Sitting of 21 January 2003

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

  Palestine
  Mr. Robert Key: What recent assessment he has made of whether EU development funds for Palestine have been misdirected to terrorist causes. [91780]
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Without EU assistance to the Palestinian Authority, it is likely the Authority would by now have collapsed, further exacerbating the dire humanitarian situation in the occupied territories. The European Commissioner for External Relations, Christopher Patten, has made it clear that
  "there is no case for stating that EU money has financed terrorism".
  At the London meeting on Palestinian reform on 14 January, which I chaired, there was widespread recognition that the Palestinian Authority has achieved great progress on financial reform.
  Mr. Key: Meanwhile, Israel kills three Palestinians for each Israeli killed. This policy is going nowhere. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, as we know in this country, it will take more than revenge to achieve peace?
  Mr. Straw: We all accept the right of all countries, including Israel, to take effective and proportionate action to deal with a security threat. We have faced a similar but not such a great terrorist threat in our time, and the terrorists have to be pursued vigorously. At the same time, we also know from our experience that there has to be a political process—not to excuse the terrorists, for whom there is no excuse, but to deal with the environment in which terrorism breeds. That is why we are fully committed to the quartet process and the development of the road map.
  Richard Burden: I endorse what my right hon. Friend says about the progress made by the Palestinians in reforming and, indeed, the tribute that has been paid to the new Finance and Industry Ministers of the Palestinian Authority in taking that
  150
  forward. However, if we are to achieve reform and the kind of transparency referred to, does he agree that it is vital that the Palestinians are allowed to hold the elections that they want to hold, but which is rather difficult when candidates cannot move from one town to another because of daily curfews and closures? Does not Israel have a responsibility to lift them to allow those elections to go ahead?
  Mr. Straw: There are two sets of responsibilities. There is one on Israel to facilitate elections and to lift unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on the Palestinians' daily lives, including the operation of their democratic processes. Separately, there are responsibilities on the Palestinians themselves. There is much that they can do to reform the way that they operate, notwithstanding all the unnecessary restrictions. That has been shown by the progress in reforming the way that their financial systems operate, and it therefore raises in stark relief the lack of progress, which we agreed last Tuesday had to be dealt with, in respect of other issues, including security sector reform and judicial reform.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Given that the military wing of the Palestinian Authority, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, claims responsibility for blowing up and murdering at least 23 Israelis in Tel Aviv on 5 January this year, does my right hon. Friend accept that the Palestinian Authority is at the centre of terrorist activity?
  Mr. Straw: I have not seen any evidence to suggest that the people from the Palestinian Authority whom I met were at the centre of terrorist activity—rather the reverse. They expressed similar horror and repulsion at such unnecessary and gratuitous killing as anyone else who is a member of the civilised world. However, I certainly accept one implication of my hon. Friend's question: a huge agenda remains for reforming the security sector inside in the Palestinian Authority. We cannot have a situation where there are nine separate security organisations, some under effective control by the Palestinian Authority, but some no more than terrorist organisations masquerading with the authority of the Palestinian Authority. That has to be changed.
  Richard Ottaway: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that dialogue is the best way to combat terrorism? Bearing that in mind, why did he decline to meet Mr. Netanyahu when he was in London?
  Mr. Straw: I had already met Mr. Netanyahu, and I gave him a very good lunch.

  Bangladesh
  Ms Oona King: What assessment he has made of the situation in Bangladesh. [91781]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I can confirm what my right hon. Friend said, because I was at that lunch, too.

  151
  We are concerned by reports of mistreatment of detainees, including deaths in custody, associated with Operation Clean Heart. We are monitoring closely the detention of journalists and opposition politicians, and have urged the Bangladesh Government to ensure that the due process of law is followed in all cases.
  Ms King: Following the reported human rights abuses, may I thank the British high commissioner in Dhaka, David Carter, for the representations that he has made? What steps are the British Government taking to help strengthen democracy in Bangladesh? Will the Minister continue to raise the tragic case of the British resident, Surat Miah, who was beaten to death? Will he write to me on the indemnity Bill?
  Mr. O'Brien: I will pass on my hon. Friend's thanks to the high commissioner. We are following closely the circumstances in Bangladesh and particularly the arrests of some journalists and opposition leaders. We welcome the release of Hussein Chaudry and others. Democracy means allowing disagreement and debate, and in Bangladesh that means that the Awami league as well as the Bangladesh Nationalist party must have the right to voice their opinions. We have raised our concerns informally with the Bangladesh authorities, and will continue to do so. I will write to my hon. Friend on the issue of the indemnity Bill. Surat Miah, who was killed at Dhaka airport, was a British resident but not a British national. We have let the Bangladesh authorities know that there is widespread concern about the case in this country, and we have made representations in that regard.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: In spite of the plague of violence in Bangladesh—for example, the bombing in Mymensingh, various murders and the general unrest that has been mentioned—will the Minister tell the House whether, following the historic visit of President Musharraf to Bangladesh, there has been any progress towards solving the long-standing problem of the Bihari population? Is there any chance of them at last being accepted in Pakistan?
  Mr. O'Brien: We have made representations to the Pakistani authorities on the issue of the Biharis. We are concerned that religious minorities should be able to practise their religion with freedom and with a recognition of their rights. I very much hope that the Pakistani authorities will respect those rights, although there have been problems with that in the past.

  Iraq
  Ann Clwyd: If he will make a statement on progress with indicting senior members of the Iraqi regime for the taking of hostages in Iraq during the Gulf war. [91782]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). The Government warmly recognise the activities of the INDICT organisation, and in principle encourage INDICT in its aim of bringing to justice members of the Iraqi regime
  152
  who have committed criminal acts. Criminal investigations or prosecutions in England and Wales of individual members of the Iraqi regime under the Taking of Hostages Act 1982 are a matter for the police and the prosecuting authorities.
  Ann Clwyd: I thank my hon. Friend, but I remind him that it was two and a half years ago that I gave the Attorney-General and the Government details of war crimes that would enable indictments to be issued against leading members of the Iraqi regime. Is he aware that our Queen's Counsel, who is a leading human rights lawyer, says that we have enough evidence for that to stand up in a British court? Short of getting Saddam Hussein to sign a confession in his own blood, we have all the evidence we need to indict leading members of the regime. Does he recollect that Milosevic was indicted while he was still head of state?
  Mr. O'Brien: As sympathetic as we are to my hon. Friend's wishes to take action in relation to Saddam—Hussein in full recognition of the appalling human rights abuses committed by him—we must operate within the law. Saddam Hussein has not left Iraq for some 21 years, and we do not accept the principle of trials in absentia in this country. We need to continue to examine these matters and to continue to encourage my hon. Friend in her campaign.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Minister saying that no action has been taken against Saddam Hussein because he has not left Iraq and we cannot get him out, or is the reason an unwillingness of Governments, prior to the information given by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), to take action earlier, as it is more than 10 years since these atrocities took place?
  Mr. O'Brien: No one would be happier than my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or me to see Saddam Hussein out of Iraq and behind bars. We must operate within the circumstances prescribed by law, however, and that is the way that Ministers are expected to act. In principle, however, we want someone like Saddam Hussein to answer for his crimes. The best place for him to answer in practice would be in a properly constituted Iraqi court in a democratic Iraq.
  Kali Mountford: Is my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) not correct in saying that Saddam needs to be dealt with because of his responsibility for these matters? The Government have taken a leading role in international tribunals that deal with war crimes and crimes against humanity, so, instead of letting people off the hook, is it not now time to find a way of bringing them to book? How will the British Government go about doing that?
  Mr. O'Brien: The whole purpose of resolution 1441 is to make sure that Saddam Hussein is not let off the hook. For all too long, he has been developing weapons of mass destruction and, indeed, abusing the rights of his people. We need to find a way of making sure that he does not develop weapons of mass destruction and does not abuse the human rights of his people. We want to pursue the matter through the United Nations and

  153
  resolution 1441. That is the process that we are undertaking. We also hope that the circumstances will arise in which we will be able to deal with Saddam for the crimes that he has so obviously committed.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: I commend the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on her persistence and integrity in pursuing the indictment of war criminals. If the law can be applied as she would like, that is all to the good. However, more often than not in foreign affairs and diplomacy, matters cannot be seen in simple black-and-white terms. It is often a case of choosing between different shades of grey. Will the Minister confirm that we will face some of the most supremely vexed moral decisions in the coming weeks and months and that none of them will be easy and simple? Unpalatable though it would be, might not exile for a few guilty men be better than death for perhaps thousands of innocent people? To put it another way, does he agree with Secretary Rumsfeld when he said:
  "Given a choice between peace and war, I think exile would be a fair trade"?
  Mr. O'Brien: Given a choice between peace and war, I agree that we would prefer peace and Saddam to be exiled if he would agree to that. I fear that that might not be the option facing us. We will have to see. Some difficult choices are facing the international community and we will have to consider the suggestion made by Donald Rumsfeld and others that Saddam Hussein should be able to leave Iraq. I fear that given the nature of his character, it is probably unlikely that he will agree to do so. However, if the option is there, it should certainly at least be explored.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: What estimate has been given by the UN weapons inspectors of the time period needed to complete their work in Iraq. [91783]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): There is no specified time frame for the completion of the UN weapons inspectors' task laid down by UN Security Council resolution 1441. Crucially, the length of the task is dependent on the level of co-operation that Iraq provides to the inspectors. The inspectors will be making their first report on Monday.
  Mr. Prentice: It is very reassuring that there are no artificial deadlines, because many people both outside and in the House feel that we are being led by the nose into war. Must there not be compelling evidence of a breach? If there is that compelling evidence, the matter should go to the United Nations for a second vote. A quarter of the British Army are steaming to the Gulf as I speak, and they cannot be committed to war without a vote in the House of Commons.
  Mr. O'Brien: We need to take the issue of the time that the inspectors have step by step. Let us see what Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei say on Monday. The obligations on Iraq under resolution 1441 are very clear. This is not just about Iraq sitting back and waiting to see whether the inspectors find something. The Iraqis must stop concealing weapons of mass destruction and start
  154
  complying with UN resolution 1441. If my hon. Friend wants a path to peace, the real path to peace is compliance with resolution 1441.
  Mr. Michael Moore: In recent days, the Prime Minister has said that the UN weapons inspectors should be given sufficient time and space to do their work and that they should not be subject to an arbitrary time scale. Despite the significant military build-up in the Gulf, will the Government ensure that the UN process is not short-circuited and that the inspectors get the time that they need to do their job?
  Mr. O'Brien: It is the case that 100 inspectors are now in Iraq. It is hoped that 150 inspectors will be there by the end of February. We will be able to assess the progress of the investigations when Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei make their reports on Monday. I repeat that we are not talking about a game of hide and seek. This is about the Iraqis complying with the obligation on them to provide a full and complete declaration, which has not yet been provided, while ensuring that they co-operate fully with the investigations. Obviously, we will have to wait and see what Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei say on Monday.
  Joan Ruddock: Does my hon. Friend agree with Hans Blix that inspections are for the purpose of disarmament? Assuming that all intelligence is provided to the inspectors and they consequently discover weapons of mass destruction, will they have an opportunity to destroy those weapons in compliance with resolution 1441? If they do, what will be the justification for military action?
  Mr. O'Brien: As we have said repeatedly, there is no decision to take military action at this point. We are awaiting the report of the UN inspectors. When we have that on Monday, we will be able to move on to the next step and make a proper assessment of the course of the inspections. The opportunity to destroy weapons of mass destructions will, to some extent, depend on the Iraqis. They have shown a lack of willingness to co-operate in the past. We want them to take the opportunity—the final opportunity, in the words of resolution 1441—to co-operate fully with the UN. If they fail to do so, again in the words of resolution 1441, serious consequences will follow. We must have full co-operation from Iraq. That is the requirement.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Minister agree that given the correct policy of a major military build up, which is putting substantial pressure on Saddam Hussein, it is nevertheless vital that the weapons inspectors are given the time and the number of people to do their job properly? Does he also agree that if Saddam Hussein truly has any feelings for the people of his country, he will ensure that the arms inspectors receive the fullest co-operation so that the most awful military disaster is not inflicted on the people of Iraq?
  Mr. O'Brien: It certainly is the case that if Saddam Hussein had any feelings for the people of his country he would have co-operated fully before now. He could have

  155
  co-operated after 1991 and ensured that the weapons of mass destruction were removed, so avoiding sanctions, which would have given Iraq the opportunity to develop as a proper country. He did not do that. Why not? Because he does not have the sort of feeling for the people of his country that the hon. Gentleman wishes he had. I, too, wish that he had those feelings, but he does not. We must ensure that we put pressure on Saddam Hussein because it is the only thing that he understands. He would not have allowed the inspectors in without the threat of military force.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Does the Minister agree that it is very important for the weapons inspectors to be given as much time as possible to do the work thoroughly? What is his view of the opinion of the International Atomic Energy Authority that it may well take 12 months to complete a full inspection?
  Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the comment by Dr. el-Baradei, I should explain that the question he was asked was if, and it is a big if, the inspections were continued, at what point would sanctions be lifted. As I understand it, he said that there would be at least a year's worth of inspections before we could even consider lifting sanctions against Iraq. I think that he was answering a slightly different question to the one raised by the hon. Gentleman. On a time scale for the inspectors, we will consider the situation when we get a full report from Dr. Blix on 27 January, when we will be able to evaluate how the issue of the inspections is taken forward.
  David Winnick: If, as some critics maintain, the United States is hellbent on war, why is it suggesting that Saddam should go into exile to prevent military conflict? As for the protesters over the weekend in various democracies who exercised their democratic and legitimate right to protest on the streets, would it not be nice if the people of Iraq could demonstrate against their Government and the terror-inflicted state gave them the opportunity that democracies give to people who hold different opinions?
  Mr. O'Brien: I agree that the Iraqi people should be able to express their views. As for the United States, it has made it clear that it wants to follow the UN route.
  Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on the meeting of Iraqi opposition representatives in London in December. [91784]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The Iraqi opposition conference held in London in December was the first large gathering of opposition groups since autumn 1999. An official from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office observed the conference.
  Mr. Luff: Did the Government explain to those Iraqi opposition representatives why they appear reluctant in public to explain exactly what humanitarian support will be made available to the Iraqi people in the event of a war? Given the growing public nervousness about war reflected in opinion polls published this morning,
  156
  does the Minister think that it is time for his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to ask the International Development Secretary to come to the House and explain exactly what will be done to help the Iraqi people, should there be a war?
  Mr. O'Brien: We have held some discussions with the United Nations. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed this matter with Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, yesterday. We are looking at all those issues. Clearly the objective at the moment is to avoid war if Saddam Hussein allows us to do so. We need full compliance with resolution 1441. If a war should occur, we will obviously have to work closely with the UN and other organisations to make sure that we try to minimise the damage to the Iraqi people. Our disagreement, our debate and our conflict, if it comes to that, are with Saddam Hussein and those around him rather than the Iraqi people, who themselves have been his victims.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Which Iraqi opposition groups favour the intense bombing likely to be conducted by the Americans to minimise the number of body bags that will be taken back to Alabama or Wyoming?
  Mr. O'Brien: The Iraqi opposition groups want the removal of Saddam Hussein. If there were a choice between a peaceful and democratic regime in Iraq under Saddam Hussein and a war, the issue might be different, but the fact is that Saddam Hussein has carried out the wholesale slaughter of large numbers of his people. I urge my hon. Friend to remember the 5,000 men, women and children who died at Halabja in 1988 and the 9,000 who were injured there. We need to make sure that Saddam Hussein is recognised as the tyrant that he is, and is dealt with accordingly.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The reason for those Iraqi opposition groups gathering in London is, of course, the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. What estimate has the Minister made of the number of Iraqi people who have died as the direct result of Saddam Hussein's policies since 1980? With how many resolutions has Saddam Hussein complied, and how many outstanding resolutions require his compliance? How long, since 1995, have the UN arms inspectors had to find arms in Iraq? Why do so many people prefer to listen to announcements from war criminals in Baghdad than to our own Prime Minister or the US President?
  Mr. O'Brien: There are about nine resolutions with which Saddam Hussein has failed to comply, and about 23 obligations before resolution 1441—which imposes a number of other obligations, some of which duplicate previous obligations—was passed. There are a substantial number of UN obligations with which Saddam has not complied.
  In terms of the numbers who have died, it is difficult in the circumstances of Iraq to estimate how many people Saddam Hussein has murdered. Some of the Iraqi opposition groups put the figure at about 2 million,

  157
  while others have suggested that it is about 1.5 million, but either way, this tyrant has killed a very large number of people.
  Ms Diane Abbott: The Minister will be aware that the British public support the wish of Iraqi opposition groups to see a return to democracy in Iraq, but he will also be aware that today's polls show that their support for this war, even with a UN resolution, is dropping away. Does he accept that the British public understand, as do many in this House, that in the absence of concrete, positive evidence—such as that which could perhaps be found by the weapons inspectors—a UN resolution arrived at by contrivance and arm twisting will be devalued as a signal of genuine international consensus behind the war?
  Mr. O'Brien: The UN resolution was passed unanimously in the Security Council. Many people in this House asked for a UN resolution. Many said that it could never be done, but it was passed unanimously. Even Syria signed up to it. There are those who say that we should never have threatened force. If we had not done so, the inspectors would not be in Iraq now, UN resolutions would have been worth nothing, international law would have meant nothing and a message would have gone out to large numbers of other countries that are contemplating whether to develop weapons of mass destruction—especially nuclear weapons—saying that the UN would do nothing, that Britain would do nothing and that certain Members of this House would wish to do nothing. This is not a situation in which we can act in such an irresponsible way. This Government will act, and we will do so responsibly.
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I support the Minister in what he has just said. Does he agree that, as the situation develops in Iraq, the role of opposition representatives becomes increasingly important? Does he accept the imperative to keep Iraq as one country within its current boundaries? Is he satisfied from his contacts with Iraqi opposition leaders that that is not only achievable but sustainable? What discussions has he had with any potential successor Government or Governments to secure the total removal in perpetuity of weapons of mass destruction and their programmes of development in Iraq? What steps has he taken to ensure that any successor Government would be democratically mandated and reflect the various ethnic and religious groups in Iraq? Why have we heard so little about those important matters?
  Mr. O'Brien: I think that I counted five questions and I shall try to answer them briefly. We want to see Iraq as one country, as is set out in resolution 1441. On the question whether that is sustainable, yes, we believe that it is. Our discussions with the opposition groups suggest that they accept that that is an international requirement set down by the UN and the view of all the countries on the Security Council. Indeed, in this case at least, all the countries around Iraq take a similar view. No one wants to see the break-up of Iraq.
  158
  On weapons of mass destruction, the opposition groups understand very clearly from us—indeed, they must understand this from the UN—that there is an obligation on Iraq to remove all development of weapons of mass destruction.
  On a successor Government, we want to see a Government who are not a threat to their neighbours, are not developing weapons of mass destruction and are not repressing their people, but are representative of them.

  Genocide
  Mr. Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on action by the international community to combat genocide. [91785]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): To combat genocide, the international community has drawn up a UN convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide and included provisions for jurisdiction over the crime of genocide in the statutes of both the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia and in the statute of the International Criminal Court.
  Mr. Turner: I am obliged to the Minister for that answer. The Prime Minister has wept over Africa and promised never again to stand by while genocide is perpetrated in that continent. Is he aware that the Save Zimbabwe campaign says:
  "We believe Mugabe is preparing for politicide (political mass killings) and even genocide—which will impact on all ethnic groups perceived not to be ZANU-PF supporters"?
  The vice-president declares that whites are not human beings and the President refers to the Opposition as "weeds". He has called on ZANU-PF to
  "go and uproot the weeds from your garden".
  What effective steps is the Under-Secretary taking—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is far too long. Perhaps the Under-Secretary has got the message.
  Mr. Rammell: I have, Mr. Speaker. I understand the sentiment behind the hon. Gentleman's question. The situation in Zimbabwe is appalling, with 60 deaths and 1,000 cases of torture in the past year. However, the ICC statute defines genocide as being committed against a national, ethnic, racial or religious grouping. It is not clear that that applies in Zimbabwe, where the actions, however reprehensible, are targeted at a political grouping and not some of the other categories that I described. Nevertheless, we shall continue to do everything in our power to put pressure on the Government of Zimbabwe to stop the appalling actions that are taking place.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my hon. Friend share my anxiety about the deteriorating position in the Democratic Republic of the

  159
  Congo? Does he agree that the lesson of Rwanda is that the role of the international community is paramount in preventing genocide and dispensing justice?
  Mr. Rammell: I share my right hon. Friend's anxiety. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the matter with Kofi Annan at the United Nations yesterday. We need to maintain the pressure.
  Mr. Michael Ancram: What attempts have the Government made to raise genocide in Zimbabwe at the United Nations, to secure a resolution to bring meaningful pressure to bear on that country to hold fresh elections or at least to put United Nations observers on the ground to monitor food distribution? Why are the human rights of the peoples of the Balkans and Iraq apparently more valuable than those of millions of persecuted people in Zimbabwe, who look to the Government to take a lead? When will the Government grasp the nettle and act?
  Mr. Rammell: I am conscious that the right hon. Gentleman tries to make political capital out of the issue. However, our international partners will confirm that we regularly raise Zimbabwe because of our anxiety about the position there. To suggest that we can get an international agreement on genocide leads us down a path of no sustainable action. We take the issue seriously and we are trying to resolve it.

