chamber serves the government and the country well. A poodle is not worth its keep.
Perhaps I may introduce a personal note. This morning I had the good news of the birth of a grandson. Apart from causing one to take a more
706
favourable view of the hereditary principle, such an event makes one think about the future. There is no doubt that the task of completing reform of your Lordships' House can be and should be carried out. If it is carried out well, this House will serve the country better and earn more public admiration. The Government's proposals are capable of improvement but if this opportunity is missed I can envisage that the job may remain incomplete during not only the rest of my lifetime but also, on past form, that of my grandson.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, after the quality and talent displayed in the opening speeches today, we have now reached that stage of the proceedings which follows the Lord Mayor's Show.
In considering constitutional reform, two approaches may be potentially profitable. The first is to base reform on some great unifying theory. The White Paper makes no attempt to do so; this reform is not driven by that concept. The second is to adopt a more modest, pragmatic, fit-the-purpose approach to ensure that procedures work. That has been the tendency in the past. It is a satisfactory way of doing things. But if we go down that road, it is important to achieve a system that works and which delivers what people want to see achieved. That is where my doubts begin. With regard to the effectiveness of the work undertaken, I do not think that the proposals in the White Paper will deliver the type of second Chamber that the Government wish to see established.
The concerns of another place have centred almost entirely on composition. A better way forward is to seek to reach that great consensus step by step. What are the functions that we would expect a second Chamber to perform? There is the possibility of wide agreement on that in this House and beyond. I shall not repeat what has been said many times in the debate. Once we have reached agreement, we then have to ask what type of composition will most likely enable those functions to be best performed.
In a bicameral system, with one Chamber dominant and the other subordinate, the emphasis given to different functions within a single Parliament will differ from Chamber to Chamber. There is nothing wrong with that. It is clear that under present arrangements with regard to executive formation and the control and accountability of the executive the House of Commons rightly provides the forum. We cannot in any way or shape determine the formation of the executive; and rightly so. The main function of the House of Commons is to provide a forum for a contest between the current executive and the executive seeking to get in. That may not be a pretty sight at times but it is a necessary parliamentary function.
Similarly, one of the great benefits flowing in recent years from the House of Commons is the triumph of the departmental Select Committee system. Again, that focuses on the relationship between the legislature and the executive. That part of the necessary function of a Parliament is a matter predominantly for the House of Commons.

707
With regard to legislation we see a different picture. I do not say that the House of Commons has given up as a legislature but it has come close to that on occasions. The anti-terrorism Bill has been mentioned. My experience relates to the Scotland Bill. The scrutiny received by that Bill in this House was of a totally different order from that which it received in another place. Therefore a real claim can be made by this House—it relates closely to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf yesterday—that the House of Lords is taking over the Committee stage of the legislative process. That is a valuable role that we play. If we can add that predominant function to the parliamentary process, we must then ask: what composition will ensure that that function is delivered in the best possible way? With regard to the Government's proposals in the White Paper, we must ask: to what extent would an elected element improve the ability of this House to perform the function of legislative scrutiny?
But no defence of the elected element has been made in such terms. That is the real stumbling block to approving any element of election whatever. Indeed, the Royal Commission itself did not try to justify election in those terms. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said, the elected element is there to deliver regional representation. Quite honestly, it is an awful risk to introduce an elected element "just"—I use that word in quotation marks—to deliver regional representation. I do not believe that it is beyond our wit to devise a system that delivers regional representation without having an elected element in any form. So unless I can be convinced—and I have not been convinced by my thinking, reading and listening—that an elected element will improve the ability of this House to perform the function of legislative scrutiny, I will remain sceptical of the value of an elected element.
The real concern underpinning much of what I have said is that once we introduce an elected element we do two things: we change the nature of this House and its relationship to another place. I know that an argument has been made that we can have an elected element—almost a predominantly elected element—and that that will not disturb that relationship. That is not practical politics. If I in some way became an elected Member of your Lordships' House, when push came to shove, I would take the view that my electoral mandate was as strong as that of people down the Corridor and I would say, "Why should I budge, not them?". Once that happens, the relationship between the two Houses changes fundamentally.
I also believe that the great strength of this House in terms of its membership is based on two things. One is the fact that most people come here at a relatively senior stage in their lives, after having done something—usually quite well—somewhere else. That is important because of what they bring to the House and its work. I ask myself whether the same kind of people would come to the House through the electoral route. I have grave doubts about the answer to that question.
708
The other reason that this House works is that, if ambition has not been completely spent by the time that we get here, let us say that the fires of ambition burn a little less fiercely. That is of great value to our deliberations. If the advantage of the elected element is just to deliver regional representation, that advantage is far outweighed by the risks that introducing an elected element would inevitably bring.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am conscious that we are now in the second day of a long debate and I therefore apologise in advance to your Lordships for trespassing on your patience for a moment or two longer than is my normal practice. I come to this subject with no special intellectual insight—less still any talent in constitutional matters—but with a little experience of your Lordships' House.
I succeeded in 1960; I took my seat in 1962, when I was old enough to do so. In the next few months, I shall therefore have had the privilege of serving in this place for nigh on 40 years. Of course, some noble Lords have been here even longer, but I hope that my experience, including 13 years on one or other of the Front Benches, will be of a little value.
During those 40 years, the composition and practice of your Lordships' House has of course changed almost out of all recognition. In 1962, there was just a handful of life Peers, although their small number was hugely enhanced by their quality and distinction. The daily attendance allowance, as I recall, was £3 15s a day, and we could claim our travelling costs only if we attended at least one third of the daily sittings.
Be all that as it may, there is now virtually no debate about the need for a second Chamber. While there are a few unicameral systems in the world, it is now generally agreed that we need and must retain a second Chamber. In the White Paper, the Government set out their view as to the role of your Lordships' House: namely the scrutiny and revision of legislation; the discussion of the great issues of the day—often from a considerably more informed standpoint than is possible in the other place—and, in the last resort, preventing the House of Commons from extending its life beyond five years, other than in the most exceptional circumstances. Of course, a select committee of your Lordships' House acts as the supreme court within our judicial system—a matter to which I shall return in a moment.
So much for the role of the second Chamber. What then are the powers that we should accord to it in order effectively to fulfil the roles to which I have referred? Of course, I acknowledge that, in the end, the House of Commons must have its way or, as my noble friend Lord Jopling put it, a government must get their business eventually. So the question is whether the present powers of delay are sufficient—or, indeed, excessive. I believe that they are about right. The only threat to those powers would be the introduction of a guillotine procedure as in the other place. That would undermine, if not obliterate, the power of revision and scrutiny in a wholly unacceptable way.

709
In the White Paper, the Government have proposed that your Lordships' power to reject secondary legislation should be ended, to be replaced by a power of short delay. As there is no power of amendment to such measures—and as far as I know, none is proposed—I would certainly be against that as well. In short, I think that the present powers of the House of Lords relate well to the present task and I would urge that neither of them be changed.
However, the issue that excites the most interest and comment is of course the composition of your Lordships' House. What follows are my own personal views on this matter. They are certainly not those of the Association of Conservative Peers, still less those of the Conservative Party; they are quite simply my own. I have referred before to the important characteristic of independence which must be the essential characteristic of the majority of the Members of your Lordships' House. By independence, I mean independence from the House of Commons; independence from any political party; independence from the Executive; and, yes, independence from the judiciary as well. The same point has been made by several noble Lords during the course of the debate and I entirely endorse what has been said in that regard.
I therefore believe that there should continue to be a place in your Lordships' House for a number—perhaps a smallish number—of hereditary peers, who for sure bring that quality with them. I acknowledge that, prior to the 1999 reforms, when just over half of the Members of the House were hereditary peers, a great many of them took the Conservative Whip or at least adhered to Conservative principles. Although it was then rare indeed for the Conservative majority to be deployed at, or even near, full strength, there was a clear and understandable perception in the minds of other political groupings that somehow their wishes and views could never prevail and that the whole process was, as far as they were concerned at least, a waste of time.
That was, in truth, not the case. The Conservative government were often defeated, not least when the Cross-Benchers were fully mobilised. Indeed, I remember that as a junior Minister I often had to qualify, modify or change my proposals to meet concerns expressed from the Opposition Benches—sometimes with support from my own side. However, I acknowledge now that the political arithmetic of the House of Lords at that time was perceived to be unfair. With hindsight, I rather regret that further consideration of that problem was not undertaken long ago. Would it not have been possible to say that noble Lords who never attended should not be allowed to vote unless they had, in some way, re-qualified themselves to do so?
I have some more detailed suggestions relating to the compositional mix. I hope that your Lordships will find them an appropriate contribution to our discussion. There should continue to be a smallish number of hereditary Peers to bring the extra degree of independence to your Lordships' deliberations that is
710
so essential. I acknowledge that Cross-Benchers are generally independent, but, as they must be appointed by someone, an additional degree of independence provided via the hereditary route is desirable. Of course, I would say that, wouldn't I? I am a hereditary Peer. However, I suspect that my views are widely shared, even among those who arrived in this House by a different route. I was particularly struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, said about the matter. Our current process of selection for hereditary Peers seems to be working rather well. However, if the principle is to be sustained for a longer period, the process could be modified a little to remove the present party emphasis, while allowing us to keep a number of hereditary Peers.
Again, I would be prepared to accept a smallish number of elected Peers. The Government's suggested number for that is probably about right, but the precise number could, perhaps, be a matter for further consideration. Those elected Peers should represent a geographical constituency, and their election should be firmly disconnected from the House of Commons electoral process. I am, however, implacably opposed to the party list system, which is nomination by another name—a democratic monstrosity, as my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon called it just now. Those Peers should be elected for, say, 15 years, for all the reasons that other noble Lords so clearly described.
The House has benefited greatly from having a considerable body of life Peers. I apologise if that sounds patronising. Many of them are people of enormous distinction. It is also true that, by and large, that is the only route by which women can enter the House. There should be a considerable number of appointed Peers, and they should be disconnected as far as possible from the process of political patronage. The Government propose that the appointments commission should play no part in the selection of political Peers. I have some sympathy with that view, but would it not be possible to give the appointments commission not a right of appointment, but a right of oversight or veto over what is proposed, rather than the role that has been suggested for it?
I have described the three principal categories that might appropriately make up your Lordships' House. I offer no considered view as to the precise numbers, but a proportion not too far removed from the present one seems to be about right.
The judicial committee of your Lordships' House is, of course, the supreme court in our system. It would be much better for us to have a separate, free-standing supreme court, so as to underline even more firmly the independence of the judiciary from the political process. I know that noble and learned Lords go to great lengths to distance themselves from the political controversies of the day, but they remain Members of your Lordships' House. I am also a little uncomfortable about the fact that retired noble and learned Lords should, by and large, be free from those constraints, although some of them still serve, from time to time, on the judicial committee. I would be happier with a separate supreme court, wholly

711
independent from Parliament. That would solve the problem of the retired Law Lords, who, of course, make such a welcome and valuable contribution to our proceedings, as they could then do so independently of the supreme judicial function.
I am firmly of the view that religious leaders can and often do make a most valuable contribution to our proceedings. I am sorry that right reverend Prelates and the two most reverend Primates are not always able to contribute more than they do. I was struck by the fact that, when we discussed religious hatred the other day, there were so few right reverend Prelates present. The time has come for us to invite the leaders of all the significant faiths in our country to be Members of your Lordships' House. At the same time, there would be a reduction in the number of representatives of the Church of England. I am told that one, at least, of the significant churches in our country would, as a matter of principle, not be willing to come to your Lordships' House. I hope that it can be persuaded to reconsider.
We are in the process of devising momentous changes to our constitution, and it is a matter for regret that the White Paper is such an inadequate document. Several of my noble friends and others have already drawn attention to its obvious shortcomings. I urge the Government to move forward with much greater care and with the benefit, if possible, of consensus at every stage. I know that my noble friends on the Conservative Front Bench—in your Lordships' House and in another place—are more than willing to join in that search. I hope that the Government will respond accordingly.
4.56 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, it is clear from much of what has been said that the questions raised in this debate go beyond the normal bounds of political division and touch the heart of what is meant by representation in this key part of our parliamentary apparatus.
I have reflected long and hard on the debates in which I have taken part or at which I have been present over the past months. Like it or not, the current composition of the Chamber has provided an effective foil to the strength of the other place. It is clear that opposition to the proposed reforms is derived not from a single point of principle but from a wide variety of political standpoints, philosophical persuasions and professional attitudes. There should be space in the debate for an examination of representative legitimacy, and I urge those in all parts of the House to think outside the box of current constraints. A debate about the future of the Chamber poses questions about the viability of the presence of every person here, with the possible exception of the Clerk of the Parliaments, his colleagues, and, of course, the Hansard staff.
I do not criticise the proposals so much because of what is in the White Paper as because of what has been left out. The Queen's Speech, in June last year, promised the introduction of legislation to implement the second phase of House of Lords reform following
712
the current processes of legislation. However, the pledges made by the Government in their election manifesto went much further and were broader. There was a commitment to completing House of Lords reform, removing the remaining hereditary Peers and making the upper Chamber "more democratic and representative", while at the same time maintaining the primacy of the other House.
At that stage, the Government appeared to support the conclusions of the Wakeham commission. They also expressed support for the modernisation of the procedures of the House of Lords in order to improve the House's effectiveness. Furthermore, there was a commitment to place the appointments commission on a statutory and independent footing. In brief, what some of us were hoping for related not only to composition and representation but also more effective working practices and—to echo what the noble Lords, Lord St John of Bletso, Lord Harrison and Lord Sheldon, said yesterday—an independent appointments commission. Those are not separate and distinct issues, but parts of a package which, as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, recognised, stand as a whole or do not stand at all.
In the White Paper, there is an almost exclusive focus on composition to the detriment of other, equally important matters. Although we must start somewhere, this is not the right place to begin. The proposals in the White Paper for the establishment of a statutory independent appointments commission are welcome, but the conditions and boundaries placed around appointments are such as to undermine the credibility of the commission's independence.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, winding up at the end of the first day of the Queen's Speech debate last June, was understandably anxious not to let the delayers delay so that we became lost in what he referred to as the "long grass". I believe that a wiser course of action would have been to set up a joint parliamentary commission dealing with questions related to both Houses of Parliament. I believe that to be the case all the more strongly for the fuller reason that there are such obviously deep-seated disagreements about elected versus non-elected Members which transcend party-political views that some compromise would be very dangerous at this stage.
Perhaps I may give an example of how theological differences at their best are resolved. There are many examples of unsuccessful attempts. The key question is to locate as far back as possible in the conceptual train of thought exactly where the disagreements lie. Despite the long debate, we appear not yet to have achieved that. Having lodged and really struggled there, there is then the best possible chance of lasting accord, or at least willing sympathy.
We have at the moment the experience of listening to a cacophony of views from well-qualified quarters for a largely elected membership. Those include. for example, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard. Against that view are the noble Lords, Lord

713
Gordon of Strathblane and Lord Dahrendorf, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. Add to that tensions with the other place, a large Labour majority, a party with a collective memory of impatience with this House in its pre-1999 composition if not since, and its traditions, which are equally understandable, and the pressure appears to be on for a quick fix.
I am not by nature a delayer, as my colleagues and perhaps those who know me in the Portsmouth diocese will tell your Lordships. If the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Privy Seal know 500 ways of avoiding change in this Chamber—I suspect that they have been picking them off in the past two days—I must tell them that the Bench of Bishops could supply them with a mere three million more from our experience elsewhere. None the less, I believe that we are not ready quickly to resolve the issue in a satisfactory way.
I come now to the presence of the Lords spiritual. I welcome support both in the Wakeham report and in the White Paper which speaks of recognising the role,
"that moral, philosophical and theological considerations have to play in debating political and social issues".
I shall not here press the question of a number. The magic figure of 16 was, I am led to believe, reached by the Wakeham commission when a much smaller House of Lords was under discussion. I understand that it reappears as an indicator of our contributions. I want instead to talk about our future development.
Our presence is based on a Writ to be Members of the House of Lords—not Peers—who introduce each other here without Garter King of Arms and who retire when giving up office. That must take place by the age of 70, our day-to-day experience working as bishops being no longer up to date and successors waiting somewhere else in the queue.
Incidentally, speaking of retirement, there will be occasions in October when we can pay tribute to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury whom I saw at a meeting this morning. He asked me to express on his behalf today his strong continuing personal commitment to the House of Lords and the viable presence and contribution of the bishops here.
We bishops come with many different interests and experiences, as my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said yesterday. We do not come mandated by anyone, not even the Archbishop himself, still less by a vote in the General Synod, let alone a Lambeth Conference resolution. We may pay heed to what various Church authorities and other authorities may say, but we are independent even of those and we value that independence. That quality needs to be grasped in a more courageous approach by the Government in considering how to diversify these Benches. By the way, they have not always been episcopal; there were abbots here in the Middle Ages.
Looking at particularities, it is clear from national history that, for example, at the time of the union of parliaments in 1707 the Church of Scotland saw no point in representative membership here. It would have been a denial of 16th and 17th century
714
ecclesiastical disputes to have done so. That is an area of debate I know well as I was born and bred in Scotland as a Scots Episcopalian. That experience bred in me a deep respect for the Kirk and its theological seriousness as well as in my own case a strong sensitivity towards smaller Churches with long histories.
I hope very much that a reformed second Chamber will be a more welcome venue for other Churches and faiths, whatever the character of their governance. I take into account what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said yesterday about that. The same applies to the Roman Catholic hierarchy, taking into account what the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, said. Here there are questions not only of law, as he pointed out, but also of attitude. In my work I am in regular contact with the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portsmouth, Crispian Hollis, who happens to be a nephew of the MP mentioned earlier by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe.
So often in conversations with other Church leaders and leaders of other faith communities, we bishops hear the message, "Oh, we know that you will do that for us". That is what might be described as an "inclusive particularity" that we embody, working on behalf of others but not clinging to internal ecclesiastical privilege. But I am not sure how much longer such inclusive particularity can carry on if we are to be as widely expressive as people would like.
In relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, I want to point out that it is sometimes difficult for us to attend debates. I assure him that before the debate on the Bill to which he referred I was working very hard behind the scenes. I was not able to be present at the discussion on religious hatred, but I rearranged my diary pre-Christmas-style in a fairly baroque manner in order to be present for as many of the debates on that important Bill as I could.
I want now to turn to representation and political legitimacy. I have been in and out of reports, debates and Meg Russell's book on parliamentary reform, but I am afraid I remain sceptical about an increasingly elected option which feels like a juggernaut. It seems that one of the issues with which not only these Houses but also the nation at large is struggling is the whole question of political and social representation.
It has long been held as an unchallengable truth that the sole form of legitimate representation is through election. That is a most persuasive and pervasive notion, but one which I believe has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. Perhaps I may refer to the letter in today's Times by the former most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, the noble Lord, Lord Habgood. My experience on the ground is that political enthusiasm by the few has been met by indifference and apathy by the many. There are local elections and there are European elections. Where exactly will those elections be? We need to try somewhere, but I am not sure that we have yet got it right.
Occasionally it is suggested that the reason for that is the illegitimacy of the representation of this House. I have not detected any change in that sentiment since

715
the dismissal of the vast majority of hereditary Peers. Nor, I must say, do I detect any great passion or commitment at large to the elected representatives of the other House sometimes. That is not a problem with one or other place; it is a reflection on the current position of British society where a gulf has opened up between the avowed representatives and those whom they represent.
In registering my scepticism about the proposals to go for an increasingly elected element, I am not allowing some form of anarchy or arbitrary selection. I am instead inviting the House to consider the full implications of having two fully elected Chambers, which is a possibility. That would in any case have the effect of losing the opportunity of encouraging political participation beyond those who subscribe to party politics.
That is why I believe that the independence of the appointments commission is so crucial and why I have strongly urged that the opportunity should be taken to foster vocations to service in this House. We do not need pew fillers or bench attendants. We need people with energy and insight who will scrutinise legislation and provide considered counsel to the other place. I do not believe that the current proposals will do that. Individuals may come here with a variety of beliefs, philosophical convictions and professional experience, but we need to look beyond the narrowness of the electoral process, particularly as people will be drawn from a decreasing minority within our communities.
Whatever system is used for membership of this House, and I realise that some kind of compromise will probably be necessary, we need a second Chamber that is committed to scrutinising legislation and asking awkward questions without being ultimately responsible for the final decision. We need a Chamber of wisdom and experience to create a tension with the Chamber of elected representatives. Above all, we need a vigorous Chamber that can challenge government. For example, on this occasion, we are asking for something wider and deeper than the White Paper. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said earlier. We need a process that will look at the working practices of both Houses of Parliament and which ensures a parliamentary symbiosis that is both lively and productive.
5.11 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I was absolutely delighted to hear my noble and learned friend Lord Howe say that one of the attractions of becoming a Member of your Lordships' House was to be called "Lord Tomnoddy", or whatever. Having been a Lord since the age of seven, I am quite used to it, but I realise that sometimes life Peers become rather more excited than do those of us of a different type.
However, having had my snobbish joke, it is right to say that I do not agree for one moment with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. I do not think that in the 21st century there is a place any more for the hereditary principle even though that means that I may no longer he here. I have enjoyed it enormously for 25 years, and
716
I may even be tempted to run for election. I could then say that I was here under three counts, but of course, I do not know whether I would be elected.
Having said that, I was also very interested in what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth said about theological disputes. One could distil the disputes about the election-appointment second Chamber and whether or not to mix the system and divide the arguments into four groups: Nestorians, Monophysites, catholics and Ayrans. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne is a Nestorian as he wants a bit of heredity. Monophysites want only an appointed Chamber. Ayrans want only an elected Chamber and the catholics want a bit of all three, as they have the dual nature of Christ and the holy trinity—those incredibly complicated doctrines invented by over-cerebral Greeks in the fifth century.
We have to ask ourselves certain questions, such as the one asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, about whether we need a second Chamber. That has been answered in the affirmative. We should then ask what it has to do. That is not always answered properly. We say that it scrutinises and legislates, but I think that it has to be more than that. I shall say why in a moment. On occasions, it has to be nasty and tell the House of Commons that it cannot do certain things. If the other place does not like it, it can invoke the Parliament Act 1911. That is what it is for. The second Chamber has to be able to act as we did on the, anti-terrorism legislation. During the passage of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, we were in a pre-1911 position and had co-powers with the House of Commons. The Minister said that the Bill had to be enacted by Christmas, so the Parliament Act, which could cause a delay, did not function. There was therefore a much greater balance between the two Houses.
From the middle of the 14th century, the House of Commons has had sole taxation rights. Walpole made that Chamber supreme and it is the House of Commons that sustains the Government—the Queen's Ministers. It is therefore essential that the House of Commons carries out its other duty, which is to hold the executive to account. It is extremely difficult for it to do that. It is probably very bad for his character if I say that I am reading the excellent biography of Churchill written by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. He says that at the beginning of the 20th century the House of Commons could change the executive's mind and had much greater control over the executive than now. Members did not ask pap questions such as, "Is not my right honourable friend the Prime Minister the greatest thing since sliced bread? He is such a total genius".
The House of Commons used to be much more robust. The consequence of the lack of robustness is that the executive has become over-mighty. It has to have someone to tell it to pull itself together and be held to account. That has nothing to do with who the executive is. It does not matter whether it is my noble friend Lady Thatcher or the present First Lord of the Treasury. I spent my time voting against my noble

717
friend Lady Thatcher when we were in government, and I do not regret a tiny bit of it. One should hold governments to account.
We need a more balanced constitution, which means more balance between the two Houses. The powers of this House are quite adequate. It needs not more powers but the self-confidence to use them more vigorously.
All that has been said about the independents and non-party domination is true, but however much one likes to argue there is no real legitimacy other than election. We have to find out how to have elections, give electoral authority to those who are elected, but at the same time allow them independence from and disloyalty to their party Whip. I use the word "disloyalty" in a complimentary sense. To me, that means fixed terms that do not run concurrently with those in the House of Commons, and no re-election. I should not want more than 60 per cent to be elected because I want people to be here because of the position they hold. The Royal prerogative should say, "These groups are under-represented", and their representation should then be topped up.
In that sense, I am catholic and support the dual nature of the House of Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who thinks that a compromise on those lines would be wrong. He is therefore a Monophysite. We give this House authority because we maintain its independence. I urge my noble friends and colleagues in the Conservative Party to take up this electoral point. They have a great blockage against them: the hordes of former chief Whips who adorn our Benches. They say that they must get the Government's business through. Whether they like it or not they are still apparatchiks. I mean that as a compliment as they are good apparatchiks whom governments need.
I suspect that the Government may know that they will have to give way a little. We have the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as Blackadder and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, as Baldrick, who are saying, "We have a plan". Their plan is simple. They will suggest a ridiculously low level of elected Members and then be seen to be great, good and gracious by giving way a little. It is obvious that they have been influenced by the Prime Minister's trip around the souk in Cairo. They have seen someone striking a bargain and thus will be willing to enter into a little bargaining themselves. Peradventure we might see 35 per cent of the House elected. They will then hold themselves up as the great compromisers. As The Times commented this morning, the Lord Chancellor is not a fool, rather he is a very clever man and knows exactly what he is doing. At that point they will get away with it by saying, "We have been so good. We have given way to the demand for election".
I hope sincerely that neither the apparatchiks who advise and support my friends in the Conservative Party nor the Lord Chancellor will be allowed to get away with holding down the elected element. If they do so, this House will not have the authority to carry out its job. We must get this right, although I can see how
718
difficult the task will be. That is because while almost everyone has said that the scheme proposed in the White Paper is rotten, just as many have come up with different proposals. It has been pointed out that for every single Member of each House of Parliament, there is a different scheme for reform. That is what has made the task so difficult.
That task will become even more difficult the longer that the present arrangements last. My noble friend Lord Cranborne said to me recently, "Mike, I can well imagine your grandson and my grandson in this House, both sitting as elected hereditary Peers, debating some new scheme for reform when it comes up in around 50 years' time. Their speeches will be as follows: 'My Lords, no one in their right mind would have proposed this system. However, I would suggest to your Lordships that it has stood the test of time, therefore why change it?".
We have got to get it right. We need a majority of elected Peers; that is, over 50 per cent. The House must be independent and not be frightened to use its powers. If this House does its job well, the House of Commons will do its job better and the government of the day will be held to account. It is too easy to sustain a government. Governments must be held to account and—this applies equally to Mrs Thatcher and anyone else—they must stop thinking that if they lose the Scunthorpe bypass order, the whole authority of the government has collapsed. What has happened is that someone has said, "Think again"—and if you are big men, you will think again. Please, Baldrick and Blackadder, listen to what I have said.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the more so because of his support for the proposal to introduce an element of elected membership to the new House. That proposal has not had many voices in its favour this afternoon. I certainly agree with the noble Earl, although perhaps not on the detail.
The noble Earl and many other Members of the House have asked: how do we achieve a House that is independent? Would elected Members necessarily lose their independence simply because they have been elected? I was brought up on a simple proposition: the most independent politicians are those who lack all ambition. If we could fill the place with politicians who are not ambitious for advancement, they could add a sense of independence which would otherwise be lacking. I believe that the main reason why the other place gives the impression of not having that element of independence at the moment is because young, newly elected politicians are bound to be ambitious, which in turn tempers their sense of independence. Older Members of the House of Commons usually demonstrate a greater degree of independence.
I am pleased that the Government have made it clear that this is not to be the final stage of the reforms, but that it is only one stage. Having said that, I hope that we shall not be debating reform every two or three years. If that is the case, no other business will be done.

719
This House and the other place could become so embroiled in the process of legislation to change the House that nothing much else would be addressed. That is an important point because outside this place, in the country at large, people may perceive us as something of an anachronism, but they also have concerns and needs which they want the Government to tackle.
Perhaps I may say also that the reason why most people outside the House want to see an elected element in the House, or even a totally elected second Chamber, is because they want to have some influence over what happens here. In turn, of course, we—the unelected Members of this House—influence the lives of ordinary people. If they say, "We want to be able to determine who will be the people who will have influence over our lives", then we should not dismiss it, because it is a legitimate request. Furthermore, I am bound to say that people outside are not that much impressed by the IQ levels or great experience of this Chamber unless something is delivered for them which improves and betters their lives. That is a basic proposition of democracy and one which I think is important. For that reason, I welcome the proposal that there should be an elected element. Perhaps it should be larger than has been envisaged in the present scheme, but at least we are moving in the right direction.
I also accept the fact that the House should be smaller. The figure of 600 Peers is still too high. We should seek to achieve a smaller House, which would be better and work more effectively.
People warn that we should not become a clone of the House of Commons. Of course that should not happen, although I am conscious that, as a former Member of the House of Commons, I may be accused of being that very type of person. It is more important to deal with the question of what happens if there is a dispute between the two Houses. Yes of course the House of Commons should be dominant, but this Chamber should have certain powers of delay. However, I do not think that democracy or the world will come to an end if there are elements of tension between the two Houses, provided that they can be resolved without wasting a great deal of time. I think that we have become monolithic in our attitude towards government. We believe that only one voice should prevail and woe betide the second Chamber, a devolved assembly or local government if any of those institutions should express dissent. Surely we should be sufficiently self-confident in our approach to accept that a little dissent and a degree of tension between two Houses of Parliament, if that tension is in the interest of protecting the rights of the individual against an executive, can be a good thing. However, I repeat that it is good only provided that the tensions can be resolved and, ultimately, that the House of Commons should prevail.
I should like to make a final introductory point. I very much regret that there is no voice for democratic nationalism from Northern Ireland in this House. I think that it is a weakness. I would like to feel that the arrangements we agree will be such that the SDLP
720
would feel able to see some of its members putting forward their views in this Chamber. Our debates on Northern Ireland issues are much the poorer because we do not have that voice in the House.
I think that there is general agreement that our powers, provided that we exercise them well—we could certainly exercise them better than we do at present—are probably about right in terms of scrutiny, in terms of European legislation and in terms of the welcome suggested changes in dealing with subordinate legislation. I also join in the wide welcome given to the proposal that there should be greater pre-legislative scrutiny of all legislation and that this House has an important role to play in that process.
I said earlier that I believe that a larger elected element than that presently envisaged might be desirable. However, I should qualify that by saying that I support a directly elected element. I do not like the idea of indirect elections, whether they come from local government, from devolved assemblies, from the CBI, the TUC or anywhere else. I would prefer elections to be direct. Why do I say that? Some years ago—I was already a Member of this House—I spent a day canvassing for a parliamentary by-election. The voters did not know who I was. They thought that I was simply a party worker knocking on their doors. I received an earful about the state of the schools, buses and public transport in general, planning issues, and this, that and the other. I returned to the House that evening feeling quite chastened. It was a healthy experience to be subjected to that kind of comment and criticism because it makes one view politics a little differently than if one is never exposed to the views of ordinary people. That does not mean that one has to be a slave to the last opinion one has heard, but it does mean that one feels accountable for what ordinary people think and feel.
What is more, whatever experience one may bring to the House, it enables one to understand the relationship of that experience with what ordinary people think, thus enabling one better to exercise one's opinions and judgment. Opinions and judgments exercised without reference to ordinary people's concerns can be fairly shallow. They may be expressed elegantly and eruditely, but they can be fairly shallow. I certainly find it important to remind myself that I am here because my job is to help to contribute to policies which improve the lives of ordinary people. So there are benefits in elections.
There are also benefits in having constituencies. When I was in the other place, I found that my constituency was a wonderful source of input, not only of criticisms but of ideas, thoughts and information. Let me give an example. Housing benefit was introduced, but in my constituency in Battersea it was a complete shambles and people were not getting housing benefit for weeks and weeks and months. I knew that immediately because my Friday evening surgery was full of people saying, "We are not getting this new housing benefit". I was able to do something about it. Had I not had that kind of input, I would never have known or I may not have known for a long time.