  Middle East
  James Purnell: If he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [91786]
  Ms Christine Russell: What recent discussions he has had with the US Government about the middle east peace process. [91787]
  Mr. James Arbuthnot: If he will make a statement on developments in the middle east peace process. [91790]
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Lasting security can be achieved only through a negotiated settlement to secure an Israeli state free from terror and a viable Palestinian state based on Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 1397. We are committed to reviving final status negotiations as soon as possible. We fully support the efforts of the quartet to agree and to publish a road map to that end. The London meeting on Palestinian reform, which I chaired last week, was a valuable and successful contribution towards the reform of the Palestinian Authority on which a viable Palestinian state will crucially depend. A copy of the statement of outcomes from the conference has been placed in the Library.
  James Purnell: I welcome the Palestinian conference, especially the commitment to reforming the security apparatus. Does my right hon. Friend accept that until those promises become reality, the Israeli public's primary demands will be for security? Does he also accept that a Labour Defence Minister initiated the
  160
  construction of the defensive wall and that the Labour candidate supports that, not as a land grab but as a method of allowing the Israelis to withdraw from the occupied territories?
  Mr. Straw: Progress on all aspects of reform in the occupied territories must take place as fast as the Palestinian Authority can reasonably undertake it, notwithstanding the current restrictions. We have always acknowledged the Israelis' overwhelming security concerns, but they must act proportionately. That applies to the security fence. Although we understand some of their anxiety to establish the fence, its line has been unjustified. The British ambassador in Tel Aviv has made representations about it.
  Ms Russell: I should also like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the conference on Palestinian reform last week, and on his persevering with it despite the intransigence of the Israeli authorities in not allowing the Palestinian delegates to travel to London. I believe that one of the conclusions of the meeting was that the continued building of illegal settlements was seriously jeopardising the viability of a two-state solution. Following his discussions with his counterparts in the United States, what does my right hon. Friend perceive to be the view of the US Administration on the illegal settlements? Do they, too, wish to see them dismantled? They are a real obstacle to peace.
  Mr. Straw: The building of the settlements is in defiance of international law, to which the United States has subscribed, as has every other permanent member of the Security Council. There have been frequent occasions on which United States Secretary Powell has issued statements condemning further settlement activity. The simple fact is that these settlements are unsustainable. They cannot continue, and they are a blockage in the way of a solution to the problem of Israel and Palestine. Their removal has to feature in every possible conception of a solution to this terrible conflict.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the Prime Minister's inviting the Israeli Labour leader to Downing street in the middle of an Israeli general election campaign was not something that was calculated to improve our influence in the middle eastern peace process?
  Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. There are plenty of occasions on which visiting foreign parliamentarians, including Opposition leaders, have been accorded proper respect, not only by this Government but by Governments whom the hon. Gentleman has supported. We are the Government of this country, but we also have party-to-party associations. That was true for the right hon. Gentleman's party as much as it is for ours. I believe that the even-handed approach of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister makes a great contribution towards a final situation in which we can make progress towards peace.
  Mr. Michael Ancram: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that progress on the middle east process, as in any other peace process, depends on a measured,

  161
  balanced and even-handed approach, involving the concept of two states to the west of the Jordan; an Israel secure from attack within acceptable borders; a viable Palestinian state; Israeli withdrawal from the occupied west bank, alongside an end to terrorist incursions into Israel and a reformed constitution for the Palestinian Authority; and a readiness on both sides to reach accommodations on issues such as Jerusalem, the right of return and the removal of the settlements? Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that progress towards those ends will be advanced only by painstaking work based on the Tenet/Mitchell proposals, on the negotiations at Camp David and Taba, and on low-level agreements which, in the end, are the only way to help to build confidence between the two sides?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. This is a terrible conflict, but there have been other, worse, conflicts in which, thanks to a commitment on both sides, there is now hope. I refer the House to the situation in Sri Lanka, where thousands more have died as a result of terrorism even than in the occupied territories and Israel, but where, because of a commitment by both sides, there is now a peaceful process leading, I hope, to a final negotiated settlement. We have to follow the same process in respect of Israel and the occupied territories. There is no future for the 3.5 million Palestinians and, in a sense, still less for the 6 million Israeli citizens, unless we have a political process alongside the necessary security action.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: May I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on last week's London conference on Palestinian reform? I support all its outcomes. My right hon. Friend regularly advises us to look at our approach to Northern Ireland. Has he tried to impress upon successive Israeli Governments that, if they were to look at the way in which the parties in Northern Ireland have approached the problems there, and the way in which we as a Government—I do not want to describe us as the occupying power, although some people saw us as that—have responded to acts of terrorism, the Israelis might consider that a way of sending a message to the Palestinian people that they really were committed to peace?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, I do use the example of Northern Ireland as well as that of Sri Lanka, although I do not want to pretend that the situation in Israel and the occupied territories is anything like as apparently straightforward as the situation in Northern Ireland. The situation in Northern Ireland was terrible, but the situation between Israel and the Palestinians is very much worse. At least we did not have to contend with the utter horror of suicide bombings.
  All that said, I must repeat that the only way in which we can secure peace for Israelis as well as Palestinians is through a negotiated settlement. That is why we must keep on track, not least in supporting the process of the quartet—the European Union, the United Nations, the United States and the Russian Federation.
  Many dark things have happened since the intifada was declared two years ago. One good thing, however, is the unanimous agreement that now exists in the international community that the only way forward is a two-state solution involving a viable state of Palestine
  162
  alongside a secure state of Israel, borders and other matters being dealt with on the basis of the key UN resolutions 242, 338 and 1397.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: What pressure has the Foreign Secretary put on the Israeli Government to pay for the considerable damage done to installations and infrastructure in the occupied territories, many of which were paid for by our own Department for International Development and European aid?
  Mr. Straw: We continually make representations to the Israeli Government at every level when we believe that the Israeli defence force has acted disproportionately by, for example, destroying humanitarian projects financed by the European Union and United Kingdom taxpayers. There has not been much progress on that, but there has been better progress in respect of payments by the Israeli Government of the arrears of tax revenues owed to the Palestinian Authority. Those revenues are beginning to be paid, as a direct result of reforms of the financial arrangements that the Palestinian Authority itself introduced.

  Kenya
  Peter Bradley: What discussions he has had with the new Government in Kenya. [91788]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): We welcomed the election of President Kibaki on 27 December, and we are looking forward to meeting new Ministers to discuss their priorities. The Secretary of State for International Development is visiting Nairobi today, and Baroness Amos will have meetings there on 28 January. We expect the new Kenyan Vice-President, Michael Kijana Wamalwa, to be in London from 22 to 25 January.
  Peter Bradley: I am sure that the whole House welcomes the recent elections in Kenya, the country's return to democracy and in particular its commitment to eradicating corruption. Is the Minister aware, however, that many British citizens, including constituents of mine, have unfinished business with the previous Kenyan regime? I am thinking especially of those whose assets, property and land have been withheld. Will the Minister give an undertaking that when Ministers and officials meet their Kenyan counterparts they will impress on them, as a matter of urgency, the need to resolve those outstanding cases at last, equitably and justly?
  Mr. Rammell: I am happy to give that assurance. I am aware of the constituency case that my hon. Friend is pursuing. Let me repeat what I have already told him: I shall be more than happy to arrange a meeting between Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials, him and the Kenyan high commission to see how we can press the new Kenyan Government on the issue. I think the situation is positive at the moment; we must take the opportunity that it offers.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: Let me add my congratulations to the people of Kenya on their return to democracy with a convincing win by President Kibaki and the National Alliance Rainbow coalition. Will the British Government offer every assistance to the new Kenyan Government in their pursuit of corruption? Will they also provide any assistance they are called on to provide in pursuing anyone who has misappropriated funds from Kenya in the past before any more money is advanced by the International Monetary Fund?
  Mr. Rammell: We certainly welcome the fact that a key plank of President Kibaki's campaign was the commitment to root out corruption, and we will certainly seek to support him in whatever way we can, specifically in relation to the international financial institutions. Assuming that the Kenyan Government govern on the basis on which they campaigned—a commitment to good governance and rooting out corruption—we will seek to re-establish contact with those institutions.
  Hugh Bayley: Does the Minister agree that the successful implementation of a new partnership for Africa's development will depend on the principle of reciprocity? That is to say that when an African country complies with its obligations under NEPAD—the New Partnership for Africa's Development—as Kenya has done in terms of good governance, a peaceful transition from one governing party to another, and tackling corruption by appointing the chairman of Kenya's chapter of Transparency International to the office of the anti-corruption commissioner, it should see demonstrable benefits coming from our side of the partnership through trade liberalisation and development assistance.
  Mr. Rammell: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. It is a two-way street. We are at a critical juncture. If the new Kenyan Government act in the way in which they are committed to act, it is important that we look to restore the aid programme and particularly that we use our best efforts with the international financial institutions to get progress on that issue, too.
  Mr. Richard Spring: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the election last month in Kenya contrasts dramatically in its free and fair character with that in Zimbabwe? Given the clear pledge and immediate actions taken by President Kibaki, whose election we greatly welcome, to tackle the cancer of corruption that has bedevilled Kenya, does the hon. Gentleman welcome the indications of an early-stage meeting with the International Monetary Fund and of a positive dialogue with Kenya to help it to return to being one of the success stories of the African continent?
  Mr. Rammell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The contrast with Zimbabwe in terms of free and fair elections could not be more significant. We are in a positive situation at the moment in Kenya and I think all of us have a responsibility to build on the peaceful transition to move that process forward. We will certainly look to work with the IMF to take that process forward.

  EU (Greek Presidency)
  Mr. Chris Bryant: What assessment he has made of the priorities of the Greek Presidency of the European Union. [91789]
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): Greece has identified five main priorities for its presidency: enlargement; taking forward the Lisbon agenda of economic and social reform; asylum and immigration; the debate on the future of Europe; and external relations.
  Mr. Bryant: Clearly, one of the major issues facing the Greek presidency is the next steps involved in the Convention on the Future of Europe. Now that the French and German Governments are finally succumbing to British pressure and are supporting the British Government's suggestion of a permanent president for the European Council of Ministers, does the Minister think that it may be possible to persuade the French and the Germans to abandon the ludicrous caravanserai between Brussels and Strasbourg and to have a permanent site for the European Union?
  Mr. MacShane: There is a permanent site for the European Parliament and that is enshrined in treaties: it is in Strasbourg. I sometimes wonder whether the European Parliament could win more friends if it met occasionally in other great cities of Europe but that is a matter to address to the European Parliament. The permanent site remains Strasbourg.
  Mr. David Cameron: When the Minister meets with the Greek presidency, can he discuss EU directive 2000/68, which states that every horse, donkey and pony in the European Union will have to carry a passport, I quote, "at all times"? Is the Minister aware that that has come about because of French concerns about equine drugs entering the food system? Does he not think that it is ridiculous that horse owners should have to carry extra paperwork just to satisfy those deeply unsatisfactory French eating habits, and will he reflect on the fact that while the Government seem to be going to vast efforts to stop horses that are crossing continents from coming to this country, the asylum system is still in a shambles?
  Mr. MacShane: I was not sure when the hon. Gentleman was referring to horses, ponies and donkeys whether he was referring to his own Benches, but the transporting of animals is a serious problem in Europe and the hon. Gentleman, representing a farming constituency, should have some mind to that. Knowing the origin of animals and having them properly marked and logged is of deep importance to the farming community in this and other countries. The hon. Gentleman should not make light of or mock the need to defend our farmers by ensuring that they know where animals have come from and where they go.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Graham Allen: If he will make a statement on the situation in Zimbabwe. [91793]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): The political, economic and humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe is of grave concern to the UK Government and the wider international community. The leadership's policies have contributed to a situation where the country can no longer feed its people. We have increased our humanitarian assistance in response to the current crisis. We are also continuing to work closely with our EU and Commonwealth partners, along with other countries in the southern Africa region, to encourage the early restoration of good governance and sound economic management in Zimbabwe.
  Mr. Allen: As a member of that diminishing band of masochists—a supporter of the England cricket team I nonetheless commend the Government for trying to persuade that team not to go to Zimbabwe. Just in case on future occasions there might be some confusion about doing too little too late in similar circumstances, may I urge my hon. Friend to obtain from the cricketing authorities an England fixtures card for the next 10 years?
  Mr. Rammell: As a fellow member of the all-party group and a passionate England cricket fan, I am well aware of the fixtures list—as all of us are. I simply reiterate the point that we have made on a number of occasions, going back to last July. Given the appalling circumstances in Zimbabwe, we do not believe that the England cricket team should play in Zimbabwe. We cannot order them but we do not believe that participation is in anyone's interest—least of all that of English cricket.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: While agreeing with that, the question should be answered by the Foreign Secretary. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to his earlier replies. There is a case for indicting the Zimbabwe Government for policies akin to genocide. Has he seen the paper sent to him by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, produced by a delegation from Matabeleland, that indicates that a particular race group or tribe is being singled out in a way that amounts to genocide?
  Mr. Rammell: I am happy to look at that issue again but all the legal advice that we have at the moment is that it would be virtually impossible to sustain an
  166
  international legal case within the International Criminal Court on the ground of genocide. I would much welcome the opportunity to stand here and say something different but if I were to do so, I would not be saying what I believe to be the case.
  Tony Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the leaders of African countries—particularly those in the region—have a vital role to play in restoring the democracy that was stolen from the people of Zimbabwe by Mugabe?
  Mr. Rammell: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We are in constant dialogue with all the African states and frequently stress the importance of them pressing the Mugabe regime. We emphasise also that it is a regional problem, not just a problem for Zimbabwe.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: The Minister fails to understand the history of Zimbabwe. There is absolutely no doubt in the eyes of the majority of people in the civilised world that Mr. Mugabe and his Government carried out genocide against the Matabele people in the early 1980s. In 1983, thousands of Matabeles were slaughtered by the Korean-trained brigade in Zimbabwe. Is it not possible even at this stage to bring a charge of genocide against Mr. Mugabe, to prevent what he is planning now—further genocide against the Matabele people?
  Mr. Rammell: With regard to the incidents in the early 1980s, I am aware of the honourable role that the hon. Gentleman played in bringing them to public notice. Nevertheless, action was not taken at that stage. As to the current debate about whether it is possible to take legal action for genocide under the auspices of the ICC, that would only be possible from the date at which the court's statute came into being—which was 1 July 2002. I reiterate that while I would like to stand here and say that it would be reasonable to pursue a legal action for genocide, I do not believe that is the case.
  Donald Anderson: Does the Foreign Office view the refusal of President Mugabe to go into exile as a snub to an initiative of President Mbeki of South Africa, and if so, is this likely to make South Africa more ready to bring pressure to bear on Zimbabwe, since it is the only country in the region that has the leverage to effect change?
  Mr. Rammell: We certainly hope that President Mugabe accepts the wise counsel of President Mbeki. We are also conscious that the suggestion of a possible arrangement has been denied on all sides, but I believe that discussions between those parties will continue.

Global Terrorism/Iraq
12.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on yesterday's ministerial meeting of the United Nations Security Council, which was called to discuss the international community's response to global terrorism. I have placed a copy of my speech to the Security Council in the Library of the House. After the formal meeting, Security Council members discussed Iraq and North Korea in informal session.
The focus of the Council's meeting was the work of its counter-terrorism committee, which was established by United Nations Security Council resolution 1373. This resolution was passed in the wake of the 11 September atrocity, and for the first time imposed a legal obligation on all countries to end safe havens for terrorists, and to stop terrorist financing. The committee has been chaired by our own ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who yesterday received many tributes for his work. I know that the House will want to endorse those tributes, which were fully deserved.
Under the committee's programme, each country's progress in countering terrorism is actively being scrutinised. Where necessary, the committee is helping countries to improve their capacity to deal with terrorism. As we heard yesterday in New York, the vast majority of Governments, about 180, are complying with the new obligations on them. However, two—those of Liberia and, for very separate reasons, of East Timor—have failed to respond at all, and 13 are months behind. Therefore a deadline of 31 March was set yesterday for compliance.
Yesterday's meeting then discussed and unanimously agreed a new resolution on terrorism. Its key elements include the adoption of new measures to improve and to reinforce the work of the counter-terrorism committee; a recognition that the fight against terrorism has to be linked to international action against the proliferation of conventional arms and of weapons of mass destruction; and our agreement that our struggle against terrorism is not biased against any religion—including Islam. People of all faiths and of all cultures have been the innocent victims of terrorist attacks, and people of every faith have a common interest in countering the global threat.
In adopting the resolution, the Security Council recognised the dangerous connection between the terrorists who respect no rules, and the rogue states that know no rules either. It is the leaders of such rogue states who set a deadly example, and—through their illegal programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons—provide a tempting arsenal for terrorists.
Eight years ago, the world woke up to the nexus between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction when a sarin gas attack inflicted thousands of casualties in Tokyo. Since then, there has been abundant evidence that the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation is trying to acquire and to develop substances that are just as lethal, if not more so. There can be no doubt at all that al-Qaeda would use such weapons of mass destruction—nerve gases, viruses and even nuclear weapons—if it could lay its hands on them.
168
There are some who argue that the issue of proliferation is an unwelcome distraction from the campaign against terrorism. This view is profoundly misplaced, however. The global trade in weapons of mass destruction technologies has never been more dangerous. North Korean missile exports undermine security in the middle east. Illegal Iraqi imports of weapons-related technology flout United Nations sanctions, and are re-arming a regime that has previously shown no restraint in using mustard gas and nerve agent to murder thousands of its own people. It would therefore be wildly irresponsible to assume that we can turn a blind eye to this trade on the presumption that lethal materials will not ultimately fall into the hands of terrorists. In today's climate, no responsible Government could take such a risk with their citizens' lives.
The two greatest threats facing Britain and its citizens in the next decade are terrorists and rogue states with weapons of mass destruction. The most dangerous terrorist organisation is al-Qaeda. The most aggressive rogue state is Iraq. Since the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 last November, the choice for the Iraqi regime has been clear: resolve the 12-year stand-off with the UN peacefully through full co-operation with weapons inspectors, or face disarmament by force. Typically, Saddam Hussein's response so far has been characterised much more by deceit and delay than by any interest in a peaceful outcome.
The initial Iraqi declaration of WMD holdings submitted to the UN on 7 December contained stark omissions, not least the failure to explain what has happened to the large quantities of chemical and biological weapons materiel unaccounted for by UN inspectors in 1998 and set out in a report of more than 200 pages to the UN by the UNSCOM inspectors—the previous inspectors—in February 1999.
Last week UN inspectors discovered 12 chemical warheads, and a large quantity of hidden documents relating to a possible nuclear weapons programme, which were found within the area of a private house. Neither of these finds had been declared. Dr. Hans Blix and Dr. Mohamed el-Baradei used their visit to Baghdad last weekend to set out their concerns to the Iraqi regime about the lack of Iraqi co-operation, and to remind the regime of the "serious consequences" of failure to abide by the terms of Security Council resolution 1441.
On Monday next, 27 January, Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei will submit their progress reports on the inspection processes to the Security Council. I plainly cannot anticipate those reports, but two things are clear: first, the international community must maintain the pressure on Saddam Hussein to end his games of hide and seek. Secondly, Iraq must comply fully, actively and positively with all its international obligations. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence reminded the House yesterday in announcing further troop deployments to the Gulf, the lesson of the past four months is that diplomatic pressure will have no effect without the visible and credible threat of force.
The terrorist threat to Britain and our citizens is real. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is co-ordinating the most comprehensive security response our country has seen for many years. Our country can

169
never become an island of security in the face of the global dangers of terrorism and rogue states, so just as we should redouble our efforts to enforce the law at home, our interests demand that we be at the forefront of enforcing the law overseas.
For too long, Iraq has flouted international legal obligations to disarm, and has laughed in the face of the United Nations. Saddam still has a choice to comply and I hope very much that he does so. If he does not, those who are serious about a commitment to a global community based on the rule of law and the United Nations cannot afford to shrink from the challenge posed by Iraq.
Mr. Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for giving me advance sight of it.
I echo the right hon. Gentleman's tribute to Sir Jeremy Greenstock for the work that he has done, and I welcome the new Security Council resolution on terrorism which was passed yesterday.
I agree with the Foreign Secretary's analysis of the current situation and his warnings about the relationships between rogue states and international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
We are now moving inexorably, whether by diplomacy, force or voluntary exile, towards the end game in Iraq, in which the central issue of weapons of mass destruction will be resolved. We firmly continue to support the objective of eliminating Saddam Hussein's evil armoury and his arms development programmes.
Since last September I have consistently pressed a number of requirements in pursuance of that objective: the need to pursue the United Nations route; the need to be totally transparent and clear with the British people as to what the options for future action are, and why; the need to concentrate on the elimination of weapons of mass destruction as the key objective; the need to have a clear and comprehensive plan for the future of Iraq; and the need for substantial humanitarian support for the suffering people of Iraq.
On the United Nations route, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is now a prima facie case that Iraq is in material breach of resolution 1441, under paragraph 4? In his view, does last week's proven failure to disclose warhead casings and documents, followed by further continuing failure to comply with this and other resolutions, amount to a material breach?
I heard the Foreign Secretary recorded as saying in New York that his patience with Saddam Hussein was running out, and that he was not impressed by Iraq's recent actions. In terms of resolution 1441 and the forthcoming report by the inspectors, what does that mean? Presumably, it is that he believes that Saddam Hussein is continuing to fail to comply, thus establishing material breach.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise, however, how much work still needs to be done to persuade the British people that Britain's interests and the safety of British citizens will be at risk if action is not taken to eliminate these weapons of mass destruction? It is simply not enough to talk in vague terms about the general relationship of terrorism with rogue states. lf, as the Prime Minister implied last Monday, intelligence
170
suggests that there is a real, present and growing danger, the British people should be given more factual information—and urgently.
Will the Foreign Secretary accept from me that we will support action to protect and defend British interests, and so will the British people, but that we could not support going to war just because another country asks us to?
I realise the risk of compromising intelligence sources, but if these dangers are as substantial as the Prime Minister hinted, surely a formula could be found to inform the British public of their nature and imminence? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is nothing more dangerous in these circumstances than obfuscation or mixed messages? Can he drum that latter point into his divided Cabinet colleagues? Is there not now a compelling case for a further debate in this House in Government time? [HON. MEMBERS: "And a vote."]
What plans are there for a post-Saddam Iraq, brought about by either his leaving or his defeat? Is there a comprehensive plan that would help to create representative government, which would maintain the integrity of the state of Iraq and fully comply with all the various resolutions, especially in relation to weapons of mass destruction? What is being done to create the environment for a prosperous and democratic Iraq in the future?
What plans have the government made to ensure swift and adequate humanitarian aid to the suffering people of Iraq once the weapons problem has been resolved? Have any estimates of the aid required been made? Are, for instance, vaccines being stockpiled in surrounding countries? And why is the International Development Secretary so reluctant to come to Parliament to discuss these issues? When shall we have a statement from her?
This is a time for candour and consistency. If, in the face of potential military conflict, the Government are seeking the people's trust, first they must trust the people.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, in particular his endorsement of the tributes to Sir Jeremy Greenstock.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a series of questions. I shall try to answer each.
First, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether I thought there was now a prima facie case that Iraq is in material breach. Under operational paragraph 4 of the resolution, there are two limbs to the definition of material breach. One is a failure in respect of the disclosure. There has also to be some other failure to comply with the obligations of the resolution. There is no doubt that Iraq has already failed the first limb, as it failed fully to disclose all its holdings. It remains to be seen whether it has failed the second test set by the second limb of operational paragraph 4. We in the international community will be in a better position to assess that after next Monday's discussion in the Security Council.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said that he heard me say that my patience was running out. In fact, I said that the international community's patience was running out. [Interruption.] And mine too, but I do not presume to speak for the community as a

171
whole. However, from a personal point of view, I was not impressed with the 10-point plan that Iraq has apparently agreed with the inspectors. Every one of those 10 points is non-negotiable under UN Security Council resolution 1441—they include matters such as overflights by surveillance aeroplanes and non-intrusive interviews with Iraqi scientists—and Iraq should have been complying with them since 8 November, when resolution 1441 was passed.
Of course I accept that we have to take the British public with us on this matter, and we have worked hard to do so. That is well illustrated in our contacts with the British people. There will be great debate about public opinion polls, and all of us, whatever we say, take account of them. The polls show that there is very significant support for the UN route, which is precisely the route that we have followed.
The right hon. Member for Devizes asks about more intelligence being made available. This Government have been more open about publishing what intelligence we can than any previous Government, but the right hon. Gentleman knows and accepts that we cannot publish intelligence if the result would be to compromise the source or to end the flow of intelligence. I suggest that those two factors must remain, for the time being, the more important considerations.
The right hon. Member for Devizes asks about further debates. Yes, there will be a full day's debate tomorrow—[HON. MEMBERS: "It will be a defence debate."] I do not know whether the Opposition have noticed, but a quarter of Britain's troops are just about to go to the Gulf, with the possibility of being involved in military action in Iraq, if that is justified. I hazard a guess that tomorrow's defence debate will be dominated by the issue of Iraq.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What is the motion?
Mr. Straw: There are five defence debates a year. Of course I accept that there should be maximum parliamentary consideration of this crucial issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "And a vote?"] And a vote as well, as we have already emphasised.
The right hon. Member for Devizes asked about representative Government and humanitarian aid. When I am in Washington tomorrow and Thursday I shall be discussing with Secretary Powell the issue of representative Government in Iraq on what might be called the day after. A good part of yesterday's discussion with Kofi Annan was dominated by UN plans for humanitarian assistance to Iraq, again on the day after. Kofi issued a plea, which we of course accept, for the maximum number of donors to come forward in advance of any possible conflict so that humanitarian assistance can be in place, if necessary.
Mr. Michael Moore: I welcome the Government's statement and appreciate having a copy provided in advance. I should like to associate the Liberal Democrat party with the tributes to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, and I also welcome the passage of the new resolution.
172
International terrorism is a real threat to the world, and it is right that we treat it seriously. Likewise, murderous regimes in possession of weapons of mass destruction are a danger to many countries around the world. However, the Prime Minister has stated repeatedly that there is no link between Iraq and terrorism. In dealing with Saddam Hussein, UN Security Council resolution 1441 sets out in considerable detail how the international community should handle matters, including promising serious consequences if the regime fails to comply.
Last week, Dr. Hans Blix said that there was "no smoking gun" arising from his work so far, but the Foreign Secretary told the UN yesterday that
"there comes a moment when our patience must run out. We are near that point with Iraq."
In view of the Foreign Secretary's latest comments and the announcement of the military build-up in the Gulf, will he confirm that the Government remain committed to the process set out in resolution 1441? Does he agree that the Security Council as a whole should consider the reports of the inspectors, that the successful continuation of their work should be the primary focus of the United Nations, and that the process should not be prejudged by impatient or precipitate moves towards war by any Security Council members?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks.
On the question of whether there is a link between Iraq and terrorism, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given precise answers—as he did earlier today before the Liaison Committee. When he said that there has been no link between Iraq and terrorism, he was explicitly referring to al-Qaeda in the run-up to 11 September. There is of course a lot of linkage between Iraq and terrorism generally. One of the international terrorist organisations that I banned—proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000—was the MEK, an Iraqi-backed terrorist organisation operating in Iran. Moreover, the Iraqi regime actively supports several rejectionist terrorist organisations, including Hamas and Hezbollah which operate inside Israel and the occupied territories. We have to recognise the possibility of great danger if we fail to deal both with what the hon. Gentleman described as international terrorism and with the murderous regimes in rogue states. Al-Qaeda would have been a shadow of what it was had it not been able to base and feed itself in a rogue state—at that stage, Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government are committed to the route set out in 1441. Yes. It should never be forgotten that it was a joint United States/United Kingdom draft resolution that the Security Council passed on 8 November.
Should the Security Council consider the reports of the inspectors? Yes. That is set out in the resolution. Should we ensure that we do not prejudge the results of inspections? Yes: but it should never he forgotten by those who see Iraq through rose-tinted spectacles that there were no inspectors in Iraq between the end of 1998 and the beginning of this year because Iraq had excluded them, in flagrant violation of international law. It was only active US-UK diplomacy, backed by a credible threat of force, which led, first, to the passage of 1441