721
So, I repeat, there are benefits in this process. I fully accept that we cannot move to a fully elected House; I am talking only about the benefits.
When the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford spoke yesterday, although he opposed elections he made an interesting comment in his speech. He said:
"My daily work, and that of a thousand clergy and lay people is tending to the ties that bind our society together; its towns, neighbourhoods, schools, families and a host of other global and local connections".—[Official Report, 9/1/01; col. 585.]
That is not a bad description of a constituency to which he is able to be sensitive and responsive and which gives him a lot of information, thoughts, ideas and input.
I do not think it would matter if there were two classes of Members of this House, some elected and some not elected. We can live with that. In the Commons there are two classes of MPs—those who have safe seats and those who have marginal seats. Because I had a marginal constituency, I tramped up to the top of Big Ben with every school party that I took round Parliament on a visit. I hoped that when the children went home they would say, "Mum, do you know who looked after us today? We were in the House of Commons and that fellow, Dubs somebody, showed us around". I thought that the mother would say, "Well, well, we will vote for him". It did not work in the end—I lost my seat—but it was helpful. So one does behave a little differently if one has a constituency, but it is not too unhealthy and we could live with two classes of Member.
I mentioned that I thought that the House was liable to be too large. The Government have said that life Peers will not be removed but, nevertheless, perhaps we can find some way, other than death, to reduce the numbers. I do not think that we should give people £50,000 or £100,000 to go—that would be quite improper and the public would not stand for it—but there may be a way to work out certain pension rights. Let us assume—I give this only as an example—that, because we do not have constituencies, our salary, if we were full time, would be, say, two-thirds of that of the Commons. We then apply an attendance factor to that over the years and then say that that is the salary on the basis of which there will be a pension entitlement. It would not be difficult to work out. If there were a pension entitlement for noble Lords—after all, given the age factor, it would not cost the public very much over a limited lifetime, so it would be a fairly good bargain—it would enable us to lower the numbers in a dignified way, and our colleagues who felt able to retire would have an incentive so to do.
I do not wish to get into a difficult argument about the Bishops. I appreciate the argument as to why there should be Bishops in the House, but there are other occupational categories and, indeed, other faiths. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, is an example of a member of the Church who is here not as a bishop but in his own right because he has an important contribution to make. I wonder whether it might not be a better approach for all the Churches to
722
have their people put forward as Members of the House in their own right, rather than confine the Bench of Bishops to members of one particular Church.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate the White Paper, Completing the Reform. It is, however, worrying and depressing that these proposals have been so universally condemned by the world's press and media, and, judging by yesterday and so far today, do not seem to have won much favour from all sides of your Lordships' House.
I must declare an interest as one of the 92 Members of the House facing expulsion from Parliament under the current proposals.
On 4th December, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, in reply to my question regarding a timetable as to our expulsion, said:
"I cannot give a timetable in the context of the euthanasia to which the noble Lord is looking forward".—[Official Report, 4/12/01; col. 706.]
Many of us took exception to that reply. Not only are few of us looking forward to that expulsion but many were affronted by his use of the word "euthanasia", which in itself is an emotional word. My dictionary tells me that it can mean,
"relieving suffering from an incurable disease".
I do not know how many of us 92 are experiencing such a medical condition, but I suspect that the number is small. I have to say that many of us believe that the noble and learned Lord was uncharacteristically harsh in his choice of words while realising his desire and commitment to rid the House of the hereditary element.
I am always fussed and concerned about constitutional change, and one has only to look at the utter farce of the Scottish Parliament. There is no revising chamber; there is a huge power of patronage, with 56 placemen out of a total of 129 members; and MSPs take no notice whatever of a committee's recommendations with regard to a Private Member's Bill—and here I refer to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, which is making a complete mockery of animal welfare. MSPs take no notice of public opinion either, as evidenced by their actions over Section 28.
Finally, the estimate for the new Parliament building is now £270 million—that is only the estimate—with a further £7 million for landscaping. It would be laughable if it were not such a scandalous waste of public money.
I believe that we are far too over-governed with more than 1,300 legislators here at Westminster. We now have the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. In addition, we have nearly 22,500 councillors in Great Britain.
With regard to second chambers, Italy has roughly the same number of MPs as the United Kingdom, but its upper House has only half that number. In the United States of America, 23 per cent of central government is in the upper House. In Germany it is as

723
low as 11 per cent. Yet here in the United Kingdom it is 107 per cent. Surely the case could be argued that our second Chamber numerically should be brought more into line with second chambers throughout the rest of the world.
Many of us believe that reform of Parliament should start in the other place, and I subscribe to this. However, my biggest worry is the total apathy at general elections, as other noble Lords have mentioned. I often wonder how the police will be able to man the barricades at the polling stations if Her Majesty's Government go for an elected element to your Lordships' House. It also greatly concerns me as to the calibre of person wishing to be elected—and here, naturally, I am as completely against the closed list system as almost every other Member of your Lordships' House seems to be.
I am also concerned about the future make up of committees. The White Paper fails to mention the vital role that House of Lords committees play in the legislative process of Parliament. I have the privilege to serve on Sub-committee D. May I remind your Lordships that this committee covers the environment, agriculture, public health and consumer protection. It meets once a week in the mornings when the House is sitting and naturally with such a wide range of topics there is a vast amount of reading and preparation work to be done. Four members of Sub-committee D are hereditary Peers, which is 36 per cent of the committee; all of them attend regularly and with the exception of myself make valuable contributions due to their vast experience, first hand, particularly in the field of agriculture.
Almost everyone I met over the Christmas Recess asked me the same question although often phrased differently— "How long have you got before the chop?". I had to reply that we would perhaps know more when the noble and learned Lord comes to wind up the debate tonight. But seriously for a moment, for those of us facing expulsion a timetable certainly would be useful in order that we can plan for the future.
The irony about this White Paper is that everyone I have spoken to who is a Member of your Lordships' House agrees, admittedly often in subdued tones, that at the moment this House is working extremely well and as my noble friend Lord Cobbold asked so succinctly yesterday, "Why change it?".
Few people seemed to realise how fortunate they are to have a secondary chamber such as we have today. The tragedy is that the majority of people did not seem to care about this place, nor understood what we try to do and indeed, at times, what we achieve. But over recent years, more and more members of the public are turning to the House of Lords when their elected Members appear to have failed them. This is evidenced by the deluge of letters urging Peers to vote on a whole range of issues when the other place has proved to be toothless and lacking. Indeed, the House of Lords is regarded by some as the Government's only effective opposition and recent political events only go to prove this. As a revising Chamber, the House of Lords has
724
always been the last bastion of democracy and the White Paper does nothing whatever to protect this important role.
I urge Her Majesty's Government to turn their attention to things that do matter to this country and which the electorate really do care about—health, education and transport—and not merely to try to tinker with the constitution.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord who has just spoken that, as he is one of the hereditary Peers who is moving a bit closer to the tumbrels, I hope that in any reformed Chamber he will reinvent himself under another category. I shall be happy to vote for him if he does so. Like many hereditary Peers he contributes a great deal to the workings of this House.
When the Lord Chancellor opened the debate yesterday, he said:
"may I take your Lordships into my confidence? I confidently predict that this debate will not disclose any present consensus for our proposals".—[Official Report, 9/01/02; col. 562.]
There is the prophet of the Cabinet. No speaker in the debate, on any side, has supported the Government's proposals. One would have thought that one of the recently appointed "Blair Peers" might have said something—if not from conviction, at least from gratitude—in favour of the White Paper. But there has been total radio silence. The noble and learned Lord is not so much Blackadder; he is more like some stricken Samson with the ruins of the temple around him, friendless in Gaza.
The Government are in this muddle because their approach to constitutional reform has been fragmentary and piecemeal. Like a magpie, they have done a bit here and a bit there. There is no strategic vision or concept of where we are going; and that is very evident in their approach to the reform of this House.
Any independent person looking at the constitutional framework of our country today would come to the conclusion that there is an imbalance in our constitution and that the executive is too powerful. The executive has gained power over the past five years for two reasons: first, because of the large majority in the House of Commons and, secondly, because the present Prime Minister is trying to run, within a parliamentary system, a presidential form of premiership. I do not think that any Prime Minister has been as powerful—apart from those who have led our country in war—as the present Prime Minister. Everything comes in to No. 10; all is arranged around the power of No. 10. When we talk about the pre-eminence of the House of Commons, we mean the pre-eminence of the executive and its management of the House of Commons; the House of Commons, which by any standard, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, sad, is considered in the political memory of the past 50 years or so to be one of the most servile and sycophantic.

725
That is very regrettable. There must be better checks on the executive. The only body that has stood up to the executive in the past five years—and we have made fairly marginal dents upon it—has been this House. Yet this House is the body that is in need of reform!
Perhaps I may say where reform should start. It must start with an examination of the powers of both Houses. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said, this House must add value to the legislative process. Our greatest power is the power of delay. Certainly, that should not be reduced by the proposals in the White Paper to reduce our powers as regards secondary legislation.
In a reformed Chamber I should like to see much more pre-legislative scrutiny. I was a member of the Procedure Committee in the House of Commons from 1975 to 1979 which was considered to be the great reforming Procedure Committee. It recommended departmental Select Committees and pre-legislative scrutiny. This House can be very effective in carrying out pre-legislative scrutiny.
Secondly, this House must have a better way of dealing with secondary legislation. The old tradition that secondary legislation can never be changed or amended in any way should be re-examined. That is an important role for this House.
I turn now to composition. Views have been expressed on all sides of the House which are hostile to an elected element. Such hostility is unrealistic, considering what is happening in the Commons. Twenty years ago, very few Members of Parliament, in any party, wanted an elected element in the House of Lords. That has now fundamentally changed. It is clear that in the Labour Party many Back-Benchers believe that there should be a greater elected element than has been proposed. I have read newspaper reports of the meeting yesterday between the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House and Back-Bench Members of Parliament. The story was beautifully leaked. It was just like the old days. It was wonderful to read the drama of it all. The Lord Chancellor soon lost his temper—or they lost their temper with him; I do not know which way it went—but, in no time at all, the soft soap of the Leader of the House was needed to deal with it.
My point is that a substantial body of Labour Members of Parliament now want a higher elected element. A substantial body of Liberal Democrat MPs also want it; and if the Daily Telegraph is to be believed—I like to think that it should he believed from time to time—my own party will come out today in favour of 80 per cent being elected Members. That is a bold and adventurous proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, who is in his place, will know that it corresponds to the view that Disraeli took in 1867 in introducing a measure of electoral reform which was even greater and larger than the Liberals had proposed. It became known as the "leap in the dark", and resulted in the following year in a substantial Liberal majority. The proposals from our Front Bench will be very interesting. I shall welcome them. In a
726
moment I shall argue strongly for a substantial elected majority. However, I suspect that a figure of 80 per cent would be a position from which they could make a compromise. I believe that it is unrealistic.
When it comes to a new system of having elected Members in this House, one is certainly searching for legitimacy. Several speakers yesterday, including the noble Lords, Lord Neill and Lord Dahrendorf, talked about the nature of legitimacy. They were right in one respect: democracy is not the only way to carry legitimacy as a criterion for membership of this House. For 600 years, the main criterion for legitimacy was birth—heredity. It worked rather well. No one objected to it for 500 of those 600 years, and it allowed this House to take on the elected body of the House of Commons again and again. But that principle was supplemented and complemented in 1957–58 by the principle of appointment. But, had Harold Macmillan not introduced that principle, and had this House continued to be based on heredity, it would by now have been abolished. So the legitimacy of appointment emerged alongside the legitimacy of hereditary right of membership.
As the hereditary principle is now to disappear—I agree with my noble friend Lord Onslow that it will—it is entirely logical that another supplementary legitimacy through democracy should also come in. It is quite consistent to have legitimacy coming from two sources. That has been the case in this House for a number of years and the system has worked well.
When searching for legitimacy, why should we talk about democracy? There are other methods that could be used. I talk about democracy because this House has the power to change legislation that affects the life of everybody in our country. When a body has that much power, there must be some answerability to the people whose lives are affected. It is unrealistic to believe that an appointments system, which has already been strongly attacked on the grounds of patronage, could deliver that.
It is also naïve to believe that this House is just a gathering of the great and the good who throw their counsel on the listening ears of the country. This House is about power and politics. The existence of this House cannot be envisaged without the nature of politics behind it. It would be naïve to believe that politics will not continue to dominate the debates of this House and it would be carrying naïvety to the point of vacuity to believe that the political parties are not going to have considerable influence on the future of this House.
The Government accept the democratic principle, as does the Royal Commission. Both accept that there should be an elected element. The question is how many. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said 120 yesterday. That figure has been plucked from the air, but he said that it was justified on the grounds that in the transitional period there will be too many life Peers. As we appear to die at a rate of only 18 a year, it will be five years before 90 have dropped off the perch. He chided us for not being quicker in that regard to some extent. As everybody

727
knows, there are a number of elderly and infirm colleagues on all sides of the House, as well as some Members who are inactive—some by nature and others just by the passage of time. They could be encouraged to vacate their position by a generous retirement scheme. I see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor put up his hand—it is almost as though he were making an offer. I have not mentioned a figure yet and I shall not do so, but I hope that the Government will come forward with such a scheme, because that would raise the possibility of having a higher elected element at an earlier stage.
It is clear from the debate so far that there will have to he a compromise on the issue. In my view, the ideal composition of this House would be 50 per cent elected, 25 per cent Cross-Benchers and 25 per cent political appointees nominated by the leaders of the parties in proportion to their party's votes in the most recent election. Why the most recent? Why should there be any political appointees? Well, I was one, so, in the words of Mandy Rice-Davies, I would say that, wouldn't I? There is an advantage in an aldermanic Bench—people who have had experience of politics in local and national government. Those of us who have stood for elected office and served on councils or in the House of Commons have been bruised by reality. We know what is possible and what is not possible; we know what can be achieved and what cannot be achieved; we know where pressure can be placed and where it is impossible for pressure to produce a result. That is valuable to your Lordships' House.
Whatever the electoral system, closed regional lists should definitely not be accepted. If we are going to have an electoral system, the people of our country should know exactly who they are voting for. How those candidates are selected is a matter for the political parties and for the independents. The electoral system should be open, not closed. That would serve one important function. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who said earlier that a system could be devised to ensure regional representation independent of elections. I invite him to consider the 267 Peers who have been appointed by Mr Blair, of whom 117 come from London and further 33 from the South East. That means that 150 have come from the South East of England. That is not proportionate to the national population. Only five have come from the North East and about six from the North West. An electoral system would redress that balance effectively.
I very much hope that the Government will not be discouraged from pursuing this reform. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said earlier, the time is right for reform. There is now a more open debate on the subject than I have ever known in my political life. It will require a great deal of courage and determination to carry it through. I remember an old folk song of Burl Ives that said, "From here on up the hills don't get any higher, but the hollows get deeper and deeper". I suspect that when the Government are preparing the Bill they will feel that the hollows are getting deeper and deeper, but I hope that they will not be
728
discouraged, because the end purpose is to create a more effective House that will act as a check on a very powerful executive juggernaut.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he would be so good as to reflect on the Select Committee in another place on which he and I both served, which recommended the creation of committees to cover every government department. Does he realise that that was one of the major factors in turning the life of a Member of Parliament into a full-time occupation? We should be very careful not to make such recommendations in your Lordships' House, because the value of this House would diminish if we became full-timers.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I am not suggesting for a moment that in any combined system of appointment and election there should be full-time Members of this House. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford made an important point yesterday about the outside experience that part-timers can bring to the House. When the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I were first in the House of Commons we were in effect part-time MPs. That does not diminish the need for strong departmental Select Committees. I should like them to have even greater powers.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, if this is not too heady a sentiment to express in your Lordships' House, perhaps I may say that I was thrilled by the thrust and analysis offered by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, as I was to hear the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.
In opening the debate, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor used the lawyer's ploy, taught in the first lecture on advocacy at law school: at the outset, seek to constrain the terms of the case as narrowly as possible and define its parameters as tightly as they can be drawn, then follow up by making a plea that, as reasonable people, the parties can come to a compromise within those conveniently narrow confines. Many of those who have spoken in the debate have eagerly accepted the noble and learned Lord's invitation. Consequently, much of the debate has been about the differences between the Wakeham report and the White Paper. As such, this is merely an exercise in Talmudic disputation. The debate must be cast more widely, as some noble Lords have argued and achieved.
We on these Benches, beginning with the example of the notable speech by my noble friend Lady Williams, have rejected the terms that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had hoped to impose on the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, did the same in his powerfully argued contribution from the Labour Benches. I, too, strongly share the view that we should be discussing the reform of the upper House in the wider context of both Houses of Parliament, the proper relationships between them and their role in engaging the electorate as a whole, particularly at this time of widespread public alienation from politics.

729
That said, I wish to concentrate on two particular aspects of the debate: first, the vexed issue of election versus appointment; and secondly the alleged need for expertise, to which so much reference has been made.
It is relevant to point to the position that the broadsheet press across the political spectrum has consistently adopted towards Lords reform in recent years. All have criticised Wakeham and the White Paper and almost all would endorse the proposition for a majority of elected Members.
When your Lordships discussed the Wakeham report on 7th March 2000, I read out the headlines from the serious newspapers, which were unanimous in their condemnation of its timid proposals. That chorus of criticism was redoubled when the White Paper was published on 8th November last. That criticism has been kept up relentlessly. In their leaders today, The Times, the Guardian, the Independent, and the Telegraph, reiterate their criticism of the White Paper. The majority of them endorse a large degree of election to the upper Chamber.
As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, remarked yesterday, public opinion has consistently led on the issue of Lords reform by overwhelmingly opting for an upper House based either totally or mainly on election. He also cited the results of a series of opinion polls in recent years in evidence of that. This week, the think tank Democratic Audit—I declare an interest as I am closely associated with it—published an ICM poll which it had commissioned last December that also confirmed that pattern of public opinion. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, I think, quoted rather successfully from the poll yesterday. The main findings were that 27 per cent wanted a wholly elected second Chamber; 27 per cent wanted a majority elected Chamber; only 14 per cent wanted a majority appointed; while a tiny 7 per cent wanted a wholly appointed House. In summary, therefore, 54 per cent want a majority elected House, with 21 per cent wanting a mainly appointed one. That is a majority of two to one in favour of election being the main operating principle for the second Chamber.
Pace the noble Lord, Lord Butler, whatever the deficiency of opinion polls, they are the best measures of opinion available, and they are certainly preferable to the dictum that the man in Whitehall knows best. I think that my noble friend Lord Jenkins was correct in his assessment that opinion has run ahead too far for merely tinkering with the present composition of this House. It is not an acceptable option.
It is therefore incredible, given the weight of public opinion and the relentless press criticism, that the Government found themselves able to come forward with a White Paper containing provisions for so small an elected element. The democratic impulses that motivated their stage one proposals have clearly atrophied in the past two years. An elected majority is the only basis for the way forward, as both the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, suggested.
730
Part of the rationale for the Government's proposals, and one which has been common to many of the speeches in the debate, is the slightly exaggerated extent to which the breadth of expertise is said to characterise your Lordships' House. I would urge your Lordships caution in pressing that point too far, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, came perilously close to doing. Pushed too far, the logic would be for a stage three, in which all your Lordships bar one would be deemed redundant, and then the noble Lord, Lord Birt, could take on everything, as he is seemingly the omni-competent expert capable of tackling all issues, including broadcasting, crime, transport and who knows what else next.
More seriously, expertise, however else desirable, should not be the main organising principle for a second Chamber. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard remarked, a legislative Chamber is pre-eminently a political one. As my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire effectively demonstrated, a good deal of expertise in all sorts of spheres is to be found among those who are party political. It is by no means the case, as the Convenor of the Cross-Benchers implied, that expertise is the sole prerogative of his colleagues and that special places should be reserved for former Governors of the Bank of England, the Cabinet Secretary, and heads of the Diplomatic Corps and the armed services. I find such a suggestion preposterous. The turnover in those positions is so frequent that the House would soon be swamped by such appointments.
Another problem with putting an excessive premium on expertise is that, especially given the pace of change in almost all walks of life, it has an increasingly short shelf life. Skills rapidly date. Regardless, expertise is not a synonym for wisdom, as is often suggested.
As an essay on constitutional reform, the Wakeham report—according to my very generous marking, as a former professor—scored gamma minus. By the same token, the White Paper would have been classified a fail, and the Government, preferably in the form of the Leader of the House of Commons, should be made to re-sit the examination. The current White Paper is not the basis for creating a "joined-up" legislature. The Government must think again.
6.5 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it may be trite to say so, but I think that it is correct that I should declare an interest in so far as, with 91 other people, I shall find myself disappearing in a cloud of blue smoke if the Government's proposals come into effect. I do not think too much of that. However, I congratulate both the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House on having stuck the course all of yesterday and all of today. They have not even bothered to go for a cup of tea now that I have risen to speak. They have been remarkably consistent. Those remarks should ensure that they also remain in the Chamber for the rest of my speech.
It is unfortunate that the two noble and learned Lords have to see their own White Paper stripped to pieces, as it has been in today's debate. I am reminded

731
of the remark made by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, that the White Paper has not found a friend in the House. I think that that is so; everyone dislikes it. The real problem, however, is whether there should be an elected Chamber.
My noble friend Lord Onslow—who is not in the Chamber—thinks that this Chamber should he elected. Not for the first time, as it is not difficult to do, I disagreed totally with what he said—although that does not mean that I do not appreciate what he said. I have also served in the Home Office as a minion of my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking. Although I admired him enormously, and still do, I disagreed with almost every word that he said today. However, that does not mean that he is not right; he is very much more capable than I am.
It is a pity that the Government decided not to establish a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the Royal Commission's report. That was a promise given by both the previous and the current Leader of the House, and such promises should be kept. If that type of promise is not kept by that type of person, what on earth is the point of having a promise? After all, it is not the Government's job to alter Parliament to reflect their thinking, but Parliament's job to alter Parliament to reflect its thinking. How can Parliament know what it thinks if the vehicle for deciding that has not even been allowed out of the shed? I think that it is a great mistake. I also rather fancy that the White Paper might have been rather different if such a Joint Committee had had a role in the matter.
The Government have always wanted to get rid of hereditary Peers, which I find enormously wounding. Although I cannot see what they find so abhorrent about us poor characters, we have to accept that that is what they want to do. They are, however, entirely inconsistent in the way in which they seek to do it. First, they said that all hereditary Peers had to go. Then, they said that they wanted to keep 100 of us; so we came back. Now, they say that they want us all to go; so out we go. It shows as much consistency as the Grand Old Duke of York when he marched his men to the top of the hill and then marched them down again. As your Lordships will recall,
"When they were up they were up.
And when they were down they were down.
And when they were only halfway up,
They were neither up nor down."
So much for the Government's consistency in that. It is also funny that the only ones whom the Government want to remove are those of your Lordships who have been elected. The ones whom they want to keep are those who have been put here, if I may say so, by their friends. That does not seem to be a very democratic view to take.
The White Paper says that the link with the peerage should be dissolved—that is a pretty fundamental word—and that membership of the House of Lords should be separated form the peerage. So being called a Lord will continue, but it will be just an honour, like being a CBE. Those who will be appointed to the second Chamber will, presumably, be Mr. Smith and
732
Mr. Jones. When the House of Lords Act 1999 was being passed I tabled amendments suggesting that Members of the upper House should have the letters ML—for Member of the Lords—after their name. Needless to say, the Government did not like the idea, and the Benches behind the Government were absolutely horrified at the thought of not being called Lord. The Whips were therefore put out and the amendment was defeated. However, there was some slight pleasure in watching all the noble Lords from the Labour Party traipse through the Division Lobby to ensure that they continued to be called Lord.
We cannot continue to have a second Chamber called the "House of Lords". As Mr Smith and Mr Jones will be the new Members of the second Chamber and they will not be Lords, they cannot be Members of the House of Lords. That is fairly obvious. So the name of the House of Lords will surely have to go. Perhaps we should call it the "Second Chamber" or the "Upper House". The initials would then be MUH—Member of the Upper House. But not the House of Lords.
If the future of the House is to continue to contain an elected element, I cannot see how the Leader of the House, and indeed the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, can be in charge of the House as they themselves have not been elected. They will have no legitimacy (a word they love to use). We can all understand why that is so at the moment; it is what the law says. But if the Government's ideas were to become law, there is absolutely no reason why the Leader of the House and the Lord Chancellor should not submit themselves for election. After all, their names would go to the top of the list because it would be a closed party system and they would know perfectly well that they would get in. But it would give them legitimacy once they were here. The Lord Chancellor could retain his official title. He would be Mr Irvine QC, MUH, Lord Chancellor, and we would have Mr Williams QC, MUH, Lord Privy Seal, just as we have Mr Robin Cook MP, Lord President of the Council. That would be a great advantage to both noble and learned Lords—I am thinking entirely of their interest, their legitimacy and their stature. It would ensure that they were both democratic and legitimate in the parliamentary sense. They would love that.
There is plenty of precedent for that. Those who have sat on the Woolsack have not always been Peers. Sir Robert Henley, the predecessor of my noble friend Lord Henley, presided over the House of Lords as a commoner for three years until he was elevated to the position of Lord Chancellor in order to preside over the trial of my forebear, the fourth Lord Ferrers, who was tried for murder. He was advised to plead insanity. But their Lordships considered he pleaded his case so well that he could not be insane. He was hanged. It is all very well for my noble friend Lord Renton to say, "If you are insane, you have to be expelled". All I can say is that my forebear was hanged for not being insane. As a matter of interest, he wore his white wedding clothes on the day of his death, not for any

733
romantic reason but simply because he considered the day of his marriage and the day of his death to be the two unhappiest days of his life.
So the Lord Chancellor need not be worried about that situation. There is ample precedent for him to follow the passage of Sir Robert Henley, provided he does not take it out on the present noble Earl; that would he very disagreeable.
If we introduce another House of Lords Bill. I hope that it will not refer to "a" hereditary Peer; it is "an" hereditary Peer. We witnessed the hilarious but rather embarrassing spectacle of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House arguing and voting against something he knew perfectly well was right. It would be a pity if the noble and learned Lord were to embarrass himself yet again. I give him warning that he should make sure that the Bill is properly drafted.
But the real conundrum which the Government are facing is that they do not know whether they want a more powerful or a less powerful second Chamber. The Leader of the House, when he introduced the White Paper, said that the fundamental principle has been that reform should not undermine the position of the House of Commons and that it must not alter the respective roles and authority of the two Chambers. But that is exactly what it will do.
Power between the House of Lords and the House of Commons is finite; it is like a see-saw. If we give more to one, we take away from the other. If the second Chamber is to be reformed, it is bound to become more powerful. We cannot reform the House of Lords and expect it to be less powerful. How can we expect people to give up their jobs in the prime of their life, to come here five days a week, to be here late at night, to be paid nothing other than expenses, not even to be called "Lord", and then to achieve less than has already been achieved? We will not get anyone to come here.
If the second Chamber were to become more powerful, despite what they say, another place will simply hate it. They will not want a more powerful second Chamber. Imagine the antagonism there will be when your Lordships send a controversial amendment back to another place and say. "We have a perfect right to do this, and a much bigger right than we had before because we are now elected". The House of Commons will not like that.
There is only one elected Chamber. And that is the House of Commons. I suggest that your Lordships should not yearn nor seek to devise a second Chamber to be like that. The Government want a closed party list system for voting Members to the upper House. We will not be voting for Mr Smith or Mr Jones; we will be voting Labour or Conservative, or possibly even Liberal Democrat, and whoever the party decide to put at the top of their list will be elected. That is not democratic; it is appointment by another name, as one noble Lord has just said.
Once people have been elected to your Lordships' House, of course they will want to be paid. That is understandable. So what will we have? Will half the
734
House be paid and the other half not be paid? That does not make sense, so in the end everyone will be paid. They will want more secretaries, more research assistants and a lovely Portcullis House just like another place. Gone in a flash will be the remarkable frugality of your Lordships' House.
To run the House of Lords in the year 2000 cost £67,000 per Member; the House of Commons £405,000 per Member; and the European Parliament £954,000 per Member. What an astonishing contrast and what astonishing value for money we are. Under the new proposals the second Chamber will become more expensive, more aggressive, more assertive and more combative, and the House of Commons will hate it.
I abhor the numbers game. This situation does not call for a mathematical solution. Quite often the results are wrong anyway. But the Government want the membership of the House of Lords to reflect the results of the last election. Suppose the Conservative Party came back with a large majority at the next election—we do not have to expand our imagination too far to know that that could happen. A whole lot of new Peers would be created to reflect that. At the following election the Labour Party might suddenly have a landslide victory. It would then have to make up enough Peers to reach the level of the Conservative Party and then more in order to reflect its new membership. What happens when we go through the cap? Does somebody get the sack? Who sacks them? Does the Conservative leader sack the recently appointed Labour Peers? The whole idea is derisory. That is why we cannot have a system that relies on numbers.
We use awful sounding words like "legitimate" and "professional". But do we want a more professional House, whatever that may mean? The main difference seems to be that when a person becomes a professional he gets paid. "Legitimate" sounds fine. Almost every single noble Lord—including myself, though I think it is a horrible word—has used that word. But it only means that one is operating within the law. If we change the law in order to fill the House with different people, it does not mean that they will be any more "legitimate" than those who were here legitimately before.
How can anyone argue that a House which is appointed is democratic? We do not like hereditary Peers, so we get rid of them. But let us stop trying to persuade ourselves—worse still, persuade others—that we are making a more democratic House. We are doing nothing of the sort. And why get rid of the Bishops? What have they done to gather such opprobrium? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford was quite right when he said that when they are away they are doing work for when they are here. Halve them and that will immediately throw twice the load on those who remain.
Why should we get rid of those who are over 75? The speech of my noble friend Lord Renton was absolutely masterful and he has made a great contribution to this House. Why do we want to put these artificial limits on people?

735
The Government even pride themselves on the fact that they are now going to be able to expel Members of your Lordships' House. Who on earth gave them that idea? Why should we start to expel people? Your Lordships' House is not like a political party which can throw out people with whom it disagrees; it is a Chamber of Parliament which has always housed a microcosm of life.
The real position is that the Government have sunk themselves into a quicksand with this reform, into which they are being dragged ever deeper. Getting rid of hereditary Peers is one thing; that is easy, but stage two is far more difficult and far more dangerous. It is not modernisation, it is a destruction of a fundamental part of our constitution without proper consultation or agreement, which I for one deplore. The Government have been good enough to say that they want to receive views. I hope that they will listen to these views and think again.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, one of the great pleasures of being a Member of this House over the past 20 or so years is that I have been able to engage in debate with the noble Earl who has just spoken. However, he expressed some anxiety about whether that situation would continue.
In thinking about this debate I browsed through the relevant Commons Hansards of 1969 when an attempt was made to pass the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. That indicates to me that it is difficult to get this kind of reform through the Commons, let alone this House. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, may be present in this Chamber far longer than he thinks. I for one sincerely hope that that is the case.
I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, in what he considered to be the proper functions of the House of Lords. I do not need to repeat his comments. However, I should say that the exercise of those functions depends on the composition of the House as much as anything else. That is what I mainly wish to comment on. If I remember, I shall try to suggest a compromise to the Government.
I believe that the argument for an elected or partly elected House was totally demolished yesterday by my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane. Later, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, trampled all over the rubble. And the rubble has been kicked about frequently in the course of today's debate. I believe that the case for an elected House is dead. My noble friend Lord Richard tried to give it strength by drawing attention to opinion polls. I do not want to comment on the usefulness of opinion polls, their accuracy or strength. I merely say that whereas a majority of people have expressed a desire to have elections to this House, experience at the general election, the elections to the Greater London Authority, the European elections and the recent local elections indicates that although people may want elections they do not seem to want to vote. Therefore, I do not think that we can put too much weight on that expression of opinion.
736
The argument in favour of election seems to me somewhat confused in the sense that "election" appears to be used in many speeches in connection with "democracy" as if the two words meant the same thing. Noble Lords talk about a democratic House being an elected House. However, it does not necessarily follow that those two words mean the same thing. I remember that Mr Stalin, who was keen on elections and got a good attendance as a rule, often obtained a good result from his point of view. Mr Mugabe seems to have a similar view of elections—he is keen on elections but cool on democracy. The two things do not go quite as hand in hand as some speakers have assumed.
Is our method of election all that democratic? I shall not discuss PR, which I support, or anything of that nature, or even closed lists, which I oppose. I shall discuss the selection of candidates. Voters are put in a position where they can vote only for those who put themselves up for election. Having put myself up for election in the past I should say that that is not always the best qualification. That is the problem. How do these candidates come before the electorate? They go through a selection process and are usually, but not always, chosen by a small coterie of political enthusiasts who are by their very nature unrepresentative of the community as a whole. They, therefore, tend to choose people of their own kind. People who put themselves up for election also tend to be political enthusiasts which is a qualification of only moderate use.
There are peculiarities in the method of selection. Noble Lords will remember a former Conservative Member of Parliament, Mr Shaun Woodward, who, quite rightly, decided to cross the Floor and join the Labour Party. In a twinkling of an eye he was transformed from a Member in a safe Conservative seat to a Member in a safe Labour seat. Does anyone detect a hint of jobbery there or something of that nature? Or did Mr Woodward so enamour himself to the members of the selection committee in St Helens that they were swept off their feet by his eloquence? I am sure that that must have been the case. What in essence happens is that the electorate are obliged to rubber-stamp the selection of an unrepresentative body of people and they end up with the other place as it now is which has been slightly criticised in our debate.
If we do not have elections to this Chamber, what should we have? We must have nomination, obviously, of which the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, spoke kindly, although he finally decided that he did not want it. I think that that is correct. It raises, of course, the question of patronage. I have never been opposed to patronage. I admitted that during debates in the other place in the 1960s. Patronage is widespread in public life and widely accepted.
Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, praised the quality of the Government Front Bench in this House. He was right to do so. But how did the members of the Front Bench get there? They got there by patronage. They were placed there—I do not say that they are placemen, as that is not true—by the

737
Prime Minister. He chose them and nominated them. He patroned them—is "patronise" the right word?—and that is the case with the whole of the Cabinet. I am prompted to ask whether my noble and learned friends the Leader of the House and the Lord Chancellor would be present in this Chamber if they had had to be elected? They might well have been elected due to their qualities which are vast, recognised and admired. However, I can hardly think of any electorate who would willingly vote for both a Scots lawyer and a Welsh lawyer. Be that as it may, I am all in favour of nominations.
I turn to the White Paper's idea that at least part of the House should be nominated in proportion to the votes cast at the previous—or some earlier—general election. I am piqued by that proposal, which is not new, because it is a kissing cousin, one might say, of an amendment that I tabled in 1969 to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, although my amendment went a little further than the Government's proposal.
In those days I was rash and radical and I proposed that the system should be devised in such a way that the government had a majority in the House. That is not the intention of the White Paper but the principle is the same; that is, that the number of Members of this place should be proportionate in some way to the votes cast at a previous general election, for a quite different assembly. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, demonstrated the problems that would arise with succeeding elections and at changes of government. The authors of the White Paper must be aware of those obvious problems. Interestingly, the debate on my amendment lasted for three hours and took up a sizeable part of the 10 days that the Bill suffered in Committee before it was eventually dropped into oblivion.
The late Enoch Powell opposed my amendment. He said that I had been in the Whips' Office too long and that, because of my experience there, I was intent on giving the government a rubber stamp. He was quite right—I was. I now think that I was wrong and he was right.
I see that my noble friend Lord Sheldon is in his place. He spoke lengthily in that debate and, with every other speaker, opposed my proposal, which was defeated, in the end, largely as a result of the intervention of the Home Office Minister, now my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees. His comments were conclusive. He said:
"On a change of Government from one party to another, the number of new creations at the changeover would have to be unmanageably large if the previous Government had an overall majority".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/2/69; col. 675.]
That is, of course, correct. That was the government's view, but it seems to have changed slightly.
I briefly take up a proposition that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor advanced the other day; namely, that we should suggest alternative proposals if we do not like the Government's suggestions. That I shall try to do; I shall put forward something in the nature of a compromise. The aim, in part, is to abolish the hereditary Peers. I am not terribly keen on that; I have nothing against them.
738
That always appears to me to involve discrimination based on genetics, and there is not much in that. I am willing to keep the hereditary Peers.
I have a suggestion that would solve all of the Government's difficulties very simply and at one fell swoop. The Government should abolish the 90 or so hereditary Peers, which they intend to do in any case. Having done that, they should give life peerages to about half of the Conservative former hereditary Peers and, perhaps, to a number of Cross-Benchers and possibly even to some of the Liberal Democrats. That would be a matter of arithmetic. It would strike two birds with one stone. The hereditary element would have been abolished and the balance of the parties would be pretty nearly what was wanted. If it was not quite right, there could be some fine tuning.
I finish with a brief comment. Should the Government get their way, why should Members of this House be called "ML"? I know what it means. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, discussed that. Older Members may recall that Tony Benn published a Fabian pamphlet 30 or 35 years ago suggesting a reform of this House. He based it, incidentally, on the Privy Council, but that is by the way. He said that a Member of this House should be called an "LP"—a Lord of Parliament. I like that suggestion, should we come to that sorry pass. "MP" indicates that a Member of the Commons is a Member of Parliament. "LP" would indicate clearly that we were—as we are—also Members of the same Parliament and, in status, equal to them.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howie, because, I remember, many years ago, I traipsed around the Middle East in a delegation following him. I am in agreement with some of his ideas.
I shall try to be brief because so much has already been said in this debate, and said so much better than I could do. I want to touch on three issues. First, on the question of the 92 hereditary Peers, which have already been mentioned, I accept that hereditary succession to this House has gone and gone for ever—that is inevitable. However, among those 92 Peers whom we have retained in this House, we have some of the most experienced, wise and dedicated Members. On average, I am sure that they are also the youngest. The average age of this House, I am told, is 69 or so, but that of the hereditary Peers is considerably lower. I find it difficult to understand why the Government should wish to throw them away; that would be an awful waste. The hereditary Peers should be offered life peerages—that would allow them to stay with us and it would give considerable value to the House for years to come. The Government may say that they could he nominated at a later stage—if the Bill is enacted—as MLs. In view of their past service and their future value to this House, that is quite inadequate. They should be offered the right to a life peerage, and that should be done before any legislation restricts life peerages and creates MLs with many time limits.

739
My second point involves the role of the appointments commission. Its duties are fairly wide. They are to determine the House's size—to bring it down to 600 Members over a period of 10 years—and to maintain a political balance, which will reflect the votes cast in the previous general election. It will also ensure that 20 per cent of its nominees are women. If I have followed the White Paper's projections correctly, what has been called the turnover—that is, the number of us who drop off the perch—is averaged, no doubt by the Government Actuary, to be 18 per annum over 10 years. That can only mean that there will be approximately five ML appointments per annum under the proposals in the White Paper. I believe that that will be inadequate to secure the political balance which is sought.
I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Ferrers who referred to the problem of "swings" in the House. There is a large majority in the other place today but, come the next election, I hope that that will be remedied and rectified. Be that as it may, one must anticipate that over the years swings in the balance of power will require considerable adjustment in order to achieve the political balance which is sought in the White Paper.
The third point that I wish to raise relates to the election of Members. I suggest that to plan a House which consists of 80 per cent nominated and 20 per cent elected Members is, frankly, a nonsense. I am sorry to say that I disagree strongly with my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking. His projection and anticipation of an elected House is one which I do not share in any way. If the proposals in the White Paper are accepted, there will inevitably be clashes. Those who are elected to this House will have some responsibility to their electorate. I am not sure who that electorate will be; presumably it will consist of people from the regions and others around the country. Those Members will have electoral responsibility. Yet their votes here will be equal to those of each of the nominated Members, whose responsibility is primarily to their conscience. They may claim party commitment, but Members of this House ultimately decide how they vote according to their conscience and not according to an electorate from whom they may seek another mandate in years to come.
A clash between nominated and elected Members is one thing, but I foresee a more difficult clash between elected Members in this House and elected Members in the other place. If the latter take a different view, they may consider that they have a legitimate right to attack the so-called "legitimate" elected Members in this House in a way that they could not attempt to do with regard to the nominated Members. Tolerance in the other place is not usually granted easily. That is especially so when the majority is small, as it will be from time to time.
Over the past 20 years I have abstained or voted against proposals from my party with which I have not agreed. I may do so—I say this to my Whips—in future. But that is the freedom of a nominated Peer. It
740
is a freedom not constrained by an electorate to whom one must account, and account again in future if one wishes to be returned.
Many have spoken against the idea of an elected minority. I refer to the splendid speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, from the government Benches, and to the splendid speech of the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen. Indeed, there was also a splendid speech from the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Each put forward far better than I could attempt to do objections to minority-elected membership of the new House. I was delighted to hear their views, which I entirely share. This afternoon we also heard my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, express grave reservations about such an election as proposed in the White Paper.
If we were to do away with the idea of an elected minority, what would be the alternatives? One would be to have a fully elected Chamber, as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I believe that that would be inappropriate and would cause massive damage. If it were to be contemplated, it would mean abolishing this House and setting up something in the nature of an American Senate or a second Chamber in some of the other administrations. I share the objections to it, which are, indeed, included in the White Paper. I hope that such a proposal would be rejected by a Joint Committee of both Houses, which it has been promised will be set up to consider such matters.
The Government should not claim that this "botch-up" of a scheme makes the House more representative and democratic. It does not do so. To say that having 20 per cent of its Members elected makes the House democratic and to claim that that eases the Government's conscience or the party's undertakings is, I believe, a cosmetic nonsense. We can best provide a second Chamber if it is appointed or nominated, whichever term is correct. The best way of achieving that should be discussed in more detail by the promised Joint Committee.
We had a very good illustration of the democracy deployed by this Chamber during the various debates that we had last month on the anti-terrorism Bill when the Government were defeated seven or eight times following Divisions. Those defeats were generally widely supported by the public and by the media, and therefore this non-elected House represented the views of the public on the various matters on which votes were held.
Time is not critical in relation to the White Paper. It is not critical to the country and it is not critical to this House. We are getting on quite well as it is. It may he critical within the Labour Party press or ranks, but it is not critical here. However, when changes are made, it is critical that they are right. We do not want a botched-up scheme that may satisfy some of the thoughts of those who are being harassed by parts of the media; but we do want a scheme which is considered and found to be workable. Therefore, I ask

741
the Government to take it easy, to take away all that has been said in this debate and to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses which can consider in detail which is the better way forward to reflect the wishes of this House.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I have had the pleasure of listening in this debate to three Ministers whom I served previously; the noble Lords, Lord Boardman, Lord Peyton and Lord Baker. It is the way of Sir Humphrey to say, "Yes, Minister". But in spite of all the art and obfuscation which I had at my command, such are the differences that it is, I apologise to say, beyond my power to say that this evening. However, I have listened to the speeches with enjoyment and respect.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor charmed the House yesterday in opening the debate by taking us into his confidence and saying that he did not expect to achieve a consensus for his or any other proposal. I want to take the House into confidence on my own behalf on the matter of consensus by saying that, as I have listened to the debate, I have been unable to establish a firm consensus in my own mind, let alone expecting to persuade the House of my own views.
I speak with much diffidence. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, speak on the basis of 54 years in Parliament and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, of 56 years. I have had three years and an indifferent record of attendance too. Nevertheless, over my years as an aspiring Sir Humphrey, I learned to greatly respect this House, which is powerful in knowledge, in wisdom and in experience. It has earned my respect because it listens and is persuaded by evidence and arguments. Paradoxically, I feel that this unelected Chamber, in the face of a Government with a massive majority, has been a valued bulwark of democracy. We should cherish its future existence.
If I have one regret, it is that expressed by the Lord Privy Seal last year when he said something about his disappointment that the high quality of the debates in this Chamber was not adequately reflected in the reports of the media. That matters because a well-informed electorate earns a better government and earns a better civil society.
The one time we attract media attention is when the House dares to use its powers under the Parliament Act. It is a sadness, and indeed an anomaly, that at a time when the Government are proposing to increase the legitimacy of the membership of this House they should also be proposing to reduce its powers.
I have one quarrel with the Royal Commission. I go along with its view that a power in relation to subordinate legislation which has not been used for 30 or 40 years needs reconsideration. But it has gone too far in saying that the power should be reduced to the extent that it envisages. It will have no influence on the Government to have a delay of three months.
742
From what I have said about my admiration of this House, noble Lords will not be surprised that I do not recommend precipitate or major change. I am convinced, however, that change must take place.
The Royal Commission argued that this House should be,
"broadly representative of British society",
and that people should be able to feel that they have a voice which reflects them in this place,
"expressed by a person or persons with whom they can identify".
On page 65 of the supporting documents to the White Paper the Government point out that the composition that we have is predominantly,
"white, middle class elderly and London-based",
I would add, "male", with active membership,
"skewed towards retired people living in the South East".
I exemplify exactly what our composition is. While I may think that I can understand, empathise with and express the views of ethnic minorities, women, the other place or people living in Manchester, I am none of those things. Those people have the advantage of being women, an ethnic minority and so on. Whether we go down the elected route or not, there is work to be done to respond to the Royal Commission's recommendations that we should in our composition more broadly reflect society as a whole. The appointments commission should have as one of its remits, as is proposed, a vigilant watch with reporting what progress is made towards better representation.
There is one more delicate matter in this business of representation that I raise with some hesitation. It is the reference to "elderly". If your Lordships turn to a bar chart near the end of the supporting documents it will be seen—I hope that my memory is correct—that out of 551 life Peers there are three or four under 40. At the other end of the spectrum we have nearly 90 who are 80. If that is thought a little extreme—I agree that a grandfatherly rather than a parent House is appropriate to a revising Chamber where experience and knowledge is so valuable—we do not have even 30 who are under 50. Our average age is 69.
When people see us on the telly and look at this bald head and elderly face, they may not feel that I represent the full participation of the younger age groups. If we are to be representative of society, I suggest that, while the House will necessarily, and rightly, be predominantly elderly, it would improve our legitimacy and the weight with which our views are received by those of younger years if they could see more of their members among us. That is another element of representativeness that the appointments commission might bear in mind.
I hesitate to move on to the ground of the balance between elected and appointed Peers. There is no consensus. My views are less valuable than most because I have been here so little time. However, we must recognise that there are two validly held approaches to legitimacy. One is based on effectiveness in technical terms, based upon experience, knowledge, disinterestedness, abandonment of personal ambition and concern with the public good. This independence,

743
knowledge and so on is a legitimacy, especially for a revising Chamber. It is one which we know is valid. For example, when the House was recalled with regard to Afghanistan I recall sitting here and listening entranced by and respectful of the views being expressed. I listened during the anti-terrorism debate and again was deeply impressed. Those are great occasions.
In the last Session of the House before we rose for Christmas the House was dealing with the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill. It was a routine piece of business in a thin House. Again, I listened with respect, for example, to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and to the response by the Lord Privy Seal. So there is legitimacy.
On the other hand, there is the legitimacy in a democratic society; that people who are here on a political ticket are elected. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to Mr Smith and Mr Jones. I suspect that they would feel that it is right for political people to be elected. What matters is not what we think is legitimate—that is part of it—but what society as a whole thinks is legitimate. My guess is that many of the Mr Smiths and Mr Jones think that political people should he elected because that is what they are used to.
Given that those are two valid bases for legitimacy, a good composition for the political Benches would be to recognise them both and to go for a fudge—partly elected and partly appointed. Why appointed? I argue for the appointed because I believe that this House benefits, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, from the aldermanic contribution—those who have achieved distinction in the service of Parliament or in government, or both, who no longer want to accept the full-time commitment which I suspect will be required of elected Members if, for example, their constituency is regional. Those contributions, as I illustrated on Afghanistan or on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, are so valuable.
Secondly, many lawyers on the political Benches spoke impressively on the anti-terrorism Bill. There are noble Lords on those Benches who want to pursue their professional career. They are people of genuine distinction who are willing to give their time to this Chamber but who would not wish to be engaged in the rough and tumble of elections. We need them. It is legitimate for the government or opposition parties to say, "We must be well represented on our Front Benches and have a wider source than those who are elected". I have been very impressed by the quality of the Front-Benchers.
There are grounds for a substantial, appointed element, not on the basis recommended by the Government but by the Royal Commission: that they should be appointed by the commission rather than government.
We are nearing the end of the debate without a consensus. The ball will land back in the court of the Government. When they make firm proposals, I hope that as a caring government, deeply anxious for the well-being of democracy—it depends on a proper balance of powers between the executive and the
744
legislature, a balance which over the years has been tilted towards the executive—they will be reluctant to think in terms of coercive powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, in interpreting their manifesto I hope that the Government will be mindful that it came from 24 per cent of the electorate. I suggest a little care and humility.
I hope that there will be discussions, probably involving the other place, afterwards. To those on the Front Bench who will be involved in them, I say this. Please be mindful, first, that those behind you do not necessarily share your views; and, secondly that your concern is with the effectiveness and legitimacy of this part of Parliament and not with the expedient conduct of the business of the government of today or of those governments which other parties aspire to lead in the future.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Rees: My Lords, I listened with great pleasure to the eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. However, perhaps I may take him up on one point. I should be happy to debate many others with him on another occasion. He suggests that the occupants of this Chamber, whether under this or some subsequent measure of reform, should be made more representative of the main bulk of our fellow countrymen. I suggest that that is the role of the House of Commons. They are the people elected by our fellow countrymen. If our fellow countrymen are unhappy with their age, outlook or background, they will riot secure election. If they secure election the presumption must be that they are acceptable. It will be difficult to square all the other qualities that the Government suggest will he required of an upper House with making the occupants of this Chamber representative, broadly-speaking, of our fellow countrymen.
The genesis of today's debate goes back to the previous Parliament. We were told by the Government in 1999 that the first measure of reform was self-contained: the elimination of a medieval anomaly left over from 1911 which could be tidied away at last after a period of nearly 100 years and we could then get on with serious other business. As was pointed out at the time—it emerged very soon—we cannot pull from a very old structure, as is our constitution, a number of bricks and expect the structure to remain as solid as before. We now find ourselves advancing on a fairly large measure of proposed reform.
The British constitution is bicameral. There is a critical place for both elements in the House of Commons and the upper House. If any measure of reform to either component part is proposed, the effects on the other must be considered carefully. The composition and functions of both cannot be divorced. I say this with due diffidence to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. There is very little reflection on the role of the House of Commons except to stress that nothing undertaken in this exercise should in any way diminish the pre-eminence of the House of Commons. "Pre-eminence" is a somewhat doubtful phrase. It sometimes suggests distinction;

745
and there must be some sensitivity as to which House is the more distinguished of the two—but perhaps we may leave that to a slightly lighter debate.
However, let us consider the present situation. I believe—I hope that it is not wishful thinking—that there is not much serious criticism of the performance of this House. It is probably less than the criticism of the performance in many fields of the House of Commons. Of course there will be complaints by Ministers whose legislation—possibly it is ill thought out or not suitably drafted—is returned to another place for further amendment and reflection. But leaving aside those critics who speak from a particular position of concern, I believe that the country as a whole has no real criticism of the way we perform our duties.
The gravamen of the Government's case is, "Yes, but here you continue to lack a legitimacy that is accorded to another place". In political circles that may be so. I do not know how justifiable that argument is. Whether it is a significant gap in our armoury I rather doubt. But I do not believe that the country as a whole is overly concerned about that. Perhaps we may consider the methods which might be adopted to remedy that gap in our armoury. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred to making Members more representative. I do not think that the man or woman in the street really expects to find us next-door to him or her in the pub in the evening. He will find other avenues of approach to convey his views. If they are practical matters, he will probably turn to the House of Commons.
I am not certain how much legitimacy can be conceded to the House of Commons. Other noble Lords have pointed out that our electoral process is a curious one. The relationship, for example, between the seats achieved by the Government in the last election and the votes cast for them was not close. The turnout for the last election should give cause for concern to all of us involved in the political process. I wonder whether any of us can by that test be regarded as having total legitimacy.
I turn to the future. Of course we must consider both composition and functions. The debate on composition has reduced itself—this is where I have found this debate extremely helpful—to a choice between some form of nomination and some form of election. I recognise that, having been a beneficiary, as it were, of the nomination process, I perhaps speak from a slightly partisan position. But the question on nomination is how to extract it from the party process or from the representatives of the executive. I recognise that that will not easily be resolved.
In view of the lateness of the hour, I do not want to enlarge on this point. But I do not believe that one can really devolve nomination to some entirely detached, politically neutered body that will bring to bear critical talents that might otherwise be denied and not have at least a partisan interest that may be attributed to someone derived from the party struggle. If that is so, I find myself in some difficulty. In fact, I should prefer a nomination process because it can bring to bear the
746
kind of qualities that are obviously needed for the revising and advisory processes, which other noble Lords, with whom I agree, feel are our primary function.
I turn to the question of election. Perhaps this has been concealed from us for too long, but it is interesting to see how sentiment in the other place and in the country seems to be moving toward a largely elected upper House. I am bound to say that, although I see election's immediate charm, if the upper House is a pale replica of the Commons, paid or unpaid, we will contribute little of real value to the political debate. I am not unique in holding that view because other noble Lords have given vent to such doubts.
What would be the functions of an elected upper House? Again, I find it hard to reconcile the concept of an elected upper House with the Government's injunction that the pre-eminence of the House of Commons should not in any way be impaired by the reform process now evolving. That is impossible. I make one slight exception. I see some case to consider—although I am uncertain how far this would square with what is proposed—trying to involve the devolved institutions in our processes at Westminster, whether by some form of indirect election I do not know. At this hour I am not prepared to express my rather unformulated views on that, but there may be a case for having a small body inside the upper House that represents the delegated institutions.
I turn to the question of the functions of the upper House. As has been observed, they are revision, advice and examination. I should strongly deprecate any reduction in the powers afforded to this House. Already our position vis-à-vis the Commons and vis-à-vis the Executive has been weakened over the years. In particular, we must reflect on constitutional issues. We have had the advantage, which is now the disadvantage, of having no totally written constitution. It is absurd that a majority in the House of Commons should be entitled—making use of the Parliament Acts if need be—to force through a major measure of constitutional reform. That cannot be right. The upper House should therefore be given longer delaying powers and/or the power to require a referendum where a major measure of constitutional reform is proposed.
People will ask at once: how do you define a major measure? That opens up the whole question, touched on by some noble Lords, of whether we should have a constitutional court—whether in some way we should transmute the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords into an independent constitutional court.
What is the way ahead? It has surely emerged from our debates, and I hope that the Government Front Bench will accept, that a much longer period of reflection and consultation is needed. I share the feeling of several noble Lords, in particular my noble friends Lord Denham and Lord Ferrers, that it was frivolous in the extreme to brush aside the proposal which they advanced earlier for a Joint Committee of Commons and Lords. That is the least that one could propose at this stage to attempt to reconcile the possibly conflicting views of those two bodies.

747
Finally, I should like to say, I hope with suitable diffidence and not offensively, that when the Prime Minister can deflect his attention from the fascination of central Asia and the Indian sub-continent, that I hope that he will reflect for a moment on why it was that four distinguished predecessors of his who were involved with varying degrees of directness in the debates of 1911—Mr Asquith, Mr Lloyd George, Mr Baldwin arid Mr Churchill—shirked from re-opening the question after their experiences then. I hope that with a little modesty the Prime Minister and his Administration may take things a little more easily on that front.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, by this stage of the debate, the remaining speakers must have some sympathy with Henry Labouchere, who used to complain in another place that the
"prime cuts of the joints"
had all been taken and that mere scraps and bones were left for the rest of us. However, some of the scraps may still be worth savouring. I hope that if I gnaw away at a hone or two, it will not stick in your Lordships' throats for too long.
The Lord Chancellor opened the debate with the fairly safe prediction that agreement would not emanate from this Chamber. He cannot in that have been disappointed as a prophet. However, he also said that he had some hope that compromise might subsequently lead to consensus. I must say that if that is his hope he—or he and his colleagues, for it would wrong to affix any particular blame to him for this—set about it the wrong way.
I was impressed by the reminder that the House received yesterday from the noble Lord, Lord Denham, or the history of the discussions—in which, I must admit, I took part at an early stage—of the prospect of having a Joint Committee of the two Houses to work out an agreed solution. I recognise that that would have been a difficult task. Perhaps there would have been no agreement at the end of that process, but there would, at least, have been a negotiated give-and-take of a kind that is impossible in a situation in which legislation on a matter that touches profoundly on the interests of both Chambers is tossed from one to the other.
These are not matters for rhetoric; they are matters for judgment as to the best way forward. However, we are now into the rhetorical period, alas, and I have no doubt that, if a Bill is produced, it will founder. I say that because of my experience with the Parliament (No. 2) Bill in 1968. That Bill was promoted by a Labour government with a majority a little smaller than that of the present Government—but not much. That Government had a substantial majority in another place, and there was at least as much determination then to reform the workings of the upper House as has been made manifest by the Government today. In fact, like other Members, I ask myself whether there is a genuine commitment to reform of the House emanating from the Government. I beg leave to doubt that there is. That is a pity.
748
The process of constitutional reform upon which the Government embarked in 1997 would have been incomplete if it had left this House untouched. It cannot be said that the House commands widespread admiration for everything that it does. It is fair to say that much of the detailed work that we do is commended and admired by those who follow our processes and workings with close attention. However, it will not do to sweep the matter aside, as several noble Lords, most notably the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, have done. The noble Lord's speech positively dripped with sarcastic contempt for the democratic process. It was a remarkable performance. The noble Lord has so little continuing interest in the debate that he has largely absented himself from it. I regret that, for I would have preferred to make these remarks in his presence. In any event, the last word on how an upper House should be constructed should not fall from the lips of a retired—though distinguished—civil servant.
I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, considerably more sympathetic. He addressed the question of legitimacy and sought to find some in the present House, devoting a most interesting part of his speech to that question. If I could not follow him all the way, it was because I felt that there was some question begging in what he said. Although we can admire the work that is done here, see its usefulness and seek to build upon it, we must take account of the widespread public perception that, when push conies to shove, we have no right to say no.
The false argument that if we are to take to ourselves new powers, new legitimacy and new authority, we will, in some way diminish the House of Commons, has been deployed on several occasions. On that matter, I agree strongly with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. No one would seek at this stage to reduce this House to the level of public esteem to which the House to which I belonged for 35 years has sunk. It is a false argument, for there are other powers that this House could use, if it summoned up the strength and sense of purpose, that would amplify the effectiveness of the other House and complement the work that is done there by doing work that, to some extent, cannot be done by the other House because of the evident overloading from which it suffers.
It is not entirely the fault of the present House of Commons that it is labouring at its task. There is a volume of ill considered, or unconsidered, legislation that is shafted through. That is the consequence of the way in which our Government choose to use the House of Commons. This House could have a very different role. It has been treated as a fact beyond argument that the function of this House is to revise legislation. I suggest that the House might consider a different approach and, instead, prepare legislation. That way, the emphasis of its work would be not the adversarial business of striking down preconceived propositions that have been cast in concrete by the government of the day but the addressing of the intractable and manifestly extensive problems that the Government

749
are addressing and on which there may be no consensus on how to proceed legislatively or in any other way.
We have seen the failure of the privatisation of transport. Is it such a revolutionary concept that rather than weight all the responsibility for picking up the pieces on to the present Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, this House should address that matter, if it is thought to be a most pressing question of the day, and explore the options in a preparatory way? Perhaps, it is too late in that instance. I accept that we could not do it for every department of state, but part of the judgment would be to identify the big issues that should attract our attention. However the House is constituted, we ought to be able to reach agreement about that.
I hope that, in our discussions, we will not confine ourselves as narrowly as the White Paper does to our existing functions and the ways of discharging them. I hope that we will consider more imaginatively how we can make Parliament as a whole operate more effectively, to improve the quality of legislation and the quality of the executive arm of government.
I have left to the last, because my views on the subject are well known, the question of the composition of this House for that wider role. I am simply of the view that the choice which my noble friend Lord Jenkins put before the House is right. Either we go along with something similar to that which we know and can see working effectively within its prescribed limits—that is what we have today—or we go for a genuine, fully-fledged reform. One does take account of the experience of other countries. One does not treat it as totally foreign that the effective upper Houses throughout the rest of the democratic world are broadly elected.
I advocate an elected second Chamber. I do not believe that it should be a gargantuan body; it should be a much smaller body than this. It follows that it will be one different in type and therefore inevitably in function. That is roughly what I believe the British public expect. Or perhaps they do not because they know that we proceed in constitutional matters in this country by incremental processes, gradually and by degrees. Perhaps there are some who apply their minds to such matters—that is what the opinion polls show—who regard election in a democracy as quintessentially what democracy is about. On one or two occasions today we have had indications that that simple 18th century insight has been lost sight of.
If we sought to represent the interests of our people other than by the choice of the people we should do so in vain. If we decided that there should be a doctors' representative in this House, would it be the president of the Royal College of Surgeons or of the Royal College of Physicians and if not them a paediatrician? Who is to make the decision? Are we really saying that the choice of the people should he put in commission on such an issue? I believe that that argument cannot be sustained for long in the 21st century. That argument has not carried weight in other countries
750
which are importing something like the democratic model known in Westminster into their constitutions. I do not believe on this that they are wrong.
7.33 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, although not in what I thought were his unfair remarks about the noble Lord, Lord Butler. I have been in this House a little time—both he and I have come from another place—and I have come to respect the tolerance and respect for other people's opinions that is a feature of your Lordships' House. One tradition of the House from which we came was that if one intended to attack another honourable Member, one would give him notice of that matter. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, did so, but I believe that his comments were unfair.
In making a personal reflection, perhaps I may now associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. When I was considering becoming a parliamentary candidate, I walked into the great Palace of Westminster for the first time in my life and I sat in the Strangers' Gallery of the House of Commons. I was privileged to witness Mr Enoch Powell and Mr Michael Foot enjoying themselves debating the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. I did not even know what the business was when I walked into the House and I remember seeing the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. The noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, was one of the major filibusters on that occasion and contributed to the government deciding to withdraw their legislation.
I was present in the Chamber during what may have been seen as a high point of parliamentary oratory when Michael Foot was deriding the suggestion of the powers of patronage that the new proposals in the Parliament (No. 2) Bill would involve. He spoke of parliamentary patronage by the Prime Minister, of political appointments, and of the political eunuchs who would be established on your Lordships' Benches and he described the falsetto chorus of political castrati which would be installed here. Having listened to the debate and knowing that there are a number of appointed Members, including myself, who feel entirely entire in that respect, some of those fears were not justified!
I noted that during the debate in February 1969 Mr Nigel Birch referred to Mr Asquith stating in 1911 that the issue brooked no delay. Fifty-eight years later, having brooked no delay, the Labour Party returned to the matter only to draw stumps in order to carry through the Industrial Relations Act, the consequence of In Place of Strife, which the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, will remember well. However, the determination and the flame burnt brightly because the 1970 manifesto of the Labour Party stated that proposals to secure reform would be brought forward. The scene shifts to 2002 and here we are again.
That stately process is the clearest reminder of the extraordinary difficulty of the issues which are being tackled and the challenge they have represented.