173
and then to the readmission of inspectors. Yes, of course the inspectors have to do their job, but we make it easier and more effective by keeping up the pressure and reminding everyone that the closing paragraph of 1441, signed up to by every member of the Security Council, including Syria and many others, spelled out that if Iraq failed to meet its obligations "serious consequences would follow". The words "serious consequences" have only one meaning—the use of force.
Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend is correct in what he said about Iraq and about the work of Sir Jeremy Greenstock on the counter-terrorism committee, but does he agree that, on proliferation, North Korea is the arch proliferator of ballistic missile technology? For example, North Korea supplies that technology to Pakistan and gives Pakistan uranium enrichment facilities. Was North Korea specifically mentioned in the new resolution and did Pakistan, which has received that help from North Korea, support the resolution?
Mr. Straw: North Korea is also a proliferator, but this is not a competition; we have to deal with both Iraq and North Korea and with other proliferators. As I said in my speech to the Security Council yesterday, we should attempt to resolve all those challenges patiently by diplomatic means. That is what we are doing with North Korea. By God, it is what we have tried to do, and are still trying to do, with Iraq, 12 years after that country first fell into defiance of the United Nations.
North Korea was discussed, not in the formal Council session but at an informal meeting afterwards; there was an active discussion, not least between the United States, the Russian Federation Foreign Minister, Chinese Foreign Minister Tang and myself, as four members of the P5. The UK is one of the few European Union countries to have diplomatic representation in Pyongyang. We regard that as important, and we are actively working within the P5 and with the four key countries in the region to try to find some architecture for multilateral discussions, in which North Korea could safely air its anxieties about its current situation and we could also put it back on the route to compliance with its obligations. I hope and believe that that can be done diplomatically—if so, no one would cheer more than me.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Everyone will agree that rogue states pose a tremendous problem, but the essence of the problem is that there are so many of them. Although the regime in Iraq is terrible, my impression has always been that its links with international terrorism have so far been less than those in several other states, including Syria. If we are to make real progress in the war against international terrorism, we need a much clearer strategy. If it is seriously argued that, having dealt with Iraq, we should then go on to deal with all the other rogue states, including Saudi Arabia which financed the attack in New York, we shall find that world opinion will not be with the politicians. We must have a much clearer world strategy.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman has an odd view of human behaviour, especially for a Member on the Conservative Benches. Time without number during my
174
24 years as a Member of the House, I have heard more members of his party than of mine say that we should set clear examples in respect of criminal behaviour in this country, not only in dealing with immediate cases of criminality but also by ensuring that there is clear deterrence. I share that view and I believe that the same principles apply in dealing with the international criminals who run those rogue states.
We cannot do everything at once—the hon. Gentleman is right—but that does not mean that we should do nothing. There is much that we can do and we have to deal with the worst case. That is the strategy. Iraq is clearly in a league of its own. It is the only member of the United Nations that is in flagrant violation of 23 separate UN obligations.
Sir Peter Tapsell: What about Israel?
Mr. Straw: There are no sanctions against Israel. There are no mandatory resolutions against Israel. A series of resolutions apply to Israel and the occupied territories—to the Palestinians and the Arabs—and we want them all to be implemented, but we are not going to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians by military action. However, we may be in a situation in which the only way to resolve Iraq's defiance is by military action.
In any event, through the action that we are currently taking and the resolve of the international community in respect of Iraq we not only deal with Iraq but we also raise the game against all other proliferators. In my judgment, if we do that we shall ensure that compliance with international law on the non-proliferation treaty and much else besides is much easier to achieve, because those other countries will see the consequences that follow flagrant violation.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The House will have noted the Foreign Secretary's comments on the 23 obligations with which Iraq has failed to comply. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is for the United Nations Security Council to uphold its mandatory resolutions in accordance with article 2(4), and that if the UN fails to do so it would badly let down the international community?
Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have responsibilities, but so, too, does the whole international community, within the Security Council, have a responsibility to ensure compliance with 1441 or. if not, to take effective action.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has characterised Iraq as the most aggressive rogue state. While that may be historically true, will he give the House what evidence he has that Iraq is now plotting aggression against its neighbours or anyone else? Why should we not be able to rely on the policies of containment and deterrence that have been effective since the last Gulf war?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that that may have been historically true. That is absolutely right. Of course I am relying on the history, but it is very recent history. I have not made this up, and I am relying on the fact that, during the history of

175
Saddam Hussein's regime, which is still in place and running that country tyrannically, he has invaded two of his neighbours—both Muslim countries—Iran and Kuwait. He has launched missile attacks on five of his neighbours, including Iran and Kuwait. He has murdered hundreds and thousands of Iranians and thousands of Kuwaitis, and he has also killed thousands of his own people. He is in a league of his own. We are now asked to give the benefit of doubt to that same man, and we cannot do that.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman then asks about containment. The simple fact of the matter is that containment may well not have worked. That is why we have the inspectors. If containment had worked, the inspectors would not have faced a situation where they could not properly inspect. They had to leave in November 1998. They then said that thousands of tonnes of chemicals to make biological and chemical weapons were still unaccounted for in Iraq. That is why the onus is on Iraq to explain fully to the inspectors that it is now clean. The choice is still Iraq's, but the jury is out.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: The policy of merging the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq with the aims of the war on terrorism is no substitute for any hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction or, indeed, a link with al-Qaeda. Does the Foreign Secretary realise that many will view this attempt as disingenuous? It is also a disaster for good international relations and, in terms of protecting the people of this country, it is downright dangerous. Why does not the Foreign Secretary stop listening to the hawks in the White House and start listening to the people in this country who elected him? This latest attempt to prove that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the link with al-Qaeda is just futile.
Mr. Straw: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Frankly, she is wrong. The UN Security Council, including Germany, Pakistan and Syria, unanimously said yesterday that
"there is a growing and serious danger of terrorist access to and use of nuclear, chemical, biological and other potentially deadly materials, and therefore a need to strengthen control on these materials".
The only way—[Interruption.] Yes, of course, to strengthen control, okay, and the way to strengthen control—
Glenda Jackson: Exclusively in Iraq?
Mr. Straw: Of course not exclusively in Iraq, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson). I have already dealt with the issue of North Korea. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) will have to wait until I call her before she puts a question.
Mr. Straw: Meanwhile, I am happy to deal with my hon. Friend's sedentary intervention. Not exclusively in
176
Iraq, but for the reasons that I have explained, Iraq is the worst case. I only say to her and to other hon. Friends who are uncertain about the link between international terrorism and rogue states, let us not wait until the terrorists have such material and we then have some explaining to do to our constituents. Let it not be forgotten that, certainly in the past two weeks, a very dangerous nerve gas, which cannot be produced by terrorists alone, has been discovered in this country.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement. Earlier, we had a reference to consistency, which raised a wry smile around the House because politicians and Governments have never been really successful at being consistent. Does he agree that if it has been difficult in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, to find illegal weapons that have caused tremendous destruction, it is a little naive of people to say that there is no evidence for the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Does he also agree that it is foolish to threaten if one is not prepared to fulfil the threat if people do not respond to it because, at the end of the day, that holds the whole international community up to disdain?
Mr. Straw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have to take action against the illegal holding of weapons of all kinds. That is why we, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, have been very active in this country in seeking far better control of the use, marketing and manufacture of small arms.
Mr. Bill Tynan: I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I tell him that the statement smacks of desperation—desperation to attack Iraq. He has indicated that the public accept a UN route. Does he not accept that the majority of the people of this country do not accept, and are not convinced at this time, that there is justification to declare war on Iraq? On that basis, will he ensure that public opinion is fully taken into account in any discussion with the USA?
Mr. Straw: I hope as surely as my hon. Friend does that it is possible to resolve the Iraq crisis peacefully. None of us wishes military action to be taken against Iraq unless that becomes absolutely justified and the only possible course to enforce international will, but I ask him to consider that we have to face the fact that Iraq has been in the most flagrant violation not of our rule or that of the United States, but of the rule of the UN. If the international community is to mean anything at all, it has to mean that its will can be enforced. For that reason, 15 member states of the Security Council quite voluntarily signed up to the terms of resolution 1441, including the mandatory resolution and the last paragraph, which says that there had to be serious consequences if Iraq failed to comply, and we are now following through that UN resolution.
Hugh Robertson: What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had at the UN and

177
elsewhere with his counterparts in those countries into which our troops are about to deploy? What is his assessment of the terrorist risk that they face?
Mr. Straw: I have had many discussions. In early October last year, I visited Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan and Iran, and had detailed discussions there with the Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers. Many other discussions have been held since. All states in the middle east and the Gulf area are very well aware of the threat from terrorism, and it needs to be remembered, as I pointed out yesterday at the Security Council, that a large number of the victims of terrorism are Muslim citizens of those states.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I am appalled at the extent to which the simplistic ideology and language of the US hard right is coming to dominate this Government, with talk of rogue states and the pretence that the most likely source from which unconditional terrorists would obtain weapons of mass destruction is Iraq.
On Iraq, while the threat of military action is undoubtedly putting pressure on Saddam Hussein to co-operate with the inspectors, is there not a danger that the build-up of massive military forces may discourage disarmament by giving him the impression that war is inevitable, while creating an unstoppable momentum towards war both militarily and politically?
Mr. Straw: None of us has to go across the Atlantic to alight on the adjective "rogue" to describe Saddam Hussein. That is being rather gentle about a man who is absolutely tyrannical in the way that he treats his own and other people, but I am happy to call Iraq a tyrannical state. Those who run those states are rogues—they are psychopathic killers—and the experience of their people is totally outwith any of our experiences.
As far as the build-up of military force is concerned I know that there are strong feelings on this issue, which will continue, as is right in a democracy—I notice that the debate has shifted, and there is now wide acceptance that Saddam must comply with his United Nations obligations, to which my hon. Friend accedes. We have only achieved the return of the inspectors because we have employed a credible threat of force. I last went to the United Nations Security Council on 10 September last year, the day on which the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq issued a formal statement on behalf of his leader, Saddam Hussein, saying that there were no circumstances whatever in which Iraq would readmit weapons inspectors. That has changed for one reason only: a credible threat of force is being exercised. I am sorry to say that that is the only language that that tyrannical rogue understands. If there is to be a credible threat of force, the consequences are that that threat must be increased the closer one gets to its deployment. I still hope and pray that the message gets through to Saddam Hussein that the game is up and that he must now comply fully and actively with all the Security Council obligations. If he does so, there will be no military action, and no one would be more pleased about that than me.
Mr.A J.Beith: Does not the Foreign Secretary recognise that the formidable UN-
178
backed case for disarming Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction does not depend on and is not helped by an attempt to establish a link with al-Qaeda and other terrorist forces, replacing the search for the smoking gun with the search for the missing link? Surely the assembly of rogue states, failed states and proliferating states that pose a short-term and long-term threat in the assistance that they can give to terrorist movements will have to be addressed by the international community, which will have to be brought and held together in a war against terrorism. Our strategy in relation to Iraq needs to assist that war against terrorism, not undermine it.
Mr. Straw: As far as Iraq is concerned, neither I nor the Prime Minister—I refer again to the evidence that he gave to the Liaison Committee this morning—has ever suggested that we have seen any evidence of a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime in advance of 11 September, and I have not suggested that in this House. An obvious link exists, however, between proliferators, rogue tyrannical states and terrorist organisations generally. That was part of the centrepiece of the resolution that was passed unanimously by the Security Council yesterday. It would be irresponsible not to recognise the nature of that link.
Helen Jackson: I thoroughly welcome my right hon. Friend's active involvement in the counter-terrorism committee, as the widespread opinion of people in this country is that the threat of terrorism must be dealt with under the aegis of the international organisations and the United Nations. A growing concern exists that the United States insists on leading this debate in one direction, which is diminishing the authority and role of the weapons inspectors. Will he assure me that the Government are now fully complying with paragraph 10 of the resolution in respect of offering the weapons inspectors all the intelligence that they have? Will he also assure me—
Mr. Speaker: Order. One question will suffice.
Mr. Straw: Of course, I am aware of anxieties about some remarks that are sometimes heard in the United States. As far as the United States Government are concerned, however, they have been very positively in support of the United Nations. In respect of the middle east, for the first time, we have a Security Council resolution calling for a separate viable state of Palestine with their backing, which we also have in this respect. Back in August, September and October last year—right up to 7 November—many of my hon. Friends expressed grave scepticism about whether there would ever be a good Security Council resolution with United States backing. There was one, and it was backed unanimously by those countries, including Syria. I do not therefore perceive a lack of support from the United States Government, from the top downwards, for the United Nations. Whether or not it is a paradox, the Bush Administration, by their actions, happen to have been very committed to that route. We must make sure that it works.

179
As for paragraph 10 of resolution 1441, we are co-operating fully with the inspectors in the provision of all kinds of information to them.
Patrick Mercer: While noting the Foreign Secretary's comments about links between Baghdad and international terrorism, and his comments about the protection of intelligence sources, none the less, open and authoritative sources are talking about organisations such as Ansar al-Islam that may be behind the ricin plot, which has fortunately been foiled. When do the Government intend to pull together the loose ends, publish the missing chapter of the dossier and convince us that the threat is real?
Mr. Straw: Because legal proceedings are pending in respect of the ricin find, I do not wish to comment further on suggestions about its provenance. On missing chapters of the dossier, I said earlier in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary that the current Government have been more forthcoming about publishing information based on intelligence than any of our predecessors, and we will be as forthcoming as we can in the future. We must ensure, however, that any information that we make publicly available compromises neither our sources—including their lives—nor the continuing flow of information.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: As long ago as February 1998, I made a speech to the House in which I pointed out that Saddam Hussein was known to have tried to acquire weapons based on camel pox, haemorrhagic conjunctivitis, human rotavirus, botulinum toxin, mycotoxin, aflotoxin, ricin and anthrax, some of which have terrorist potential. Does my right hon. Friend agree that to transfer knowledge to terrorists on how to make those materials is an act of supporting terrorism, that that is all that it is necessary to do with some of these materials—one does not have to transfer materials—and that although weapons inspectors may destroy these agents, they cannot guarantee that the process of making them has been unlearnt?
Mr. Straw: I have a feeling that I remember my hon. Friend's speech, and I will refresh my memory—I think that it was during a Home Office debate. He is right, of course, to raise the risks. The fact that that knowledge cannot be unlearnt emphasises the need for even more effective controls over those who have access to this technology than would otherwise be the case, and for a real system of law enforcement for the international will.
Angus Robertson: I thank the Foreign Secretary for the advance copy of his statement. Like most people in the country, I commend all proportionate, consistent, ethical and just efforts to combat terrorism and rogue states, but—like the majority of people—not as a pretext for war in Iraq, and certainly not without a full debate invoked on the matter and a second United Nations Security Council resolution. If the Foreign Secretary will not listen to me about that, perhaps he will have listened to the overwhelming majority of Labour Members who have spoken following his statement.
180
On consistency, ethical considerations and the Foreign Secretary's concern with regard to proliferators, can he confirm whether the Government have continued to license any arms sales to the Governments of Israel, India or Pakistan?
Mr. Straw: On arms sales, we continue to issue licences for those three countries, but they are subject, as are all arms sales, to the consolidated criteria approved by the House. On the other two points, I do not know why the hon. Gentleman keeps raising the issue of a vote in the House. We have already said, as I spelt out in the debate here on 25 November, that there would be a vote on a substantive resolution on military action. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelt it out again this morning before the Liaison Committee, and we have also spelt out that it is our earnest hope that such a vote will take place in advance of military action. The only circumstances in which a vote would have to take place shortly after military action commenced would be if it were unsafe for our troops to have it in advance. We hope very much that it will take place in advance.
We have also said that we will seek a second resolution. That is our policy. Our preference is for a second resolution if military action is judged necessary, but to pick up a point raised earlier by one of my hon. Friends—we have to reserve the right if the Security Council itself does not live up to its responsibilities.
Mr. Tony Banks: When my right hon. Friend was at the UN yesterday, what discussions did he have with our European partners on this matter? What indication have they given him of the number of troops that they have deployed for possible action in Iraq?
Mr. Straw: There are four European member states on the Security Council—Germany, France, Spain and ourselves—of whom two are permanent members. Of those, the position of the United Kingdom is well known. Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister and Vice-Chancellor, spelt out that there were no circumstances at all in which Germany would participate in military action even if there were a material breach. France's position was not mentioned by Dominique de Villepin, the French Foreign Minister, yesterday, but President Chirac has indicated in Paris that he would be willing to send troops to enforce the United Nations' will. I believe that Premier Aznar of Spain has done that too.
Mr. Mark Prisk: At the beginning of the statement, the Foreign Secretary referred to the problem of the proliferation of weapons—whether they be conventional weapons or weapons of mass destruction—to terrorists. Does he therefore anticipate the need for any new laws to tackle this problem, or does he believe that existing controls are sufficient?
Mr. Straw: I think that the answer is that new laws will almost certainly be needed. That is why we have to have a continuing review of the effectiveness of the operation of both international and domestic law.
Glenda Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

181
Only last week, my right hon. Friend stated that 27 January should not be regarded as a deadline. Having worked so very hard to get the UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq, why does there now seem to be a rush to get them out of Iraq and to make decisions even before they have had any chance genuinely to search that country to see whether there are any weapons?
Mr. Straw: I honestly say to my hon. Friend that no attempt whatever is being made to get the inspectors out of Iraq. The only attempt that is being made is to create an environment in which they can do their job properly. It does not depend on us, the United States or any other member of the Security Council; it all depends on the Government of Iraq. When Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei went to Baghdad at the weekend, their message to the Iraqi regime was that it had to co-operate. That is the message that they are delivering.
As to next Monday's discussion, I wanted I stand by this—to ensure that people understood that resolution 1441 did not lay down in its terms that this was a deadline or the end of the inspection process. When the inspection process happens is a matter, first of all, for Saddam Hussein and his choices but, secondly, for the Security Council, which is literally the employer of Dr. Blix and Dr el-Baradei and gives them their instructions.
Mr. George Osborne: A couple of weeks ago, the Foreign Secretary put the chances of avoiding military action at 60:40 against. Not everyone thought that that was helpful, but it gave a clear indication of his thinking. In the light of the weapons inspectors' discoveries of the last couple of weeks, have those odds shortened?
Mr. Straw: I am not going to discuss the numbers here. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the question of whether military action takes place is, in practice, in the hands of Saddam Hussein. No decisions have been taken about military action none whatever—by us or the United States and we both hope very much that no decisions will be taken. However, the choice is before Saddam Hussein. If he complies fully and completely with resolution 1441, the inspectors say so and the Security Council accepts that, that will be the end of the matter.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the Foreign Secretary provide the House with a reasonable definition of terrorism and rogue states so that we can distinguish between freedom fighters—which many countries, including our own and frequently the United States, support—and terrorists? It would also enable us to establish what is a rogue state. When one was using weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons against Iran and against its own people, it was supported by this country and particularly by the United States, but, when it stops using them, it becomes a rogue state.
Mr. Straw: I just say to my hon. Friend that it is literally untrue to say that this country supported the use of gases by Iraq. There are many myths, and it does not strengthen my hon. Friend's view on this issue, which is perhaps in contradistinction to that of his
182
Government, to rely on information that is simply incorrect. There are very many myths but it is simply not the case—we were not in government so I could easily disavow this—that, if one looks at the record, the previous Government in the 1980s supported Iraq in the use of chemical or biological weapons.
Mr. Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Straw: On my hon. Friend's invitation to me to define terrorism, I am very happy to provide him with the various definitions of terrorism laid down, for example, by this House in the Terrorism Act 2000 for which he voted or in the draft comprehensive convention on terrorism. I made the point to great approbation at the General Assembly in September last year that I do not accept that terrorists can excuse themselves by labelling themselves as freedom fighters. It is my belief that there is never justification—except in very limited circumstances—for innocent lives to be put at risk in pursuit of political ends.
Mr. Paul Marsden: The Foreign Secretary has said that the most aggressive rogue state is Iraq and that, to make it comply with UN resolutions, force may be required. Is he seriously suggesting to the House that by bombing Iraq and killing the innocent, that somehow Israel, which is in flagrant breach of various UN resolutions, will comply with those resolutions or that North Korea, which is now throwing out the UN inspectors and developing a nuclear bomb, will somehow be frightened into complying with the international community?
Mr. Straw: I do not begin to understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman's question. The UN charter clearly sets out and lays down that force may have to be used as a last resort to enforce its will. I have said before, and I repeat it, that we have to try every other avenue—yes, in the middle east, North Korea and Iraq—before we contemplate the use of force and, still less, use it. However, if we wish to have an effective international system that does not go the way of the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, we have to back the will of the UN by force. It was a failure by the international community—not least, by members of my own party in the mid-1930s to back the League of Nations not over Germany but, as it happens, over Abyssinia, that led to an environment in which tyranny won.
Mr. Tom Harris: I echo my right hon. Friend's tribute to Sir Jeremy Greenstock for the work that he and his team have done in leading the counter-terrorism committee in the UN. My right hon. Friend said in this statement that those countries that have yet to comply with the obligations placed on them by the committee will have until 31 March this year in which to do so. Can he tell us whether the UN is considering sanctions on those countries that fail to comply and, if so, what might those sanctions be?
Mr. Straw: No, the decision yesterday was that, if countries had failed to comply by 31 March, they would

183
be reported by the counter-terrorism committee to the Security Council for non-compliance. It would then be a matter for the Security Council to decide what action, if necessary, should be taken.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Points of Order
1.29 pm
Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this week, colleagues raised the matter of Government Departments transferring oral questions to other Departments, and Mr. Deputy Speaker ruled on your behalf. An oral question that I tabled to the Treasury, which was up for reply this Thursday, has been arbitrarily shifted by a parliamentary clerk to the Department of Health. The issue that I raise is different from the one on which the earlier ruling was given because my question refers to a question that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury answered in March 2001.
The matter raised in my question is fully within the footprint of the ministerial duties document because the Financial Secretary is in charge of the Office for National Statistics. When I tried before to table questions on the completion of death certificates, the Table Office told me—correctly, I believe that it was a matter for Her Majesty's Treasury because it related to the ONS. As I do not want to delay the House, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look into the matter later. It seems to me that we are suffering from the arbitrary decision not of Ministers but of junior hacks—clerks—in Government Departments who do not know the history of the case or what precedents exist, and who do not read the remit of the ministerial duties.
Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration and anxiety, but irrespective of who in the Department instructs the transfer to be made, it is the responsibility of the Minister, and I do not have any control over that.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Foreign Secretary perhaps inadvertently turned his deaf ear to me when he answered my question and misrepresented what I said. I did not imply that a Government of this country supported the use of chemical weapons in Iraq, but that they supported Iraq while it was using them.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put that on the record.