751
Perhaps I may therefore enter a disappointing note. Against the challenge of the time and the complexity of the issues, I was surprised by the shortness of the consultation period which the Government have allowed. A considerable number of years have passed and it is a considerable time since the Royal Commission reported.
I am no expert on your Lordships' House, but I claim to be a modest authority on the other place. My knowledge of the other place and my assessment of it comes not only from my membership over a number of years but from the fact that I was also a member of the Nolan/Neill committee. I had the experience of taking evidence from a wide range of witnesses about their experience of Parliament, more particularly their opinions of the House of Commons, its membership and performance. We discussed possible poll questions.
It would be interesting to go out into the streets and ask people for whom they have more respect in the conduct of their affairs: Members of the House of Commons or Members of the House of Lords? Your Lordships will remember that the televising of proceedings was introduced into this House before the House of Commons. I remember favourable comments being made by a number of my constituents because they were extremely impressed by the quality of debate in the House of Lords. However, they were horrified when the House of Commons went on air and they were subjected to zoo and animal noises during Prime Minister's Questions.
The issue of legitimacy, independence and respect is much more complicated. It is not simply a matter of deciding how membership should be arrived at and the method of election.
I stand here to express my concerns about the proposals against the background of my extreme concern about the situation in the House of Commons. I am a politician. I respect the almost ruthless efficiency of the present Government in their management and control of business and their control of news. In many respects, I regret the fact that we were not equally competent and efficient. We were positively amateur in certain respects in our handling of the mass media. In the past four years those of us who were in the House of Commons had to endure an efficient and effective exercise of almost total power. I remember the reference of Lord Hailsham to "the elective dictatorship". It has come about, as was recognised yesterday by a noble Baroness. It has come alive in a very real sense in the past four years and it continues now in the House of Commons. The need for political correctness among the supporters of the present Government and the efficiency with which that is demanded and exercised makes the Government an effective political machine.
That is perhaps an advantage. It is an ill wind that brings no benefit. We are considering proposals for reform of the House of Lords and the role of the second Chamber against a background not of a highly democratic, well balanced and well functioning House of Commons, but against one that needs balance in the
752
democratic system, and given the present structure of the House of Commons, that balance will come only from your Lordships' House.
At this hour of the night, I shall not rehearse the present proposals and my concerns in detail, which I am sure your Lordships will be relieved to hear. However, I am concerned about the hybrid nature of the proposals and have considerable sympathy with the point repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, in connection with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that there is a strong argument for either one or other system and that a half-way House is a dangerous place to halt. I believe that a hybrid approach involving some elected Members requires the protections that the Royal Commission correctly identified, especially relating to the method of election and the length of term.
We have had an opportunity to read the White Paper and consider the Government's proposals. The Lord Chancellor opened the debate yesterday in a frank and disarming manner and he was admirably brief. That was a great pleasure after some of the unnecessarily lengthy speeches that used to accompany the introduction of such measures in the House of Commons. He covered matters clearly. I add my appreciation also of the conduct of the Lord Privy Seal who has not yet opened his mouth in this debate. I am sure that he will manage to weave out from a totally discordant debate apparently complete consensus or some encouraging signs of growing streams of confluence of thought. The attendance of the noble and learned Lord has been admirable and much appreciated by the House. Even with his most optimistic presentation, he will have to accept that it is not going too well.
The question that must be exercising your Lordships' minds is: where do we go from here? I hope that the deadly and awful phrase about a compromise seeing the measure through will not be the decision made by the Government. That would be a great mistake. I have real concerns about the House of Commons and the need to reflect on its position and structure, but we must also consider the devolved Assemblies and the proposals for regional government. In that context, the arguments that have been made from these Benches—particularly those of my noble friend Lord Denham—are very strong. Having thought previously that the need for a Joint Committee in both Houses could be avoided, surely it is now time to accept that it cannot. That is the route that we must now take. We need major consideration of the role of the second Chamber in conjunction with the role of the House of Commons arid the interplay with the devolved Assemblies. We should draw from this consultation the need for serious and cross-party consideration of the best structure for the government of our country.
The fact that we are no longer an island but live within the European Union is a matter that must also be considered. Many changes are taking place and I profoundly believe that your Lordships' House, which I am proud to have joined recently, has an important role to play. That role should be decided jointly and

753
with the most moderate and careful consideration. Sadly, the present proposals are not the way to achieve that.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, as the 62nd person to speak on House of Lords reform, I should be surprised if I had anything new to say. Perhaps your Lordships would be even more surprised if I were to say anything new. I shall steal the image described by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, to nibble at a few bones with a promise to be brief.
The White Paper was presented to us as a discussion document, which I plan to accept as such. After discussion, we shall have improvement and change. I disagree with many things in the White Paper but there are a number of excellent ideas that need to be developed. There are issues of great importance that are either touched on too lightly or not discussed at all.
I start by saying generally that the opportunity to look at and reform ourselves does not happen very often. We should take the opportunity for introspection with enthusiasm knowing that we may not have one again for a very long time. It is essential that reform has the backing of as many parts of the House as possible. Party politics plays an important role in our affairs, but in the comparatively short time that I have been here it is crystal clear that this is much more than a forum for party political activity. I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, about being rather naïve. So be it.
Effective reform has to be the responsibility of us all—not only our Front Benches playing a positive or negative role. I do not agree that we are completing the reform or that we can look at reform in isolation. Both points have been well made in other speeches. An important job not mentioned in the White Paper is to reach out to our constituencies and convince them that the House of Lords has an important and vital role. I was very depressed by the media's reaction to the White Paper. Our excellent Library sent out a document headed, "Press Reaction to the Paper", stating that,
"the general reaction to the White Paper in the press has been almost wholly negative".
There are those who argue that that is because it is a bad White Paper. Leaving that argument on one side, I believe—this comes through in the cuttings—that the House of Lords is an institution that is all too easy to mock and represent as a stereotype of a vanishing political culture. Very little of what we do is noticed or praised by the press. A general view of the House among the media and, I suspect, the public appeared in an article in the New Statesman just before Christmas. I quote just one paragraph:
"The Tories, the Bishops, the Labour Titled who cave in and go native justifies this crusty pile with a patronising sweep of an unsustained assumption that it is the repository of common-sense. It is neither common nor has sense, it is posh and pointless yet its inhabitants endlessly claim that it is a historic protector of our fundamental rights".
754
That statement articulates a view that is held of us outside and, I suspect, by many in the other place. We all know that it is a travesty of the truth and that, as a part of the reforming process, we have to fight such ill-informed prejudice.
Paragraph 13 on page 25 of the supporting documents talks about the representative aspect of the new House of Lords. The paragraph concludes that this has,
"a widespread resonance among the public".
Oh, I wish that it had. Like the media, I think that the public have little understanding of what we do and how we do it. If asked to say the first things that come into their minds when given the phrase, "the House of Lords", they say, "Elderly gents in ermine" and "A most beautiful building". I worry about the hordes of people who take tours around our splendid buildings, admiring the architecture and the paintings. I compare that with the numbers who come to listen to our debates in the Public Gallery. It is an unhappy example of form winning out over content.
In the year of the Queen's golden jubilee, the monarchy has decided, quite rightly in my view, to reach out to the public and change and adapt itself to the 21st century. We have exactly the same task to perform. If we do not set ourselves that task as part of the reforming process, in this debate we shall simply be holding a two-day conversation with ourselves. I can almost hear noble Lords wincing at the idea of "marketing" ourselves, looking outwards rather than inwards. But that is one area where the ultimate justification for our future existence and legitimacy will come from.
I turn to procedures and the way we carry out our business. This important topic is dealt with in the White Paper in paragraph 34 on page 15 in two-and-a-half lines stating that a report will be published by end 2001. I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for just under two years and I am still confused and bewildered by many of the procedures of this place. I am told that this is a "self-regulating House", but from observation it would appear that no one person knows what are regulations. If there is one such person, that person is not in the Chamber all the time. I believe that there are huge areas for improvement here and I look forward to taking part in those discussions at a later date.
I was interested to note that the discussions on membership of the House of Lords take up most of the White Paper and, indeed, have taken up most of the time of our debate. To me that is strange. It is rather like looking at the board of a company or of an institution without discussing what the company does and how it does it. The role of the House and the way we achieve our goals should be of equal importance to the composition of the House.
I broadly accept the recommendations for membership outlined in the White Paper, but I should like to propose a simpler way of dealing with one aspect of the issue. As has been pointed out in the press and in this House during our debate, we are looking at an extraordinarily complicated way of constructing the membership of the second Chamber. Most of the

755
press comment, along with most of the debate, has centred around the question of whether the House of Lords should be a democratically elected Chamber. My view is that unless there is a massive Government Back Bench revolt in the other place, it is unlikely that that will happen, but I do feel that by establishing an elected element in the House, whatever percentage that element may comprise, the way will be open for future governments to extend the democratic element and perhaps eventually create a fully elected Chamber. What we see here, therefore, is a start, one, I think, of great significance.
I broadly accept the outline given in the White Paper of how the Chamber should be composed in the near future, but I should like to suggest a way which might be followed before the appointments commission starts its work. One of the two issues that the White Paper does not confront head on is the size of the House, which is very much larger than any other second chamber in the world, with the exception of two countries, which, as Peter Kellner wryly remarked, are not normally advertised as models of parliamentary perfection. The German Bundesrat has 69 members, while the US Senate has 100.
The other issue that the White Paper skirts around is the most delicate one of age. The White Paper points out correctly that age should not be a barrier to membership of the House of Lords, or rather that an upper age limit should not be a barrier. I agree with that but, as a generality, a House where the average age is heading towards 70, with life expectancy growing every year, presents problems for any government wishing to make the House more representative in terms of age groups, gender and minority representation, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing.
I propose a three-phase approach to the two problems of size and age, which may reduce our numbers and thus introduce a strong element of flexibility to our discussions on reform. The first phase would be the disappearance of the remaining hereditary Peers. I plan to say nothing about that as the debates on the issue took place before I arrived. As a boy, I once put my hand into a hornets' nest and I have no desire to repeat the experience.
Phase two would be to offer a generous one-off retirement package, perhaps an extraordinarily generous retirement package, to those Members sitting in the House of Lords who may now wish to retire, taking with them a significant amount of money—money paid for much hard work and effort over a very long period. What I propose here, I must emphasise, is a purely voluntary initiative. My noble friend Lord Dubs said that he thought that such a proposal would be quite improper. I have to disagree with him. The settlement terms would be made available for, let us say, a two-month period. After that there would be no further opportunity for Peers to take advantage of such an arrangement.
Before I leave the subject, perhaps I may make one other point about the White Paper; that is, there is no stated budget for House of Lords reform. If reform is
756
important, the Government ought to be prepared to allocate, if necessary, a comparatively large sum of money to enable reform to take place. Like everything else, reform costs money.
During phase three the remaining Peers would be asked a simple question: "Do you wish to be a working Peer, or do you wish to be a Peer who attends on an occasional basis?". A working Peer would be expected to turn up on each day that the House sits—incidentally, why do we not work a five-day week?—put in a minimum of hours, to be determined, in the Chamber and be paid for doing so. I would suggest a modest sum which could be called a salary, a fee or whatever. By "modest" I mean in terms of the earning capabilities of many Members of the House of around, say, £30,000 per annum. The working Peers would continue to claim their overnight allowances if they live outside London, but no other allowance. Those who choose not to be working Peers would continue to receive their allowances.
I agree with the idea expressed in the White Pa per that there should be a generous retirement package made available to Peers when they reach the age of 70. Again, that would be voluntary.
The final phase would be the appointment of the independent commission—which may have been appointed already—to start work once the composition of the new House was known. Although the commission should be totally independent, at the outset it would be quite appropriate for this House to give it directives.
Let me give an example. On the day before the Christmas Recess, there was a most interesting Second Reading debate, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lard Dearing, on the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill. During the debate on the Bill, which appears to have cross-party support, it emerged that 14 per cent of our House is composed of women. The White Paper proposes that 30 per cent of the people nominated should be women, with the hope—I underline "hope"—that over time this will lead to a better gender balance in the House.
I do not think that this is either good enough or fast enough. It is not, in my view, an acceptable ambition. We have a golden opportunity here to do something in this area quickly. If the House has had, for hundreds of years, many of the attributes of a men's club, now is an opportunity to change that. In terms of one of the first points I made about the way in which this House presents itself to the outside world, this change is of crucial importance.
Clearly—I am not being ironic—there is a long way to go before we have a perfectly formed, or even reformed, House of Lords. In spite of the huge divides and disagreements that have emerged, if we all take as the only starting point the recognition of the importance of this Chamber in the parliamentary process and the need to get this across to the media, the public and the House of Commons, I am sure that we can make great progress.
8.1 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have just noticed that there are not too many girls in the debate today. I am not sure what conclusion to draw from that, but I am rather glad I am taking part today rather than yesterday.
At the start of his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Evans, speculated upon why the White Paper is getting a bad press. Whatever the reason may be, over the last day or two the effect of the heightened discussion and a better understanding of the White Paper, combined with the Government's continuing reluctance to seek consensus across Parliament, seems to be producing a somewhat unexpected situation—that is, there appears to be a possibility that either the Government will be stuck with the status quo and fail to implement what, to them, are key commitments, or we shall move to a wholly elected second Chamber, which would only work in our kind of Parliament, with our kind of carefully worded and detailed legislation, if the House of Commons reformed itself too.
My noble friend Lord King and others referred to the anti-terrorism Bill. It must have been clear for all to see—not only those in this House—during the passage of that Bill that as long as it is possible in this country for a government with a big majority to force a dangerously flawed Bill through the House of Commons after scant scrutiny there, the second Chamber needs among its Members legal expertise, legislative experience, experience of the subject matter of a Bill, the independence of committed Cross-Benchers, and political people able to act as free spirits, if the necessary job is to be done and the Government and the House of Commons persuaded. That kind of expertise and ability is, by definition, unlikely to exist in sufficient quantity in an all-elected House. For such a second Chamber to work, the House of Commons will have to be very considerably reformed.
Awkward alternatives are looming for the Government—that is, the status quo or a massive change to both Houses—and Ministers want neither. They have my sympathy.
As to the White Paper, most of the arguments have been deployed already and I shall he very brief. Two points have not been much discussed, both of which can apply whatever the composition of the House may be. The first point concerns the breaking of the historic link between the membership of the second Chamber and the peerage. The time has come when that is absolutely right. It is right for the Monarchy and right for the second Chamber, whatever form it takes. But, in passing, why go on calling it the House of Lords when it will not be a house of Lords. I believe that "Senate" would be a better name and that its members should be "Senators".
The second point concerns the power of the second Chamber in relation to secondary legislation. The White Paper contains an extremely good idea which began in the committee of this House—one of which I am now a member but of which I was not a member when the committee made the recommendation—and
758
was accepted by the Wakeham commission; that is, that the second Chamber should have the power to delay secondary legislation and require the House of Commons to think again. With secondary legislation being used, inevitably, more and more, it would seem wise to make it possible to discuss orders much more fully, rather than simply accepting or rejecting them. It is an extremely good idea.
But the White Paper also suggests abolishing the second Chamber's ability to reject orders. That would be extraordinarily unwise. One could quote other examples of the dangers, but again the anti-terrorism Bill is the most recent. Noble Lords will remember that, in that Bill, the Government proposed the establishment of new crimes and new penalties in this country—some of which would involve prison sentences for our citizens—simply by putting orders through Parliament. Those particular crimes would have been negotiated between our Home Secretary and the other justice ministers in Europe and would have been unscrutinised by the European Parliament at any time.
But if a reasonable, responsible government such as this one could propose for their own convenience something so undemocratic, what might a less responsible government do? The power to reject secondary legislation must be retained by the second Chamber, and powers to amend such legislation, to delay it and to refer it back to the Commons for further discussion should be added to it. Those changes could be made whatever the composition of the House.
Those are not small points, but they are briefly made because your Lordships know the issues. I hope that when the Leader of the House replies to the debate he will be able—among all the other matters on which he has to reply—to comment on the possibility of keeping the power to reject orders.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, in the spirit of the independence that this House is supposed to exemplify, I shall pay two brief tributes which have not yet been paid. The first tribute is due to the hereditary Peers who departed this place in a rather admirable fashion. I reflect on the fact that only one in 10 voted in the last vote when abolition of their class was considered by the House.
A tribute is also due to the Government. There has been some serious misrepresentation about what they are proposing in this reform in terms of surrendering power to pack the Lords, as some call it, by limiting the powers of political patronage to 60 per cent of the House and, crucially, by apportioning that 60 per cent between the three major parties—not on the basis of the seats won at the previous election but on the basis of votes garnered. The telling figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, indicate the way in which, during the Thatcher years, the already huge in-built Tory majority was added to by the appointment of twice as many Tory life Peers as Labour life Peers, and scarcely any from my own party, and they require reflection.

759
That said, if I were to be convinced that more of the same party machine dominated politics—exemplified by the current House of Commons—were what people really wanted, I might be persuaded to go for a fully or largely elected House. If I felt that all that Parliament needed in order to recapture public allegiance and to revive democracy was less independence, less experience and less expertise in this place, I might rethink my position. If I believed that the shambles of the railways, the demoralisation in our schools, the crisis in the NHS, the shame of our rampant crime and of our bursting jails, the increasing divisions in our society, and so on, would be improved by an elected, more politicised second Chamber, I would think again. If I sensed that we had contrived a new division of powers between two elected Houses so as to make them functionally complementary, I might contemplate that prospect.
Thus, although I broadly concur with the opening analysis of my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby in terms of the crisis of confidence in our democracy, I do not entirely share her analysis of the remedy. I align myself with my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf. Perhaps I may say that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who unavoidably cannot take part in this debate, has asked me to associate him with that position as well.
I admit that my instinct in contemplating reform of this place is to resort to that unrivalled vehicle of democracy, elections. To argue anything else, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, reminded us yesterday, is an uphill struggle in terms of the broadsheets and informed public opinion. We could easily end up adding to public disaffection with politics—the very disaffection that we seek to assuage—with the inevitable charge of "turkeys being unwilling to vote for Christmas", of party leaders being unwilling to give up patronage and of our contempt for the public. These are weighty considerations. I have been interested in what noble Lords have so sagely said in the course of the debate.
Why do I incline firmly against election—certainly under the present circumstances? First, the proposed mixed House would be neither fish nor fowl. It will be likely to prove less effective than an all-appointed, and fairly appointed, House. Many of the problems to which the hybrid option will give rise have not been thought through.
Let us take one example. Although we have a variegated House now, that hotchpotch of Peers is mostly sanctioned by centuries. The 120 elected Members would be different in kind, democratically speaking. Although they would be well advised not to claim superior legitimacy, I suspect that others outside this place would give it to them, and that in time they would assume it.
Furthermore, it is unrealistic to expect such Members not to be full-time. In the course of standing for election, even of getting themselves selected—often by small party caucuses—they will have to commit themselves to that, or risk losing out to others who will. That will add to the force of their presence here, given that many other Peers cannot be anything like
760
full-time, and would indeed lose much of their utility if they were. The full-timers will owe their position here entirely to party patronage—in the Labour Party, centrally controlled—and via the regional lists, even if we have open lists. They will come here to pursue a career and will be wholly vulnerable to the party control which is a necessary concomitant of seeking preferment as part of a career.
In terms of a wholly or mainly elected second House—favoured by the majority, but by no means all, of my own party—I do not find it conceivable that such a proposal would stand any prospect of getting through the House of Commons. In any event, it could only follow sensibly, it seems, on a new constitutional settlement between the two directly elected Houses with which we have not begun to grapple. What may have evolved in other countries cannot simply be transplanted here.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the forceful speech made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. He is as eloquent an exponent of a fully elected House as anyone. He made this comment:
"The argument is sometimes heard … that to have over 50 per cent of this House directly elected would be to produce a clone of the House of Commons. I do not believe that for an instant. The powers and functions of the two Chambers are clear … The upper House could not threaten the primacy of the Commons. We would continue to have strictly limited powers and functions … with no role in determining the government or controlling finance … Nor would the second Chamber be able to veto a Commons Bill or … any statutory instrument".—[Official Report, 9/1/02; col. 602.]
If that is what the noble Lord believes would be the practical outcome of a wholly elected second House, I have to dissent. What is more, if he were right—I think it inconceivable that that would be the case—we should have ended up with a full-time elected second Chamber, with second-rate powers, which could only attract second-rate people. Who could conceivably want a career in this place as compared with a full-time career in the other place? Such a proposal is unfeasible.
Perhaps I may comment on the issue of public opinion and where it sits. We have heard contributions on the matter from a number of speakers, including the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Clifton, Lord Richard, Lord Ampthill, Lord Butler and Lord Wakeham. The Royal Commission had a limited number of public meetings—nine, I believe—which a fraction over 1,000 people attended. The commission put out a questionnaire to which fewer than 1,000 citizens responded. Although that was a grotesquely inadequate consultation for such a hugely important public matter, none the less it represents the only deliberative consultation that has so far taken place. I cannot put any weight, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, did, on the various quick-fire polls—the latest being the ICM random telephone poll of 1,000 people just before Christmas. Of all the issues on earth that are not susceptible, sensibly, to that treatment, this surely is it.
It is worth noting that the strongest reply to any of the questions on composition in the Royal Commission questionnaire was on whether people of independence and experience should be in this place. Over two-thirds responded in favour.

761
I held a public meeting in my own home town on the issue of reform which was attended by 90 people. After a vigorous and intelligent debate, they voted 4:1 in favour of an appointed rather than an elected Chamber. It is still not too late for us to contemplate a proper public consultation. The very fact that we have no reliable base to tell us what the public truly think about these complicated issues seems, even now, to shout in favour of undertaking just such a consultation. Part of the public disaffection with politics in this country is precisely that we have inadvertently drifted away from the public in terms of consulting them, in terms of their feeling that they are consulted. The lack of that essential relationship between the elected and appointed legislators and the public leads to the present situation, which is worse than many Peers realise.
The 59 per cent turnout at the last general election was the worst in our history and the 24 per cent turnout at the European elections was by far the worst that we or any country have ever had, but even those figures omit the crucial fact that a full third of potential voters aged 25 and under have not registered to vote. If that statistic is cranked into the equation, we find that only one in three of the under-25s voted at the general election and not more than one in 10 did so at the European elections.
Party membership is plummeting. Many charities have a greater membership than all the political parties combined. More people voted in the "Big Brother" television vote than voted in the last election. Young citizens in particular do not identify with what we do. Among the public at large there is a simultaneous sensation of being put upon and ignored by Westminster and Whitehall, which increasingly garner power to themselves when not transferring it to Brussels.
People see party politics as over-controlled, party self-interested, destructive, regimented and generally unsympathetic. They find it difficult to identify with politicians who appear to have surrendered their independence and, as some would see it, their political honesty to their party Whips and to preferment. It is impossible for most of the public to relate to a House of Commons in which the Labour Government have not lost a single one of the more than 1,000 whipped votes since they came to power in 1997. At least in this place we manage to defeat the Government once in every four or five votes, but not a single vote has been carried against the Government in the Commons in nearly five years. The public do not understand that and it should not be the case. Unless we deal with the broader underlying issues, nothing that we do here will be sufficient.
That shows plainly that trying to deal with the problem by adding to the party political representation in this House is counterintuitive and counter-common sense. I say that with great reluctance, because, I repeat, my whole tenor is to give faith to the elective process. As others have correctly said, including the noble and learned Lord the Lord
762
Chancellor in opening the debate, there is more than one channel of democracy. We in this House have our own particular way.
I shall say a quick word about regional lists. My noble friend Lord Wallace suggested that if we had open regional lists, we might encourage small splinter parties and a widening of representation in the House. I believe that that is wishful thinking. The proposed closed lists would be a double disaster, but even with open lists the constituencies are far too big for people to be able to identify with candidates, or even to have a passing knowledge of them, as we saw at the European elections. The almost inexorable tendency, therefore, is simply to follow the party line and the party candidate priority list.
The other main tendency, I fear, is not to vote at all. The public of this country will not vote for people of whom they have no knowledge and whom they have never seen and will never see. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was far more phlegmatic than I am about the declining voter turnout.
My time is up. My final comment is that I would be amazed if we allowed the proposed removal of our already extremely limited powers over secondary legislation to proceed. That would be a catastrophic mistake. If ever anything was needed, it is greater power to deal with statutory instruments.
8.24 p.m.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, since discussions on this subject began in 1997, I am greatly disappointed that so little attention has been given to the role and powers of this place and so much to composition. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and my noble friends Lord Baker and Lord King, that those topics should have come first before we looked at composition. I shall say a bit more about powers later if I have time.
The role and powers of the House are highly relevant to its composition. I start, however, with composition, mainly because there is a powerful wind blowing down the corridor in the other place in favour of a wholly or largely elected second Chamber. My noble friend Lord King complimented the Lord Privy Seal on attending nearly all of the debate. So do I. My noble friend said that the noble and learned Lord would have to be a master magician to be able to draw a consensus out of the debate, or even to find much support for the Government. As a bit of a magician myself, I offer him one crumb. I shall be highly unusual in complimenting the Government on a major aspect of the White Paper and supporting them on it.
I am an out-and-out supporter of the supremacy of the House of Commons. I was highly privileged to be a Member there for 27 years. I greatly regret the decline in the power of the House over the executive and the bypassing and steamrollering of the House that has happened particularly in the past five years. I also greatly regret the decline in the esteem in which that House is held. However, those are points for debate another day. I also relish elections. I have been