Public Sector Pensions (Unmarried Couples)
1.32 pm
James Purnell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for persons in receipt of a public sector pension to be able to provide survivor benefits for unmarried, financially interdependent, partners; and for connected purposes.
Two years ago, one of my constituents was killed in a car crash. He was returning from Sheffield on the snake pass when he was hit by a car coming the other way. His death shook my village. Although nothing could have put right the grief of his partner and two children whom he left behind, insult was added to that grief when they discovered that the Teachers Pension Agency refused to pay out on his pension. I was amazed by that and assumed that it was an anomaly, but when I looked into the problem it turned out to be the norm across the public sector. Only about a quarter of public sector pension schemes pay out for unmarried partners. Many right hon. and hon. Members share my belief that that discriminates against cohabiting families. My Bill would put that right.
The Bill would require every public sector scheme to offer its members the choice of covering unmarried partners. Last year, 202 Members supported my early-day motion on the subject, including the current and previous Chairs of the Social Security and Work and Pensions Committees, a number of Liberal Democrat Members, the Trades Union Congress and the public sector trade unions. Even some modernising Conservative Members supported it. The Government have made quite a lot of progress since then. They have introduced a new scheme for civil service pensions that allows members' pensions to cover unmarried partners. In particular, they have made it clear that they intend to introduce a registration scheme for homosexual partners. I wholeheartedly welcome that. It is a brave and overdue move. Unfortunately, the registration scheme would not cover unmarried heterosexual partners, which is why I am introducing the Bill.
As the law stands, any police officer who is killed in action could leave behind a family without support. Any of our soldiers who are killed in Iraq could also leave behind partners who are unable to pay the mortgage or support themselves. The Government made an exception when that happened in Sierra Leone to the late partner of Anna Homsi, and I have no doubt that they would do so again if the same circumstances arose, but I want to ensure that that exception is turned into the rule. That is what the Bill would do. It would require scheme trustees to consult their members about providing survivor benefits for unmarried partners and to give them an option to pay extra to cover unmarried partners. The Bill would create a consistent policy across the public sector. As I said, only about a quarter of public sector schemes provide that benefit whereas, perhaps surprisingly, 90 per cent, of those in the private sector do. So the public sector is way behind the private sector in terms of discrimination.
The Government recognised that problem in the 1998 Green Paper. They made it clear that in principle they were in favour of recognising unmarried partners, but unfortunately only the civil service scheme has been
186
changed since then. The Bill would ensure that that policy was turned into reality. As so often, the obstacle is one of cost. The Government Actuary estimates that the cost would be between £350 million and £1 billion. That is a gross exaggeration. The £1 billion assumes that anyone with a girlfriend or boyfriend would fall within the scheme. That condition is not part of the civil service scheme. The conditions on financial interdependency and the length of a relationship in that scheme would bring the costs significantly below £350 million. Indeed, in the first few years, the cost would be extremely small because the vast majority of pensioners who are in receipt of public sector pensions are married to their partners. So the cost would only accumulate a long way down the line.
My Bill would not require any public sector spending. It would be possible for the individual schemes to comply with it by ensuring that the costs were borne entirely by their members. I have some sympathy with the trade unions when they argue that the costs should be shared between the Government and members. Of course, at the moment the Government are pocketing the savings from the rise in the number of cohabiting couples, which has tripled over the past 15 years, but the decision should be for individual public sector schemes.
The moral arguments for my scheme are sufficient to justify it. However, they are backed up by the cause of expediency. The Bill would help public sector recruitment. Private sector employers can offer coverage to unmarried partners, but those people are not covered in the public sector. That must surely be a disincentive for about 15 per cent, of the population who live in cohabiting relationships. It is clear that the Government are cutting off their nose to spite their face because we are not providing enough benefits to attract that category of people to the public sector.
The Bill would remove that disincentive. It would be in line with the recent decision by the House to give unmarried couples the right to adopt children, who under current law could end up being brought up without support. We recently voted for our pension scheme to recognise unmarried partners, yet millions in the public sector do not have the same rights. The Government have paid out when a partner has been killed in the line of duty, but they might not if the death occurred in peacetime. They accept the principle of the Bill. It would not cost anything; it would reflect the changes in our society; it would right a wrong; and it would help public sector recruitment.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by James Purnell, Ms Meg Munn, Mr. Sion Simon, David Wright, Mr. Tom Harris, Kevin Brennan, Mr. Chris Bryant, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Steve Webb, Mr. John Bercow and Ms Oona King.

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSIONS FOR UNMARRIED COUPLES
James Purnell accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for persons in receipt of a public sector pension to be able to provide survivor benefits for unmarried, financially interdependent, partners; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time: and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed [Bill 44].

House of Lords Reform
[Relevant documents: The First Report from the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, Session 2002–03, HL Paper 17 and HC171, on House of Lords Reform.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
1.40 pm
Dr. Jack Cunningham: It is my duty and privilege to present the first report on House of Lords reform on behalf of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, which I have the honour to chair. I thank the Government for accepting one of our 24 recommendations that we should have the opportunity, both here and in another place, to debate the report fully before votes are taken on motions that may subsequently be tabled. I thank the members of the Committee, many of whom are here today, for their excellent contributions, and pay tribute to the Clerks and their staff for their excellent support.
As the House knows, the report confronts long-standing issues of huge importance and great controversy. The historical background is set out in appendix 1, which mentions a number of important landmarks in parliamentary change. In 1671, the Commons asserted its right to sole control over the levying of taxation. There are a number of other staging posts—the Glorious Revolution, the Parliament Acts and other well-known reforms. Those changes have often taken place in an atmosphere of great controversy, with frenetic exchanges from time to time of great wit. Joseph Chamberlain, said of the House of peers that
"they toil not neither do they spin".
The Prime Minister may wish to see that quotation on the office walls of some his Ministers.
Lord Rosebery warned the Liberal Government that it
"would be extremely ill advised to touch the composition of the second Chamber until it had settled its powers"
to avoid
"dissension in the heart of the constitution".
Naturally, the Joint Committee decided to follow that advice, and the first part of our work was to focus on role, function and powers. Lloyd George famously described the House of Lords as "Mr. Balfour's poodle", and Michael Foot, commenting much later, said an appointed Chamber would be "a seraglio of eunuchs".
One of my favourite quotations comes from a debate in February 1969:
"We do not want to see joint committees having views about the House of Commons which result in our views being watered down by those elder statesmen, often former hon. Members of this House, who, while they command a great deal of respect, are not immediately in touch with the day-to-day life of the country as we are and as we represent it." — [Official Report, 3 February 1969; Vol. 777, c. 113.]
Those words from Hansard were spoken by the former MP for Ashton-under-Lyne, my good friend Lord Sheldon. Perhaps those of us who think of life in another place should reflect on the words of the hymn:
"There is room for new creations in the Upper Place of bliss".
188
In our special report, the Committee said:
"The Committee believes that such a settlement would need to be robust, practical and command broad support in Parliament and beyond if it is to have any chance to endure."
It went on to say:
"the Committee is responding to the desire for this highly important matter to be taken forward expeditiously. But we are also conscious of the need to give thorough and diligent consideration to a wide-ranging set of complex issues that have been the subject of public discussion for many decades and have recently led to some widely different conclusions on the part of the Government, the Royal Commission and the Commons Select Committee on Public Administration."
Mr. Eric Forth: In the context of expeditiousness, to which the right hon. Gentleman has encouragingly just referred, will he tell us how he and the Committee regard the time-scale for forthcoming events, given the considerable amount of further business listed in the report that the Committee feels it still has to do, and the doubt that now seems to exist following the seven options that will be offered to the Commons and another place? Does the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that that matter can be resolved in the foreseeable future?
Dr. Cunningham: The timetabling of business is a matter not for me but for the Leader of the House and the usual channels to decide. The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Committee anticipated a considerable amount of further work. We all know that the question of whether the Committee embarks on that work will depend on the Government's judgment and decisions here and in another place about which options, if any, are pursued. That is a matter for Parliament to decide, not the Committee.
Our report on parliamentary change and a new constitutional settlement was produced by parliamentarians of considerable knowledge, experience and judgment holding all shades of opinion. We were given pretty strict guidance by our terms of reference, which are set out in the report, and were instructed to consider not only many volumes of evidence but the report of the royal commission, the White Paper and the Public Administration Committee report. As Members will see, those reports were referred to regularly throughout our deliberations and conclusions. In part 2 of the report, we establish a pretty broad consensus on the future role, functions and powers of the second Chamber. Part 3 sets out five tests for the kind of Members who should make up the Chamber; in part 4, we consider composition, tenure and transitional arrangements; and in part 5, we set out the options, but we were restricted by the terms of reference given to us by Parliament. We were obliged to recommend on both a wholly elected and a wholly appointed House, and to suggest options in-between. Consequently, that was not the most taxing part of our work.
Above all, the report does not recommend maintaining the status quo. It accepts the need finally to remove the remaining hereditary peers and find new and adequate ways of appointing Members to the second Chamber, if indeed they are to be appointed. It recommends a statutory independent appointments commission and addresses the need for greater regional

189
balance in the membership of the other place and a much better representation of gender, ethnicity and age. Those recommendations are common to all the options that the House will eventually be asked to consider.
Mr. David Clelland: In confirming that appointment does not necessarily mean the maintenance of the status quo, will my right hon. Friend also confirm that if Members of Parliament voted for an appointed Chamber, it would not restrict the Committee to existing methods of appointment or indeed to those mentioned in the report, as there would be a wider interpretation of appointment?
Andrew Mackinlay: There could be a raffle.
Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) is absolutely right, and I hear the suggestion that we could have a raffle. Even a raffle might be better than the bagatelle that we have at the moment, so it could conceivably be a step forward.
We said at the beginning of our report that there was an historic opportunity to enact a reform that would enable the second Chamber to continue to play an important role that is complementary to that of the Commons, with its future secured after almost 100 years of doubt about what it was there for and was supposed to do. It is important to understand reform in the context of the broad historical sweep to which I have referred. We have sought in our report to inform the debates and votes in both Houses by clarifying what we believe should be the future role, powers and nature of the second Chamber and identifying the implications of our conclusions for its composition. We welcome the Government's decision to ensure that all the proposals are fully considered here and elsewhere before they table the motions on which they will invite the House to decide.
I mentioned that a broad consensus had been established in this area. For the most part, the Committee, which was always good natured and easy to chair, worked with expedition and quickly reached unanimity on these matters. There was almost no dispute of any sort about them.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the wording that he used a couple of minutes ago in saying that his Committee was considering the best method to appoint the reformed House? Was that not prejudging the issue and putting the weight of his Committee and indeed his report behind some form or proportion of appointment and against the idea of a wholly elected Chamber?
Dr. Cunningham: I do not know whether that is a deliberate misinterpretation of what I was saying, but I shall give my hon. Friend the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has misunderstood. I was saying that, if there are to be appointments, there has to be a new arrangement and that the status quo is not an option. If there is to be a wholly or even partially appointed House, we have to have a better way of achieving that than now, so we recommend the establishment of a new independent statutory appointments commission. That is the point that I am making. Of course, my hon. Friend
190
may believe in a wholly elected House. It is fairly obvious that those issues do not arise at all in that context. I hope that everyone accepts that, if there were to be a wholly elected House, a whole lot of other things would fall naturally into place. The bishops and Law Lords would be removed, as would many independents, as they would not stand for election. If there is to be an appointed element, however, we need a new, better and more representative system. That is what the report is saying.
Pete Wishart: The report still says that there will be a prime ministerial system of appointments, so Tony's cronies will still be appointed. Will he explain how what he is describing differs from what is currently happening in appointments to the House of Lords?
Dr. Cunningham: If it is necessary for me to explain to the hon. Gentleman what is different, all I can say is that he has not bothered to study the present circumstances or read the report fully. It is true that the Committee unanimously agreed that the Prime Minister of the day, whoever he or she may be, would retain the limited right to nominate people to the House of Lords simply because it might be necessary to do so to establish new ministerial appointments there. That seemed to the Committee a sensible and practical way forward for the Prime Minister of the day.
On conventions and relations between the other place and this House, we thought it important that the conventions should be retained as they are. The two most important conventions are that the House of Commons should have its way and that Government business should be transacted without undue delay. That is what happens now and those conventions have been in place for some considerable time. We believe that they should play a part in any future relationship between the two Houses.
On other roles of the second Chamber—its role as a constitutional long stop, its legitimacy in respect of the public and its representativeness in relation to the regions and nations—we also call for change. We considered the functions of the House of Lords in relation to the fact hat it is a major initiator of legislation rather than a revising Chamber alone, important though the latter role is. We also considered a number of matters to which we shall need to return later in our deliberations, including increasing the effectiveness of pre-legislative scrutiny and the way in which the House of Lords deals with secondary legislation and scrutiny of policy. For example, we will be looking for ways of improving the work of Select Committees. We considered the judicial function of the House a separate and highly important matter that would need expert examination and attention that we did not feel the Committee was qualified to give.
Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend and the Committee have rightly placed a good deal of stress in their report on the second Chamber's role in providing scrutiny and as a constitutional long stop. Scrutiny as between the two Houses is often less important than scrutiny by Parliament of the Executive of the day. Did my right hon. Friend or the Committee feel that more work is

191
needed on that issue, as well as perhaps some greater codification of the roles of the legislature vis-á-vis the Executive?
Dr. Cunningham: Yes, we considered the point that my hon. Friend raises, but if he will allow me to do so, I shall deal with it a little later.
When we considered powers, we concluded that we did not believe that the powers under the Parliament Acts needed changing overall, but warned that an eye needs to be kept on how the new carry-over arrangements for future Bills are used by the Government. On composition, as I said, we listed what we described as five desirable qualities. We referred to improvements in the representative nature of the second Chamber and its legitimacy and representativeness, no domination by any one party, independence and the need to sustain expertise. As our report says, the present House is strong in relation to some of those aspects, notably independence and expertise, but considerably weaker in relation to others, notably legitimacy and representativeness. Of course, as I said, it is also weak in terms of gender and ethnicity.
Mr. Simon Thomas: One of the principles which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned and which is elucidated in the report is that there should be no domination by one political party. Of course, the same principle was also stated in the royal commission report. If this House voted for the option of a fully elected second Chamber, however, how on earth could that principle be achieved?
Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman asks a very important question. It would be very difficult to achieve that aim, but not impossible. We would have to ensure that the electoral and other processes gave some guarantees about that. That is perfectly possible to do. The issue goes to the heart of some of the decisions that we have to make. One can easily see that if an independent commission is making appointments and has been given proper terms of reference, it is possible quickly and easily to move to greater representativeness, gender equality and representation of the ethnic communities, as well as to a better age profile. The appointments commission would be instructed to work to those ends, but it would be more difficult to achieve them by election, and impossible if the election were conducted on the first-past-the-post system, as the Committee acknowledges in its report. It is not impossible to achieve those aims with other electoral approaches, but they would not be as quick or simple to achieve.
Mr. David Chaytor rose —
Andrew Mackinlay rose—
Dr. Cunningham: I should move on, because many hon. Members want to contribute to such an important debate.
We listed several matters that we had to leave until phase 2 of our work simply because we knew that hon. Members were anxious for us to produce a report as
192
quickly as possible. Those matters include the ultimate size of the House and the nature of the election process that might be used. Part 5 of the report sets out the options.
I have covered some of the pros and cons of a fully appointed House and a fully elected House, but a hybrid is also possible. It is more difficult to be clear about the way in which that would work, but the Joint Committee did not believe that it was impossible to construct a system whereby the House could comprise some elected and some appointed Members.
We drew attention to the fact that none of the previous reports—the royal commission report, the White Paper, the Public Administration Committee report—took account of the costs involved in a change. We referred to that only briefly in our report, but it will be important to consider costs in greater detail when the exact nature of the change has been determined.
We are considering complex, difficult and controversial issues. The Committee acknowledged that it would take some time for a new constitutional balance to emerge. That is always the case when important changes that affect Parliament are introduced.
Andrew Mackinlay: When the Committee considered the relationship between the two Houses, did it examine the idea that Ministers who are the architects of specific measures or have an exclusive portfolio should be able to answer questions in both Houses and/or steer legislation through Parliament? That is the pattern in many other Westminster-style constitutions and Parliaments. Such a system makes sense because it gives a Minister charge of a subject instead of our having someone who works off a brief and behaves like a parrot.
Dr. Cunningham: No, we did not consider such a proposal.
We are considering a new constitutional settlement between the Houses of Parliament, and between a changed House of Lords and the Government of the day. If changes are made, apart from emphasising that they should be robust, practical and enduring, we should ask ourselves what sort of new relationship we want and how it can best be achieved.
Do we want the new second Chamber to be a replica of the House of Commons? Most people would say no to that. Would a wholly or substantially elected House accept the current role, functions and power of the second Chamber or would elected Members want to assert more authority with regard to the House of Commons or the Government? Would an elected second Chamber with an in-built majority against the Government of the day—it is universally agreed that that should be the case—accept the conventions and restrictions that have been placed on it?
Would a new approach through an independent appointments commission, with a remit to produce regional, gender, ethnic and age balance, give the second Chamber the greater legitimacy and representative nature that we are striving to achieve? How can independence and independents have a secure place and role in a reformed second Chamber?
How would a partly elected, partly appointed House work in practice? Would such an arrangement be sufficiently stable to endure in the long term? We all

193
want that to happen. Is the second Chamber intended to represent the country electorally and politically, like the House of Commons, or should it have a different role?
Let me now speak for myself, not the Committee. I believe that the House of Commons should not tolerate a rival House with similar powers. We should not risk creating such a rival without great care and consideration of what such fundamental constitutional change would bring.
The public do not often get excited about this place and the other place when we contemplate our navels. In my experience, they are not greatly interested in the strategies for enhancing or reducing the powers or status of one House as opposed to another. However, our constituents are concerned about more effective scrutiny of Government—I hope that we all support that, whatever the outcome—more expeditious provision of better governance; more vigilance in defence of constituents' rights and more efficient enhancement of their social and economic well-being. Those outcomes should have priority when we decide whether changes should be made. No Joint Committee could resolve such matters alone; they are questions for Parliament. I am sure that the Government also rightly have a view.
We have an opportunity to reflect on the report and the debate in this House and the other place before voting on options for change. Like other members of the Committee, I shall listen to colleagues with great interest. I end by reflecting on the words of the American comedian, George Burns, who once said that it is too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving cabs and cutting hair.
2.6 pm
Mr. William Hague: I pay tribute on behalf of all hon. Members who served on the Joint Committee, including me, to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for his chairmanship, which he undertook with skill, humour and a few sharp words. He managed a Committee of 24 people, all of whom believed that their opinion was the great, weighty view that had to be delivered on the subject.
The Committee included two former Chancellors of the Exchequer and two former Chief Whips. It was wonderful to observe some young, radical Labour Back Benchers sitting cheek by jowl with long-established hereditary peers and sometimes expressing the same opinions: doubtless they marvelled at the sight of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and I sitting cheek by jowl and occasionally expressing the same opinions.
Serving on the Committee has been entertaining, enjoyable and, I hope, useful. As the right hon. Member for Copeland said, I hope that the debate will fuel any further deliberations by the Committee with valuable advice. I apologise to hon. Members because I shall unavoidably miss the end of the debate. However, like the right hon. Gentleman, I look forward to listening to or reading the speeches.
We are all conscious of the fact that the debate forms part of a lengthy process. The preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 envisaged that it would be a temporary measure until popular representation was introduced to the upper House. Ninety-two years later, we are still deliberating on how to achieve that, and I
194
cannot say with confidence that hon. Members will not be deliberating on the matter in another 92 years. I am not wholly optimistic that introducing popular representation to the upper House will be the outcome of deliberations in both Houses over the next few weeks.
If we go back further in time, we realise that the process is even lengthier. In the mid-17th century, our predecessors decided to abolish the House of Lords because in 1649 they believed that it was useless and dangerous. That opinion receives a little support today, even though the decision was followed by a military dictatorship and the abolition of the House of Commons; supporters should take account of that cautionary note.
Our report states that there is no evidence of substantial support for unicameralism, but we were probably wrong—there is some support for it in the House. It is important to respect and confront that, and to understand why a properly functioning second Chamber is important. That is often demonstrated in practical ways—for example, in the huge amount of legislative work that is accomplished down the Corridor. The fact that we now go home at a nice early time in the evenings or, at least, that we no longer have debates of quite the open-ended nature that we used to have—reinforces the need for such work to be done by a second Chamber. As the Joint Committee points out, in 2001 the House of Lords spent 53 hours on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, and many of its amendments were subsequently accepted in this place.
We need a properly functioning second Chamber for practical reasons, and for very good constitutional reasons. Every major country in the world that has set out to produce from scratch a constitution based on liberty and democracy—with the exception of New Zealand—has chosen a bicameral system. The founding fathers who wrote the constitution of the United States, those who crafted the German constitution after the second world war, and even the people who brought the miracle of democracy to India in the 1940s, created bicameral systems so that there would be some check on over-hasty legislation or an over-mighty Executive.
That is why we must face up to the belief held by some Members of this House that the upper House should be abolished altogether. It has one absolute veto remaining, which is a veto over the extension of the life of Parliament. We may think that, these days, we are all so nice and democratic that we cannot imagine voting for the extension of the life of Parliament in circumstances that were not warranted, but can we guarantee that our successors in 50 years' time will not be driven to that by some extremity?
Pete Wishart: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the survey that the Inter-Parliamentary Union conducted in 1995, which found that, of a total of 178 legislatures, some 127 were unicameral. Unicameralism does exist, and it obviously works.
Mr. Hague: It is not normally associated with the balanced and democratic constitutions of the world, however. Yes, we can go to places such as Pyongyang and Beijing, where there is only one legislative body, but we will not find such bodies in many countries that are founded on liberty and democracy. Let us hope that our country remains committed to those concepts.