763
heavily involved in 11 of them, including seven in my own constituency. I in no way move away from the concept of the importance of elections.
However, from that basis and experience, I challenge some of the assumptions and arguments for a wholly or largely elected House. It is too easy to say, somewhat glibly, that in a 21st century democracy only elections confer legitimacy and to cite opinion polls in support of that view. I strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said. I find it highly interesting that more Liberal Democrat Members have spoken against a wholly or largely elected Chamber than have spoken for it. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is the only Liberal Democrat to have spoken powerfully in favour of the idea. I very much agree with some of the arguments that have been put forward from those Benches.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords—
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I cannot give way because of the time. In my 27 years as an MP I think that I received two letters about the House of Lords. I rarely heard any discussion about the matter in my constituency and there has never been any inclination to have a serious discussion along the lines of the debate that we are now having. I warn people not to pay too much attention to the opinion polls.
I shall consider the principle and then the practicalities of a wholly or substantially elected House. On the principle, if the House of Lords were the same as the House of Commons, with similar functions and powers, the point about elections being the only legitimate route would hold. However, that is not the case. This House is substantially and definitively subordinate. The real issue of legitimacy in a democracy is how the government are chosen. That is done by election to the House of Commons. Governments depend on retaining the support of the House of Commons. It has the ultimate total decision on legislation and nearly always gets its way on major substantive legislation. Anyone who has been a Minister will have considerable experience of how that can be achieved. We should be under no illusions about that. Nearly all Ministers—certainly nearly all senior Ministers—are drawn from the House of Commons. The House of Commons also has total control over finance and supply.
My noble friend Lord Baker argued that because this House has powers it should have an elected element. But those powers are very limited. The supporting documents rightly point out, in paragraph 4 on page 5, that that has profound implications for the role of the second Chamber, and hence for its composition.
The two principles that form the basis of the reform are spelt out on page 4 of the White Paper. It is worth constantly reminding ourselves of them. This House is to be,
"a revising and deliberative assembly—not seeking to usurp the role of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent Chamber"
and,
764
"composed of a membership appropriate to its revising and deliberative functions, and not duplicate or clone the Commons".
That is what a largely or substantially elected membership of this House would do.
An extremely pertinent point is made in the supporting documents. Very little reference has been made to the supporting documents in the debate. I urge your Lordships to look at pages 22 and 23. One point made on those pages is that,
"it would be curious to introduce an elected second chamber on the grounds that this was necessary to 'increase its legitimacy' and promptly hedge around its powers so that in practice it could not make effective use of that 'legitimacy'".
That is a fair point. On the same pages there are some good arguments about the practicality of having a wholly or substantially elected Chamber.
I have therefore come to the view that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was right to say that election is not the only route to legitimacy. What is the nature of that legitimacy? I thought that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford made some very telling points about the representative function that he has been able to perform in this place.
We have heard powerful speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, Lord Neill of Bladen and Lord Sewel, among others, on how a large—or any—elected element could substantially change the character of this place. I shall summarise some of the points.
If elected Members of the Lords are expected to perform our current roles and functions, what will be the job description? It will be, "You will not have many powers. You will have very little capacity to influence legislation. It is also very unlikely that you will ever become a Minister, but you will be expected to be full time. You will find it extremely difficult to attract the attention of your constituents or explain your activities to them in any way at all. If you are going to take advantage of the Government's proposals on re-election, there will be major disadvantages. By the way, although you'll be full time, you'll have no real secretarial support for the major activities that you are supposed to undertake. No one will take much notice of the highly important work that the House of Lords does. You are also not expected to receive any salary".
Who will respond to that type of job description? Anyone who is successful in mid-career will not be attracted to the House of Lords if he wants to embrace a political career; he will go to the House of Commons. If he fails to persuade a constituency to accept him, he will regard the House of Lords as a possibility only if he sees it as a stepping stone to the House of Commons. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that that would hardly raise the quality in this House compared with appointed Members who have wide expertise and experience over many years.
Moreover, if there are elected Members, they will constantly argue for greater powers because they believe that they have legitimacy. We have heard that argument many times and I do not intend to repeat it. However, elected Members would also attempt to copy the habits and tactics of the House of Commons

765
in drawing their electorate's attention to their activities through the media. This House would therefore be substantially susceptible to the partisanship and partisan atmosphere that has so turned the public off the House of Commons, and which the media not only feed off but do much to encourage.
There would also be inevitable jockeying for the electorate's attention between Members of the House of Lords and Members of the House of Commons. One of the principles stated in the White Paper is the need not to disturb the relationship between elected Members of the Commons and their constituents. Elected Members in this place would do precisely that. We have learned that lesson from the difficulties that Westminster Members of Parliament have had in trying to attract their electorate's attention when MSPs are receiving all the attention.
Your Lordships might therefore conclude that I am against any elected element at all. However, I was much impressed by the arguments made last night by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, on the importance of compromise and consensus in trying to reach agreement. On that basis, I would accept an elected element. I believe, however, that the right number is 87, as in the Wakeham proposals, for the reasons given in that report and for two others. First, such a major change would greatly change the character of this House, and we would have to learn from experience the unintended and unexpected consequences. We shall have to move fairly slowly to gain, as my noble and learned friend Lord Howe said, the benefits of incremental change.
Secondly, I was much impressed by the points made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the transitional period and the arithmetic. If I understand the arithmetic aright, if we abolish the hereditary Peers and have 120 elected Peers, to reach the capped number in 10 years there will be only 49 appointed Members. We shall therefore have about five appointed Members per year. Consequently, in reality, very few independent Members will be appointed in those 10 years. I agree with all the remarks that have been made about the importance of the independent element. It cannot be enhanced if there are 120 elected Members.
At this point, I substantially part company with the Government and their White Paper. The Government's proposals on the length of term, re-election and closed lists—all of which have already been dealt with thoroughly in the debate—are absolutely wrong, and the Wakeham commission proposals on them are absolutely right. The Government's proposals would simply increase the power of patronage of the parties and of the Prime Minister, as so many of the new Members entering this place in the next 10 years would arrive by means of that electoral, closed-list system. I therefore wholly oppose those proposals and hope that the Government will rethink them.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, drew attention to the proposal to hold the House of Lords elections in line with the European elections, and to the
766
fact that only 24 per cent of the electorate voted in the most recent European elections. If that happened with the House of Lords election, it would be another telling response to those who argue that opinion polls show that the electorate want an elected House. However, although there are obviously pros and cons, I think that it is right to go for the European elections. I am very fearful of the idea of attaching the House of Lords elections to those for the House of Commons as it would further duplicate the Government's power. That would be wrong for all the reasons already given.
I very much regret that the White Paper says so little about the powers, role and function of the House of Lords. It states a position but does not really offer an argument or say where changes might be made. In the whole of his speech, the Lord Chancellor had only one sentence, I think, on powers and functions. But it is a fundamental issue. The important point is that the House of Lords should be doing so much more of what the House of Commons is now doing so very badly. All former Members of the House of Commons and Ministers know that the pressures—not least the constituency pressures, but also so many others—on a Member of Parliament are such that the role of truly scrutinising legislation takes second, third or fourth place.
Timetabling is not working. Substantial clauses in the Education Bill, for example, are not being debated at all in Committee in the other place, and there will be no debate on them until that legislation reaches this place. That is happening much more frequently now because scrutiny is not the type of task to which Members of Parliament are giving high priority.
It is a scandal how little attention is being paid to secondary legislation. The supporting documents list, on pages 18 and 19, some elements of secondary legislation that are far from technical matters; they are matters of fundamental policy or are substantial changes to policy. Yet neither House pays any real attention to that legislation.
I am very much of the school that this House's current powers are inadequate. The ability to vote against is hardly ever used, and the proposal to delay a statutory instrument for three months does not add up to a row of beans. Any government can quite easily ignore it. As several of your Lordships have said, the real point is that statutory instruments—now that they are increasingly being used and frequently have quite significant implications, and now that so much more primary legislation is referred to statutory instruments—should be amendable. I believe that this House, with its time and experience, could concentrate much more on amending statutory instruments. A sifting process could be used to force the government to pay attention to some of the changes that your Lordships are advocating. Delaying powers would not achieve that objective.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made a very interesting speech about what more the House of Lords could do on the European front. However, I do not have time to deal with that.

767
My point is that additional powers are not about challenging the House of Commons but about challenging the executive's power when the House of Commons is unable to do it. I believe that all of these additional powers would be in keeping with the Government's principles of reform. I greatly regret that they have not even touched on them. I hope that, even now, they will consider them.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Kingsland, who does not sit in the spotlight but has sat as long as the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House in the service of his side and a little longer than the Lord Chancellor.
I congratulate all the government team now present on the extent of the time that they have spent here. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has an equal power to absorb as he has to hear. I was astonished to see that he has only 15 minutes, like the rest of us, to reply—I am relieved to be corrected; he has a little longer. I hope it is not too much, but it certainly ought to be more than 15 minutes.
It is the privilege of those replying late in the debate to speak to a lot of empty seats. But I wish to address every member of the present Government in this House as though they were sitting in front of me. I hope that they will listen well, wherever they are. I sat there once and as sure as eggs are eggs, whoever is sitting there now will one day be sitting here. I want them to consider that, when they start messing about with parliamentary machinery, the changes that they make today will be in place on the day that they sit here. I ask whether they will want then what they claim to want now.
Will they want a Chamber that delivers swiftly and without trouble all that the then government demand of it? No. They—"you"—will want then what I want now: a House that will scrutinise and improve legislation without fear of the executive and without expectation of reward from the executive; a House that is directly in touch with the social, economic, political and defence needs of society in the light of its own experience; a House that will stand between the electorate and the leader of any political party of any colour who gets absolute control of the House of Commons; and a House that, in the last resort, can and will prevent the extension of a Parliament beyond its five years unless the reasons for that are agreed as sufficient. The great and vital and indispensable blessing conferred by democracy is not, as we all assume, the power to elect the party of government; it is the power to get rid of it.
Let me take those points in reverse. It is a disappointment that there is no mention in the White Paper of an entrenchment of the quinquennial Act or of the House of Lords' right to veto any amendment of it. The point relating to a House that is in daily touch with the concerns of the electorate may be thought to relate to the House of Commons. But, as was pointed out by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of
768
Portsmouth and highlighted most recently by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, a gulf has opened up between the elected representatives and those who elect them. That has been shown in the turn-out over successive years; by the fact that governments have received less than 50 per cent of the votes cast ever since 1947; and by the development of what amounts to a political class disregarded by the general public, who now cast more votes for "Big Brother" than for the party that they want to govern them.
Members of this House, to counterbalance that, must be out and about. The first issue we come to in that regard is that any question of having a House that functions during normal business hours is out. We cannot be in two places at once. That may not be Member friendly; but it would be hostile to the electorate if we were to bottle people up in this place so that they became out of touch with what is going on in the real world. We must remember that it may not be Member friendly; but we are not here for ourselves. We are here for the electorate. They are the ones we should be protecting.
For the scrutiny and building of legislation age is not a consideration. My noble friend Lord Renton, at 94, gives far more to this House than many Peers under the age of 50. He is nearly twice their age and nearly twice their use. I well remember when taking the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill through this House that the greatest difficulty I had, and conversely the greatest help I received, was from one man, Lord Denning, at the age of 85. So the idea that the Law Lords should be forcibly expelled 10 years before that notable Law Lord gave of his best seems to me to be cross-grained and contradictory. I cannot see the purpose of it except to make more room for other people so that we sit within the 600.
To stimulate contact with the outside world Members of this place must, while they are capable of doing so, he under the necessity of earning. It is important that we are not paid. The need to earn drives people out into active engagement with the economy. I take myself as an example, at the age of 71, with two part-time jobs. Your Lordships should recognise that those who embark in middle-age, in their prime, on a career in this place, undertake a considerable penalty. I take myself as an example not in any sense of self-pity—I went into it with my eyes open—but because my last year in a full-time pensionable job was when I was 43, in 1973. The penalty I pay will be when I stop earning and do not receive the pensions that other people outside this House have been free to earn. If your Lordships are to have a system of recruiting people to be diligent in this place, we must recognise that they cannot take full-time work and we should take into account the situation in which they will find themselves when they pass earning ability.
As I say, I am not speaking for myself but of myself. I foresee many people being put in that position and being discouraged from coming into your Lordships' House for that reason. The answer is not to pay people while they are here, but to give them enhanced pension rights for their declining years. At the mention of severance pay, which was

769
tantalisingly held out by the noble Lord opposite, my ears pricked up. I hope that, if there is some, then length of service will count, and I have been here for nearly 29 years. In fact, since we are here at no cost and no gain—we have only our expenses—I cannot see for what, in law, we are being compensated, though I dare say the noble Lord, Lord Evans, could put what I said about lost earnings into the basket (again I remind him of length of service!).
I mentioned a House that will scrutinise effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said that we are already effectively the Committee stage of the parliamentary process. That brings me to the question of what is happening at the other end of the corridor, on which I am not qualified to judge. But noble Lords with recent and profound experience confirm my fears that all is not well there and that we should be considering the Houses in tandem in a single debate and not singly.
In relation to the huge volume of secondary legislation passing through Parliament, we heard at Question Time today that the average over the past four or five years has been 3,500 statutory instruments. That suggests that we cannot let them go further out of control than they are already. There must be some system of striking them down if necessary. There must be a sifting process. The purpose of secondary legislation is simply to save parliamentary time. To prevent that being abused we have the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. But that is not achieving enough and we need to extend our purview by perhaps setting up a separate committee process for sifting and reviewing.
I have said that this process must be without fear of the executive or hope of advantage from it. That means inevitably that there must be no re-appointment of appointees and no re-election of those elected. I do not need to explain the first statement. The second statement arises from the fact that one does not now have a hope of being elected unless one is backed by the party machine. We will therefore be in fee to the manipulators of the party in Parliament if we want to be re-elected. That will then cover us. My pride is that my first speeches and first votes in your Lordships' House, apart from my entirely uncontroversial maiden speech, were against the government of the day, which was Conservative. That must always be possible.
Everything I have mentioned can be achieved regardless of how the membership is recruited. Yesterday my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth completely destroyed the White Paper when he pointed out that the paper presented to Parliament by no less a person than the Prime Minister states:
"The imperative"—
note the word "imperative"—
"is for a reformed second chamber performing broadly the same functions as in the existing House of Lords but in a more effective manner".
But then the whole thing is geared to producing an elected element not connected in any sense to the effectiveness of the business it carries out. Indeed, it is
770
odd that the White Paper does not address the effectiveness of what we do. It is the missing link, as my noble friend said. But the link is there vestigially on page 15 at paragraph 34 which states:
"To consider the working practices of the Lords, the Leader of the House of Lords has set up a Leader's Group on Working Practices, which has been asked to report by the end of 2001".
No doubt the noble and learned Lord will tell us in his reply how that has progressed, but it seems to me that this is a cackhanded debate when we are trying to make a more effective Chamber and two-thirds of that effectiveness consists not of what it is composed of or where its Members come from but rather what they do when they get here. However, that is not to be considered at all.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, yesterday constituted a breath of fresh air with regard to Select Committees. However, I do not think that what we are discussing constitutes the way to connect with the public and, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, said, that is vital at this stage.
I do not think that what we have here is the vessel that my noble friend Lord Hurd looks for to carry us safely from the halfway island to the other shore, nor is it the road forward that the Government encouraged us to expect. There is no sign of consensus. One wonders where we go from here. At this point I am reminded of the telling speech of my noble friend Lord Denham. It was delivered with deceptive gentleness, but it was a devastating account of the way in which, I regret to say, the Government have reneged on their undertaking. The noble and learned Lord will be able to rebut my remarks when he replies to the debate, but he mentioned—and I have seen in writing—the evidence for his statement that we have been repeatedly assured that there will be a Joint Select Committee of both Houses to resolve this difficulty.
That undertaking was given before a crucial vote in the passage of the House of Lords Bill. I am assured that votes were cast on that occasion in the light of that undertaking, which has not been honoured. It seems to me that it is not too late to honour it and that if the Government did that they would have a way out of the place into which they have dug themselves, because if there could be no agreement it would not be their fault. However, at the moment, as far as I can see, they can deliver that only by using a pitchfork on this House wielded from another place.
I believe that I have made the essential points. I shall not discuss composition. What matters now is what we do next. What we do next must surely be to address some means of achieving an intelligent and—I cannot remember the exact phrase of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford—receptive dialogue by going far enough back as regards our differences with the other place. That can be achieved only by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. I hope, therefore, that the Government will eventually fulfil that intention.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I begin exactly where the noble Lord, Lord Denham, began his speech yesterday, except that I was always led to believe that what he described took place not in Ballymurphy but in north Wales. I believe that it was in the town of Llangollen that a local inhabitant was approached by a foreign gentleman—I believe that he was English—who asked him the way to Dolgellau. After a thoughtful pause the reply came, "If I was you, I wouldn't start from here". If I were considering the reform of Parliament, I certainly would not start from here.
Some noble Lords may remember that from the beginning I have consistently questioned the wisdom of this whole adventure. In my experience of nearly 40 years in your Lordships' House I have always believed that the House of Lords functioned perfectly well in its previous incarnation. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said in his amusing speech, I do not think that it did any harm to anyone. However, it is not, of course, difficult to understand or to accept the ideological pressures which led to the decision to remove the majority of hereditary Peers from the House, although it seems to me that when that was done no one really seemed to know, or to have any clear idea, of what the next step might be.
The result is this somewhat ill received White Paper which is very much like what the Guardian has called a dog's dinner and what Field Marshal Montgomery used to call a dog's breakfast. Whatever unfortunate dog's meal we choose to compare the document with, it certainly pleases no one. It does not please those who want to see a fully elected House, those who would like to see a fully appointed House, those who would like to leave things alone or those who would like to abolish the second Chamber altogether. Indeed, it seems to please no one.
The alleged idea behind the White Paper is apparently to look for a compromise among all these contending approaches designed to produce a House which, like all the other modernisation projects to which we have been subjected over recent years, is supposed, in the jargon, to make it "fit for the 21st century", whatever that may mean. What it does in fact is to propose the establishment of a House which will be almost entirely under party control and even less capable than the House of Commons of holding the Government to account.
As we know, the White Paper proposes that the House should consist ultimately of 600 Members, of whom 120 are to be appointed independents. The remainder will be appointed by the party machines or elected on the iniquitous party list system—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, rightly described that as a democratic monstrosity; it is also an intellectually dishonest monstrosity—which means that everyone in the House envisaged in the White Paper except the 120 independents will be beholden to one of the main political parties.
There are many other aspects of the White Paper which seem to me to require more thought than has been devoted to them up to now but they have been
772
mentioned by most noble Lords who have spoken. In the short time at my disposal I want to deal specifically with some of those aspects of the White Paper which are relevant to the central need to secure a proper independent element in the new House, if and when it emerges.
In that context, perhaps I may say that I have been engaged in a study of the White Paper over some months, together with some other Members of the Cross Benches. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, mentioned that yesterday. We have already submitted a response to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in reply to his invitation to comment on the White Paper. I say in passing that the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, who was a member of the group which carried out the examination, much regrets that he is unable to take part in the debate as he cannot be present for all of it. However, he would like it to be known that he agrees fully with the report which the group submitted to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said somewhat ruefully yesterday, if anyone is rash enough to want to read that paper it can be made available. I wish to make a few brief points on it. The first, and to my mind the most important, concerns the definition of an independent Member of the House as described in the White Paper. It is in my view absolutely essential that that quota of 120 appointed independents should, if the plan ever comes to fruition, be truly and transparently independent in the truest sense of the word.
Any Member of your Lordships' House can, of course, sit on the Cross Benches and is entitled to call himself a Cross-Bencher. However, that does not necessarily mean that he should be counted as one of the 120 Members appointed as the independent quota. There have been some rather bizarre suggestions in that context, including that membership of a political party is not inconsistent with independence. I find that peculiar. It may be true in one sense, but it is, in my view, totally inconsistent with being an independent, in the sense of being part of the quota in the White Paper. We are talking not about intellectual or moral independence but political independence in the party sense.
The present Appointments Commission has already published its criteria for the assessment of nominations for non-political membership of this House. It specifically includes the requirement that nominees should be,
"independent of any political party",
and that they should be,
"independent of party political considerations, whatever their past political involvement".
That is clear enough to satisfy even the most earnest glottologist. The Government have, I understand, accepted that anyone who is nominated to the House from a minor political party will count against the political, not the independent, quota. It will also be necessary, in principle, to exclude from the independent quota many of those who have moved

773
from political parties and those who are not appointed as independents. Much of this is complicated and is sensitive to personalities. It can probably best be dealt with by way of clear undertakings from the Government and not necessarily in any Bill that is brought before your Lordships' House.
My next point is about the strange statement in paragraph 62 of the White Paper. It states, in relation to the independent quota, that,
"there should be some small margin allowed to the Appointments Commission to enable effective amendment of the size and balance of the House".
On that subject the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said,
"the Appointments Commission will need to re-balance the House after each General Election. It may yet find that it can do this more effectively by 'borrowing' temporarily a seat from the Independents".
The supporting documents to the White Paper state that the independent quota should be 20 per cent of the total,
"on average over the lifetime of a parliament".
All of that seems to me to be totally unacceptable. If the quota of independents is eroded, there is a serious risk that that erosion will become permanent or at least long term. The quota of independents, if it ever comes into being, must be inviolate and clearly laid down by statute. There is, after all, no reason why the total cap of 600 should be totally inflexible. If the necessary margin of variance is required, it could well be obtained by making that total flexible.
I move to the composition of the new statutory appointments commission, which will decide on quotas and appoint the non-political Members of the House. The make-up of that commission is therefore of great importance. I suggest that however it is appointed or composed, it should have a chairman who is an independent Member of this House with extensive experience of how it works, and a further independent Member of the House who also has extensive experience of how it works. I welcome the fact that one of the members of the commission, according to the White Paper, will be nominated by the Convenor.
However, parts 7 and 8 of the supporting documents, if I read them correctly, seem to accept that there might be no Members of the House among the independent members of the commission. That seems extraordinary.
Finally, there is the question of hereditary Peers. At the change, the House will lose 92 hereditary Peers and gain 120 elected Members. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has already dealt expertly with the mathematics of that. It seems essential that there should be some kind of commitment at the change that an appropriate number of replacement appointments should be made to the independent Members to take account of the varying expertise that will be lost. I advance a purely personal view on that. If the present proposals are adopted, the independents of this House will lose overnight 28 hereditary Peers, many of whom
774
have special experience and knowledge and are active in committee work. It seems to me that there is a case to be made for offering those hereditary Peers membership of the new House under the auspices of the appointments commission.
Given the volcanic eruptions in the other place and the somewhat more decorous exchanges in your Lordships' House over the past two days, it must by now be clear to the meanest intelligence, and even clearer to the formidable intellect of the noble and learned Lord, that legislation that is based on the White Paper has about as much chance of arriving on the statute book as I have of playing rugby for Wales—although, if last season is anything to go by, perhaps the chances are rather less. The Government will have to go back to the drawing board. There is something to be said, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for leaving things as they are—the House is working well and, outside political ideology, there is no reason for change. I have previously quoted in your Lordships' House the admirable dictum of the 17th century Lord Falkland, in the days when an hereditary peerage was not a target for envy and malice.
"When it is not necessary to change".
he said in his speech on the episcopy,
"it is necessary not to change".
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked: where do we go from here? My own prophecy, for what it is worth, is that precisely nothing will happen as a result of the White Paper.
In that context, I conclude by asking the Government for an assurance—if they can give it to me—that the removal of the remaining hereditary Peers is not the sole or principal aim of Her Majesty's Government. When the first stage of reform was implemented, it was clearly understood by all of us that the remaining hereditary Peers—the 92 who were left here—had a specific role to perform and that they would not be removed until the final reform of the House was being implemented. It would never occur to me for one moment to suggest that Her Majesty's Government would not honour that understanding fully. But perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, when he comes to reply, to give an undertaking to the House that, if in the long run the rest of this White Paper proves to be too difficult to translate into legislation, they will not contemplate simply removing the remaining hereditary Peers and leaving everything else unchanged.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, as the 68th speaker, I dare say that the less I say the greater the chances of the content being valued. Inevitably, what I do say must be a statement of support of many views that have already been expressed.
This House, like all institutions, is from time to time subjected to criticism—some justified and some not. However, I believe that it is generally perceived to carry out its revising, scrutinising, debating and

775
reporting functions rat her well. I believe that that was true even before the passing of the 1999 Act. I know that prior to the passage of that Act there were considerable objections to the composition of the House and the dominance of one political party, even if in practice, on a day-to-day basis, that was more theoretical than fact.
Nevertheless, for those for whom the composition and numbers posed a real problem, I submit that those issues have now been largely overcome. That leaves me wondering to a considerable degree why we are faced with these controversial proposals, with the consequent parliamentary time that would be taken if they were to be pursued, when there are so many other matters of pressing concern to Members in this House and to members of the public.
I concur wholeheartedly with noble Lords who have argued persuasively against an all-elected House. Without repeating all the previously rehearsed arguments, I particularly take that view because it is only a reform of this House which is being considered. Without reform of the other place and of the whole system of government, another wholly elected Chamber would add no value whatever to the political process.
Nor do I support the Government's proposals for a partly elected House. The reasons for such opposition have been well aired, not least the effect that the introduction of an elected element would have on the character and working of this House and its relations with the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and others made that very clear. I very much hope that we shall not now see the start of a kind of auction to discover who can put forward the most radical proposal for the greatest number of elected Members. I consider this matter to be too serious to be dealt with in that way.
Despite the opinion polls that have been referred to, submit—those of us who are not here full time do work in the real world—that there is little evidence that the public are anxious to elect yet another tier of government. My noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon and my noble friend Lord MacGregor drew attention to the generally-held favourable views of the public. Indeed, tonight the Evening Standard has even published a letter which, by and large, is favourable to your Lordships' House, even if it published a photograph of the judges rather than the rest of us. Perhaps that is indicative of the gap in understanding which must be closed.
The Government propose that a majority of political Members should be appointed. Personally I have no great problem with the involvement of the parties in that. How could I? I came here on the recommendation of a party leader, but for life. However, I do have a problem in reconciling the Government's proposal with the desire for independence. If independence is a principal consideration, as it should be, then the term of appointment should be as long as possible and there should be no prospect of reappointment. But, whatever the length, experience would undoubtedly be
776
lost on a regular basis. I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House can think of examples when considerable value has been given to our proceedings by Members who have been in the House for a much longer period than 15 years—never mind the shorter period being proposed by the Government.
I believe that the proposals to determine the number of Members so as to reflect the votes cast in the preceding general election will inevitably give rise to difficulty. They will give the impression that the government of the day are seeking to increase their grip on Parliament rather than increase its independence.
At this time of night, I believe that it is extremely dangerous to try to take issue with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal. However, I noted that in the debate on the sex discrimination Bill—again, talking about proportions, albeit of members of the Cabinet or of the House of Commons—he said, when asked about specific arithmetic, that that is the way in which British society has always worked; it does not work on a narrow, arithmetical calculation. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will be able to draw a distinction between what he said then and the point in the White Paper. Nevertheless, I believe that it is a fair point to make.
The Lord Chancellor asked us to be constructive. I shall be constructive and say to your Lordships' House that we should recognise the values of the present system, many of which would go needlessly under the Government's proposals.
The present system is flexible. It meets the majority of the Government's objectives, or could do so. The Government's proposals maintain the Cross-Benchers, the Law Lords and the Bishops largely as under the present system. I submit to your Lordships that existing life Peers of all parties are a better guarantee of independence than a party list elected set of Members and nominees eligible for re-appointment or re-election, or vice versa. This is not to be an elected House and its composition may therefore be subject to different considerations.
To those in the other place who would have us all or largely elected, let us make it clear that we do not claim to be better for reason of non-election, merely different. We are different because we are here for a different purpose. We are, in the words of the Lord Chancellor, a vital check and balance. We are part of the same Parliament, of which the other place is also a part, but a Parliament in which the other place will always prevail. It may be at a cost of some time, delay or loss of particular detail, but prevail it always will.
We do not seek to change that position. As other noble Lords have said, our powers are largely adequate and justify our composition. Any attempt to equalise powers would not be justified by our composition, and the Government do not propose significantly greater powers with a different and less adequate composition. We do not look down on elected office. I held elected office, albeit at local level, for 30 years. I hope that it does not embarrass the Lord Chancellor if I repeat his comments about there being other sources of democratic legitimacy other than election.

777
The present system has many merits. We should have confidence in the House and ourselves. Members in all quarters of the House have different experiences, achievements and expertise. We should acknowledge that the life Peers who take a Whip have all been appointed by someone. Everyone is someone's crony, if one wants to use that rather pejorative term. I prefer that it were not so used. If it is not invidious to draw attention to the fact, we have already seen many new Members of your Lordships' House exercising, both in speeches and in votes, the independence which has characterised this House for a very long period of time.
The present system permits the practice of appointing people to serve as Ministers. That is a practice known to Prime Ministers of different parties. The Government's proposals would limit this quite considerably and the individuals who have held important offices within the country—a question raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley—and indeed the kind of almost automatic right of former Cabinet Ministers to a seat in this House. All these advantages could be lost under the somewhat limited proposals of the Government.
With the independent commission and the Prime Minister's commitment—if honoured—not to have a House dominated by one party, the regional balance, which is apparently one of the objectives of the elected Peers, could be easily achieved and all the difficult questions of a mixed House, election, numbers and re-appointment or re-election would not arise.
The present system also ensures, as has been referred to on many occasions, that the House is a part-time House. I believe that the involvement of as many outside Members as possible is an important feature.
Lastly, the presence of 92 hereditary Peers would be ended under the Government's proposals. But the House has now moved to a situation where there is no overall majority for any party. If noble Lords who sit here by succession forgive the phrase, the historical anomaly is immaterial and their presence does, and will continue to, add an element of independence. That was argued by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. The register, far from being the ultimate closed list as described by the Lord Chancellor, is, after all, determined by accident of birth and rather more open than any party list that we have so far seen.
While it is inevitable if the Government's proposals are proceeded with, on a personal note I see no reason why we should be so eager to break the link with the peerage, which is, after all, a constantly evolving institution and provides a historical link and justification for the House and the powers that we now have.
9.20 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I had the privilege of being a member of the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords. Therefore, if I may, I shall speak from that perspective rather than as part of the official response of the Church of England.
778
In their response to the Wakeham report, the Government reject the idea of an appointments commission responsible for political appointments as well as Cross-Benchers. I think that that is a pity. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, set out the reasons why we thought that such an appointments commission was desirable and necessary. Nevertheless, if a consensus—and it is a very big "if"—eventually emerged around the Government's proposal for a more limited appointments commission than the Wakeham report envisaged, I should like to put forward two suggestions which might go some way to meet our concerns.
One major concern of the Royal Commission was that a reformed second Chamber should be properly representative of both gender and race. It would be a statutory duty of the appointments commission to ensure that a minimum of 30 per cent of new Members of the second Chamber should be women and 30 per cent men. It would be required to use its best endeavours to ensure that the level of representation for minority ethnic groups was at least proportionate to their presence in the population as a whole. The Government accept this principle but lay the requirement of ensuring it for political appointments on the political parties rather than the appointments commission. Paragraph 35 of Completing the Reform, "Supporting Documents", states:
"The duty would be laid on each of those parties in exactly the same way as it would be on the Appointments Commission".
It also stresses that:
"The Appointments Commission's monitoring functions should also provide plenty of early warning to the parties when they are in danger of failing to meet their targets, so they can rectify the situation".
But what statutory powers would the appointments commission have if the political parties over a period of time failed to achieve the required gender or ethnic balance? A monitoring and warning function is better than nothing, but I believe that the appointments commission should have statutory powers to reject a political party's nomination if that party, over the lifetime of a Parliament, was not meeting its targets.
My second suggestion concerns the Bolshie Back-Bencher or, to put it more politely, the independent-minded party Member who is out of favour with his party's leadership. This was a particular concern of the Royal Commission. We wanted to ensure that it was possible for independent-minded people of political experience to make their contribution to a reformed second Chamber even if they did not have the support of the party leadership. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, of 11th December, addresses this question. The Lord Chancellor writes:
"If the Member in question ended up, as I think they would have to, on the cross benches, then the independence of those benches might be compromised".
And that highlights the problem. How can an independent-minded person get into a reformed second Chamber on the Government's proposals? They are too independent-minded to receive their party nomination, yet because of their party affiliation

779
it is not appropriate for them to come through the appointments procedure as an independent, non-party person to take their place on the Cross Benches. That would be an injustice and a loss to the second Chamber. So again I should like to make a modest suggestion.
If a consensus did eventually build up round the Government's proposal for political appointments rather than the proposal of the Wakeham commission for an appointments commission responsible for all appointments—it is a big "if"—I believe that the appointments commission, in addition to appointing 120 Cross—Benchers, should have the power over the lifetime of a Parliament to appoint up to 10 experienced politicians who would not otherwise have a route into the second Chamber and who, it judged, still had an important contribution to make. Such people would sit with their party but perhaps would not be taken into account by the appointments commission when doing its arithmetic for a balanced House.
As regards the method of election, the Government have recognised, as the Royal Commission did, that the balance of advantage for one method rather than another is difficult to discern. They go for election coinciding with a general election. My preferred option is still that of the Royal Commission: to tie in with the European elections. That would make the tenure a fixed one, whether for one term of five years or two terms and 10 years. The Government favour a shorter term, rather than the Royal Commission's proposal of three terms, or 15 years, or even two terms and 10 years.
The Government stress the need for accountability. The commission's concern was to achieve a genuine independence of outlook in a reformed second Chamber. That is much more likely if the elected Members are there for at least two terms, amounting to 10 years, and the appointed Members are appointed for at least 10 years. That would provide Members with the necessary long-term perspective and independence of outlook which are essential to the functioning of a reflective, reforming second Chamber. It is crucial that Members are here for a longer period rather than a short one—at least 10 years, rather than the five seemingly favoured by the Government.
I should now like to focus on the issue of religious representation. Again, I stress that I am speaking from my perspective as a member of the Royal Commission rather than as part of the Church of England's official response. The Royal Commission's proposal had three elements: first, the maintenance of a Church of England presence reduced from 26 to 16; secondly, 10 Christian leaders from denominations other than the Church of England, coming not only from England but from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and, thirdly, at least five religious leaders from non-Christian faiths.
The Government's response to the Wakeham commission recognises the difficulties with which we had to grapple in that area and acknowledges the
780
ingenuity with which the Royal Commission attempted to deal with very difficult issues. The Government accept the reduction in the number of Church of England bishops from 26 to 16 but they have concluded that the practical obstacles of making workable the other proposals for religious representation are simply too great. There are indeed difficulties but they are not insurmountable.
First, under our proposals, with which the Government agree, all appointments except Church of England bishops would come through an independent appointments commission. When it comes to non-Christian faiths, there are at present no truly representative bodies, except perhaps in the case of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, so the appointments commission would have to consult widely and use its judgment.
It was never the case under our proposals that every religion would find representation in the House of Lords. Rather, through a process of consultation and head-hunting, the appointments commission would find significant figures representing a range of religions. It would be the quality of the people concerned and their potential contribution that would be taken into account as much as the fact that they were respected figures in a particular religious tradition. Where the Government depart from the Royal Commission's proposals is in their reluctance to allocate a certain number of seats for such figures. While the Government say that the appointments commission will have to take account of religious leaders of non-Christian faiths, that is obviously much weaker than having a certain number of seats reserved for that category.
When it comes to Christian denominations other than the Church of England, I confess a particular sense of disappointment at how the Government have emphasised the difficulties rather than the opportunities. Again, the Royal Commission did not think it either appropriate or possible for every Christian denomination to find representation. Rather, we believed that through a proper process of consultation, broadly representative figures of a range of Christian denominations could be identified.
The key to our proposals was the so-called ecumenical instruments. For example, under our proposal there would be two places for Christian denominations in Scotland. The ecumenical instrument, Action of Churches Together in Scotland, would be consulted. No doubt, through its consultation with Scottish Christians, it would come up with a name from the Church of Scotland and a Roman Catholic name. At this point, another complication arises because, as I understand it, Roman Catholic priests are precluded by present Vatican rules from being a Member of Parliament, even of the House of Lords. So, unless that rule were rescinded, the Roman Catholic name would have to be that of a lay person—perhaps a leading religious sister. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth reminded us earlier, in the Middle Ages leading lay religious figures were Members of this House in the form of abbots, who sat with the bishops.

781
Leaving aside that difficulty, we envisage names emerging from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and from England Christian denominations other than the Church of England to take up the 10 places that have been removed from the Church of England bishops. The appointments commission could work with the ecumenical bodies in that way to identify appropriate people, not to represent every denomination—that was never the point—but to give a broad spread of respected religious figures.
I feel a particular sense of disappointment about the issue because before the Reformation there was a unified Christian presence in the House. Over the past century, there have been huge steps towards Christian unity, and there is the possibility of once again having a more unified Christian presence, symbolised by the leaders of different denominations. Sixteen Church of England bishops and 10 leaders of Christian denominations other than the Church of England is an attractive proposal and I am sorry that the Government have shied away from it because of the difficulties—difficulties that I acknowledge, of course.
There is a general direction to the appointments commission to consult widely for appropriate Christian leaders but no specific number of seats has been reserved for them. In effect, the number of Church of England bishops has been reduced from 26 to 16, with no corresponding take-up by other Christian denominations or other faith leaders. I know that the Cross-Bench Peers also have concerns as to whether religious leaders—Christians or others—who are identified by the appointments commission are to count as part of the 120 or as additional. A specific number of seats should be reserved, in addition to the 120 Cross-Benchers.
Rather than argue against the Government's response, I have tried to suggest ways in which their proposals could be modified to meet at least some of the concerns of the Royal Commission. In practice, that means strengthening the role and responsibilities of a truly independent appointments commission by giving it statutory powers—not just an advisory function—in relation to political parties, to ensure that over the lifetime of a Parliament political nominations reflect a proper gender and ethnic balance. Secondly, we should give the appointments commission up to 10 extra seats to be reserved for experienced politicians who would not otherwise have a route into the House because they were unpopular with their party leadership and who would not be eligible to be Cross-Benchers. Thirdly, at least some seats should be reserved for non-Christian faiths and Christian denominations other than the Church of England, over and above the 120 seats allocated to Cross-Benchers. At the least, the 10 seats that would no longer be allocated to Church of England bishops should be set aside for other religious representation, Christian and non-Christian.
It is desperately important that a way forward be found to complete the reform of the House. It would be truly shocking, as well as highly unsatisfactory, if no consensus could be found and we were left with a
782
House in a permanent state of transition. The Wakeham proposals still represent the best way forward. However, if the Government's response is to provide a starting point for the building of a new consensus, those ideas must be modified in various ways, including the three modest proposals that I have made.
9.33 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, as number 70 on the list of speakers, I am discovering that everything that I wanted to say has already been said—almost everything. The advantage that accrues to your Lordships is that I shall be brief. Listening to the debate, I was struck by the fact that the White Paper has found practically no supporters. Against that background, the advice proffered by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that he might tear up the White Paper and start again has some resonance.
I am against having any elected element in your Lordships' House. The work that we do as a revising Chamber is not suited to having elected Members and certainly not via the much discredited closed-list system which has been referred to by previous speakers. My noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon spoke powerfully in that vein. I believe that there is a great need to retain and foster the independence which currently exists in your Lordships' House and that has been a feature of many speeches today.
In anticipating the debate, I tabled a Starred Question on Monday 17th December, which was to ask Her Majesty's Government:
"In the context of their proposals for House of Lords reform whether they considered that list systems will deliver appropriate levels of independence among the membership of the House".
That was answered by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. In answer to a supplementary question, he said:
"My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that independence is a prized attribute of most, if not all, Members of this House. I personally am a strong supporter of that".—[Official Report, 17/1/01; col. 7.]
Against that background, I hope that the House will permit me to say that we on this side are hearing rumours that an independently minded member of the Government Benches—namely, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon—has been expelled from the party. I do not know whether that is true, but I hope that in winding up the noble and learned Lord will comment on it. If it is true, I hope that he can say how he will square that circle.
Whatever anyone says, I believe that a part-elected House will become a hybrid House. The White Paper states that the present balance between the two Houses should not be disturbed. If one takes that to its logical conclusion, the only way to achieve it is to maintain the status quo.
As one of the hereditary Peers who survived the first cull, I join other noble Lords in declaring that I have an interest in the White Paper. When I survived the

783
first cull I was extremely grateful for the support I received from my noble friends during the election process. I believe that those who were not fortunate enough to remain are looking to us who were more fortunate to seek to achieve as good a House, or a better House, than currently exists before we take our final bow.
The proposals in the White Paper will not achieve that. Apparently, that is also the opinion of the vast majority of speakers in the debate. There must be consensus on such an important issue because, ultimately, it is a parliamentary matter and not a party one. My noble friend Lord Denham made that point most forcefully in his speech yesterday and many other speakers have supported it.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord in winding up will say whether in view of the White Paper's reception he will now make good his undertaking to set up a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament. I honestly believe that that is the only way in which we can expect to move forward with the Government's desire to complete the reform.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, this debate has shown how difficult it is to square the circle of conflicting aims and traditions, or what Sir Isaiah Berlin called the incommensurable aims. That difficulty has been exacerbated by the media presenting the historic proposition of a move to 20 per cent elected Members—a number at the high end, backed by Wakeham—and 80 per cent appointed Members, as if we were starting from scratch. The conclusion that I draw is not that the White Paper has got it wrong but that there is a massive job of communication and that we need to build on the prospect or a review after stage two has been running for a period.
There is the current understandable opportunism of the Opposition, which highlights another message that I hope will be understood by those Labour MPs who think that going for a big proportion of elected Members in this House will somehow enhance the future of socialism. Apart from anything else, they should appreciate that the proportional system, whether open or closed, would never give Labour a majority but would do the maximum to exacerbate the clashes of legitimacy, given our way of dealing with legislation in this country which, incidentally, is not exactly the same as other legislatures in other countries with which comparisons have been made.
I shall make a final political point and then leave that issue alone. We know where the Liberal Democrats are coming from. They are being handed the key to the gridlock, which is a rational position for them.
My advice to the Government is to stick to Wakeham even more closely than we are already doing and to revisit some of the differences. We cannot move lock, stock and barrel overnight from a rationale based on experience and a degree of independence, albeit largely rooted in political parties, which is the basis of
784
parliamentary democracy from Walpole and earlier, to a clone of the House of Commons. There is no doubt that the processes of electoral democracy and the selection of candidates produces particular sorts of candidates to the exclusion of others. They would be more like MPs; that is the nature of the animal.
They will not thank me for saying it, but many of our colleagues in the House of Commons are schizophrenic on that central point. Much as they love us dearly, which is of course fully reciprocated, some tend to cast aspersions to our disadvantage on any and every point that differentiates the two Houses. What then is the real democratic logic of the differentiation of composition, as opposed to function, between the two Houses? Surely the central point was that enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, when he said that we certainly needed elections to choose a government, but that was not what we were about. That is a clear and fair point which I think the country seems to understand better than some in Parliament.
I shall anticipate the remarks of my noble and learned friend the Lord Privy Seal in trying to list 10 points that have come out of the debate. First, as my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde said, members of the Royal Commission decided to strain every sinew to reach a consensus. That is a very strong argument for Wakeham, even though the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has had to exaggerate the difference between the Royal Commission's report and the White Paper. Wakeham presented a very elaborate jigsaw puzzle and in essence I do not think that we should pick and choose the parts that we like and those that we do not.
Secondly, once Wakeham had unanimously recommended a degree of election, there was no way in which our Government could—or would—reject that recommendation. I have served on Royal Commissions which have not been unanimous and in my view, unanimity is extremely powerful.
Thirdly, any immediate move towards a totally elected House would fall foul of what the Fabian Society used to call the "inevitability of gradualness", an aphorism I found intensely irritating in my youth.
Fourthly, paragraph 39 of the White Paper is surely right when it states that two wholly elected Chambers would be a recipe for gridlock. Why is that? Their legitimacies would be hard to tell apart and mediate between. Our two Houses do not operate in the same way as those in France and Germany and thus mediation would be more difficult.
Fifthly, simply because we have to square a number of circles, it is all too easy for phrases such as "dog's breakfast" to be used or, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, prefers, the phrase "dog's dinner". In any case, I prefer my own animal metaphors, or perhaps one coined by Ernest Bevin, which I may have adapted. On one particularly difficult proposition he proclaimed:
"Brothers, if you open up that Pandora's Box, you will find it full of Trojan Horses".

785
Sixthly, we are already a hybrid House and the difficulty of accommodating 20 per cent elected Members can be and has been greatly exaggerated. Incidentally, it does not necessarily follow that it would lead inevitably to a 100 per cent elected membership, or anything like it.
Seventhly, those 20 per cent elected Members would bring extra qualities to those of the rest of us, principally for the reasons indicated by my noble friend Lord Dubs. However, at the start, any number much higher than 100 to 120 new Members would be impossible to square with the 10-year cap of 600 Members, which is surely right and necessary. After all, it is only with a credible cap on the size of the House that the appointments commission will be able to work out the arithmetic.
Eighthly, there is a paradox in that the legitimacy of elected Members would be very low if the election attracted only a low turn-out. It has already been said that democratic legitimacy is not only about ballot boxes. We should be ready to issue a new health warning against a condition called "ballot box fatigue". As Sir Bernard Ingham would have said, "The House of Lords elections are not what they will be talking about in the Dog and Duck in Hebden Bridge".
Ninthly, our colleagues in the House of Commons have a style of political point scoring and general partisanship which is not true of this House and neither we nor the country in general would wish to import it.
Tenthly, the 120 Cross-Benchers form a substantial element of the House. We all take it as an axiom that Cross-Benchers cannot be elected, but rather they constitute a separate, protected species. I have to say that unreal expectations were built up by the media about the People's Peers, and we are all suffering from that. Incidentally, on numbers, I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford that if 20 Bishops would make sense for the Bishops' rota rather than 16 Bishops, which sounds quite plausible to me, then why should they not have 20? Today we are not debating the web of arrangements which we call the establishment of the Church of England, but we support it and it must be allowed to work properly. In general I am in sympathy with the wider points put by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford.
Inevitably, almost all noble Lords have concentrated on the composition of the House to the exclusion of its function. I simply underline the fact that here, too, it is in the interests of Parliament that we reach an understanding on the role we play best in this House. I shall mention two fields in which I happen to be involved. First, I refer to the European dimension. We must become more heavily involved before EU decisions are taken. We must also develop closer links across Europe, as well as in the implementation of European legislation in Britain.
Secondly, and in part related to my first point, is the consideration of secondary legislation. My membership of the Joint Committee on Statutory
786
Instruments has been an eye opener indeed. Each week we nod through about six inches of legislation—I do not mean six inches going down the page but six inches when you measure the height of the pile of paper—and we get through it in about six minutes. This is not because we are lazy but because, quite frankly, the process is really only to check that the semi-colons are in the right place.
In the longer perspective, this White Paper may be seen as launching a pilot project, the results of which can be judged after mature reflection. After all, we could have a succession of constitutional reforms every few years. I recall the characterisation of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, of European summits and treaty changes, drawing on the Old Testament, that Maastricht begat Amsterdam, and Amsterdam begat Luxembourg, and Luxembourg begat Nice, and Nice begat Berlin, and so on ad infinitum.
We have to make provision for something similar. This is so complex that it is quite unlikely that every aspect will be right from the word go. For example, I am not convinced of the logic of paragraph 51 of the White Paper where it states that the Government are attracted to holding the elections to the Lords on the same day as the general election on the grounds that this would ensure a higher turn-out. Is not that a polite way of saying that it is the best way of disguising the fact that an election to the Lords on its own might produce a derisory turn-out? Indeed, who of us would want to turn out and vote for a free-standing House of Lords election?
Incidentally, it is a well-established fact in most elections—let us speak plainly—that people vote for the party. In that connection, if independents were so wildly popular they would stand and be elected on their merits. My inclination on the terms of the election rules would be to stick with Wakeham, the closed list being far too easy to characterise—as it was by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf—as appointments masquerading as elections and convincing no one.
We have to move in stages. The reform of the work of this House is very much the acid test of the relationship with the House of Commons. The 10-year transition will certainly be needed, and it may be that we can move towards 15 years if the numbers are easier in that setting. I hope that the Government will give themselves the breathing space to not only consider everything that has been said but to give the Opposition time to decide whether or not they wish to make a constructive input to a consensus around Wakeham. I trust that ultimately they will.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, this has been a most extraordinary debate. I know from conversations that I am not alone in finding myself substantially in agreement with almost every speaker, even though most of their conclusions differ enormously. This demonstrates a recognition that, in the situation we find ourselves, no option is perfect. Our task is to try to determine the least bad option.

787
This is further complicated by the question of the appetite of the hitherto indifferent public. Five years ago, the general public most certainly were indifferent to the composition of this House, but now that the appetite of the public has been artificially whetted by the Government, how is it to be fully satisfied?
In her excellent speech yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, reminded us that we are, above all, a revising and scrutinising Chamber. This was echoed by my noble friend Lady Strange, among many others. But the general public do not realise this—and who can possibly blame them? Most of what we do is too technical and boring, albeit extremely important, to interest the press, radio or television. Yet so much of this revision is non-political—or, at any rate, non-party political—and the same can be said of Select Committee deliberations and reports.
This, combined with the fact that because of the Salisbury convention and the Parliament Act the government of the day always get their way after an occasional short delay—at least 99.5 per cent of the lime—leads me to make the doubtless heretical suggestion that the political balance of this House is not all that important, provided that it is not grotesquely skewed towards one or other party. Expertise and experience matter far more than politics, which is why the preference expressed yesterday by my noble friend Lord Neill of Bladen and by many others for a totally non-elected House has decided attractions.
Perhaps I may diffidently cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking. If I interpret his words correctly, he said that, because we exercise power, the House ought to be mainly elected. Yes, we do exercise power—but only with the consent of the other place. Not a single Bill or amendment emanating from this House gets anywhere at all unless it is subsequently endorsed by the House of Commons—which is as it should be. It is true that we have delaying powers, but they are pretty trivial in the last resort.
I go further than my noble friend Lord Neill and claim that there is little wrong with the status quo. Before Ministers mutter, "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?", I point out that this was first proposed yesterday evening by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who is a totally disinterested party with no personal axe to grind. However, now that Pandora's Box has been opened, it may be politically too late for a non-elected Chamber, however cogent the arguments in its favour may be—and they are cogent.
However, if you are rejecting tradition and starting anew from first principles, as the Government are doing, you will have quite a job explaining to the public why the United Kingdom should be almost unique in the civilised world in having a mainly non-elected second Chamber. The exceptions are the Senates of Canada and the Republic of Ireland. But they have very little to do, whereas this House is the hardest working second Chamber in the world, as was recently shown. That is largely because of the prolixity of legislation, about which my noble and learned
788
friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale rightly complains. That is not just the fault of the present Government. Previous administrations, both Labour and Conservative, were almost as bad.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that the choice lies between a totally non-elected House of Lords and a largely elected one. The fudged so-called "middle way" of having a token elected element simply will not wash. If the Government want any support in terms of public opinion or press opinion, elected Members will have to be in the majority. I favour the proposal for an elected element of 662/3 per cent as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
Of course, elected Members must be differentiated from MPs as much as possible. They should be elected under some form of PR, but certainly not under the closed list system. Election should be for a non-renewable 15-year term—as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—or for the slightly shorter term of 12½, years (three parliamentary terms), as suggested by the Wakeham commission, coupled with the widely approved 10-year gap before they are eligible to stand for election to the House of Commons.
Although the point has not been mentioned, I think—though many may disagree—that the 5 per cent threshold is wrong. Anyone—those on the extreme Left or the extreme Right, supporters of Al'Qaeda, advocates of the legalisation of hard drugs or, more benignly, champions of an independent Cornwall—should be eligible for election if they achieve 1 or 2 per cent of the vote. Why not? It is better to have extreme views represented in the House than in a possibly sinister, extra-parliamentary forum. It would be dangerous to have such people in the House of Commons, especially if the Government had a small majority; but they could do little harm in this House, and would soon be tamed by our civilised atmosphere. Some of that civilisation might trick le its way back towards the people who elected them. From what he said yesterday, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, would agree with at least some of what I have said.
It ought to be possible to elect independents. Many of those elected under a party label will become de facto independents or semi-independents over time, as happens today. However, if only 20 per cent are to be elected, as the Government want, different considerations will have to apply. To prevent the public feeling totally cheated of the voice that they were promised in the Lords, that derisory 20 per cent would have to do the public's bidding, being elected for the same terms as MPs and kicked out at the end of four or five years if their performance was judged unsatisfactory by those who elected them. With a mere one-fifth of the seats, there would be little room for rebels or mavericks, whereas a larger proportion of elected Peers could accommodate quite a few rebels and mavericks without the public fussing or feeling that their views were being ignored.

789
The Government try to justify their proposals by talking about the alleged need to represent the regions. At the risk of offending a great many noble Lords, and in particular members of the Royal Commission, I submit that that is nonsense. The regions are perfectly well represented in both Houses of Parliament as things stand. We are not like the people of the larger continental countries, who think of themselves as Bretons, Alsatians or Meridionales, as Rheinlanders or Saxons, as citizens of Galicia or Catalonia, or as citizens of the Mezzogiorno, ranged against the citizens of the Veneto, Lombardy and the rest of the Northern League.
The differences in this country are much more between town and country. A Northumbrian hill farmer has little in common with the proprietor of an amusement arcade in Gateshead, even though they may live no more than 25 miles apart as the crow flies. A Cornish fisherman has very little in common with his neighbour—a wealthy retired individual from London who has snapped up the next door cottage at the expense of the fisherman's son, who cannot afford it because of the iniquitous common fisheries policy. There is not the same community of interest within the regions, nor the local patriotism that exists on the Continent.
Some may point to the example of Scotland, which may be thought of as totally united, with everybody singing from the same hymn sheet; but I wonder. Already it seems that the people of the Borders and the Highlands are feeling squashed by Strathclyde—I mean the region, not the Peer!
There are surely two things that virtually everybody can agree on. The first is total rejection of the corporate state. Even the Government agree that there should he no question of people being given seats on the basis of being delegates of the CBI, the TUC, the NFU or whatever—and thank goodness for that. The second—although this is not quite so universally accepted, notably by the Government and by the noble Lord, Lord Lea, who preceded me—is that whatever proportion of Peers is elected, if any, on no account should they be elected under the dreadful and essentially undemocratic closed list system.
10.3 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, so far in this long debate we have achieved a consensus on two important issues. First, universal disapproval of the White Paper has been expressed from all sides of the House. Its shortcomings have been summed up by many, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, he did not call the proposals a "dog's breakfast", but he used vivid culinary imagery of his own and may well have hit the mark when describing the White Paper's contents as "half baked".
However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who defended the proposals, also managed to be in tune with the mood of the House.
790
Wisely and almost telepathically, before hearing any other contributions, he indicated in his opening speech his willingness to think again.
The second consistent aspect in this debate is also rather paradoxical. Your Lordships have stressed that, if the White Paper really were adopted, the best to be hoped for would be damage limitation. Equally, however, as has been pointed out, the worst and far more probable outcome of the White Paper's implementation would be an erosion in the quality of function that currently obtains in this House. While clearly very disappointing, it is perhaps also quite curious that such a negative and misguided prospect should be able to emanate from any White Paper, let alone from one on constitutional reform.
Nevertheless, as many noble Lords have observed, there are a number of quite simple and constructive ways in which to enhance the quality of parliamentary function. Such can and should be done both in this House and in another place. Ironically enough, some parts of the White Paper, when amended and redirected, can assist the process.
On enhanced parliamentary value, I shall touch on three themes to arrive at a certain conclusion. First, there should be a particular target for this House: to improve the balance of its membership without eroding the quality of its function. Secondly, there should be a joint parliamentary objective for both this place and another place: to hold the executive to account to a considerably greater extent. The third theme follows directly from the second: the prospect of a better service by politicians to the country and a much more competent form of political delivery as and when Parliament begins properly to hold the executive to account.
The conclusions from the three themes, when connected together, may be fairly obvious: the need for a cross-party process and consensus affecting parliamentarians in both this House and the other place. As indicated, the simple purpose of that process is to improve political delivery within the country through increased scrutiny by Parliament of the executive.
The initial theme in regard to this House is how an independent appointments commission might augment the balance of membership without eroding the quality of function. First, the commission should be established as envisaged within the Wakeham report, thereby covering all political groups as well as the Cross-Benchers.
Secondly, although it should indeed, as recommended in the White Paper, seek a balance of gender and ethnicity in making its appointments, it should also appoint Members and deal with representation from the regions.
Thirdly, and consequently, new appointments made by the commission would not co-exist with new elected Members to this House, as advocated in the White Paper. That is based on the argument adduced by many, and very clearly by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, that new Members would always be

791
freer from party political control if they were entirely appointed by an independent statutory commission rather than elected.
Fourthly, and arising from current statistics, the commission would therefore be expected to appoint just under 20 Members per year.
In that connection, and fifthly, no groups of current Members would be retired or removed from this House, as suggested in the White Paper. While there is a strong probability that such action would be disruptive to and decrease the quality of function in this House, conversely, there is no proper evidence at all that it would do the opposite and thus increase the quality of function.
The second theme is the joint task for parliamentarians from this House and from the other place to hold the executive to account. Recently in this place the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, introduced an excellent debate on the subject of Parliament and the executive. In considering ways of redressing the imbalance between the two in this country, we are all grateful to my noble friends Lord Newton of Braintree and Lord Norton of Louth, both of whose committees have produced much useful guidance.
For Members of the other place, career prospects within Parliament as distinct from within the Government must become far more attractive. Hence also independent-mindedness and the deliberative function must be encouraged far more in the other place. As also indicated, not least will such a change of direction augment public confidence in the operation of both party politics and executive control—each often accused of stifling parliamentary scrutiny and debate and each currently held in the country in very low esteem.
When the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House winds up today I am quite sure that he will indicate support for the current leader of the other place in his undertakings to improve parliamentary scrutiny and effectiveness; and that equally he would wish this House to assist that process in a variety of ways. Clearly this House can give constructive help to the process of adaptation in the other place. As it is, there is a fairly satisfactory balance between Lords and Commons Select Committee work. The two are able to complement each other. However, there are anomalies. For example, in this House, and as has been said, there is still no foreign affairs Select Committee. As a number of noble Lords observed, another inconsistency is that while Select Committee scrutiny applies to the European Union, it does not go beyond that boundary to address Council of Europe conventions, let alone to consider international treaties.
It has been contended that parliamentary scrutiny of relevant matters within that wider area should appropriately be set up through a committee in this House. Perhaps the Leader of the House may agree that such would be a good and timely development, all the more so in the context of this debate.
792
The third theme is the enhanced degree of political delivery which arises from an increased level of parliamentary scrutiny of the executive. Why should that be so? The connection may simply be self-evident: through consideration of the greater degree of trust by the public in both Parliament and government once Parliament is seen to have more say in what is planned and done.
In summary, one benefit from this debate on the flawed White Paper is a developing consensus and sharper focus upon the need for carrying out a much more important and cogent agenda. This is to promote enhanced quality and increased parliamentary scrutiny. And the purpose of that is to achieve improved political delivery. The process depends upon cross-party co-operation and joint initiatives between both Houses. In the other place every encouragement should be given to proposed reforms seeking to broaden opportunities and attitudes. In this House, the present quality of function must not be diminished. An independent statutory appointments commission along Wakeham lines should operate to deal with future membership. It should redress as necessary the imbalances of political patronage. And it should establish a balance of its own, reflecting Lords' representation of different groups of the population and of the regions themselves.
10.13 p.m.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in opening this debate, threw down the gauntlet to those of us who believe in real reform. He asserted that if the rights of existing life Peers are respected, there is no scope at present for more than 120 elected Members. He said that those who say that there should be more than 120 elected should explain where the scope for them exists. That I shall now do.
My noble friend and leader Lady Williams of Crosby explained yesterday that we on these Benches believe that over a 10 to 15-year period there will be no numbers problem. Let us start from the right figures. In his speech the Lord Chancellor quoted the current party strengths correctly, giving a total of 675 Peers including the hereditaries but excluding the Bishops. Those are shown in today's Analysis of Composition pinned up in the Library. Unfortunately, the same Analysis of Composition shows that there are now 584 life Peers, not 587 as the Lord Chancellor said in his speech. His figures are out of date already. They were White Paper figures from 15th October.
The average age of life Peers in this House is 69, and we die on average at 81. So, sadly although not surprisingly, three life Peers have died since October. That is in line with the average of 18 a year in recent years. Therefore, the problem is already less than the Government have led us to believe.
We on these Benches believe that the best date for electing the first 120 Members of the new reformed House would be June 2004, on the same day as elections to the European Parliament. Indeed, I think that there is a good case for making it local election day