195
That is part of the case for balance in our constitution. That case must be advanced in this debate because it should also lead us to the right options for reform of the upper House. Governments must be able to govern. They must be able to conduct their own foreign policy, and to manage their budget. That must always involve a matter of confidence in the Government. Is it really necessary, however, for Governments always to be able to get every little bit of legislation through exactly as they want it and exactly according to their timetable? I believe that the answer to that is no.
The powers and ability of this House and of Parliament as a whole—this House and the other House—are inadequate to bring proper balance to our constitution. It is possible to govern with authority without being able to legislate with impunity. Today, however, Governments expect to be able to do both. That is why Parliament as a whole should be strengthened, and that includes the strengthening of the upper House. It also includes the strengthening of both Houses vis-á-vis the Government of the day. This is not a zero sum game. More authority and legitimacy for the upper House will not necessarily reduce the authority, legitimacy or power of the lower House, if we conduct our own affairs by giving proper scrutiny to Government actions and legislation. That is what we should be doing.
The Leader of the House has introduced many reforms. Many hon. Members, including me, have disagreed with some of them, but he has introduced reforms designed to improve the scrutiny of Government decisions, and I give him credit for that. The reforms are designed to improve some of the powers of Members of the House of Commons. I particularly applauded his attempt to take from the party Whips the power to nominate Committees—I have to say something to annoy my Front Bench; I am a former leader of the party, and it is traditional to do so—although that attempt was defeated. I hope that he is only biding his time before making the proposal again, because that is the sort of thing that needs to be done in this House. Such measures should be accompanied by reforms that make the upper House stronger and give it greater authority.
That is the case for electing a large part of the upper House, and it lies in two of the five factors that the right hon. Member for Copeland mentioned: legitimacy and representation. May I, in passing, refer to the comments made in the Committee that the reform of the upper House so far has made it less representative of the United Kingdom geographically? It is a more south-east-centred assembly, now that it is largely appointed. The only respect in which the hereditary peers were representative was that they were scattered across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Mr. George Foulkes: They owned the whole of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Hague: Well, yes, they had that advantage as well. In fact, my constituency was very heavily
196
represented in the upper House before it was reformed. My constituents have lost most of their parliamentary representation over the last few years.
Mr. Forth: Does not my right hon. Friend concede, however, that representativeness is in some ways a political will-o'-the-wisp? One could set out to identify all the ways in which any House could be "representative"—in respect of gender, ethnicity, region, profession, politics, religion or anything else—but to achieve such a degree of representativeness is impossible.
Mr. Hague: It may be impossible, statistically, to achieve such representation in relation to every possible parameter, but it is not impossible to achieve broad representation of the people in a way that allows them to feel represented and connected with their representatives, even though those representatives may not be exactly the same gender or colour as they are. It is, therefore, possible to improve representation, and to allow people to feel represented.
We must face the fact that this would, however, have the effect of increasing the authority—the boisterousness, the effectiveness—of the upper House. We must vote for it only if we are prepared to face up to that happening. Some hon. Members on the Committee believe that the powers of the upper House will remain as they are written in the rules under the Parliament Acts, but, actually, the powers that have been exercised by the House of Lords throughout history have rarely corresponded to the ones that are written down. Much depends on the confidence with which they are used.
Back in the 18th century, their Lordships had almost equal powers to the House of Commons, except in financial matters. They could throw Bills out in their entirety if they wished—they had a total veto—yet they hardly ever did so. They did so only once during the whole of the 18th century, and that was when the King told them to do so. It is hard to see that circumstance arising now, even in relation to the Hunting Bill. They did not use that power in the 18th century because the power of patronage overrode the power that they had technically. Every peer wanted a step up in the peerage. Every lord wanted to be a marquess; every marquess wanted to be a duke. The most craven of all were the bishops, who all sought a more lucrative diocese and therefore always voted with the Government of the day. Patronage overrode the technical powers held by the House of Lords.
In the last century, their Lordships have rarely used the powers truly available to them. The powers have fallen into disuse by convention, partly because their Lordships have lived in fear of our holding this very debate and debates like it in the House of Commons. They have not wanted to push things too far, or to provoke the House of Commons into following up the Parliament Act. Who can say that that has not been a successful strategy?
The powers that are written down are not necessarily the powers that are used. An elected, or largely elected, Chamber would become a more assertive House, even under existing powers. It would, however, enjoy greater legitimacy in using those powers. The trick, surely, is to create greater legitimacy and representation without

197
losing the independence and expertise that the Committee identified as key attributes of the upper House as it stands today.
We should recognise the value of that independence and expertise. When I was a Minister, the House of Lords was a much more frightening place than the House of Commons. I say that with no disrespect to my hon. Friends and other hon. Members; that is just how it was. If I went along to a House of Commons Select Committee having been briefed for a few hours by a civil servant of a year's experience, I felt that I could pretty much cope with everything. If I went to a House of Lords Select Committee, that civil servant would have to point out that some of the people asking the questions had studied their subject for 30 years and were in the House of Lords because they were a world expert on it, and that the civil service did not know the answer to some of the questions that were likely to be asked. That was a much more frightening thing to do.
In the mid-1990s, when we had a majority of one—and sometimes not even that—in this House and, in theory, a majority of hundreds in the upper House, it was still harder to get legislation through unamended in the upper House than it was to do so here in the House of Commons. It was necessary to work out how to win the vote in this House, but it was necessary to work out how to win the argument down the Corridor.
Mr. Chris Bryant: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that expertise in the House of Lords is often somewhat out of date? It might have been acquired 10, 15 or 20 years ago. By the very nature of their appointed position, many Members of that House will have made their name quite some time ago.
Mr. Hague: That is sometimes the case, but it is sometimes the case here as well. We have often been treated to speeches from Members who picked up their world-beating expertise a good 20 or 30 years ago. That can happen in any Assembly, whatever the system of appointment or election.
The one way to try to retain the necessary elements of independence and expertise, while improving legitimacy and representation, is to adopt a system of election completely different from the system used in this House. Our report refers to election for 12 years, and it is possible that that would be a non-renewable term. Some think the 12-year period too long: my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, for instance, believes that those elected under such a system would become too independent of party, or even reality. No doubt he will advance that argument later.
Some Committee members voted for an eight-year renewable term. In any event, we all thought that the period should be much longer than a term of election to the House of Commons. We thought that most if not all Members would not envisage standing for re-election—which would create a marvellous feeling of independence—and, in my view, a majority would be elected on that basis. In my view also, an appointed element would be retained to help to preserve the independent experts whom we have just been praising.
Those are the advantages of a mainly elected House, but if we are not prepared to accept and maximise those advantages of legitimacy and independence in the upper
198
House —if we are unwilling to see a stronger second Chamber as part of a stronger Parliament—it would be better for us not to do it at all. It would be better for us to vote for 100 per cent. appointment than to say "Well, we think we want election, but we are not prepared to accept a stronger or more assertive upper House".
According to reports in the newspapers—although such things cannot always be believed—the Government apparently now believe that 100 per cent, appointment is their preferred option. There has been a remarkable change over the years. Some of us remember the 1992 Labour party manifesto, which spoke of
"a new elected Second Chamber which will have the power to delay, for the lifetime of a Parliament, change to designated legislation"
—or even the pledge made at the time of the last election, which referred to a much more current, more representative and more democratic upper House.
"Democratic" usually implies some measure of election. What has happened? We have all experienced political U-turns over the years, but this is a particularly fascinating one. I hope we shall hear from the Leader of the House, either today or in due course, whether the U-turn has happened, and, if it has, what is the basis for it. Has the Prime Minister really enjoyed all that power of patronage and does he want it to continue, or has being in power made the Cabinet less conscious of the need for a stronger Parliament? That could happen to any Government, and probably has happened to every Government. Is it what has happened to the Cabinet of today?
Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal with the wholly spurious argument advanced in favour of the U-turn that only a wholly elected or a wholly appointed House of Lords is possible. Given the various elements in the existing composition of that House, there seems to be no evidence for that proposition.
Mr. Hague: The 24 members of the Committee would certainly not agree that only one or the other is possible. Otherwise, we would not have presented seven options, live of them involving a mixture of appointment and election. Such options are both practically and politically possible.
No Members should be conned into thinking that that is the choice. I do, however, believe that a choice exists, between a predominantly or, in the view of some, a wholly elected House of Lords and an appointed House. I implore Members not to vote for a 20 per cent, or even a 40 per cent, elected House. As the Committee's Chairman knows, I argued briefly that we should not even put those options to the Houses; but it was pointed out that an amendment could be tabled, or there might be great demand for votes on the options. In my view, they provide a marginal increase in legitimacy and improvements in representation, while also providing a major increase in expense, complexity and, I think, ridicule of Parliament. I do not think that that would be worth voting for.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend not accept that as the public are in general switching off from politics by not voting—

199
they think we have too many politicians and not enough power—there is a danger that they will all go on strike if they are also expected to vote for elected regional councils and an elected Lords?
Mr. Hague: Yes. My hon. Friend anticipates the one further point that I wish to make. I think that unless the majority of an elected upper House's membership had some clout, people would not vote. It might be a struggle to get them to vote even then, but I think it would be impossible if we were electing 20 per cent, of a House that we did not expect to have any teeth.
The idea was floated in our Committee that the vote could be combined with the European elections. The more I think about it, the more I think that even that would not work. We can all imagine the scene. There is a knock at the door; a woman stands there with a child in her arms, while another screams in the background. I am sorry—I am slipping into a stereotype. The dinner is on the stove, while the man of the house is working hard on his DIY. The woman is asked, "Will you vote in the elections for the upper House?" She says "No." "It is combined with the European elections." She is not going to say "Oh well, in that case, of course!"
I believe that only combining this election with a general election would bring people out to vote.
Mr. Chaytor: In arguing the case for a hybrid, and given the rule demanding no party majority, would the right hon. Gentleman persuade his constituent that it was worth voting for 60 per cent, r 80 per cent. when the appointed element will override the elected element? How would that galvanise people into voting?
Mr. Hague: I think that all constituents are used to the idea that others may override the people whom they elect. Indeed, that has been the experience of my constituents throughout this Parliament and the last. I do not think that that is a show-stopping argument against a hybrid system. In any case, it is one of the reasons for my advocating an elected majority. The hon. Gentleman's argument would have much more force if a majority were appointed: constituents would then be entitled to ask, "What is the point of voting?"
I hope we will rule out the ideas that have been floated by my noble Friend Lord Wakeham and the Lord Chancellor. One can almost see the Lord Chancellor sitting there saying "It is a bore that some of us must be elected. What is the minimum percentage that we think we can get away with? Let us make it 15 per cent., or 25 per cent., or something of that order."
We must either grasp the opportunity of voting for a stronger Parliament and a stronger upper House within a stronger Parliament, or say "Let the Government continue to dominate Parliament in legislation as well as in governing, and have a fully appointed upper House". That is the real choice before us. I certainly favour the majority-elected option, and I hope the vast majority will vote against the minority-elected option. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.
2.29 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook)rose—
Andrew Mackinlay: Come back, all is forgiven!
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is too far ahead of his party.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). I find myself 80 per cent, in agreement with what he said; the other 20 per cent, will be considered by an independent appointments commission, but on this issue 80 per cent, is as close to 100 per cent, as any two Members can manage.
Before I deal with the nub of the issue, let me record the thanks of the Government and, I hope, the whole House, for the work of the Joint Committee. It is not an easy task to get 24 politicians to agree on the time of day; it is even more difficult to get the same number to sign up to a report of substance and authority. It says much for the patience and skill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that he should have been successful in getting a consensus in the Joint Committee on the text, with only two divisions on the entire report. As he demonstrated in his speech, in the course of his work, he has become an authority on the distressingly long history of House of Lords reform.
House of Lords reform is frequently presented as an issue of white-heat controversy. I promise to address the controversial issues, but before I do so I note that the Joint Committee's report underlines the broad agreement that exists on many aspects of reform of the second Chamber. First, there is broad agreement on the role of the second Chamber: it should be charged with revision of legislation, independent scrutiny of Executive decisions and deliberation of public policy.
Secondly, there is broad agreement on the relative status of the two Chambers. It has been a feature of all reports on Lords reform that the House of Commons should remain pre-eminent. It is common ground among all Members of this House that the right to form a Government must depend on the ability to command a majority in this place. This Chamber must remain the crucible in which Governments are forged and reputations are made or broken.
The Joint Committee helpfully sets out the conventions that buttress the relative status of the two Houses. Those provide the House of Lords with the right to question and to delay legislation but not to veto it, nor to challenge any part of the mandate in the manifesto on which a Government are elected. I am glad that the Joint Committee will return to the question of how those conventions can be entrenched in any future constitutional settlement.
The last area of agreement is comparatively recent, but I understand that it is now a common agreement between the two Front Benches: both sides of the Chamber now agree that the hereditary principle has no place in a modern Parliament. Whatever principle of composition may be adopted, few people now argue that it should be based on the privilege of birth. There are a few who are still doing it. Last month, Lord Trefgarne, chairman of the Conservative peers in the

201
other place, chided the Joint Committee for ignoring the case for the hereditary principle, which he claimed
"represents the best random selection process".
The case against the hereditary principle is that it is not random at all, but highly exclusive, which is why it is common to all the seven options before us that they would remove the remaining 92 hereditary peers.
As the Joint Committee reasonably points out, there are other ways in which reasonable people may conclude that the House of Lords is not truly representative. For example, it remains a rare unrepresentative corner of modern Britain in which the Conservative party is still the largest single party. The Government fully accept the principle set out by the Joint Committee and repeated by its Chairman this afternoon that no one party should dominate the second Chamber. I understand that the Conservative party also supports that principle now that it is in opposition. It is no doubt a matter of deep regret to it that, for 18 years, it never chose to put that principle into practice. It may be helpful, as we approach how to go about choosing between the options on the basis of that agreement, if I deal with procedure before I turn to the areas of controversy.
The Joint Committee has given us options for a more representative second Chamber. No one can fairly accuse it of not giving us enough options. Indeed, it has given us seven different options from which to choose, covering the entire spectrum of alternatives for reform. As the Joint Committee requested, the Government have provided an opportunity today for a general debate on the principles canvassed in the interim report. That will be followed on 4 February by an opportunity for the House to choose between all the options on a free vote.
We shall follow precisely the Joint Committee's recommendations on how those votes should be organised. Each option will be put to the vote in turn. All options will be put to the vote. Members should recognise that it is possible for them to vote for their second or third preference without prejudicing their first preferred option. Voting will not stop just because one option has secured a majority, and they will be free votes.
I do not come to the Dispatch Box today to make the case for an all-appointed House or any other House. The Government will not express a collective view on which option should be chosen. Given that this issue has profound implications for the future of Parliament, it is right that it should be Parliament that resolves what a reformed second Chamber should look like.
Mr. Greg Knight: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what will happen after the vote and take him back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen today's edition of The Times, which says:
"Blair will press his opposition to elected Lords"?
The article says:
"Tony Blair is preparing to intervene in the debate on Lords reform to make public his opposition to an elected Upper House.
The Prime Minister is to scupper demands by Labour MPs for a majority elected second Chamber".
202
As one of the guardians of our rights, will the Leader of the House confirm that, should this House vote for a majority of those in the other place to be elected, he will thereafter bring forward the appropriate vehicle to put the House's wishes into effect?
Mr. Cook: Personally, I am very keen that we achieve a commanding majority for one of those seven options. Frankly, I cannot abide the prospect of continuing with the issue into another Parliament. I want to get rid of it in this Parliament, and it is in the interests of this Chamber that we do so. What will happen after the votes on 4 February, as the House has already agreed in terms of the Joint Committee's remit, is that the Joint Committee will work up a detailed proposal on the basis of the expression of view in this House and in the other place. I hope that we will give it a clear mandate and a clear steer on what it should work on.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government will have to take equal note of the votes in both Houses? Will he make it plain that all members of the Government, whether in the Cabinet or not, will be able to exercise a free vote as well as Back Benchers?
Mr. Cook: I have no doubt that all members of the Government will express their view and that, on many future occasions, their views will be raised with me by those on the Opposition Front Bench, but it is implicit in the fact that it will be a free vote that Government members must be free to express their view. If we were to reach a collective view, we would no longer have the free vote that I seek in this House.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I have a speech to make, which I would like to turn to at some time, but I shall give way.
Mr. Arbuthnot: Has the right hon. Gentleman just restated the principle of free votes? It is an important matter if he has.
Mr. Cook: Not consciously, and I am sure that if I have done so unconsciously it will be drawn to my attention swiftly.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I cannot resist.
Mr. Bercow: I was rather worried by the way in which, presumably consciously, in responding to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), the right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that there would be a commanding majority in this House for one option or another. Will he confirm in terms, as my right hon. Friend hoped he would, that the wish of this House will be reflected in subsequent legislation and eliminate from his reply the weasel word "commanding"?
Mr. Cook: I do not intend in any way to be weasel in the use of the word "commanding". On the contrary,

203
I hope that I was demonstrating that what we want to see is the settled will of the House. I hope that those who want reform of the second Chamber will not repeat the mistake that we have been through in the past of being too unwilling and too inflexible to find the centre of gravity on which we can all agree. We must emerge from the seven options not with one that has a narrow majority of one or two over the others; we must establish which one of the seven is most likely to reflect the settled will of this Chamber.
Norman Lamb: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: No. I will proceed.
The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks referred to the fact that there was some support in the Chamber for unicameralism. Early-day motion 529 records that 90 Members regret that they are not to be offered the Guy Fawkes option of doing away with the House of Lords in its entirety. I understand their impatience with the never-ending saga of reform, but before we send out for 36 barrels of gunpowder, I remind them that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber fought the last election on a manifesto commitment to make the second Chamber more representative and democratic. We do not have a mandate to abolish it and it would not be proper for us to toy with abolition without first seeking the support of the electorate—which would mean no progress for the rest of this Parliament. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members who do not want the House of Lords to continue in its present form—including all those who might privately prefer to do away with it—to express their preference for a better second Chamber by choosing between the broad options that will be before us.
Pete Wishart: As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is a matter for the whole House, not just for the Labour party. He has failed to give an adequate explanation for not providing the option of abolition. Can he explain further why we are not being allowed the option of abolishing the House of Lords?
Mr. Cook: Because it is a self-evident fact that only members of the Labour party are bound by the Labour party manifesto. It is repeatedly a distressing experience of mine that other right hon. and hon. Members do not feel bound by the Labour party manifesto. My life would be much simpler if they did.
The options flow from the Joint Committee's recommendations. It would not be proper for me to interfere or second guess what those options should be, but they logically follow from the remit that we gave the Joint Committee—approved by this House—which instructed it to come forward with proposals for reforming the second Chamber, not doing away with it.
Norman Lamb: One likely outcome of the votes is that this House will vote in a very different way from the other place, with a strong majority for a substantially elected second Chamber. Given the importance that the Government place on the primacy of this House in any
204
future arrangement, will the Leader of the House and the Government give more weight to the outcome in this House than to that in the other place?
Mr. Cook: One reason why the Joint Committee urged upon us this general debate on principle before the vote was so that both Houses could retire to their respective Libraries and study what was said in the other place. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will take the opportunity of this debate clearly to record the balance of views on a reformed second Chamber, so that the other place may take it into account when it votes. After the votes, in the first instance the matter will go to the Joint Committee, and we look forward to its advice. As Leader of the House, I shall pay particular attention to the views of right hon. and hon. Members. That is partly why it is so important that our decision on reform should reflect commanding and clear evidence of the settled will of this place.
Another point raised by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks concerned a mixed membership of elected and appointed Members. I offer some comfort to those who are troubled by the idea of a mixed membership. As the Joint Committee observed, the House of Lords has always had a mixed membership. It has happily rubbed along with a mixed membership of hereditary and life peers for half a century. The current House of Lords is a rich kaleidoscope of Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Very rich."]—They embrace hereditary peers, some very rich; life peers; bishops; and law lords, some of whom are even richer than hereditary peers. They include peers who take a party Whip and a substantial number of Cross Benchers who take none. Nor would it be unusual to have a second Chamber with a mixed membership. About one third of all second Chambers around the world have a mixed membership of elected and appointed members.
The Joint Committee Chairman has just reminded the House that the Committee set out five principles for the second Chamber's composition. It would be difficult to come up with an option that meets all five principles without the result being some form of mixed membership. The first two principles are legitimacy and representativeness. In a democratic society, it is commonly held that legitimacy flows from the accountability and authority that arises from election. No doubt that explains the public's response to consultation on the White Paper, when 89 per cent, called for a second Chamber in which at least a majority of Members were elected.
It might be helpful to remind the House of how we ended up with the current process. It is easy for me to remember because every step along the way is imprinted on my memory. The White Paper's proposal for an elected proportion of 20 per cent, did not command public confidence because it was seen to be too little. Personally, I am deeply sceptical whether we shall capture public confidence by the simple device of removing from the package even the 20 per cent, that was to have been elected. I noticed that yesterday's YouGov poll found that a mere 3 per cent, of respondents favoured an all-appointed second Chamber. That is a slender base on which to build a major constitutional settlement.
Respect for the principle of election is so powerful in our nation that even the hereditary peers have adopted it to fill a vacancy among their ranks: as a result of the

205
death of Viscount Oxfuird, there is to be a by-election. The essential qualification for candidates is to be have been born a hereditary peer. The right to vote is confined to those who are already peers. So that the choice will be popular among the circles in which hereditary peers move, Country Life is helpfully carrying out a poll of its readers on who they would like to see elected. I understand that the runaway front runner is the Duke of Devonshire. That may be democracy, but not as we know it. It seems to me that we will have difficulty carrying the public with us unless our reforms introduce a more substantial democratic element on a rather wider franchise.
Some of my colleagues are concerned that if we let any elected Members into the second Chamber, it will start to get above itself—and the more elected Members, the more uppity it will get. Yet as the Public Administration Committee pointed out, three quarters of second Chambers around the world are wholly or largely elected. Almost invariably, the second Chamber remains the subordinate Chamber—and remains the second Chamber in systems of parliamentary government where the Administration is formed from the majority in the first Chamber.
It is possible to keep a democratic second Chamber subordinate by law and convention; I do not believe that it is sustainable to keep a second Chamber subordinate by denying it legitimacy. That not only weakens the second Chamber, but undermines Parliament.
The Joint Committee pointed out other qualities desirable in a second Chamber. They include independence from the party machine, particularly among Cross Benchers; and the expertise brought to its deliberations by Members who have achieved distinction in professions outside politics. The Joint Committee makes the point that if we are to preserve independent Members in the second Chamber and experts with distinction in other walks of life, it is desirable not to make election the sole route of entry. All of us in this Chamber have difficulty comprehending why that should be the case, but it is a fact of life that only a minority of the population relish standing for election. It would be a mistake if we were to close entirely the door to the second Chamber to people who have acquired a lifetime of expertise but are not attracted to submitting themselves to the roughhouse of the electoral hustings.
The royal commission, the White Paper and the Public Administration Committee all concluded that 20 per cent, of seats in the second Chamber should be filled by independent appointment from outside political parties. As the last of those reports pointed out, a wholly elected Chamber would leave little or no room for people who are independent of party.
Mr. Forth: Has the Leader of the House just talked himself into our policy, which is an 80 per cent, elected, 20 per cent, appointed House?
Mr. Cook: No. I am too long in the tooth to talk myself into the Conservative party and I am not sure that I would be entirely welcome. I was referring to the common ground between all the published views—including the Government's own White Paper—that there should be a 20 per cent. independently appointed
206
element. That does not of course exclude others being appointed on a party political basis and does not necessarily mean that 80 per cent. would have to be elected.
The next stage will be for the Joint Committee to work up a more detailed package. As this debate will help to inform the Joint Committee's future deliberations, I want to take this opportunity before I conclude to invite it to reflect further on a couple of the observations that are included in the report, the first of which is its proposal that the reformed Chamber should comprise about 600 Members. I am glad that the Joint Committee said that it will give that further consideration. I have my doubts as to whether it is desirable to have a second Chamber that is broadly the same size as the first. Personally, I suspect that many members of the public will take some convincing that we require a cast of more than a 1,000 for the membership of the Commons and Lords added together. I fully understand that some temporary increase in the membership of the Lords may be inevitable during the transition process, but I would tempt the Joint Committee to think more boldly about an eventual reduction in the size of the second Chamber. In every other country with a bicameral Parliament, the second Chamber is smaller than the first, usually significantly so. Indeed, there are only five second Chambers in the world with a membership of more than 200.
My second reservation concerns the Joint Committee's conclusion that the period of membership of the reformed Chamber should be 12 years. That strikes me as on the generous side. In the White Paper, we noted that the longest period of membership of any second Chamber was the nine-year period for the French Senate. I can see merit in a membership period that roughly corresponds to two full Parliaments, but I am not attracted to setting a new world record for length of membership of a second Chamber. As this was one of only two matters on which the Joint Committee divided, I am encouraged that some of its members are not attracted to that outcome, either.
Let me end, however, on a point on which I am in enthusiastic agreement with the Joint Committee. Its interim report commences with the warning that, for a century, attempts at reform of the House of Lords have foundered on the lack of agreement on what should replace it. It is a sad lesson of the century since the Parliament Act 1911 that the greatest enemies of reform have often been those most committed to reform. The more strongly Members feel about the case for reform, the more passionately they are inclined to demand agreement to their version of reform. If the current attempt is to succeed, it is essential that all those who want reform show flexibility in supporting whatever option can command the greatest support as the centre of gravity.
It is for Members themselves to decide which option of no matter how many options they are willing to support. I would hope, however, that we can all agree that what is least acceptable is the eighth option of no reform at all. This House now has the chance to set in hand the steps that will lead to a modern, representative second Chamber. I beg all Members to make sure that in two weeks' time, we establish the option that will secure the most support in this House, command the

207
broadest possible confidence among the public, stop us arguing over which option for reform, and enable us to get on with delivering reform of the House of Lords.
2.53 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow three such distinguished speeches from three such distinguished parliamentarians. If I may say so, I was particularly struck by the insights and the amusing references in the speech of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). He is a classic example of what comes when one is released from the responsibilities of leadership. Perhaps I should suggest to his colleagues that the more who are put into that position in the near future, the more contributions of that weight and clarity will be made in the House.
Because I agree with so much of what was said by the Leader of the House and the right hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Richmond, Yorks, I want to underline one or two points and provide some nuances in terms of the issues that have yet to be addressed. I hope that the House as a whole recognises the truth of what the right hon. Member for Copeland said. At the moment, an absurd bagatelle creates the membership of the second House of Parliament, which is extraordinary. The Leader of the House referred to the amazing by-election that is taking place. If we were to describe to anybody else in the world—let alone a visitor from Mars—how a legislator is currently appointed to the second House of Parliament, they would think that we were completely barmy.
Incidentally, the Leader of the House was wrong in one respect. In terms of the electorate and qualification for leadership, membership of one political party is required. That is also slightly curious, given that the particular party in question does not seem to enjoy huge support in the country. If that is democracy, it is a very curious form of it.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Does the hon. Gentleman think it worth bearing it in mind that the absurd rules to which the Leader of the House referred were put on to the statute book by the Government on a three-line Whip?
Mr. Tyler: I was about to illustrate that by pointing out one reason why that happened. Sadly, in the case of the demise of the hon. Gentleman's noble Friend Lord Oxfuird, it happened because we waited so long for this next stage. Many of us feel that we have waited rather too long, and that is a matter of regret. However, I think that the Leader of the House shares that feeling, so I do not want to rub in that point.
The Leader of the House rightly placed great emphasis on the extent of agreement that exists in the House, across the country and to a considerable extent across parties. This is a wonderful opportunity to make progress, and we simply cannot miss it. It contrasts dramatically with the situation in the late 1960s, when there was no real "centre of gravity", to use the Leader of the House's own phrase. However, I was concerned when, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for
208
North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), he did not take the opportunity to emphasise the pre-eminence of this House in taking this decision. This House has twice had a mandate for reform—not just from the Leader of the House's party, but from my party. Of course, in recent months the position of the Conservative party has also been clarified.
Those who argue that we must arrive at a new constitutional settlement that self-evidently gives pre-eminence to this House, and which secures and maintains it, must therefore surely argue that the vote in this House on 4 February must be seen in a different light from the vote in the other place. Apart from anything else, turkeys that vote for Christmas are not always totally objective. I hope that when we reach that point, the Government, the Leader of the House and the Joint Committee will pay due regard to the respective interests and mandates of this House and of the other place.
I was also interested to hear the Leader of the House say that there is no collective Government view. I do not know whether that means "collective" in the sense in which the term was used in the good old days of socialism, but it is clear that things are different now. It would appear from the article in The Times to which reference has been made that the Prime Minister takes a different view from the collective view of his party and his Cabinet. I hope that at some point we will get clarification as to whether The Times or the Prime Minister is completely off message.
It is a curious fact that, if this is true—I am prepared to accept that The Times may have got it wrong—the Prime Minister is taking a different view from his own White Paper, from the royal commission and even from his Lord Chancellor. In terms of an elected component, the Lord Chancellor wants all or nothing: he is prepared to accept not only nothing, but all, so it is said. If it is also true that the Prime Minister is ignoring the advice of the Public Administration Committee—which, as its excellent letter to us pointed out, unanimously believes that it is certainly possible to design a mixed-membership House and of the Joint Committee, the views of which the right hon. Member for Copeland has expressed clearly, this is surely an extraordinary situation.
Perhaps the Prime Minister simply has not read the Joint Committee report; after all, he has other considerations at the moment, so I would not blame him for that. However, I hope that it will be made absolutely clear today that what the Leader of the House said has to be right: this is a free vote with no collective Government view, that the Cabinet does not have a collective view, and that the Prime Minister is not dictating the terms of that view.
The report is unique in the consideration of the issue. It is the first time, I believe, that there has been such a broadly representative body, chaired, as the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks said, very well indeed by the right hon. Member for Copeland, and it has produced a unanimous report. Yes, there were two small votes, but there is no minority report. There is no mass dissension from the theme of the report. It is the first time that that has happened in the history of this long saga.

209
It is agreed that a hybrid mixed-membership second Chamber is possible and, to a large extent, desirable. As the Leader of the House just said, the second Chamber has had a mixed membership for many generations, so there is nothing new about that. Those who favour a 100 per cent, elected House—there are men and women in this House and in the general public who believe that to be the desirable aim—should recognise that we proceed in this country by evolution, not on the whole by revolution. Even if a 100 per cent, elected House is their long-term aim, I hope that they will not discard the possibility of a major move in that direction. That would give an opportunity and hope to those who do not want to move at all.
Mr. Clelland: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that, if the House voted for a partly elected second Chamber, it would inevitably lead to a wholly elected second Chamber?
Mr. Tyler: No, I suggest nothing of the sort, but, as a long-serving Member, the hon. Gentleman knows that no Parliament can commit a future Parliament. We cannot say that there will never ever be a fully elected House. What I am saying is that those who wait for perfection wait a very long time and hand a weapon to those who want to remain with total imperfection. That is important. It may be that the Prime Minister floated the idea that the second Chamber should remain as it is simply to spur those of us who believe that the status quo is not acceptable to move on. I hope that that will be the position of the House.
I want to deal with two myths. The first, to which reference has already been made, is that strengthening the second House of Parliament automatically weakens the first. I draw the attention of hon. Members to the excellent letter from the members of the Select Committee on Public Administration. It is not a zero-sum result. We can create an improved situation for our House and for the other House if we see it as a total parliamentary improvement in our ability to scrutinise both the legislation and the executive action of the Government of the day. The Committee wrote:
"Reform is not a zero-sum game in which advances for one chamber are inevitably threats to the other."
I hope that all hon. Members will take that to heart.
It is extremely important to emphasise the point made by the Chairman of the Committee that a great deal depends on the type of appointment and the type of election. I hope all hon. Members have examined paragraph 53 of the report, in which we say that we want the two Houses to be distinct and complementary, so the method of election needs to be distinct and complementary. One of the few matters on which I disagree with the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks is that I do not believe that if the elections for the two Houses are held on the same day, where one election is by definition to create the assembly that will appoint the Government and the Prime Minister of the day, that will be a healthy context in which to elect the other House to do a quite different job. We still have to think that through carefully. A distinct system and a distinct day for a distinct purpose will help to differentiate the two Houses, and I believe that to be extremely important.
210
I believe that the second Chamber can perform an excellent complementary role to that of the first, and I believe that by making sure that those distinctions are adequately covered by the detail, we can make real progress to achieve that purpose. A former member of a former Administration, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, made an interesting comment about the nature of our responsibilities in terms of the Government of the day. I shall quote him, as I thought that his remarks were an admirable summary of the point. He said that a Government with authority do not need to legislate with impunity. I hope that I repeat his words correctly, as that view comes from experience in government, not just on the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Hague indicated assent.
Mr. Tyler: The other myth is the myth of cost. I suppose that we in the House should not be surprised that the media reacted to the Joint Committee report not by considering the major constitutional issues, but by going on about how many hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds it might cost to introduce an element of democracy into Parliament. For goodness sake, what do they want us to do? Do they want us to be more effective, or just cheaper? There is an extremely important issue here that we need to address this afternoon.
The Leader of the House said that a House of 600 would be over the top. I entirely agree. I have expressed that view in Committee and I hope to continue to do so. That figure was a notional possible long-term aim, rather than a transitional short-term necessity that we could remove as soon as possible. It was based on the anticipation that there might have to be a considerable number of appointed part-timers. The two are not necessarily synonymous, I agree: very often, the part-timer may not be appointed, and the appointed Member may not be a part-timer. However, the assumption was that, if there were a large number of appointees, the workload of the second House would require a big House. That applies only if there are a large number of appointees.
Having made that decision, we could not differentiate between the two types of Members in terms of the way in which they are paid. Imagine an elected Member saying, "Look, I am a full-timer in this job. I need a salary comparable to that of House of Commons Members. They are getting £50,000-plus"—this is in a few years' time—"so I must get £40,000-plus." We cannot differentiate between different types of Member, or at least I hope that we will not, so once the elected Member has £40,000-plus, all the appointed Members, who may be part-time, will also demand £40,000-plus. Whatever the total number of appointees, 600 Members will necessarily mean a very expensive House.
However, the opposite applies. The larger the number of elected Members, the smaller the House can be, because it is anticipated that more of them will be full-time.
Let us suppose that, as the Leader of the House suggested, there is a House of some 300 or 400 Members at most. The cost would then come down. I have some figures to illustrate the point. If 80 per cent, of a larger, 600-Member House were appointed and each of them

211
were getting £40,000, the total bill would be £24 million. If one reduces the size of the House by having more elected full-time Members, the bill immediately comes down.
Even in the terms that we set out in the Committee's report, the media have completely misunderstood the point. The more elected Members, the cheaper an effective second Chamber. I hope that we can now dispose of the myth. The expensive option is clearly a continuation of the current flawed patronage system as a component of the second Chamber.
Mr. Tom Watson: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there should be 400 Members paid £50,000 a year? Is he including their secretarial and research allowances in his proposition?
Mr. Tyler: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my point. If we have a smaller House because the Members are elected and full-time in the main, it will be cheaper. There is no way that we could differentiate in salary between the elected Members and the appointed Members. Everybody is agreed that if Members of the second Chamber are to be on equal terms, we cannot make such a distinction. I personally believe that our elected second Chamber need be only 100 strong. If the Senate of the United States of America can manage with 100 members, I see no reason why we should not have 100, but I accept that, with that number, it will be difficult to get the mix of appointed and elected Members that some hon. Members wish to achieve.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: The hon. Gentleman says that a smaller but fully elected House would be cheaper, and he bases his assumptions solely on potential salary figures. Has he read paragraph 59 of the report, or does he recall discussing that in Committee? Would he care to comment on the figures quoted there—£85,000 as opposed to £380,000 per Member to support elected Members? I think that he will find that that comes to rather more than the figure that he just gave the House.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. It would be possible to have a very cheap house only with retention of the status quo. I suspect that he may be one of the dinosaur fraternity and wishes to retain it.
If there is any elected element in the new second Chamber it will inevitably set the level of remuneration for everybody. Therefore, a larger number of appointed members will necessitate a higher-cost second Chamber. We do not want democracy on the cheap, but we want it to be cost-effective. The most cost-effective House would clearly be one that is predominantly elected and therefore enabled to be a smaller House.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler: I am about to conclude, and I am aware that many hon. Members wish to speak.
The votes on 4 February will clearly be extremely important. We have had a reassurance from the Leader of the House that his party at least will have a free vote.
212
I understand that the Conservatives will have a free vote. I should emphasise that my party will have a free vote. We are rather more united, I suspect, than the other two parties. There will, I hope, be one or two dissidents, just to demonstrate that I am not exerting any undue influence on my colleagues. We believe in the main that, as we have said for a very long time, the elected component should be 80 per cent, or more. That is an absolute minimum. We hope that it will be a smaller House. It would be largely democratic, but it would also be more hard-working.
When we hear people enthusiastically endorse how Cross Benchers bring so much to the House of Lords in its present form, we should bear it in mind that they are not good attenders or good voters. Therefore, it is important to recognise that if we are to expect a second Chamber to exercise a degree of effective scrutiny of legislation and executive action, we need more members taking an active part in its activities.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman argues for a House a hundred strong but on the other hand, he argues for more people than presently take an active part to take such a part. Maths is not my greatest subject, but I think that he needs to follow the national curriculum more closely than he has.
Mr. Tyler: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has completely lost me. I think that he has lost the plot. What I have been arguing is that the more elected members there are who are effectively full-time legislators, the more likely it is that one will gain good cost-benefit from them. Whether or not he agrees, he cannot deny that it is a fact.
The Select Committees, both of our House and the Joint Committee, have very carefully studied all the material brought before the two Houses over many years. They have unanimously recommended that a mixed-membership House can be a practical possibility and bring a real step change to the quality of the work we do collectively in this building in holding the Government to account. What is more, the Committees have both identified a centre of gravity—a centre of gravity that crosses all party boundaries and to a large extent, as the Leader of the House emphasised, is also reflected among the public at large.
Unlike the 1968 debacle, when Mr. Foot and Mr. Powell managed to combine forces—the most unholy alliance, surely, in the history of Parliament—the two parliamentary Houses will, I hope, be able together to make real progress now, because there is no excuse on grounds similar to the situation then, as we have a degree of consensus, a centre of gravity, on which we can make real progress. I hope that we shall now make it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Before I call on the next speaker, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker placed a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches from 2.30 this afternoon, so that will apply from now on.
3.14 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: I thought that the issues before us today were quite clear until the Liberal spokesman intervened. I am really confused now. I shall try to get back on to a straight line.

213
I first confess that my preferred option is the revolutionary one. I support abolition. If a unicameral system works well in Sweden and in New Zealand, as I saw recently, and now also for domestic legislation in Scotland, why should it not also work here? That option is not currently on the agenda, however. For those of us who favour abolition, the next best option is, paradoxically, a fully appointed chamber—
Mr. Fisher: What about a fully elected chamber?
Mr. Foulkes: I shall come to that; it is what I am going to talk about.
I favour a fully appointed Chamber as the next best option, provided that the method of appointment is clear and transparent, as the Committee recommends. May I underline to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that to say that is not to support the status quo.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) that any element of election to the second Chamber is inevitably a threat to the primacy of the House of Commons and will undermine the position of individual elected Members. Just as we can learn from success in Scotland, as we have on pre-legislative scrutiny—as the Leader of the House knows—so we should also learn from the mistakes there. I am thinking, for example, of the list MSPs, a system now universally criticised. List MSPs, elected through party lists in eight regions of Scotland, cherry-pick the high-profile issues; they challenge the position of constituency MSPs, and indeed MPs, and build up a profile and a platform to stand against constituency MSPs in their constituencies.
Elected members of the upper House—let us call them senators for the sake of argument—would do the same. Those senators would interfere in the work of individual MPs, and if they had been elected more recently, as the Liberal spokesman suggested, and on a superficially fairer electoral system, as the Liberals would argue, they would claim a more recent and stronger mandate than the individual Members of Parliament. Members who vote for an elected second Chamber will be creating a huge rod with which to beat themselves. Such masochism may be heroic, but it is also daft.
Mr. Forth rose—
Mr. Foulkes: I give way to the daft—to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the right hon. and charming Gentleman.
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that somehow the Americans have rubbed along not too badly for 200 years with two different chambers, the upper one of which has rather more recently become directly elected, largely because of the difference both in constituencies and terms of office? Is that not now very much on offer?
Mr. Foulkes: One of the main reasons for disaffection with the democratic process in the United States is the gridlock between the Senate and the House of Representatives.
214
The Commons as an institution—not just as individual Members—will be challenged by the upper House, which could claim new legitimacy and new authority. Since it is also the majority party in the Commons that forms the Government, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, imagine the constitutional turmoil that could arise, especially if the second Chamber were to be elected more recently and by the system advocated by the Liberals.
We may imagine that we can keep asserting that the Commons is supreme, but huge possibilities of both legal and political challenge open up. If we are to have a second Chamber, it should be complementary to, and not compete with, the Commons. If the vast majority of its members were chosen through the new open and transparent mechanism, we would ensure representation from all walks of life or backgrounds or parts of the country. And paradoxically, a better gender balance and fairer representation of ethnic minorities would be more readily obtainable through an appointed system than has so far been the case with elections.
I agree that some discretion should be left to the Prime Minister and to other party leaders to make direct nominations, as at present, to maintain flexibility of action. It is right to spell out the fact that the role of the second Chamber should also be different from that of the Commons, reducing its powers to thwart the wishes of elected members but clarifying and perhaps enhancing its role in debating, advising, reporting and scrutinising the work of government.
In reality, we have a straight choice between election and appointment. The compromises of part-election are the worst option, with the invidious outcome of two classes of members—elected and appointed. My right hon. Friend said that we had it at present with hereditary Members. There would be an entirely different division and there would inevitably ultimately be pressure for a fully elected option.
Therefore, I urge the House not to be lured by the false and misleading argument that democracy would be enhanced by having two elected Chambers. In my view, it would lead to an undermining of the position of individual MPs and to a constant battle between the two Houses, with resultant constitutional chaos. We should do what we know to be right, and not what is seen to be politically correct.
3.19 pm
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I rise to make the case for parliamentary democracy. In this Chamber, that should be as easy as making the case for early release to the residents of Wormwood Scrubs. However, I have the feeling that, as the debate goes on, we will find that there is considerable dissension from the basic principle on which innocent people might believe we were all elected to this House.
I begin by making it clear that I am as big a radical as the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). My ideal would be a 100 per cent, elected upper House, but I shall not devote too much of my limited time to that option, as I am a realist. I agree with all those who say that we must not allow the best to be the enemy of the good when it comes to sensible reform. Therefore, I would also support an upper House in which the elected proportion was 80 per cent., or even

215
60 per cent., if necessary. However, for the reasons that I shall give, I would be very disappointed if the proceedings in this House, which will guide the Joint Committee's work in the future, resulted in an upper House that was anything less than 80 per cent. elected.
Surprisingly, given that my view is so radically different from that of the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, my motives in advocating a largely elected upper House are to strengthen Parliament's control over the Executive. In the public interest, that should be our only guiding motive underlying this debate. I agree with all those who say that it is rather urgent that we address this matter. I do not believe that people are refusing to vote because there are too many elections or because they are weary of politicians and have lost interest in the issues involved. The perception of the electorate is that Parliament matters less and that the Executive are all powerful. People are troubled by the belief that there is little that they can do by way of democratic elections that will have a significant effect on their daily lives. That is why parliamentary reform is a matter of some urgency.
It is inescapably true that, in the years that I have been in the House, the power of the Executive has greatly increased. Modern Executives are much bigger and more all-embracing than they used to be. I regret to say that the power of Parliament—or at least of this House of Parliament—has steadily lessened. There is no conspiracy behind that: I am not saying that anyone intended that to happen, and I do not want to make a party-political point. I have been a member of the Executive longer than I have been without office in this House, but there is no doubt that today's House of Commons is far weaker in its influence on Government and on public affairs than the one that I joined. We need to deal with that matter.
I accept that dealing with the problem that I have set out involves reform of this House as much as of the upper House. That is outside the scope of this debate, but hon. Members have unknowingly allowed too much control over the process of holding the Government to account to pass out of their hands.
In many respects, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). This unaccustomed outbreak of unity among Opposition Members should not alarm Labour Members, as there are plenty who disagree with both my right hon. Friend and me about reform of the House of Lords. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the failure of the Leader of the House's recent and well-judged attempt to give back to the House control of the composition of its own Select Committees at least was extremely unfortunate. However, that debate is for another day.
I reject the idea that an elected and therefore stronger upper House will somehow weaken the Commons yet further. Again, I do not have to repeat at great length the arguments against that idea, as only one strong dissenting view has so far emerged. I have never understood the proposition. A stronger upper House would complement this House. The Commons is not being asked to give up any of its privileges. If it wishes, it can entrench its own supremacy, and underline existing conventions and relevant legislation by insisting that the
216
Commons alone can determine levels of taxation and public expenditure. We could leave the upper House with a delaying power only, which could be overridden by the Parliament Acts and which would not amount to an absolute power of veto on legislation. That would be quite sufficient. The fact that Governments would be formed according to their majorities in this House would make it clear that the Commons is paramount in the nation's affairs.
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley is an assiduous constituency Member. However, I thought he sounded a little concerned about the risk of personal competition if a more assiduous representative of constituents in his part of Scotland were elected to the upper House. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to fear, but Members of this House might benefit from a little competition occasionally. It is not unknown for some to follow the Whip so faithfully and to be so loyally dependant on the patronage of their leaders and the docile following of supporters in safe seats—which certainly exist in parts of south-central Scotland—that the quality of representation declines. A little competition in that respect would do no harm.
Mr. McCabe: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clarke: No, it is not an important enough point.
I emphasise that we are looking for a stronger Parliament. We should not resent the suggestion of stronger competition between the two Houses. The problem facing us is that the necessary checks and balances that ought to exist in a modern constitution and parliamentary democracy are not at present strong enough in this country. The Government have waddled into a situation in which they find that they are reforming far more than they intended. We should take advantage of that and push on to ensure that we produce an elected and stronger upper House—within the lifetime of this Parliament, if we can hold the Government to that.
I agree with those who have said that a stronger upper House needs the legitimacy of democracy, but I also accept that we must guard against the danger of the tyranny of the majority. That danger can arise in a parliamentary democracy, and it is one of the problems that exist at present. I wholly approve of the electoral system for the Commons, but it greatly exaggerates the parliamentary support for the party with the largest percentage of votes. The party system means that Governments strictly control their followers, from whom they derive their power. As regards the checks and balances in the British system, it is difficult to explain to an American, for example, how on earth such amazing presidential power—without clear parliamentary check—is put in the hands of our Prime Minister. People have referred already to the emergence of a presidential system.
The way to avoid that, if one has an elected second Chamber based on elections in which parties will undoubtedly play the major part, has already been answered by others. It is necessary to have a different form of election. It is necessary for it not to coincide with the parliamentary election. It is necessary for the elected membership to rotate, with, for example, a third retiring after a given interval.

217
Although I agree with all that, I was one of those who voted in the Committee against people being too nervous and proposing that there should be tenure of 10, 12 or 15 years. That strikes me as excessive caution. If we had undertaken these reforms a generation ago, would people elected on the political issues current in 1988 retain democratic legitimacy? They would probably have changed half their opinions on those issues by the time they were debating them in 2003. However, a different form of election is certainly required.
We should also consider the situation if the two Houses were in conflict. It is important that there is a system whereby, usually, no one party is in command. I look forward to that; it is the key to the American system and constrains what would otherwise be an impossible presidential system. That would change the political culture in this country. There would be genuine search for agreement and not our current ping-pong, with the convention that the upper House always gives way—although it usually would.
From the give and take that would have to take place between the two elected Houses and the Government would come an altogether more responsive and genuinely pluralistic and democratic system, to which I look forward. I hope that we decide on the options before us and that we give a steer to the Committee. The Committee will have to return with more seriousness to many other issues; it was not unanimous on everything, and for example I agree with everything that has been said about the possibly excessive size of the House. A clear steer is needed so that we can maintain a timetable that produces a result in the foreseeable future—certainly by the end of this Parliament.
3.30 pm
Tony Wright: I want to talk about a word that has already surfaced many times in the debate and is much used by both proponents and opponents of reform: legitimacy. Those who oppose reform, especially those who oppose election, argue that election is not the only route to legitimacy. That argument deserves to be taken seriously and, if there was time, we could develop it to show that there is truth in it.
I want to set out the problem with that argument, as it goes to the heart of what we are being asked to decide. That requires me to describe what was for me a defining moment. We have many such moments in my party, but this was one of my recent ones. The context was the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which we passed with great haste—rightly so. However, I had doubts about some aspects of the measure and felt that we might not be taking sufficient care with it. As we trooped through the Lobbies, abolishing habeas corpus in an afternoon, one of my colleagues said, "Never mind, the Lords will sort it out for us."
The Bill went to the Lords and it did indeed sort it out for us. It did a magnificent job to make sure that the legislation was better, but when the Bill came back to this place our friends in the Whips Office contacted those of us who had had doubts. The call that I received was memorable. As it was thought that I might misbehave again, I was told, "Those people aren't elected, you know", to which I replied, "No, they are not elected but I think that they are right—furthermore, I didn't know that it was the view of the Whips Office that they should be elected."
218
I ask those who use the legitimacy argument—especially those in the other place—to think about it from this end. They should think about the type of second Chamber necessary to enable it to perform its proper role in our parliamentary system. If the second Chamber can be routinely rolled over using the argument that "they're not elected, you know", we may as well pack it up. The unicameralists may be right. However, they and we have to address the fact that on any test our system of Executive power is the most concentrated of any system of parliamentary government and that it has got worse. The power of the Executive has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. Either we know and believe that, and want to do something about it, or we do not. That power comes through party—of which we are all part—and patronage, but it has changed our system fundamentally over the past half century or so.
We must either redress the balance and do something about that power by using reform of the second Chamber as one part of the package, or not. The Public Administration Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, concluded that it is possible to find a way through by adopting a mixed system. We can be open about the dangers of going too far in certain directions. I concede that it would be possible to construct a wholly elective system that made matters worse rather than better. We might simply have a system of election that was appointment by a different name—through party list systems. If we do not attend to the nature of those elections to ensure that they produce different people from those in the House of Commons, elected differently and for different terms, we shall run into that difficulty.
Some say, however, that we must remember that if we want to secure legitimacy—not that of individuals, which is not in question wherever they come from—the institution must be put on a different footing. There is no question in my mind but that the Select Committee concluded that there should be a mixed system that recognises that there is a place for election and a place for appointment, but in a balance that secures the legitimacy of the institution. That is crucial.
Some people are not comfortable with the options now being offered. Some people may prefer a system of indirect election, with which I have some sympathy. If I were to choose my second preference, it might be the scheme recommended by the Bryce commission, which suggested that the House of Commons should become an electoral college—in the present circumstances, that might include Members of the devolved legislatures in Scotland and Wales— that it would elect 75 per cent. of Members of the House of Lords and that the other 25 per cent. would come through a joint committee of the two Houses. That would be an improvement; there would be more legitimacy through that route, although not as much as the mixture that we recommend would produce.
The mention of Lord Bryce in 1918 reminds us how long we have been going round this circuit. It would be most extraordinary if a Government with constitutional reform as one of their centrepieces—indeed, they have delivered major constitutional reform—and with the current majority did not manage to reform the second Chamber. What a failure of historic proportions that would be.