793
as well, as that worked well in June last year. We propose that those 120 Members should be elected for a 10-year term. June 2004 is two and a half years away. On current trends the number of life Peers will fall by another 45 by that date, leaving a House of 659 Members, excluding the Bishops, or 675 if one includes the 16 Bishops the Government propose in their White Paper—exactly the same size House, coincidentally, as we have today. That is hardly a serious problem. Five years further on, in June 2009, there would be room to elect a second tranche of 120 Members for a 10-year term as 90 more existing life Peers would probably have died, giving a short-term maximum of 705 before the numbers start to fall rapidly again.
Those figures are maxima. They keep the current number of 28 Law Lords, whereas paragraph 64 of the White Paper proposes only 12 Law Lords and,
"probably, some other Law Lords between the ages of 70 and 75".
They also include 39 current life Peers who did not attend the House at all throughout the previous Session. It does not seem unreasonable to me to consider some bare minimum attendance requirement to continue as a Member of the new House, such as attending a single Sitting in a Session. But even if that is thought rather revolutionary a proposal, it makes little sense to include those "virtual" Peers in the totals. Most importantly of all, the totals make no allowance for voluntary retirement of existing life Peers, as foreshadowed both in the Wakeham report and in paragraph 95 of the White Paper.
We believe that Members of the House should be able formally to retire if they so wish. It also seems reasonable, following the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, and others, that they should receive some form of lump sum retirement grant, as do retiring Members of the House of Commons. Even if only one-tenth, say, of life Peers now aged between 70 and 80 chose to retire, that would still reduce the new House by 16 immediately, with perhaps another 15 over the next 10 years. If a quarter of that age category chose to retire now, the reduction would be 40.
Therefore, it is perfectly possible to move within the next seven and a half years to 240 elected Members, double the White Paper's pitiful proposal, while still keeping well within the Government's self-imposed transitional maximum House of 750 Members. There would almost certainly be room for the Appointments Commission to continue to appoint up to 10 genuinely independent life Peers each year.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord has just referred to a lump sum payment for retiring life Peers. Would he like to backdate that to all those hereditary Peers who left a couple of years ago?
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: No, my Lords, because life Peers are appointed for life and hereditary Peers are not. I do not propose any particular figure. I just point out that that is another reason why there is no problem as regards moving to a figure of 240. It is another reason why the figures are comfortable.
794
The Appointments Commission itself certainly needs reform. If I may twist an ancient proverb to ask a modern question, we need to ask, "Quis creabit ipsos creatores?" or, who will appoint the appointers? I suggest three changes there. I do not support gender, race or any other form of quota for democratic elections. If we have an open list system, the people will be able to choose within, as well as between, parties. But, by contrast, for the next 10 years at least I believe that each year's appointments of non-party Peers should contain equal numbers of men and women. The reformed commission should also contain equal numbers of men and women. It would be a good start to have a woman in the chair. If she is a Member of this House, could we please have a reasonably regular attender? And if I had the job, I should make sure that there was a hairdresser in the first list.
There is no room in our proposals for political patronage. The Lord Chancellor said that his proposals signal a huge decrease in the Prime Minister's powers of patronage. That is a proud claim, but if those powers are a bad thing and need to be hugely decreased, why not do the job properly and abolish them altogether? Forget the arguments between Wakeham and the White Paper about who should pick the new party political Peers; the answer is, the people.
Our proposals are practical, realistic and sensibly phased. The directly elected proportion will build up steadily, with existing life Peers keeping our rights, and the House retaining a majority of appointed Members for the next 10 to 15 years. The right time for review—to revisit composition, as the Lord Chancellor put it yesterday—is when we reach parity between elected and appointed Members, which, under our proposals, should be around 2015. By then we should have had a reasonable period in which to see how the new House and the system of election and appointment will work. Those who believe in maintaining at least half the House as appointed Members will at that stage be able to argue their case. Those, such as myself, who believe in a smaller House along the lines that were proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard—the political two-thirds should be directly elected and the independent one-third should be nominated—would let that happen naturally as the remaining life Peers fade away.
We have shown the Government that our proposals work well within the limits that the Government themselves have set in the White Paper. I hope that they are prepared to give up political patronage by accepting that all new party political Peers should be directly elected. This blueprint is a realistic way forward now which can, I believe, command a majority in both Houses of Parliament. It is democratic and it works.
10.22 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, it is with some regret that I remind myself that I have been incarcerated in your Lordships' House for 39 years. I rank very low in the batting order. With my humble background, I am eight years behind my noble friend Lord Ferrers in terms of intelligence, stature and age. We were at the

795
same school. I am many years behind my noble friend Lord Denham and I am one year behind my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. However, I am the 11th longest serving Member of your Lordships' House.
On matters of reform, I have witnessed great minds and great discussions. However, I feel that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is probably the Nero of the Labour Benches—all around him things burn and there is chaos and disorganisation.
This is without doubt the most successful White Paper I have ever come across in terms of promoting a wide-ranging and logical—or illogical and chaotic—debate. However, some of us felt guilty when we came to this House; we were told that we had a duty to perform and longed for reform. Noble Lords will recall that the Parliament (No. 2) Bill had a majority of 190 in this House and of 116 in the House of Commons, but the government failed to implement it.
We should think back to 1876, which brought 28 Members to your Lordships' House—the Law Lords. They were appointed then and are appointed today. It is wrong to consider the 24 Bishops as representing only the Church of England. They have a parish of 39 million people. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has, I believe, 2,100,000 people in his patch and 856 churches in 620 parishes whereas the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, who is on the coast with the fishermen, has a mere 715,000 members in his patch and only about 600 churches in 450 parishes. The Bishops were not appointed by us; they are here by right. To assume that they deal only with religious matters and to try to decimate them is wrong. Almost everyone in life at one time or another goes to Church. People may do so to be married, they may go feet first when they die or they may attend a wedding or baptism. Parish councils at local level have a relationship with the Church. Therefore, there is a certain temporal business about the Bishops. I would oppose totally any attempt to reduce their stature or power.
Then we come to the 1958 brigade. They were appointed for life in order to mimic and copy the hereditary Peers. They had no moral right to life status. They had the privilege of being called "Lords", as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, and of having the nobility thrust upon or offered to them. They should have known what they were taking on under the Act: four guineas a day or less and no hope of any pension.
Hearing noble Lords at present asking to be bought out for sizeable sums requires me to write to the noble Lord, Lord Neill, because that appears to be somewhat corrupt. We have also watched the surreptitious increase in the award of monetary benefits to Members of your Lordships' House. Without taking into account other sources of income, they now receive, for regular attendance, the equivalent £25,000 a year tax-free. We are becoming a payroll organisation.
As I think back perhaps 400 years to John Rushworth, I wonder whether we are being deprived of our liberty by the weighty iron chains of an arbitrary
796
government. We have been through governments who have failed to decide or to choose, and we have before us a slightly chaotic system.
I genuinely believe that the word "democracy" can only be applied to an institution which is fully elected. That is my definition of it. Otherwise, one is faced with the strange situation in which democracy is not a static thing; it is either coming or going. When it is going, there is a cry for leadership. Who will lead us to the promised land—to the land of milk and honey? When it is returning, there is a cry that the leader is too strong and the question is raised as to how we can devolve. At the moment, we hear the cry that the executive and the leader are too strong, and there is an attempt to devolve. That is healthy. But at present I believe that we can have a more democratic House only if it is fully and wholly elected.
The second pillar of this great paper is that we must be more representative. I believe that we should look in the mirror. Very few of us know how representative we are. Surprisingly enough, your Lordships will find that among our numbers are people who represent almost anything that can possibly be represented in life. They have the knowledge and the experience. According to my analysis, more than 72 separate occupations or areas of expertise remain.
One comes to the regionalisation of noble Lords. For security reasons, I have found it impossible to obtain everyone's addresses. When people fill in their expenses form, they write in their principal place of residence. I had hoped that the accountants office would be able to supply me with that information. I believed that I would be able to place pins in a map of the Bishops' dioceses and the constituencies to show that your Lordships come from everywhere, as they do.
Whom do we represent? I have often asked that question. Following the 1999 legislation, I was told that, because I am here under a more modern piece of legislation, I represent myself. I believed that I should represent the people who voted for me, but I did not know who they were. I then considered that I should get my own constituents. Therefore, whenever anyone writes to me, I write back, now that we have free postage, or I telephone them in their lunch hour arid say, "Would you like to be one of my constituents? Can I represent you?". I am building a substantial number of constituents, including ranges of non-nationals.
I am one of three people in your Lordships' House who have never had the benefit of a vote. Therefore, I can say to noble Lords that over time they have all had the governments they deserve. My concern is: what do we do next? I have no proposals to put forward other than to say what I would do. I would introduce legislation requiring the mandatory resignation of all Members from your Lordships' House. They would be required to stand for re-election on a due date 14 weeks hence. The legislation would require that new terms and conditions should be laid down, with sunset clauses stating that people may not serve for more than a certain period of time. It would state that those

797
already appointed might, should their colleagues, compatriots or noble friends agree, be reappointed for a period of two Parliaments after which they would all have to stand for election in a free-for-all and open list.
If we are going to talk about democracy we must talk about election. If we are not going to talk about democracy, let us talk about a fully appointed House. But we must keep the Law Lords and we must keep the Bishops and the Archbishops with us. They are the only two groups who have the right of appointment.
I have a great love and affection for this place. Over time I have heard so many wondrous and useless things. I have watched people learn. I have watched people give. But I find that when I sit and listen to debates the one thing that I have is knowledge that I would never have got anywhere else. Your Lordships should realise that if one is as totally undemocratic as I am, not a day goes by without someone somewhere saying to you: How are you there? Why are you there? What are you doing? Why did you deserve it? Now they are also saying: What about all that other lot, because you are one of the elected ones, are you not? What about them? Who will put them down? There are many good veterinarians around who can extend life. Life expectancy in your Lordships' House is far greater than anyone would believe.
I admire the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, who, content often with his own thoughts, has the courtesy to sit and listen but is able to absorb. I thank him for it. I asked the noble and learned Lord if he could provide me with a list of all the outside appointments held by noble Lords and how much they were paid. He very kindly wrote back to me and said, "We are open government. Get it off the Internet". My intention was not to embarrass your Lordships or the Government in any way. I was trying to find out the breadth of knowledge and understanding that existed in the House through public appointments. It took me four and a half days with the help of the computer office and others. I probably now have a total list. It is very interesting how the net of your Lordships, your Lordships' friends, relatives and business, is spread.
At the moment I find that my own outside knowledge and relationships have been falling because of the increased commitment of time. I was once told that I should never speak in this House on a subject unless I had outside knowledge. My outside knowledge is fading away. But my incestuous internal knowledge is growing and I am grateful to your Lordships for that.
10.32 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I am conscious of being the 76th speaker in this debate. So far virtually all the speakers have been ex-politicians, civil servants, special advisers from a political background and a predominance, surprisingly, of hereditary Peers. There have been a few others—a handful of lawyers and one or two academics. What interests me is that although I am the 76th speaker in this very long debate, I am the first and only scientist and medical practitioner to speak.
798
If I bring any strength at all to this House, it is essentially because I am still very much actively involved in my professional work outside Parliament. That current experience of real affairs affects real people—for example, my patients who are greatly concerned about their health; nurses whom I see every day and every week who are concerned about how the National Health Service is affecting them; and my PhD students who are greatly concerned about how their scientific endeavours may be regarded by society and how they may actually get support for their valuable contributions to this society of which we are so proud. I mean no immodesty, but that practical contact is a strength in my representation in this Chamber.
One of the great advantages that has often been claimed for the House of Lords in the past is that, despite the cachet associated with the hereditary peerage, it is actually in some way more in touch with ordinary people. I intend no defence at all of the hereditary system that now must end in this Chamber. The hereditary Peers have often claimed, with some justified force, that they represent, paradoxically, real people much more than many politicians, including those who are elected to another place. We must consider how they may be replaced by a stronger and more robust system. One which will benefit and strengthen discussion inside Parliament.
Since becoming a Member of the House of Lords in 1995 my greatest privilege has been, first, to be a member of the Science and Technology Select Committee and subsequently its chairman. That Select Committee, I maintain, is most valuable, not least because of the serious respect in which it is held by Members of this House, the scientific community, academics, Government and the media. Such committees and the careful reports that they submit to Government represent, and are widely held to be, the best examples of the workings of Parliament. They are respected. Indeed, they are often feared by the people giving evidence because they know that the people to whom they are giving evidence are professionals: working men and women who have huge and unique experience of science, technology, engineering, industry, politics and academia. They have contributed in depth and at length to those subjects which are so valuable and essential to the health of our society.
When I was chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee, I sat at the head of an oval table with perhaps 18 or 20 members. At no time could I have told your Lordships what affiliation, if any, any member of my committee had. It was almost always irrelevant. During the three years that I sat at that table, I heard only rarely arguments based on party politics. They were based on scientific data or on solid evidence of the social consequences of a particular course of action. On the rare occasions when the arguments became political, they were often relatively valueless, or showed closed thinking and were mostly intellectually unpersuasive and largely irrelevant.

799
That is also a model for the whole Chamber. It is often at its least effective when it is at its most political. It is often most effective when it is engaged in the technicalities and adjustment of legislation and important social issues. That is why the representation of the Bishops of the Church of England is so immensely valuable in this Chamber. Let us hope that that may be augmented and not diminished by the representation of other religious groups in due course. The moral and scientific problems are well demonstrated by the recent issue of stem cell biology.
In her most powerful speech yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—she is not in her place—spoke eloquently in support of a largely or wholly elected upper House. So many countries, she said, have elected upper chambers. France, Germany and the USA are good examples. Their democracies, she said rightly, did not suffer. I agree. But in her excellent speech the noble Baroness did not examine the value of an unelected chamber which involves that element of expertise and working experience of affairs outside immediate politics. That great asset is even more important now because so many of our elected representatives in another place have little or no professional experience beyond professional politics. Such people must engage in politics at an earlier and earlier stage in life. That is not to their disadvantage but it must affect the way we structure the House of Lords.
In recent months, as a scientist interested and engaged in cell biology applied to embryos and stem cells I have been asked to give evidence to parliamentarians in New Zealand, Switzerland, Germany and France—countries considering legislation in that area. Politicians in those countries have invariably commented on how remarkable it is that in its parliamentary system the United Kingdom has included people with expertise who can advise on such matters from within Parliament and therefore add weight to the arguments before Parliament arrives at sensible legislation—as, of course, we have done again and again.
So I contend that Peers who are still involved in active work in their professions are extremely valuable to this House. They need to be working; they would not be likely to stand for election, because they are working. Their contribution would be marred if they were to become political.
That is by no means an objection to age. I must tell your Lordships that during the next century there will be a complete change in the demography of the United Kingdom. It may interest your Lordships to know that the best assessments show that at least 1 per cent of our population will be more than 100 years old. That is a serious assessment based on good demography, which constitutes something of the order of 500,000 people. Close to two thirds of the population will be outside what we currently regard as the working age. It is nonsense to starting thinking about age limits when health and mental agility is improving and when people can conduct their affairs in a way that is essentially valuable to government. While I would
800
maintain that we need people in this Chamber who are working, we also need people in Parliament who have time to address the issues who are not working.
That is one of my problems. I must tell your Lordships as a Peer that the working conditions in this House are a scandal. They are a major problem. I apologise to my Chief Whip, who is sitting on the Front Bench, because I have been a dreadful attendee during the past three months. I have felt deeply guilty about that; it has not been easy for me. The truth is that during the past three months it has been impossible for me to work in the House. I do not have a proper Internet connection. After I ended my chairmanship of the Select Committee, having had the privilege of the chairman's room, I found that my desk had been taken and 1 had nowhere to work. Working in a room with a dozen other people when one is trying to do serious academic work is, frankly, impossible. For me, having an electronic connection is vital. Inevitably, that means that I end up not attending and doing things whereby I can be more influential and more useful elsewhere.
Finally, one of the real problems with your Lordships' House is its failure to be recognised outside. That has already been referred to by several speakers on both days of this debate. It is a fundamental problem. There is a lack of understanding of what the House of Lords can do, should be doing and how it might be structured to best advantage.
I must tell your Lordships an extraordinary story. Some months ago, I was invited to tea in a part of the House of Lords that is no longer in the House of Lords: the Pugin Room. In my view, it should still be in the House of Lords because it has a red carpet. We need the space and, frankly, the Commons does not. I was having tea with a relatively elderly Labour MP who clearly had his sights on the time when he retired from the House of Commons—having, as far as I know, never done, forgive me for saying so, much of a serious job outside the House. He was looking to be elevated to this Chamber. He said to me in all seriousness over tea: "Tell me Robert. When you have debates in the House of Lords, do you wear your robes?".
That shows a fundamental problem, and is a real issue for us. Whatever we suggest in this House, our real problem is to explain to the Commons why the structure that most of us envisage is worthwhile, essential for the preservation of the best working of Parliament and, in the long term, contributes to our democracy.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is always extremely difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Winston. He has given another of his excellent speeches. I enjoyed listening to it enormously.
I shall start by being nice to the Government. They have had a hard time in the past few days and I feel sorry for them. I congratulate them on bringing forward this White Paper and this subject for the

801
second time since they took office. Being involved in the reform of the House of Lords is a bed of thorns and the Government are displaying immense determination and courage, and I wish that we had had such determination and courage during our time in office.
I am also glad that we appear to have reached a consensus that the time of the hereditary Peers has drawn to a close. No longer will it be a qualification to be born with a silver spoon in one's mouth; instead, like the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, one must be born with a silver tongue there. That is much better.
I have always been an advocate of having a wholly appointed House. I do not see how we can introduce election into this House without disrupting the way in which it works and endangering the atmosphere that we have. I do not see that we can introduce election without disrupting the relationship with another place. I have always been in favour of a more gradual and gentle evolution. However, my views have been changed by this debate. I have been enormously encouraged by and taken with what has been said by many noble Lords in favour of a substantially elected House.
We must recognise that politics in this country is sick. A change of constitutional underwear will not be the solution. Nothing proposed in the White Paper will make much difference to the way in which politics operates or is regarded in this country. I am enormously excited by what I see as a desire for change—particularly down the other end. There is a real interest in making politics in this country a more dynamic, more independent, more involving and interesting business. There is real scope for reviving public interest in and commitment to politics. I do not yet have a feeling for what shape that might take—many noble Lords have suggested how it might happen—but I am entranced by the possibility and excited that we might find ourselves going down that road.
I do not look to this Government—not now, not ever—to take us far down the road. It will require a trust in the people that the Government seem to have lost. I must look to my Front Bench for the honesty and courage that are required. Like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I shall not hold my breath. I do not know when we will get an answer, but we will be extremely interested to hear what those on my Front Bench have to say when they pronounce on the White Paper. I shall be delighted if there is a real commitment to replacing patronage by election. I would enlarge the independent and appointed elements in the House, but patronage, like the hereditary principle, should have had its day.
In the short term, we should recognise our limitations and recognise that what we will be dealing with will be something along the lines of the current White Paper. We should see what we can do to work with that. There is at least one central good, great thing in the White Paper. That is the recognition that the government of the day should not have an overall
802
majority in this place and that their representation should be limited to the proportion of the votes cast in their favour and further diluted by a substantial independent element. I believe that that forms the real basis for an independent House of Lords. It is wonderful to have that proposal from a party which in government and opposition objected to being defeated in this House and which recently called its defeats in this House "illegitimate" and "unconstitutional".
However, the Government are now proposing to make that the way in which the House operates. They propose to make this a House in which it is certain that the government are defeated, and defeated reasonably frequently, and without too much difficulty. It will require consensus but it will happen and I hope that it will be welcomed and acknowledged by the Government when it does.
Let us not worry too much about the 20 per cent who are to be elected. The system proposed by the Government is a fraud. If we go ahead on that basis, it will be recognised by the electorate as a fraud. There is no difference between a closed list and appointment. The same people will get here on the same kind of conditions and with exactly the same influence of the electorate. The electorate will vote in certain proportions for their MPs and that will affect the abilities of the parties to appoint Members to this House. In exactly the same proportions people will trot in from the closed list, which has been compiled in exactly the same way as the lists of people they would like to appoint to this House if they won the right to do so. There is no difference. We shall be a House that is 80 per cent patronage, just as it is now and in just the same pattern. Perhaps as the measure makes its way through Parliament we can persuade the Government off the closed list system. That will be a great advance. I do not hold out great hope for it but it will be wonderful if we can.
Let us not worry too much either about trying to add powers and responsibilities to this House. During the 10 years I have been a Member we have been successful in adding to our powers and responsibilities. One thinks of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee as an enormous success in that direction and there have been others. These things are best achieved by consensus and by time. I do not believe that we should abandon any of the ambitions that have been outlined today, but we should take them in their due course.
However, we should be enormously careful to preserve the powers and independence of this House to keep the term of membership long. No independence is associated with short membership: not for people who are being appointed and not for people who are being elected. We should ensure that the appointments commission, which will play a crucial role in this House, is strong.
We must take particular care on how the appointments commission is to be appointed, as the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, said. We must also take particular care on how the commission is to receive its mandate. We cannot set it in legislation because then

803
it would he set for all time. There must be a mechanism by which the appointments commission can be given a mandate to create a House after a particular pattern. That must be flexible and it must not be by fiat of the government.
In particular, we must keep our powers over secondary legislation. That is so much more important than ever it was. It is not that we should do less but that we should do a great deal better and that amendment should become possible. That is where legislation is these days and we must follow it.
I turn briefly to points of detail. I believe that I understand the Government's position in opposition to the suggestion of the Wakeham commission that the appointments commission should compile the party lists. When I look along the Government's Benches, I believe that they have done extremely well in appointing independent-minded, expert Members to their own Benches. I believe that they have probably done a great deal better than any bureaucratic committee-based appointments commission ever could. One merely needs to look at the Members on the Government's Back Benches who have spoken in the debate to realise what a breadth of expertise and independence exists.
It is an affront to a political party that the appointments commission should usurp its power to have who it wants on its list. However, I believe that the commission mandate to ensure that this House is balanced as regards the sexes, communities and geographical regions in this country must extend in some way to party patronage; otherwise it will have no effect. It must be able to set the rules that parties have to follow and bring parties to book. If a party were to produce an all-male shortlist, it must be possible for the appointments commission to say that that will not do. But I do not know about the appointments commission choosing individuals or saying that a certain member of a party is out of power now but that the commission would like him to sit on these Benches.
Time is a factor. Someone put the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in this House. He may not be a favourite now. Doubtless in 10 years' time the favourites on the Front Benches now will no longer be favourites. The fact that people are appointed for a long time here allows for changes in fashion. As long as we keep the length of appointment we need not fuss about people with unfashionable views coming to the House.
I have two further minor points to make. It would be ridiculous to continue to call this place the House of Lords after reform. "Senate" would be a much better name and to be called a "Senator" is one of the proudest titles in the world. As the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said, we should abandon age limits. I remember with great pleasure and happiness being defeated on a vote as a result of the arguments put forward in three speeches from the Labour and Cross Benches. The total age of those three speakers was 286.
10.56 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, it is said that all things come to those who wait. It is a long time waiting when one is 78th on the list of speakers. We are debating a White Paper with green edges, and change can result from it.
It has been a good debate, but I must say, too, that often this House believes that the world is listening to it. I am afraid that that is not true. If your Lordships resist change, that change will inevitably come and it may not be the change that your Lordships want. The public believe that this House is irrelevant, outmoded, out of date and out of touch. That may be unfair, but that is how your Lordships' House is viewed.
I represented Warrington for a long time and the people there are far more interested in the fact that I am chairman of Warrington Wolves than that I am a Member of this House. The people in the Railway Club on a Saturday night in Warrington do not discuss the House of Lords at all. If they were pressed to do so, I think that they would say what I have already suggested. They do not believe that it is relevant to their lives but that it is the last refuge of the amateur in our society.
We are on the edge of change and I say immediately, which may not have been said too often, that I totally support the Government's proposals. They are proposing change. Let me explain why I support them. They set up the Wakeham commission. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues worked so hard to produce the report which we are discussing today. The Government have been criticised for largely accepting that report. If they had set up the commission and ignored the report, there would have been a public outcry. They are going a little further in relation to elected Members. There will be 120. I believe that the House will evolve. I do not believe that we can go overnight from having a totally unelected House to a directly elected House. After all, it took 100 years to get rid of the majority of hereditary Peers. I would exchange 120 elected members to get rid of the 92 hereditary Peers who still remain.
Having said that, I wish to comment on the method of election. I move away a little from what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues. I do not believe that the elections should be held at the time of the European parliamentary elections. The turn-out for the European elections is abysmal. We must do what we can to raise it. However, I should hate to see elections to this House suffering the same low percentages. I believe that the elections should be held at the time of the general election. The Royal Commission stated that it wanted elected Peers to reflect the balance of the parties at a general election. Therefore, what better time is there to hold the elections for Members of this House?
I also believe that a term of 15 years for those who are elected is far too long. Personally, I believe that they should be elected for five years and take their chances in the subsequent elections. It could be argued that some should retire after five years and that some should retire after 10 years. I would not go to the stake on those proposals, but I support a term of live years.

805
I should like to make a point that has been repeated on all sides of the House; that is, the election should not be conducted under a closed list system. It should be an open list system in order to give the electorate as wide a choice as possible. I really believe that. It would carry more credibility with the electorate at large.
I also believe that, like those who have been elected to represent the nations of the regions in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, elected Members of this House should be paid a salary. Furthermore, I do not believe that we shall see the clash that has been suggested by several noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams—I am sorry to see that she is not here—explained that such a clash is not inevitable. When we look at other democracies around the world, we can see that there is no reason for a clash. There are no clashes in Germany, in France, in the Scandinavian countries or in India, so why should it happen here? Provided that we set out clearly what this House should be asked to do, and what should be its aims and achievements, I do not see why there should be a clash of any kind.
Perhaps I may turn to the appointments commission. A group was set up to select the "People's Peers". Earlier in my remarks I said that there was no interest in the House of Lords, but that proposal marked the first time that I saw the public's interest being generated in this place. Many worthy people wrote to me because they were excited at the thought that, instead of the narrow band of people selected for the present independent element of the House—all highly qualified and good people in their way, but selected from within a narrow band—they truly believed that they had a chance. However, they were, very disappointed indeed when the list came out. They were not disappointed because of the kind of people chosen—former ambassadors, captains of industry, scientists, educationalists and leaders of charities; all good and worthy of serving in this House—but rather that none of them really could have been called a "People's Peer".
The one thing lacking in this House is representation by ordinary people. I do not believe that independence can come from the narrow band that we have in this House. Ordinary people generally are independent and they want to take a balanced view of things. What they would bring to the independent Benches is something new in the life of this Chamber. They would bring their experience of ordinary life. I suggest to noble Lords that that is what is lacking in this Chamber at the moment. If we do set up an independent body to look into this, I hope that it will reflect on what is being asked for and that it will seek to represent society as a whole, rather than the narrow strata of society that we have now.
There has been much discussion about the size of the membership and whether it will be too large, and about the position of life Peers. Life Peers are what they are; they are elected for life. I am sorry if I upset some noble Lords by mentioning money and salaries, but if we want people to go we have got to offer them
806
a package that will attract them to do so. Not all noble Lords have several jobs that they can rely upon and when they come here, they change their standard of living. They are part and parcel of the House and there are parts that they wish to play. They want to be real working Peers—and many of them are real working Peers. If we want those working Peers to give up that right, we have to make it attractive to them—and the reward would be a retirement package. That is something we can discuss.
I should prefer it—I believe everyone would prefer this—if all parties were agreed on the way forward. I noticed in this morning's press—I do not believe everything that is in the press—that it is rumoured that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will propose to the shadow Cabinet that 80 per cent of Members should be elected. I am afraid that anyone who reads the debates here will become cynical of politicians if that is what is suggested because although one or two noble Lords on the Benches opposite supported the elected principle, in the main they did not. They either did not want any change at all—and I understand that point of view—or they wanted an appointed House. I should like to hear from the noble Lord who will wind up from the Opposition Front Bench whether he can justify that 80 per cent elected because that is the kind of thing that makes people cynical of politics.
Perhaps I may say to my friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches—some of whom I have served alongside—that I believe that eventually there will be an elected Chamber. But, as I said earlier, it has got to evolve. I appeal to the Liberal Democrats, do not throw the baby out with the bath water. An elected element is coming—and that is the major thing. Whether the elected element is as low as 50 or 60 Members, or 120 or a little more, is not the important issue; what is important is establishing that there should be elected Members in this House.
I shall not take up any more of the time of the House at this late stage. I appeal to noble Lords to move forward. The worse thing that could happen is to maintain the status quo. There is unfinished business and I ask the House to consider how we can move forward to the next stage of reform—and I hope to see democracy included in that movement.
11.8 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am the light at the end of the tunnel. The first of the speakers who are to wind up is a sign that the end really is in sight. This has indeed been a long debate. There have been many thoughtful and interesting speeches but, taken together, they do not make the picture of future progress any clearer.
I start by looking at some issues where consensus has emerged. First, there has been general agreement with the proposal, made yesterday in an outstanding speech by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby, that reform of your Lordships' House should be looked at in the context of the reform of Parliament as a whole. Secondly, there is a consensus that the White Paper belongs in the Guinness book of great disasters.