219
The Leader of the House has issued a challenge to the House of Commons. In a sense, he wants to take the decision away from the Executive and say, "Come on House of Commons, it is up to you. Rise to the challenge." The question is whether the House will rise to the challenge. We shall find that out, at least initially, in a week or so.
The Select Committee on Public Administration has shown that, if the House wanted, we could have a mixed second Chamber, with 60 per cent. elected and 40 per cent. appointed Members, in 10 years. That could be achieved in a way that works through arrangements suitable for that purpose, but it will be done only if the House of Commons recognises that it has both an opportunity and a responsibility to put that process in place.
3.38 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: We all listened with great interest to my friend and neighbour, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). In his opening remarks, he gave as good an argument against elections as I have heard for quite a long time because the whole scheme that he proposed would rule out that power of party and patronage that inevitably comes with elections.
We all have to thank the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for the way in which he introduced this debate. We have heard some scintillating speeches—most of all that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—but I beg the House to think of the future of Parliament and what will best serve us and those who send us here.
Over the past seven or eight months, a group of us from both Houses and all parties and generations have been meeting regularly as what we call the campaign for an effective second Chamber. We are not status quo merchants, but we strongly believe—this belief has united the group—that the country would be better served by a wholly nominated, all appointed second Chamber.
There is a very respectable case for a largely or entirely elected Chamber, but that would involve drawing up a new constitution and redistributing powers between the two Chambers. If we are to attract men and women of sufficient calibre and quality to stand for election, they must have the opportunity responsibly to exercise real power.
That is not a course with which our group would agree. We would agree with the general conclusions of the Joint Committee that the present role and powers of the House of Lords are about right, and that the conventions governing its relations with this place are about right. Indeed, the Joint Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Copeland recommends fairly emphatically that the second Chamber should not be given any new significant or additional power. The Joint Committee's report lists the five requirements, which I will not repeat. A close reading of that report indicates that a reasonable degree of consensus was reached that the present second Chamber has those qualities, some of them in good measure.
220
That echoes to some degree the fifth report of the Public Administration Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, which stated that the considerable virtues of the present second Chamber should be preserved. Among those virtues, it listed the less partisan debating style, the quality and expertise of House of Lords Committees and its vital role in scrutinising legislation, much of which, as we all know to our cost, leaves this Chamber completely unconsidered. Many others in the House and around the world have commented on the quality of scrutiny, particularly of European legislation, which is widely acknowledged to be of a thoroughness and quality unique in the whole European Union.
Therefore, as we consider the Joint Committee's report, we must remember that we are not debating the Chamber that existed five years ago, with an inbuilt Conservative majority and the right of hereditary peers to sit in the Chamber. That has gone, and those debates are over. What we are considering is a Chamber that is largely composed of people who have been appointed since the Life Peerages Act 1958. Since that date, some 984 peers have been appointed, and no one who scrutinises those appointments with any degree of care, thoughtfulness or objectivity could for a moment dismiss more than a handful as cronies. For almost half a century, many able men and women, from differing backgrounds with different skills, have become Members of the House of Lords. The Joint Committee cites examples from the public services, science, medicine, academic life, the voluntary sector, business and industry—one could add the armed forces and the arts—all of whom have been recognised by appointment. The people who have taken part in debates have brought their expertise—often a current expertise—to them.
Since 1958, and particularly since 1999, we have gradually replaced a council of elders with a council of experts. I often think that Lord Winston perhaps best exemplifies what the House of Lords is all about. He takes the Labour whip, but he informs debates with a tremendous amount of experience, and the quality of hiscontributions—although I disagree with many of them—is immense. A large number of those experts, however, do not take a party whip, and the Joint Committee makes complimentary reference to that fact.
The Public Administration Committee has said that the main cause of widespread disillusionment with our political system is the establishment of virtually untrammelled control of the House of Commons by the Executive. It went on to stress the need to ensure that the dominance of Parliament by the Executive, and by the party political machine, is reduced. Indeed, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase alluded to Dunning's famous motion in his speech:
"The power of the Crown—
or, in this case, the Executive—
has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished."
Who can suggest seriously that that worthy objective could be achieved by having an elected House of Lords? Who can suggest seriously that many, if any, of those appointed for their expertise would seek election? Elections would be strongly influenced, to put it mildly, by party considerations. That is why the Select Committee wants open lists, long terms and no right to

221
re-election. However, it seeks to replicate by election what already exists while making its own aims incapable of realisation by replacing the present system of appointment by party patronage.
Elections would inevitably bring conflict, and the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred to that. Other colleagues who represent Scottish and Welsh constituencies have attended our group and told of us their experience. Even those of us with English seats have Members of the European Parliament elected under the dreadful system of closed lists, and we know what it is like when people are on our patch and do and say things that are wholly incompatible with the good of our constituents. I am experiencing precisely that in my constituency at the moment. What legitimacy can my Member of the European Parliament claim when, in my constituency, only about 20 per cent. of people voted in the last European elections? If the elections for the upper Chamber do not take place on the same day as the general election, we will run the risk of a derisory turnout. What sort of legitimacy does that give?
If the purpose of the exercise is to secure a second Chamber as different as possible from the Commons, can it make sense for the most fundamental change to be the one most likely to reproduce the partisan structures that exist here? Given their constituency or representational functions, what time would the elected Members of the second Chamber have for scrutiny? I have already referred to the fact that much of the legislation churned out by Government is not considered in this House, and those Members would have the right, as the Joint Committee makes plain, to expect the same facilities that we enjoy. Whatever the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) says, the costs would be enormous. It would be an extremely expensive, but far less effective second Chamber.
If a second Chamber were elected or largely elected and enjoyed the powers and functions of the present House of Lords, it would be far less well equipped to perform the functions that are performed well at the moment. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase talked about the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and there are many more examples that we could give from the past five years and, indeed, from the period of Conservative government in which the House of Lords put right legislation that was defective and imperfect in the extreme. Of course, it made mistakes, but any elected or non-elected body will make mistakes. However, the quality of debate and decision in that place has been of a high order. To throw that away would be—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
3.48 pm
Mr. George Howarth: I join those who have congratulated my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on the work of his Committee even though I do not agree with its conclusions in their entirety. I also congratulate him on the lucidity of his speech and on the balanced way in which he made his case.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred disparagingly to early-day motion 529, of which I was the author. I shall therefore respond to some
222
of the points that he made. He seemed to suggest that the option of abolition that my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and I support should not be a matter for consideration. Indeed, it is not one of the seven recommendations in the Joint Committee's report. I accept that early-day motions are not always the strongest indicator of feeling in the House, but this one attracted the support of 90 Members. I believe that that number is sufficient to make the case for finding the means to debate in two weeks' time the option of abolition that some of us believe at least deserves to be debated.
As a Back Bencher, I hoped that I would be able to table an amendment or motion to enable that opinion to be expressed, but those who know the procedures of the House far better than I do have advised me that that will not be possible because of the way in which the debate will be set up. I do not claim that every hon. Member who has signed the early-day motion agrees with me on the particulars. Indeed, some of them have made it clear that they do not. However, I should like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to reflect on the fact that 90 Members have signed it. Although I do not expect him to respond to me today, we all think that we should have the option to vote on an amendment or motion that mirrors our views. It is true that many of us might vote for other options as well.
I take slight issue with the way in which my right hon. Friend dealt with the matter. On the one hand, he generously reminded me that we are to have a free vote. I am grateful to him for that. On the other hand, however, he reminded me that it is a manifesto issue. It seems that my right hon. Friend is giving with one hand and, if not taking away with the other, at least putting a hand on my arm before I move it. Like all hon. Members who have spoken, I am realist and do not expect that I will succeed in abolishing the House of Lords by the end of this Parliament. Indeed, I accept that I may never do so, but I should at least like the opportunity to vote in the way that I think is most appropriate.
I am obliged to justify the terms of the early-day motion. I shall not enter into the abolitionist argument because my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley put it succinctly and well. The other part of it refers to the fact that the House is not as effective as it should be in a number of respects and it calls for greater reform of the way in which we do our business before we consider how the House of Lords should be reformed, if at all. That is a serious proposition. In his new guise, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) championed the rights and privileges of the House of Commons. I always listened to his speeches carefully when he held high office and he regularly changed his mind. However, he made the serious point that the wider public do not think that we conduct our business effectively. His lapse in logic was that we must reform the House of Lords. My argument is that if we are serious about the problems in the House, and I acknowledge that they exist, let us sort them out first before moving on to decide the most appropriate way of reforming the House of Lords.
We have made a good start on reform of this House. We are better at pre-legislative scrutiny. Some Select Committees are starting to be aware of their role in that. Let us make it a more regular occurrence so that the

223
excellence that is built up in those Committees is used more effectively on every measure. Just as we shall debate this issue within the next few weeks and vote on it, so we shall discuss Iraq, what has happened, and decisions by the Government and United Nations. I doubt whether there will be enough time for everyone who wants to speak to do so. That may be a criticism of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but the same thing has happened under all Governments. When the Conservative party was in office, huge discussions took place and important issues were determined, yet people waited for hours and never got to say what they felt needed to be said on their constituents' behalf. If the Chamber is going to debate and reflect on the great issues of the day, the way in which it operates must be reformed.
I began by saying that the House could operate effectively in a unicameral system. I still hold that view because nobody has convinced me otherwise. Before we set about reforming the House of Lords we should reform the way in which we conduct our business. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) talked about confidence, and from the confident position of a reformed, functioning House of Commons we can go on to discuss the House of Lords. If we do not do so, frankly, we are not credible.
3.56 pm
Sir George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who has just talked himself out of elevation to the upper House by revealing himself as a unicameralist. The difficulty with his argument is that it would result in our never tackling the House of Lords. If the challenge is to reform the Commons first, we would leave the House of Lords semi-reformed. The Prime Minister would be delighted with that argument, as there would be a strong case for inaction.
When we have these discussions, there is always a risk of portraying the debate as a two-dimensional contest between us and the other place—if one gains, the other must lose. The constitutional contest is not between the Commons and the Lords, but between Parliament and the Executive. In that contest, we are partners, not rivals, and the key issue is the way in which we each perform our task better to hold the Executive to account. The prime question is whether the legitimacy and effectiveness of Parliament as a whole would be enhanced if some Members of the upper House were elected. I believe that it would. In passing, I agree with comments about proposed size—a Chamber of 600
is far too big—and I was delighted to hear from Committee members that that matter will be addressed.
On composition, I was surprised and alarmed to read in The Sunday Times and The Times today of the Cabinet's recent apparent conversion to a wholly appointed second Chamber. That would be a change in the Government's previous policy of a 20 per cent. elected Chamber, but it would show astonishing disregard for the views held in the House. Having been told by the House that their proposal of 20 per cent. was not enough, it would be wrong of the Government to retreat to zero instead of advancing beyond 50 per cent.
224
The two most recent reports on the subject by Lord Wakeham and the Public Administration Committee were unanimous that there should not be a wholly appointed Chamber. A consensual solution is unlikely to be achieved if one starts by rejecting the common ground reached by those reports.
The Leader of the House made a plea for flexibility, and I hope that he will use his persuasiveness to impress on the Prime Minister the need for flexibility if we are to achieve a proper solution. My judgment is that roughly one third of Members in the new House of Lords should be non-political and appointed, and the balance of two thirds should be political and elected. I am not in favour of a 100 per cent. elected Chamber for the reasons that we have heard about—it would exclude many people who do not belong to a political party and do not want to stand for election, but who add enormous value to debates in the upper House. No single party should have a majority in the upper House. A one-third bloc of Cross Benchers would in effect mean that the Government of the day would have to win the argument to win the vote, which is as it should be.
I want to deal head-on with the three main arguments sometimes used to criticise that solution: the Lord Chancellor's argument that oil and water do not mix; the British Rail argument that that solution produces the wrong sort of politician; and the rival mandate argument.
On the argument about two types of Members and their alleged incompatibility, as we have heard, the House of Lords has had two types of Members for more than 40 years: those who got there by accident of birth; and those who got there by achievement after birth. It is difficult to think of two more diverse sources of arrival into the upper House, plus the bishops and Law Lords. We can debate the legitimacy of the hereditary element, but we cannot say that it did not mix with the life peers. Indeed, when the hereditaries were abolished, the life peers were some of their staunchest defenders. Of course, there are other models: the Inner London education authority, which had directly elected and borough-nominated members; the assemblies; and the Scottish Parliament. I am old enough to remember aldermen in local government. So it manifestly is not the case that a body can work only if all its members arrive through the same door.
The British Rail argument is that electing two thirds of Members will produce the wrong sort of politician. There is a view in the upper House that "We do not want the rough trade from the other end of the building up here." A year ago, Lord Wakeham said in his speech on this matter that elections 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.]
I am not quite sure how he classified himself in making that comment. The late Lord Longford made the point less tactfully three years ago:
"We would get the dregs."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 2000; Vol. 610, c. 955.]
I think that that anxiety is misplaced. Behaviour in our House is less a function of the sort of people we are than of the place in which we operate and our role as Members of Parliament in a highly political, dominant Chamber to which we have to be re-elected. When we

225
move from this charged environment to the calmer one at the other end of the building, our behaviour changes. Perhaps the best examples are those of Lords Wakeham and Hurd. If my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) were elevated to the upper House, he would be absorbed into that environment with no difficulty whatever. When we are in our current environment, we behave as Members of Parliament, but in the more reflective environment of the upper House, where Members do not have to be re-elected and Whips have a slender grip on discipline, people behave differently.
I find nothing inherently suspect or inappropriate about people who want to stand for re-election being Members of the upper House. If they are elected on a rolling basis for a fixed term, nor will there be very many to elect at a time, so there will be no shortage of quality candidates. Crucially, if they do not have to be re-elected, they will not have to emulate some of the characteristics of this House to which Members in the other place take such exception.
My last point concerns the rival mandate argument, which alleges that, if we have a predominantly elected second Chamber, it will challenge the supremacy of this Chamber. However, the second Chamber is clearly defined as complementary and, in the end, subordinate to this one. Its powers are given to it by this House, which is pre-eminent, and they cannot be unilaterally changed. There is an argument that that settlement might somehow be subject to moral challenge and that there would be tension between the two Houses if the upper House were elected. I strongly disagree. Here, we are all elected for one Parliament on the same day after a vigorous campaign on the basis of a party manifesto. We are elected to the pre-eminent House that sustains the Executive and produces the Prime Minister, and we submit ourselves for re-election.
None of those conditions would exist for the upper House if it were to be elected on the basis suggested by, for example, Lord Wakeham. Many of its Members would not be elected at all and would have no mandate. Those who were elected would be elected at different times and on different mandates, and it would be impossible for one party to control the upper House if it were elected on the basis that I have outlined. The notion that electing some or even most of the Members could lead to the conversion of the upper House into a rival assembly where one party claims a mandate is unsustainable. Yes, the upper House should be given greater legitimacy in its existing role, but it does not follow that it will acquire a claim to a greater role.
I believe that the right way forward is to seek to reach agreement, but if that fails, to make progress on the basis of what this House decides, but at a pace that does not cause too much turbulence and respects the rights of life peers to remain in the upper House for as long as they want. In other words, there should be a gentle transition to a predominantly elected upper House. Put in those terms and approached with understanding, I believe that a settlement can be reached.
4.4 pm
Joyce Quin: So many powerful speeches and telling points have been made that I am glad that my time is restricted and I can concentrate simply on picking up some of them.
226
The contribution of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) reminded me that serving on the Joint Committee was an interesting and entertaining experience. Our deliberations seemed to cross every known political divide, and old ideological divisions counted for little.
However, the speech of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) reminded me that the Labour party's view on the matter has changed. Although I thoroughly dislike the facile applications of the labels, "old Labour" and "new Labour", I confess that I feel more attached to the old Labour policy of 1992 on House of Lords reform than to the proposals that the Government presented subsequently.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House confirmed that there would be a free vote and that the matter was for the House of Commons to determine.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said of his motivation for wanting an all-elected House, which I also support, that it would help affirm the House's authority against that of the Government and the Executive. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), who chairs the Public Administration Committee, made the same point. I am sorry if I prevented his escape from the Chamber by referring to him.
My motivation is more basic. We are considering a House of Parliament that is part of the machinery of government and our democracy. The Government and the House of Commons get their authority from the people, and it would therefore be wrong to deny the people a say or influence in the composition of the second Chamber of Parliament. For that reason, I believe strongly in the principle of election. It confers legitimacy, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase made so many interesting comments.
I do not agree that election will automatically lead to competition with the House of Commons. I am comforted in that belief by examining second Chambers around the world, which appear to live within the powers that they have been granted. They cannot change those powers unilaterally. No second Chamber in any system of government that I know about can automatically increase its powers at the expense of the primary Chamber. Achieving any increase—or, indeed, any change—in powers is normally a lengthy process that requires the wholehearted agreement of both Houses of Parliament and the Government of the country.
Several colleagues discussed whether a unicameral system was a good idea. I agree with the Joint Committee's collective view about the importance of two Chambers. I also agree with many of the comments that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks made about that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is right that some countries work well with a unicameral system. However, they tend to have smaller populations and it is probably easier to feed views into the political system, perhaps because of size or other mechanisms.
Most populous countries have second Chambers. An interesting example can be seen among the countries that hope shortly to join the European Union. As far as

227
I am aware, only one has two Chambers, and that is Poland. Poland is the largest of those countries in terms of population, which reinforces my point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley suggested that a good title for Members of the second House would be "Senator". I hope that that title will not be conferred on them, because I believe that it would add to the unhelpful analogy and comparison that is sometimes drawn between the Chambers of this Parliament and the system in the United States. The United States system, which frequently becomes gridlocked, is very different from ours. It is based on the separation of powers, and both of its Chambers have more or less equal powers, in a way that I do not imagine will ever be the case here. Indeed, one of the striking aspects of the reports on the reform of the House of Lords is that they all felt that we should consider its existing powers for use in the future. In the United States, the upper House is in many ways the senior House, partly because the terms of tenure are a little longer there than in the House of Representatives, which changes every two years—not something that I would want to see in either of our Houses of Parliament—and partly because the two Houses have equal powers. The fact that Senators have a longer term of office therefore gives them greater clout and influence within the overall political system. For that reason, I think that comparison of our two systems is unhelpful.
I would like to see a wholly elected House, but I am not against some kind of compromise, perhaps along the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase mentioned. It was a compromise that received unanimous support in his Committee, and has been the theme of many other studies carried out on the issue. I hope, however, that we shall not run away from the idea of election altogether. I agree with the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks that it would be completely unrealistic to try to interest the electorate in voting for a second Chamber when they would, in effect, be voting for only 20 or 40 per cent. of its Members.
Many hon. Members have referred to their worries about low turnout. I was glad that, in the course of its deliberations, the Committee agreed with my suggestion that we should look imaginatively at the elections, and that consideration should be given to having full postal ballots, for example, as they have dramatically increased the local government election turnout in my part of the world, and to combining the elections with other elections.
The principle of election is important. I am glad that there is to be a free vote in the House on this issue, but I would appeal to my colleagues who are Ministers to reflect on the fact that the Government have done a great deal to bring about constitutional change in this country. That change has been enormously beneficial, but let us not falter now. Let us deliver a reformed, democratic second Chamber that will stand the country in good stead for the long term.
4.13 pm
Mr. James Arbuthnot: It is not a question of faltering now. The problem is that we have no idea where we are going. This is another of the
228
Government's constitutional reforms that was started without any idea of the knock-on effect that it would have on the other parts of our constitution, or of what to do next. It has become a commonplace to say that the train left the station without anyone having any idea of its destination. The problem with this train is that both of its drivers jumped out of the cab as it was hurtling along the tracks. The Leader of the House and the Lord Chancellor, both of whom were trying to drive the train in different directions, suddenly decided to leave the entire problem to the Joint Committee.
The Joint Committee, frankly, does not know the answer. I pay tribute to its Chairman for his admirable job in managing to reconcile a group of very diverse people with very diverse views. Although the Lord Chancellor, in an extraordinary interview on "Today" at around the time of the new year, described the Committee as a genius, I am nevertheless afraid that that is not how it is likely to turn out. There will be problems that the Committee will not be able to resolve.
What shall we do if the House of Lords disagrees with the House of Commons on the solution that we come up with? I expect that to happen. I expect there to be a stalemate between the two Houses, and I expect the Prime Minister, observing that stalemate, to be very happy and to say "Now I will leave it to the Committee to sort out".
Today's edition of The Guardian suggests that for Labour not to reform the House of Lords when it has such a large majority in the House of Commons would constitute a truly epic national failure. That is right, but it takes no account of the extent to which the current settlement suits the Prime Minister. The House of Lords may give the Prime Minister occasional pause for thought, although I suspect that following the introduction of carry-over that will decrease; but I very much doubt that the House of Lords has ever given the Prime Minister a sleepless night.
Thus the Prime Minister is leaving the whole matter to the Joint Committee—that genius—to sort out.
Mr. Forth: Might the situation be even worse than my right hon. Friend suggests? Might the Prime Minister be tempted simply to abolish the remaining hereditary peers in order to play to his party gallery, in a rare moment of attempted popularity, and then to set up the so-called statutory appointments commission and say "That's it. Sorted. End of story"?
Mr. Arbuthnot: That is clearly possible, but the Prime Minister would be taking the blame himself. I suspect that he would rather leave it to the Joint Committee. So there he is, leaving it to the Joint Committee in the fervent hope that we get nowhere.
That will not do: we need to sort out some of the problems left by the mess we have been in. There are problems, for instance, to do with the relationship between the regions and the House of Lords. The right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) emphasised the need for regional representation in the House of Lords, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) correctly said that that representation had been diminished by the reforms that have already taken place