807
Thirdly, although few wish to keep the hereditary element, there has been overwhelming recognition that the remaining 92 hereditaries must go as part of any reform package. Fourthly, any elections should not be by a closed list system.
Fifthly, the existing powers of this House should not be reduced. In particular, your Lordships have rejected the proposal in both the Wakeham report and the White Paper that the power to veto secondary legislation should be abolished. We hold that view very strongly. The Wakeham proposal was that a statutory instrument rejected by the second Chamber could be reinstated by a vote of the House of Commons at any time within the following three months—not after a delay of three months, but within that time. That could mean within 24 hours.
The suggestion in paragraph 33 of the White Paper that this somehow increases the influence of this House over secondary legislation is, to say the least, disingenuous. Secondary legislation receives inadequate scrutiny in the House of Commons. There is a maximum of 90 minutes of debate, and a government with a working majority are certain to get their way.
The power of this House to reject secondary legislation is an essential power. It is made the more important by last year's Regulatory Reform Act, which means that many more statutes can now be repealed or amended by secondary legislation. It is, of course, a power that this House should use only rarely. On the only occasion since 1968 when it has been used—in relation to election regulations under the London Government Act—it was used effectively and achieved what I believe everyone now accepts was a desirable result.
So much for consensus. When it comes to the composition of the House, there is no consensus at all. There arc at least three main views. The largest group among those who have spoken in the debate consisted of those who wanted no elected Members at all. That group included some Members on these Benches.
Is it perhaps too cynical to take the view that there is a natural tendency to think that a system that brought us here is necessarily a good system? From time to time I am tempted to think that myself, until I pinch myself and realise that I am wrong. Other views included support for Wakeham in its original form—with the sole exception of the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle—not as re-written by the Government, and support for the proposition that all political Members of the second Chamber should be elected. Support for this last proposition came mainly from these Benches, but also in speeches—many of them impressive—from the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lords, Lord Dubs, Lord Baker of Dorking and Lord Lucas.
Speaking for those who rejected elected Members altogether, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, raised the question: how will elected Members enable this House to be more effective in carrying out its existing functions? It is a fair question, and it needs an answer.
808
The powers of this House, in practice, depend on public support and approval of what we do. If we do not have that support, the Government would be more than happy to cut our powers further or even abolish us altogether. In recent years, this House has had a pretty high level of public approval. That has been strengthened recently by the removal of most hereditaries and by a balance of voting strengths which more nearly represents the balance of political opinion within the country.
I do not say that the introduction of elected Members would improve the quality of our debates, our scrutiny of legislation or the quality of our Select Committee reports. But widespread public support exists for a much greater elected element in this House; and if, as a result of so-called reform, we end up with no elected element or a small elected element, I do not believe that your Lordships' House will be able to maintain its present level of approval. We shall be seen, rightly or wrongly, as a House of party leaders' cronies, or as a House appointed by a faceless and unaccountable commission. If we lose public opinion, we are in real danger. If we were already a primarily elected House, would the Government have dared to propose removing our power to veto secondary legislation? I am sure that they would not.
Once we are into the business of reforming this House, a half-baked proposal for a small number of elected Members, let alone a suggestion that there should be no elected Members, would lead to a damaging decline in our public support. We would end up like the Canadian Senate, which is wholly appointed and which, in theory, has almost unlimited powers, but in practice does not have the standing and authority to exercise them.
It is argued that an elected second Chamber would be a threat to the primacy of the House of Commons. That is nonsense. The primacy of the House of Commons is established not only by the Parliament Acts, but by centuries of history and convention. If there was a real danger of a threat to the primacy of the House of Commons, it would be very odd that, while many speakers in your Lordships' House are worried about an elected second Chamber challenging the primacy of that House, Labour Back Benchers in the House of Commons are pressing for many more elected Members in this House.
An elected second Chamber would be no threat to the primacy of the House of Commons. It would enable your Lordships' House to continue, and perhaps strengthen, our scrutiny of the executive. The greatest democratic deficit in the United Kingdom today is the inability of the House of Commons to conduct proper scrutiny of what the executive is doing. We in this House can and should play such part as we can in reducing that deficit. I therefore believe that election rather than appointment is the way to select the political members of a second Chamber.
I emphasise that that applies to the political Members. The appointments commission is an appropriate method of selecting the independent Members. The election of the political Members

809
should, of course, be by STV or an open list system. We reject the appointment of political Members by parties or by independent commissioners.
Appointment by the commission would be the worse of the two. The Wakeham proposal is that an electorate consisting of eight people—the eight members of the commission—should choose three quarters of the Members of one House of Parliament. However distinguished and independent-minded the members of the commission may be, that is a truly weird proposal.
How would the commission choose political members? If it chose on the basis of a recommendation from parties, why have a commission at all? If the commission could override the wishes of the parties and could appoint party outsiders, it would be exercising political power without political responsibility—and we know where that leads. Such a power would subject the commission to enormous political pressures and would make the appointment of its members matters of major political controversy.
However, on the length of terms for Members, the Wakeham commission got considerably nearer to the correct answer than the Government did. It is essential that the future second Chamber should retain our ethos of rational and civilised debate. That ethos will be at risk if membership is seen as a stepping stone to the House of Commons and to government office by ambitious young politicians. We would become much more aggressive and confrontational. The Wakeham commission recognised that risk and proposed to eliminate it by providing for a 15-year term of elected office with no right to stand for the House of Commons during that term or for 10 years thereafter. That goes too far to the other extreme. A 10 or 12-year elected term with disqualification until the end of that term—though no longer—would be long enough. Few if any rising politicians would be willing to rule out membership of the House of Commons for as long as 10 years.
By contrast, a five-year term for elected Members, as suggested by the Government, would present a real risk of a fundamental change for the worse in the ethos of this House. A 10 or 12-year term would ensure that Members of the second Chamber are those who are not seeking a career in the House of Commons, regardless of whether they had done so in the past, or those who had had a career in the House of Commons but finished it. Such a term would in fact lead to the membership being rather similar to the current membership—an eminently desirable result.
There has been much support in the debate for long terms for elected Members and for limiting membership to a single term, as recommended by the Wakeham commission. I believe that there is much to be said for a limitation to a single term, although I recognise that there are arguments the other way. I believe that the Government should accept the principle that the term of office of elected Members of your Lordships' House should be not less than 10 years, even if they do not go the whole way with the proposal of the Wakeham commission.
810
I should like to address two membership issues that have been touched on by some speakers. We on these Benches believe that neither the Bishops nor the Law Lords should be Members of a new second Chamber ex officio. We recognise the great contributions made by the Bishops to debates in your Lordships' House, including to this debate, but we believe—it is a matter of party policy—that the Church should be disestablished and that an inevitable consequence of that is the removal of the historic rights of the Bishops to membership of this House. Retired bishops would of course be eligible, along with representatives of other Churches and other faiths, for appointment as independent Members of your Lordships' House. We should hope and expect that there would always be some in a new second Chamber.
On the Law Lords, we have long argued that the judicial role of the House of Lords should be abolished and replaced by a proper supreme court with its own building. That view is shared by many of the Law Lords, including the senior Law Lord, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, although not by all of them. Again, we recognise the contributions made to debates by some serving and several ex-Law Lords, such as the important speech, last Tuesday, on the Export Control Bill, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote. Retired Law Lords also would be eligible for appointment as independent Members of the second Chamber.
We believe that the White Paper proposals are gravely flawed. In some respects, they are going in the right direction but are over-cautious; for example, in introducing elected Members but restricting their number to 120. In some respects, the proposals are going in the wrong direction; for example, in removing the power to veto secondary legislation. In some respects, there is no movement when there should be movement; for example, by retaining the rights of Law Lords and Bishops to be Members of the second Chamber ex officio.
We believe, even at this late stage, that there should be a Joint Committee further to consider the proposals. That view is shared by many and was repeated today by, for example, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. That is something we have always fought for. Yesterday, in a most effective speech, the noble Lord, Lord Denham, pointed out the Government's failure to honour their undertakings to establish such a committee. This indeed may be the right time to have such a committee: we now have the Government's proposals on the table. And yesterday we were promised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the Conservatives will at last get round to deciding their own policy by the end of this month. Our position has long been clear.
I do not expect that a Joint Committee would actually reach a consensus, but it could perhaps reach an agreed compromise. If we cannot reach such a compromise, and if the Government force through the White Paper proposals, the reform process that began in 1911 will remain uncompleted. This House will

811
indeed no longer be constituted in any sense on an hereditary basis, but it will not yet be constituted on the popular basis that was promised 91 years ago.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he contending that the 92 hereditaries should he removed contrary to the Cranborne agreement, or is he not?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am. The Cranborne agreement was clearly intended as a temporary expedient.
11.25 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I know that your Lordships will all agree that this has been a debate of the highest quality conducted in great good humour.
The Government will have to agree that their White Paper has not been greeted with unalloyed rapture. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that it received a very moderate "Hello".
The only ray of hope for the Government was underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in explaining that the sources of disagreement are diverse. They fall, broadly speaking, into three categories. First, those noble Lords who feel that the White Paper is not close enough to the wisdom of the committee of my noble friend Lord Wakeham; secondly, those who feel that there should be no elections at all; and, thirdly, those like many of the colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in the Liberal group and some on my own Benches, who believe that we should have a predominantly elected House. That indicates to me that the policy we are now likely to see from the Government will be a ruthless policy of divide and rule. We shall see.
I do not intend to speak for very long. I just want to touch on two areas. First, I want to say something about the shape of your Lordships' House as proposed in the White Paper. Secondly, I want to say something about how we should proceed from this evening.
On the shape of the new Chamber, I am sceptical about the likely effectiveness of a hybrid House. Your Lordships should pay great attention to the speech of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who reminded us that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, said earlier last year that he saw no difference between the legitimacy of an appointed Member and an elected Member. If that is so, what possible argument can there be for elections?
The fact is that if we have elected Members in your Lordships' House side by side with appointed Members, it will be clear that those elected Members will consider, rightly or wrongly, that they have greater legitimacy than the appointed Members. That is likely to destabilise the House. It was significant that, towards the end of his speech, the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, having, at the outset, suggested that this was the second and final stage of the recasting of your Lordships' House, went on to say that there would, perhaps, be another stage in five or 10 years' time. I suggest that if we have a hybrid solution to the
812
shape of your Lordships' House, it is inevitable that it will not be the last solution; it is inevitable that your Lordships' House will move on to a different ratio of elected and appointed Members.
That point was well put by my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley who said yesterday,
"Let us consider the question of an elected or an appointed chamber. There is something to be said for an elected chamber. There is something to be said for an appointed chamber. But for a partly elected, partly appointed chamber which carries within itself a mass of contradictions, there is nothing to be said whatsoever".—[Official Report, 9/1/02; col. 604.]
I wholly endorse that statement of my noble friend.
Secondly, in my submission there is no case for an elected House—by that I mean a wholly elected House, and so I have excluded any hybrid solution—unless there is a significant increase in the powers of your Lordships' House. I can see no argument on the basis of the powers that are contained in the White Paper, or indeed the powers proposed by my noble friend Lord Wakeham, for any elected element in your Lordships' House whatsoever.
On the other hand, if we were to have a wholly elected House, I see no conflict between a wholly elected House of Lords and a wholly elected other place, provided the relative balance of power between those two Houses is clearly stated and clearly understood. So, in other words, if your Lordships' House were to acquire such an increase in powers as to justify a wholly elected House, I would see no difficulty with that being consistent with the supremacy of another place.
I wholly agree with all those of your Lordships who have said that the term of office, whether an appointed term or an elected term, ought to be for a minimum period of 15 years with no chance of re-election or reselection. That point was put so well by a number of your Lordships. I particularly recall that, yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, said:
"It is precisely because they will not be re-elected that they can behave independently. Let us grasp the nettle and recognise that if they were not elected in the first place they might be even more independent".—[Official Report, 9/1/02; col. 580.]
And the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said:
"To achieve independence on these Benches or within a political party, it is essential that the individuals in question have nothing to fear or to hope for from the powers that be, whether those powers are the Government, the party Whips or an appointed body containing party elements".—[Official Report, 9/1/02; col. 597.]
In that felicitous aphorism,
"nothing to fear or to hope",
the noble Viscount encapsulated the whole debate on the overriding importance of independence rather than accountability in the choice of Members of your Lordships' House, whether elected Peers, elected Members of your Lordships' House, elected senators or appointed senators.
I also wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in what he said about the importance of retaining the power to reject secondary legislation. That is absolutely crucial. Indeed, I would go further and say that there is a very strong case—as I think was

813
suggested by my noble friend Lord MacGregor—that there ought to be a power in your Lordships' House to amend delegated legislation.
Those of your Lordships who remember, for example, the Financial Services and Markets Act that went through your Lordships' House—certainly my noble friend Lord Saatchi remembers it as well as I do—containing 420 clauses, will know that it was still essentially a skeleton Bill. The delegated legislation, which is the part of the Act that now really counts, is still going through your Lordships' House and is effectively untouchable. I agree with those of your Lordships who say that the time has come for us to put it to the Government that we need the power to amend delegated legislation.
On the question of the size of the House, many of your Lordships suggested that the House ought to be significantly smaller. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, suggested the smallest number of Peers. I agree with the approach of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, who suggested that it would be highly desirable for us to stick with the principle of a part-time House if we can. In yesterday's debate, he said:
"Your Lordships need me to be involved in my life in the wider church and community if my contribution here is to be of value".—[Official Report, 9/1/02; col. 586.]
I respectfully endorse that remark. What noble Lords do when they are not in the House is at least as important as what they do when in the House. For that reason, and because the committee work of the House is so important, I agree with the Government that your Lordships' House will require a much higher number of Members than many other upper Houses or second Chambers in other countries.
I share and endorse the views of all those noble Lords who condemned the closed-list system. It is an appalling system and I hope that, where it currently exists, it can be expunged from our constitution in future elections.
There are other matters to which I could refer but I am aware that time is passing and I want to move on to my final concerns, which are about where your Lordships' House should go from here. I share the anger and frustration of those noble Lords who are appalled by the fact that the Government have not put these matters to a Joint Committee of both Houses. My noble friend Lord Jopling was deeply upset—to say that he was outraged is perhaps putting it too strongly—by the fact that the normal conventions about constitutional matters have not been respected by the Government.
Moreover, as many noble Lords have said, the Government have effectively broken their word to the hereditary Peers who departed from this House. From the evidence that I have seen, a clear undertaking was given to the hereditary Peers in the course of the 1999 legislation that the second stage of reform in your Lordships' House would be put to a Joint Committee of both Houses. It appears that the Government have no such intention.
814
Moreover, it is not just that the Government are wrong in that regard; they are also being stupid about it. We will never get a solution to this matter until there is consensus between another place and your Lordships' House and between all the political parties. There must be a forum in which those five different institutions can get together to decide on the best way ahead.
Finally and most importantly—this point was eloquently and effectively put by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—I turn to the issue of powers before composition. It is irrational to decide what the future composition of your Lordships' House would be without knowing what functions and powers it will perform. The issue, as the noble Baroness rightly said, is not about the power of your Lordships' House as against the power of another place, but about the power of Parliament as against the executive. We know that Parliament has fallen a long way behind the executive. Your Lordships' House needs to get together with another place through the Joint Committee to decide just how much power has been lost, how big the gap is and the extent to which that gap must be made up.
There is also the crucial decision about which of the two Houses will make up that gap and how that will be done. The right honourable gentleman, the President of the Council and the Leader of the House of Commons, is confident that the House of Commons will quickly make up the ground that has been lost over the past 40 years. Perhaps we may then, after the meeting of the Joint Committee, say happily, "Well, we have enough power already". Therefore, according to my approach to this problem, we can remain a wholly appointed House.
However, if we reach the conclusion that another place will not increase its power over the executive, then a huge new constitutional burden will fall on the shoulders of your Lordships' House. In those circumstances, I do not see how it can be carried unless we have, excepting the Law Lords and the Bishops, a wholly elected House.
11.40 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I listened carefully—indeed, exceptionally carefully—to the graceful way in which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, developed his themes. In the background I could hear solemn sounds. They came from two sources: first, the rather dull sound of pennies dropping behind him; and, secondly, the gritting of clenched teeth in ashen faces. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships what was said by the official spokesman for the Official Opposition speaking as shadow Lord Chancellor:
"I see no value in a hybrid House".
He then went for temporal as well as spiritual support to the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, who earlier had trenchantly put his views on that topic to the same effect. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, as official spokesman for the Official Opposition:
"I wholly endorse those views".

815
Let us pause for a moment to see where that takes us. It means either a wholly appointed or a wholly elected House. For the purposes of posterity and Hansard, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is nodding assent. How could he not? If we have a wholly elected House, that means no Bishops.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord looks at Hansard tomorrow, I believe that he will find that I excluded Law Lords and Bishops from my statement about a wholly elected House. It may have been in my imagination but I believe that I did say that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if we have a wholly elected House, that means no Bishops. Let us assume that that small caveat obtains, and we can both read Hansard tomorrow. Perhaps I misheard; I doubt it.
If we have a wholly elected House plus some Bishops, that sounds fairly hybrid to me. But, according to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, a hybrid House is wholly without value. However, let us put the Bishops to one side for a moment, without unkindness. If we have a wholly elected House with some Bishops tagged on, how do we get any significant independent component?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, we have long terms for the elected Members.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, how do we get elected to this House independent Members who are not members of any political party? We cannot get them.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give way? He is being quite brilliant in answering all the wrong questions. That is why he is such a successful Leader of this House. There is an independent Member of the House of Commons who has been elected by his constituents.
Noble Lords: One.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I accept that there is only one. The noble and learned Lord was being just as picky with his facts as I am being, and two people can be picky with their facts. The noble and learned Lord was arguing from a particular to a general in saying that one could not get independence. I am merely showing the noble and learned Lord that one can; it has and it is. Two of us can play picky with facts.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, was the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, thinking of Mr Martin Bell?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, no, I was thinking of the surgeon.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes, the single issue candidate in Kidderminster. If that is the noble Earl's best argument, I am happy to rest content upon
816
my propositions. He has managed to find one single-issue candidate, the doctor in Kidderminster, out of 600 plus. I repeat my proposition—which is not being picky; it is actually condescending to fact—that if we have a wholly elected Chamber there will be no place for the independents. That has been said time and time again by a number of your Lordships.
If, on the other hand, we have a wholly appointed House, does that include the continuation of the hereditaries? I heard two voices there. One, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, "Sorry", the other, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, "Don't answer". There is a breathless hush in the close tonight. They are waiting for Strathclyde to come out with the light. But they will have a very long wait indeed, because when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor ventured—oh, bold creature that he is—to inquire what the Conservative Party policy might be, the authoritative, indeed ferocious, considered answer came back, "We haven't got one", or, "We might have one by 31st August"—"January". I am so sorry, I was being over-generous as always. "But we know that it now has to be one or the other. It has to be a wholly elected House, with some Bishops, unspecified in number, or it has to be a wholly appointed House". I repeat, if one has a wholly elected House one will have no independent components.
This has been a most good-humoured debate. In fact, I have not attended such a good-humoured debate since going to the Parliamentary Labour Party yesterday. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the Lord Chancellor and I—the three of us—have heard virtually every speech. The Lord Chancellor and I will both undertake to reflect carefully on what has been said.
It is true that there has not been universal a claim for our little White Paper. But we still have the pride of paternity in it. The one recurrent theme is that no one can agree on alternatives. In a moment or two I shall divert to the question of the Joint Committee because there are some misapprehensions which should be cleared up.
There are an enormous number of different views across the spectrum. They have been differently expressed. One source, not in your Lordships' House, said that his policy was one Peer, one lamp-post. At the other end of the spectrum was the graceful and amusing summary by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, of what he had heard from members of the public almost with unanimity—that they wanted an all-elected House but with no politicians here at all. It is difficult to reconcile those two views.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues on the Royal Commission. I do not say that in the usual conventional way. We have tried to base our proposals substantially on the noble Lord's recommendations. It is true that we have not bound ourselves entirely to that particular chariot, but we have really taken it as the basis of our thinking.
I am personally very grateful to all the hereditaries for all the work that they have done, not simply the remaining 92. I say sorry to the noble Lord, Lord

817
Palmer, about my misplaced attempt at a mild tease if his feelings were hurt. I apologise for that. It was intended only as a gentle tease.
Our essential stance is this: we need a second Chamber in our constitution; and it needs to do its proper work properly. Its proper work is to scrutinise, to revise, to reflect, to advise and also—I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Winston—to have debates on matters of public interest. The quality of such debates—I am not flattering your Lordships—I do not think can be matched in any legislature across the world.
However, we are not to challenge the mandate of the elected Chamber. That is institutionalised in our constitutional statutory arrangements by virtue of the Parliament Acts. It is said that we should have the power to veto secondary legislation. I think that that is misplaced. At present we can either strike down the secondary legislation or accept it. That nuclear option has been used, if my memory is right, twice in the past 50 years. We do not have the power to veto primary legislation; and I do not see the justification intellectually for saying that we should be able to strike down secondary legislation.
I ask your Lordships to consider the reasoning, as I understand it, behind the Wakeham commission recommendation. It is to say this to the Commons: we are not content with this statutory instrument, this piece of secondary legislation. We wish you to think again. Then there is the possibility of up to three months' delay. In practice, noble Lords will recognise that a delay of up to three months would be a distinct inconvenience to any government. But it gives the opportunity for them to think again. I believe that the mechanism offered by the Royal Commission is more subtle and, therefore, likely to be of more practical utility than an unused power.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for allowing me to intervene. Does he accept that it is for the House of Commons to decide the timing of when it votes to overrule a decision of the House of Lords under these proposals and that, therefore, that decision could be taken within 24 hours?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do and, notionally, it could. But I do not think that matters will work quite like that. I repeat: a lot of thought went into the Royal Commission's proposal to give us an effective remedy within the regime that ultimately the Commons is supreme. It is an opportunity to develop our powers and flex our muscles if we want to.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that he did not see the intellectual case for there being no veto on primary legislation but that there should be on secondary legislation. The intellectual case is this. If a piece of secondary
818
legislation is defeated in this House, it can be reintroduced in primary legislation where there is no veto.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I still do not see the difference between being unable to veto the primary legislation but being able to veto the critically important secondary legislation which derives from the primary Act. We are entitled, I think, to challenge the detail of legislation and, as noble Lords demonstrated robustly very recently, the principle of legislation, as on the anti-terrorism Bill.
We are here to offer independence of mind and spirit, and experience and expertise. None of the sources of your Lordships' coming to this House—whether by political patronage, heredity or ordination and subsequent progression in the Church of England—has led me to conclude that it makes any one of us more or less independent. The noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, asked a specific question about the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, which I would not have dealt with but it is important to put the matter right. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was not expelled from the Labour Party for anything to do with the House of Lords. He brought about his self-expulsion because he was in breach of internal party rules: he supported a candidate who was running against the official Labour Party candidate. That is commonplace in most political parties. It has nothing to do with his conduct in the House of Lords. It is important that that should be borne in mind.
We should not delude ourselves by drinking too deeply of the belief that we are always in touch, however sweet the cordial may be. On many occasions we are significantly out of touch with significant sections of the public outside this House. I want to be utterly uncontroversial, so I shall just give two examples: Section 28 and the age of consent.
That is one reason why an elected component could bring, to use a phrase used by several of your Lordships, "added value" to this House. It would be an alternative reservoir. It would brine variety. It might bring about a different age profile. It would have the benefit of engaging the regions and the nations, but it would also bring in people from the outside world. As several of your Lordships have graciously conceded, some of our expertise gets rather thin. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, who said that when one stops practising a skill, after about 10 or 15 years one has got very rusty indeed. That is a perfectly good reason for having the elected component. It would be legitimate, as would any other Peer who came here under an agreed settlement.
I want to make one proposition: it is not every component of every democracy and every aspect of every democratic institution that has to be elected. The judges are not elected—thank God. Public prosecutors are not elected. Rat catchers are not elected. They are in the United States, which suits them. The monarch is not elected. We do not have a rotating elected monarchy, as does Malaysia, for example. We do not at present have time limits here on how long or for how

819
many terms one may serve. It is not necessary for every part of a democratic constitution to be elected. The prime body with legislative supremacy and primacy on taxation ought to be elected. I entirely agree with what was said earlier: it is not simply election that matters, it is the fear of being dismissed.
If that is so, there is no need to engage in debate about whet her appointed Peers, as opposed to elected Peers, would be legitimate. Both would be of equal validity and legitimacy, as would the Bishops, the Law Lords and the independents, because they would all be part of an agreed constitutional settlement. That gives legitimacy, not the bare fact of election.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Surely, if the will of the people can be expressed by electing Members to the House of Commons, why should there be any kind of duplication by there also being people elected to your Lordships' House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is quite simple: because they are doing different jobs of work. If we want the House of Lords to do a completely different job of work, or an associated series of different jobs of work, there is no earthly reason why we should not have an elected component. That is not duplication, because they would be doing completely different things.
I am afraid that I have only eight minutes left, and I want to develop a particular theme. I personally believe that we should strengthen the way in which this House works. The Leader's Group has met; a questionnaire is winging its way to your Lordships to ask for your views about the future. Perhaps I can deal with one or two of the issues. One of the most effective ways in which this House challenges the Government—Ministers in particular—is Question Time. We have four Questions lasting 30 minutes. I have offered—I have not told my colleagues this—that Question Time should be extended from 30 minutes to 45, so that we might have six Questions on any one day. I have offered that we should have Questions on Fridays. I have offered that we should have a Leader's Question Time. Your Lordships may not be interested in those proposals, but it cannot be said that I am afraid of scrutiny, nor that I have not offered it.
It is a legitimate question in that context to ask whether, if we want an effective Official Opposition and an effective Liberal Democrat Opposition, they are properly resourced for research purposes. That means money. I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, to submit written proposals about that.
I hope that those are regarded as earnests of the fact that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and I believe in strengthening this House, although we do not think that the parroting of the cry for an elected House is the only remedy. We do not believe that that will bring about the outcome that we want. Both of us recognise that we are only trustees of our duties in this place for the moment—several moments, I must say,
820
before the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, becomes too cheerful—and we are deliberately offering these internal mechanisms to make the House better and stronger. I shall finish my theme, and I will readily give way.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will deal with the Joint Committee.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall do so, if I may.
I hope that this does not sound heretical. We are in danger of becoming obsessed with our composition. It is always a topic of enormous interest to all of us, and we always get a full House when we discuss ourselves. My suggestion—put only for your Lordships' consideration—is that we should not become obsessively over-focused on composition. The way in which we work and discharge our duties may be even more important; it is certainly as important.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Leader of the House accept that we on these Benches recognise that he and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor have endeavoured to be as helpful as possible in this House and to suggest ways in which it might be improved? Is he willing to recognise that that is nothing to do with the White Paper and that our great objection to the White Paper is that it fails to recognise the way in which the public now expect the House to be more legitimate and more democratic than it is at present?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness was not present, but, on many occasions, a large number of your Lordships pointed out, quite rightly, to the Lord Chancellor and me that we had been rather sketchy about methods of working in the White Paper. The noble Baroness was not here—I am not complaining about that—but I am dealing with points that were raised in depth, with scruple and with point and purpose by several noble Lords. That is why I am dealing with that.
I promised that I would come to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Denham. Interest in the matter was not just limited to him: the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, asked similar questions. With his unfailing courtesy, the noble Lord, Lord Denham, wrote to me saying that he would raise this question. He also kindly said yesterday that we had had a lengthy conversation last year.
The noble Lord quoted some remarks that were made by my noble friend Lady Jay and me. I am clear in my mind that we have not resiled from any commitment, but it is for the House to judge. The right thing for me to do is to put in the Library all the documents that I believe to be relevant to the question of what undertaking was given, whether it was a Joint Committee on composition, as some believe, or a Joint Committee on the parliamentary aspects, as others believe. I do not wish to put documents in the Library selectively, so I am more than happy, to be fair, to put

821
in the Library any documents that I omit but which the noble Lord, Lord Denham, wishes to add. We shall see. It is a fact, as I have said on several occasions, that we sought to have a Joint Committee, but we were unable to agree on terms of reference.
Lord Denham: My Lords, as I said in my speech, we all understood it as an undertaking from the Dispatch Box that would be honoured. During the whole of the passage of the House of Lords Bill, there was never, to my knowledge, any suggestion that there should be a limitation on the work of the Joint Committee.
The noble and learned Lord has quoted one wording from the White Paper of January 1999. I shall try another wording on him; it comes from page 35 of the White Paper:
"Once the Royal Commission has reported, the Government will then establish the proposed Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to examine the parliamentary implications of the Commission's work. It, too, will be asked to work speedily".
That was in January 1999. We could have appointed that Joint Committee in January 2000. It is not a question of wasting time; any time that has been wasted has been wasted by the Government.
A large number of Members of this House feel that they have been given a commitment and that that commitment has not been honoured. If the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House is content for the House to feel that he has reneged on this, I do not think that that is a good idea for the House at all.
I hope that he will honour the commitment now. In the early days, no one ever explained to the House, in the three Statements which were made or during the passage of the House of Lords Bill, that there were going to be limitations. That was done only the moment the Bill was on the statute book. I feel myself that the House has been very shabbily treated.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, what the noble Lord. Lord Denham, has done in his citation is to underline exactly my point; that it is just as well to look at the documents. The phrase that the noble Lord put to me was "the parliamentary implications". We have been perfectly content to have a Joint Committee on the parliamentary aspects—the parliamentary implications—and we were not able to agree with the relevant parties on the terms of reference.
If that Joint Committee of the kind I have mentioned is wanted and we can agree on terms of reference, I am perfectly happy to use my best endeavours to have it set up. But I think it is very important, before an accusation of reneging is made, that one should actually consider what was said, look at Hansard, and see the parliamentary Answers and any other documents which the noble Lord, Lord Denham, wants to put in the bundle.
822
I hope that I have dealt as fully with the matter as is fair on this occasion. I am up to 25 minutes but I shall give way again.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful. In view of the importance of the matter, would it be appropriate for a copy of the documents to be circulated to all Members of the House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I said that I shall put them in the Library. That is what it means.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, whether or not the noble and learned Lord feels that a commitment has been reneged on, and he is an honourable man, given the tone of the debate we have had these past two days and of that which took place in another place today, the Government's policy is clearly in tatters. Purely on the merits of a Joint Committee of both Houses, would it not be an extremely good idea now to set one up?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before I accused anyone of having a policy in tatters I think I would be inclined to get a policy. However, as your Lordships are fond of saying, as I said at the beginning of these remarks—brief as they are—we will reflect on everything that has been put to us. Plainly, if the noble Lord puts that to us and if we see any practical virtue in it, of course the Lord Chancellor and I will reflect upon it.
Indeed, I was about to say when I was invited to give way that I would like to reflect very carefully on what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. I think we may agree that his purpose and mine are the same but that it is a question of how we get there. I thought that his speech—if I may say so without appearing presumptuous—was extremely powerful. The Lord Chancellor and I would like to look at it and perhaps have informal conversations with him to see whether we can get an agreed journey towards the outcome that we want. The White Paper makes it plain that we value the contribution that the Bishops make. We agree with the Royal Commission that there ought to be a wider representation—or it may be reflection—of other faith groups.
This has been a very long debate. I hope that we can move forward. One or two of the questions are not of headline-grabbing urgency but they are extremely important. Perhaps I can deal with them briefly. I am overrunning my time but I have given way on several occasions.
Pre-legislative scrutiny is a significant key to doing our work better. In a sense, I do not call it "calling the Government to account". I would prefer to describe it as "discharging our duty to get the best legislative product we can on any given topic". Whereas we may disagree on the principle of legislation, we ought at least to deliver as finely honed a piece of work as possible.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and I agree that we could do better on pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills, provided that we can achieve

823
some degree of flexibility about carry-over of Bills. It is nonsensical that in many cases we do a vast amount of work on Bills, which we then lose and have to restart in an ensuing Session. I believe, as I have said before, that there is the questionable area of European Union legislation and we might discharge a significant public duty by having more scrutiny. Those are all answers to propositions that have been suggested. I am not binding the Government to these points. I am simply suggesting how my noble and learned friend and I are thinking.
I have already dealt with the question of secondary legislation.
Our debate has been exceptionally good natured; it has been a privilege to listen to your Lordships' different views and different experience. Most of your Lordships believe that it is now time for the hereditary element to go. It is difficult to justify the continued attendance of hereditary Peers, however many there may be. That is not to say that we diminish the work that they have done. In many ways it has been sterling work. Without presumption, those hereditary Peers who remained did not cease from their efforts in doing what they could in the service of the House.
824
Other than those remarks, and the fact that no one seems enormously pleased with what we have produced, there seems to be no unanimity. I am about to finish because it is very late, but I shall go back to what my noble and learned friend said at the beginning of his introduction. If we can reach consensus, recognising that that must mean compromise, we should prefer it because we want to equip the House to do its duty. One aspect of that is composition and the other, which is much more long lasting and of substance and significance, is the way in which we do our work.
I close by thanking your Lordships and saying how grateful I am.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HSBC Investment Banking Bill [H.L.]
  London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]

    Milford Haven Port Authority Bill [H.L.]
    Presented and read a first time.
    House adjourned at thirteen minutes past midnight.

  Fiji
  Fiji
  ECGD Annual Report
  ECGD Annual Report
  Forestry
  Forestry
  State Veterinary Service
  State Veterinary Service
  Museums' Long-term Loan of Exhibits
  Museums' Long-term Loan of Exhibits
  Royal Parks Agency: Performance Targets
  Royal Parks Agency: Performance Targets
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Republic of Ireland President: Police Escort
  Republic of Ireland President: Police Escort
  Senior Civil Service Pay
  Senior Civil Service Pay