229
over the past few years. What about the different tiers of government that we are beginning to amass? We are being increasingly governed as day follows day.
Mr. Clelland: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if Members were elected to the second Chamber they would represent not regions but constituents—and, particularly under a list system, political parties?
Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes. They would represent political parties, they would represent people, they would represent regions. They would represent all sorts of entities. It would be an answer, to an extent.
The real difficulty with the Committee's remit is that it was asked to look only at the composition of one of the Houses, whereas it should have been asked to look at the settlement as a whole, because there will be trade-off effects. If, for example, there is a hybrid House of some sort, what will be the knock-on effects on the other parts of that House? If the House of Lords becomes more representative, it should surely follow that the House of Commons can be reduced in size. Actually, that ought to happen anyway—this House should have 300 or 400 Members, not 650—but there ought to be trade-off effects in the whole Palace. The Joint Committee has not been asked to consider that. Some argue that the new House of Lords could usefully contain elements binding our tiers of government together—drawing in, for instance, aspects of European and Scottish representation—but we have not been asked to consider that either.
I have moved a long way since the debate began. I signed the early-day motion suggesting that the House of Lords be largely elected. As has been pointed out, there is something to be said for democracy. However, the Joint Committee strengthened in my mind the view that, in reforming the House of Lords, we run the risk of losing the great talent and experience that, through systems that have evolved through the ages, we have managed to build.
Therefore, I shall vote for a fudge. It will not be a happy fudge. It will not be a sensible fudge because we are not being asked a sensible question and, if one is asked a silly question, sometimes, one has to come up with a silly answer. I am sure that we shall do exactly that.
4.20 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I do not think that the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) should be so pessimistic. We are embarked on a period of constitutional reform that started when we were elected in 1997. I am delighted about that. People said that the Joint Committee would kick reform of the Lords into the long grass. They were wrong. We have shown them to be wrong. The process is unstoppable. I do not think that the reforms will stop there, so he should not be too disheartened. I agree that the size of the House of Commons should be reduced, as should the size of the House of Lords in due course, but neither of those things are achievable quickly.
The process is very important. We will be judged harshly by history if we do not get it right. What I would like to say more than anything else is that we must
230
continue that process by giving thought to the options produced not only by this House but by the other Chamber and come up with a compromise.
It will be a compromise. As a number of hon. Members have said, it should be the best one available to us. We should not hold on for ever for the very best, because, as people have pointed out, that has led us to stalemate. We should try to get the best solution that we can, preferably before the next election, and I think that that is possible. But if it is not, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, it should be carried over into the period after the next election.
No Government, including—I hope that this does not happen—a Conservative Government elected at the next election, could resist the pressure for reform because we have taken such profound steps. One of the next things we must do is to remove the remaining hereditary element from the House of Lords. That is clearly the road on which we are embarked.
On the issue that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), it troubles me a lot that we spend far too little time on some of the underlying issues, which are either taken for granted or get muddled. There are certain assumptions about legitimacy, democracy and liberty. Those concepts not only overlap but come into conflict with each other.
When we talk about legitimacy, we normally talk about the legitimacy of Government. When we ask whether a Government are legitimate, what we mean in the parlance of modern times is whether that Government can be put in place and removed by a democratic vote, which is normally assumed nowadays to be all adults voting in free and fair elections. We do not normally mean by legitimacy that every Chamber of every House must be elected. If that were the case, many countries that we all regard as democratic and free would not be democratic and legitimate. Legitimacy comes from the ability to put in place and remove a Government by democratic vote. It comes from a number of different sources, which may or may not include a democratic voice.
The other issue that is fundamental is the concept of liberty or freedom. I say this particularly to those interested in getting rid of the second Chamber altogether. Freedom is not democracy. Democracy can abandon people's freedom. I remind some of my hon. Friends that there are umpteen examples of that throughout history. Some of them are too easily taken in by the United States constitution. Let us face it, that was a continuation of the English revolution, written by people who came from this island and who were imbued with the arguments of that time. There were many good things about it but why is it so difficult for progressives in the United States to get rid of the death penalty? The answer is that governors, members of both houses and certain members of the police are elected. Significantly, Illinois has just abandoned the death penalty under a governor who is not standing for re-election—an act of retirement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase made the case well in respect of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 but there are worse examples. Adolf Hitler and Mussolini were elected. Members of two democratically elected chambers in the

231
United States repeatedly voted for the death of no fewer than 90 million north American Indians—and did so consistently for 100 years. If one is in the minority, democracy can be the enemy of liberty. People who are interested in the welfare of minorities should bear it in mind that, at times, all of us need to be in a minority to be reminded that a majority can behave tyrannically.
The second Chamber must have legitimacy but of a kind wider than mere direct election. It needs to be a protector of the constitution and—this is profoundly important—to stand up for minority rights from time to time. A properly appointed, strongly independent sector in the House of Lords is important and I want that to continue.
Over the next couple of weeks, I hope to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends to focus on my belief—on which I strongly disagree with the Lord Chancellor—that hybridity is a sound principle and that it is a good idea to have a hybrid second Chamber. We ought to look at a balance of 60:40. On that basis, one could not only have legitimacy but protect the strong independent voices from science, various professions and other areas that have made a great contribution through their appointment under an independent system. Vitally, we could also have members of the second Chamber who are there by appointment through a party political route. Political parties are vital to modern democracies. I do not know of any modern democracy that can work without them. It is proper that there should be an element of appointment by political parties in the second Chamber.
One aspect that has been debated far too little in this Chamber is that we have proceeded on a course of parliamentary and constitutional reform since Labour's election in 1997. In a way, the most profound part has been the devolution of power to Scotland, Wales, London and increasingly—I hope and expect—the regions. One of the second Chamber's most important tasks is to bind together the devolved United Kingdom, which is why I want it to include some representatives of the regions.
At present, the Chairs of the Assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are already Members of the second Chamber by chance. They told the Joint Committee that they and their regions find it valuable to sit in the second Chamber. I would like us to consider making sure that, by ex officio appointment, the Chairs of the regions take seats in the second Chamber—which is not dissimilar to what the Spanish are doing progressively as they introduce regions. Another way is indirect election.
I acknowledge all the points that have been made about elections not being wildly popular at times but that arrangement would allow the elected membership to be drawn from the regions. Billy Bragg made proposals that are a bit different from the norm but election from the regions could be achieved in a number of different ways, so that the regions have a voice in the second Chamber, helping to lock the United Kingdom together. Such a structure could work.
If we go down the road of 100 per cent., or even 80 per cent., election, those elected will campaign strongly on the basis that they are as legitimate, if not more
232
legitimate, than Members of the Commons. That would be inevitable, particularly if the electoral system were different. Nor do I believe the argument, advanced by the Liberal Democrats, that it is somehow possible automatically to block people by saying that they cannot stand. Preventing them from resigning from the second Chamber and standing again would be ruled out by the European Court of Human Rights.
I ask Members to look at the 60:40 option, and at the possibility of indirect election or appointment, so that we can establish a good hybrid second Chamber that acts as an effective safeguard for our constitution and our basic freedoms, but also has all the legitimacy that comes from such a structure.
4.30 pm
Norman Lamb: It is worth reminding ourselves that we have completed a very important first stage in the reform process by getting rid of the bulk of the hereditary peers, and the Government deserve considerable credit for that long overdue achievement. The fact that their programme of constitutional reform has often appeared somewhat incoherent probably reflects conflict within Government, but on this matter progress has been made. However, it is now essential that the process be completed. The job is just half done, and there is clearly a risk of the whole issue being kicked into the long grass.
The second stage has already taken far too long, and the White Paper was a misconceived diversion and a waste of time in the reform process. The proposal for a 20 per cent. elected mix was a non-starter, and the cynics among us might conclude that the Lord Chancellor was seeking to shift the debate and opinion away from a wholly elected House to get people to debate a much lower percentage of elected Members. In his latest intervention, just after Christmas, he suggested that opinion is
"polarising around whether there should be an all appointed or an all elected House"
Again, that smacks of dark motives at work. I am not sure where he finds such opinion, but I suspect that it is among his fairly small circle of friends. However, such opinion is not matched by that expressed in this debate, and certainly not by that of the public. The YouGov poll that has already been referred to shows just 8 per cent. support for a wholly or substantially appointed second Chamber.
As has already been alluded to, there is a real risk that differences of view between reformers will be used as a justification for delay. It is therefore incumbent on all of us who favour rapid completion of the process and a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber that we find common ground quickly, ready for the vote in a week or two's time. We must not allow small differences to create a roadblock in this process.
After the disappointment of the White Paper, the Joint Committee process got the operation back on track. It is worth stressing that this report, which I very much welcome, was unanimous, and it is impressive for that reason. It is clear that there is broad agreement on the role, functions and powers of the second Chamber, and it is through the design of those elements that we can deal with anxiety about maintaining the pre-eminence of this House within Parliament. It does not constitute a

233
coherent argument to say that giving the second Chamber greater legitimacy through democracy will take away the pre-eminence of this place.
The report recognises that the present second Chamber lacks legitimacy and suffers from unrepresentativeness. However, it clearly performs its legislative functions pretty well in revising legislation. Reference has been made to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill in 2001, and there have been many other examples. Those who argue for a unicameral system have to face the fact that, without that check and balance, we would have a lot more defective legislation on the statute book. The second Chamber has provided that important check and balance. The challenge, therefore, is to preserve the best of what it currently offers, while giving it real legitimacy. As the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) made clear, the importance of the process lies in strengthening Parliament as a whole, not in taking power away from this place and giving it to a second Chamber. We need to strengthen the effectiveness of Parliament and its ability to hold the Government to account and pass good legislation.
I shall consider briefly the five qualities identified in the Committee report. The report asserts that three qualities are already present—expertise, independence and no domination by any single party. The missing elements are legitimacy and representativeness. By representativeness, the report does not mean democratic representation. It seems to be referring in a narrower sense to gender, age, ethnic mix, representation of the regions and so on.
There is a somewhat disturbing suggestion in the conclusion of paragraph 47, which says that if the second Chamber were just made more representative of the nation, it would somehow gain a new legitimacy. As the Leader of the House made clear, legitimacy cannot come from appointment. Legitimacy flows from democracy. That is the element missing from the five desirable features of a second Chamber. A House wholly or substantially elected is the essential pre-condition for legitimacy.
But that is not enough. Very low turnouts would damage legitimacy. Imagine the turnout with a 20 per cent. elected element. One might choose to vote if a friend were standing, but beyond that, even I could not see much point in going along to register my vote. In the Cook-Maclennan report, the two tasks demanded of a Joint Committee were to produce recommendations for a democratic and a representative second Chamber.
As regards the other qualities mentioned in the present report, if there were a 20 per cent. minority, or perhaps a 40 per cent. minority, appointed by an independent commission, thereby providing an element of independence and expertise, I believe that that mix would meet the demands of the majority of those who want reform. Furthermore, elections based on a proportional system would, in almost all conceivable circumstances, result in no one party dominating the second Chamber.
I was pleased to see specific reference to the single transferable vote, which would give power to the citizen in determining the elected Members of the second Chamber, not power to the party machine. We must avoid at all costs any possibility of the closed list, which
234
has been used in the European elections. It is an abomination and unacceptable to anyone who believes in a democracy in which the citizen has real power.
A mixed membership could achieve all the qualities that the Committee demanded. With reference to numbers, 600 is ludicrous. It would place the UK Parliament second only to the Chinese national people's congress. That would still be ahead as it has 2,970 members, but no other country would get anywhere near the size of our Parliament.
In conclusion, we have a massive opportunity that we must grasp. The greatest risk is for reformers to disagree among themselves. There are dark forces, we are told, that are seeking to frustrate reform. We must not let that happen. When the Government consider the votes that come out of the debate in a week or two, I urge them to give priority to the view of this House. If the Government assert that this House is pre-eminent within Parliament, it must be the will of this House that predominates in the reform process.
4.40 pm
Alan Howarth: When the King of Naples wrote to Lord Holland asking him if he would kindly furnish him with a written constitution, Lord Holland replied, in Burkeian, terms that that would not be possible, commenting
"You might as well ask me to build you a tree."
The Joint Committee has not included in its menu an organic option, and we have embarked upon the genetic re-engineering of our constitution in the expulsion from the House of Lords of the majority of the hereditary peers. A voice is hardly heard these days in support of the status quo. It is clear that we must proceed, whether serendipitously or schematically.
The repeated attempts over the past 100 years to design a rational reform of the second Chamber have, as we all know, not led to a thorough conclusion. It matters very much that this time round we should be successful in pursuing this matter to a sensible conclusion.
I wonder whether there is the consensus, or whether there will be the political will, to do so. But, given the inadequacies of today's House of Commons in holding the Executive to account, arising because of lack of time, and more profoundly because of the professionalisation of the House of Commons, it is ever more important that we should have a second Chamber that is legitimate, capable and confident, and that can make some impact in mitigating the elective dictatorship. That, by the way, is the key argument against an option that the Joint Committee did not offer to us: abolition and unicameralism.
The Joint Committee was right to start with consideration of the role, powers and duties of a second Chamber and of its relationships with this House and other institutions of Government. Judgments about the principle of selection to the second Chamber, its size and the tenure of its members should arise from that consideration, rather than the other way round.
There is at least an extensive consensus that the powers of a reformed second Chamber should be much along the lines of the present powers of the House of Lords. That is a tribute to the impressive work that their lordships do, debating, scrutinising, revising,

235
delaying—there is a case, as the Wakeham report and the Government themselves suggested in their White Paper, for rather increasing the power of delay of a reformed second Chamber—and advising the Government and this House.
The Joint Committee has set forth a list of the attributes that it believes should characterise a second Chamber fitted to carry out these responsibilities: legitimacy, representativeness, the absence of domination by one party, independence and expertise. I think that those are the right benchmarks.
How would a fully or partially elected second Chamber match those benchmarks? Election would confer degrees of democratic legitimacy, according to the proportion of the members who were elected. But it would not follow that election would confer representativeness in very important senses. I share the pessimism that others have expressed about the improbability that there would be a high turnout in the elections to a second Chamber whose powers are expressly intended to be modest and that would not furnish an Executive. It is unlikely that the party activists who would put themselves forward for election would be representative of society at large. Being party members, they would not escape the powerful influence of the party machines, and since, given the tendency of this House, it is very likely that they would be career politicians, it is unlikely that they would command the expertise that appointed members can bring to a second Chamber.
Jim Knight: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Alan Howarth: No. I apologise, but time is short.
The decline in the membership of political parties and people's disaffection with our political processes also mean that it is unlikely that enough people of real ability will be found to populate a reformed second Chamber.
Do we really want a second Chamber that contains a smaller proportion of people with real expertise and authority to speak on various subjects than is the case in the present House of Lords? Do we want a second Chamber which, to the extent that it is elected, is a pale imitation of this elected House of Commons?
I should expect politicians in an elected second Chamber, if they were worth their salt, to aspire to build on their democratic legitimacy to achieve greater powers. I disagree with those of my hon. Friends who say—and I think that I paraphrase only a little crudely—that elections are good and that we should therefore have more of them, but that they would not put up with a second Chamber that would frustrate the will of this elected House of Commons when it came to abolishing fox hunting. That is not the way that the dynamics would drive.
My apprehension is that, if we were to have a second Chamber that was even substantially elected, it would not be long before the two Houses clashed and found themselves at an impasse. We would then be in the position of the US, where in practical terms it is well nigh impossible to carry forward any substantial programme of legislation or reform on domestic policy.
236
Moreover, it is a terrible idea that elected Members should represent the same electors in two Houses of the same Parliament. That can only confuse people and undermine the position of the constituency Member of Parliament. I agree with the Attlee Government in their 1948 White Paper, which held that a reformed second Chamber should be complementary to the House of Commons, and not a rival to it.
How would a reformed and fully appointed second Chamber match the benchmarks set by the Joint Committee? An appointments commission could be charged with the responsibility of forming a second Chamber that was truly representative of the range of interests in our society. It would have regard to occupations, to functional constituencies, business—both employers and unions—public services, academia, the professions, the armed services, the voluntary sector, and the arts.
Julie Morgan rose—
Alan Howarth: It should also be charged with forming a second Chamber that was inclusively representative in terms of gender, race, faith, minorities and the regions. The second Chamber would have to contain a component of spokespersons put forward by the Prime Minister and by party leaders. They would make the case for the policies of Government and the Opposition parties and make sure that legislation and major policy were scrutinised. Apart from that, however, we should seek to create a second Chamber that was a party-politics free zone.
The Government propose in the White Paper that up to half the members of the appointments commission should be politicians. I disagree with that, and with their assertion that it is unrealistic to suppose that a House of Parliament can be immune from party-political influence. We can and should seek to design out most political patronage in a reformed second Chamber. The appointments commission could be fully appointed on Nolan principles, so that it was politically disinterested. Its task, set by Parliament, would be to create a composition for the second Chamber that was representative not in the sense that politics produces representativeness, but in the complementary sense that I have indicated.
The appointments commission would identify the functional constituencies, and they would propose who their members should be. There might or might not be elections within the functional constituencies, but we need not be prescriptive in that respect. The legitimacy of such a second Chamber would arise from its very representativeness. The Chamber would not be dominated by any political party, but would be independent. By definition, it would be expert—indeed, its expertise would be more contemporary than that of the present House of Lords.
Norman Lamb rose—
Alan Howarth: Such a second Chamber would not presume to challenge the primacy of the democratically elected House of Commons. It would indeed be a modern reaffirmation of the ancient principle on which the House of Lords was constructed. It would be a council of the Lords spiritual and temporal, the powers of the land, advising the monarch as the executive.

237
We might even continue to call it the House of Lords.
4.50 pm
Mr. Robert Key rose—
Norman Lamb: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you remind hon. Members that if they take an intervention they can have extra time? I think that the rule is that one is allowed to take two interventions and one receives two extra minutes. That might facilitate debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is correct, but it is up to the individual Member to decide whether to allow the intervention.
Mr. Key: I hope that that intervention did not count against me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I shall argue the case for a largely elected House of Lords from a different perspective. There have been representatives of the people of Salisbury in the House of Commons since 1265, although the nature of that representation has changed radically over the past 800 years. Indeed, the Wiltshire representatives summoned to Runnymede to witness Magna Carta were not elected by anybody, but they represented the people of Wiltshire nevertheless. By 1346, eight Members of Parliament represented what is now my constituency. That continued until 1834 when the county constituency of Salisbury was constituted, with one Member of Parliament.
That perspective illustrates the importance of looking forwards not backwards, because the nature of representation will change. What really matters is that the people of this country are represented and if that means extending democracy, I am all for it. Perhaps after 100 or 800 years, people will have a different view, but I shall not be here to worry about it. I have served nearly 20 years in this place and I doubt that I shall be here for another 20.
It is significant that so far no one has paid tribute to the work of the hereditary peers. My constituency may be different from others—indeed it is—but for the majority of my 20 years in this place, no fewer than five working peers from my area attended the House of Lords on a daily basis. They brought an enormous amount of wisdom on subjects from local government to agriculture and I regret their passing. No doubt the same could be said of other parts of the country.
The work of the hereditary peers deserves credit. It also underlines the fact that we need a second Chamber. About 60 per cent. of the Members should be elected, with 20 per cent. appointed and 20 per cent. ex officio. What matters is legitimacy in the eyes of the electors. That will give the second Chamber its strength.
The current system of election to the European Parliament enormously devalues democracy. I very much reject the idea of breaking the link between a Member—a person—and the people whom he represents. The current system does not make that link possible and it would be regrettable if we were to adopt that form of election.
I want to concentrate on religious representation in the second Chamber. The bishops and other religious leaders play an extremely important part in our
238
constitution. I am wholly opposed to theocracy and wholly in favour of our political parties remaining secular. I do not want to be a Christian Democrat or a Republican on United States lines, with an agenda written for me by southern Baptists, for example.
We should not underestimate the significance of the representation of the bishops and other religious leaders in the upper House. I drew up a list of my bishop's areas of expertise and daily practical experience in two counties: it included, education, employment, health, housing, heritage, defence, foreign policy, moral and ethical issues, justice, international development, finance and pensions, rural affairs, farming, the Home Office, constitutional affairs and urban deprivation. We must not write off the experience and the unique role of the bishops of the established Church. The contribution of other religious leaders in the upper House has also been dramatic, by bringing fresh thinking and giving us a fresh dimension on, for example, inner-urban problems and rejuvenation.
Part of the legitimacy of the upper House comes from the geographical dimension, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) pointed out. The regions need to have some representation on a county basis or a wider regional basis because I happen to believe that, in spite of the Government's wishes, we will not see regional government in most of the regions of England and, if we do, it will mean very little. Perhaps the north-east will be a success story, but the south-west will not even get as far as a referendum, on my reading of how things look. So the upper House can provide a regional dimension that we might otherwise lack. As we have strategic regional authorities, covering issues as diverse as planning, transport, culture and housing, we need to recognise that fact and give them a voice in the second Chamber.
Finally, in considering the future of our constitutional arrangements, we should not be frightened of change. Looking over of the 800-year history of the Members of Parliament for Salisbury, they have undoubtedly contributed in their different ways. In the dark, dingy and sleazy days of the 18th century, Old Sarum in my constituency became a byword for a rotten borough. That constituency, which had two Members of Parliament and five electors, was sold to the then Prince of Wales for £50,000, and he sold it back to the Government interest a few years later at a remarkable profit. That way of doing things seemed appropriate at the time. So I am glad to say that nothing is written in stone when it comes to how people are represented, but the time has come to move forward and the way to do so, given where we are, is to increase democratic representation in a strong second Chamber.
4.56 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I congratulate the Government on setting up the Joint Committee because I firmly believe that, as far as possible, we should try to seek cross-party consensus on the constitution. The greatest consensus between the parties and even between the Houses is on the supremacy of the House of Commons. I urge that the supremacy of the House of Commons should apply in deciding the proportion of elected Members of the House of Lords.

239
Given the possibility that the House of Commons will support a predominantly elected second Chamber and that the House of Lords will support a predominantly unelected one, and given the rumours, which the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) referred to in his very entertaining and cogent speech, that Downing street might favour a completely appointed Chamber, it is very important that the Executive should not use a vote in the House of Lords to undermine or dilute a vote in the House of Commons.
The supremacy of the House of Commons can be asserted in various ways, partly because of the general acceptance to which I have referred not just in both Houses of Parliament, but among the public; partly because of the historic tradition, as is chronicled in the report; and partly through statute, such as the existing Parliament Acts. However, it would not be right to assert that supremacy because of the relative illegitimacy of the other House, for two reasons. First, however illegitimate the other House, its Members might not recognise that they are illegitimate—just think of some of the arguments that the hereditary peers used to use. Secondly, the more illegitimate it is for the other House to overrule the House of Commons, the more illegitimate it is for it to interfere in any way.
What about a wholly appointed upper House? We should remember the Lord Chancellor's wise words in 1997:
"I think it would be very important to avoid the perception of the biggest quango in our nation's history."
Some people say that the Appointments Commission is the solution to that. I am sorry, but I do not quite follow the argument that a quango ceases to be a quango if it is appointed by a super-quango, or that the problem of having an assembly of the great and the good is solved if that assembly is appointed by a committee of the very great and the very good.
It has been suggested that the committee of the very great and the very good would probably be heavily influenced by the assembly of the great and the good. That would be a recipe for a self-perpetuating oligarchy. People might say that the upper House could thus be made more representative. However one balances race, creed, gender or all the other different factors, one cannot help but believe that a House appointed by a tiny committee would be unrepresentative. It would be a clique, and it would be liable to represent an elite of the wealthy and successful in this country.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: On that point, does my hon. Friend think that the so-called people's peers were a great success? Did they reflect a balanced series of appointments to the House of Lords?
Mr. Savidge: No, they are not a success; they demonstrate exactly my point.
Mr. Clelland: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Savidge: No, I must proceed because of time.
240
Apart from anything else, why should a small group choose the representatives of 60 million people? We have just heard that we got rid of Old Sarum, where seven people elected two MPs, and Dunwich under the sea, where 14 did.
Mr. Key: Five.
Mr. Savidge: Sorry, it was seven on the date that I looked it up, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I say to those whom I would dare to call the forces of conservatism: do they really want to go back not just centuries but to a different millennium?
Should the Appointments Commission appoint party appointees? If so, what right does it have to choose who represents the parties? On the other hand, can one imagine a better way to create meaningless ciphers than to allow the party leaderships to appoint and re-appoint people? The more I read through the royal commission report, the White Paper and the various other appointment proposals, the more I return to Churchill's famous dictum that
"democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".—[Official Report, 11 November 1947; Vol. 444, c. 206.]
What we need is election, but not the Conservatives' original proposal for a first-past-the-post system in counties, which would simply increase the landslide in landslide elections, and would disadvantage the minor parties even more. The advantages of the present system of election to the House of Commons are that it provides the constituency link and clear majorities, and it avoids giving excessive power to minority parties, which happens most notably in the Knesset. The weakness of our system is that a party can gain a very large majority on just over 40 per cent. of the vote. Usually—this was not the case in the previous Parliament—a party's popular support slumps during mid-term. Until we have fixed-term Parliaments, Prime Ministers will be able to choose a favourable time for an election, so a party can have a longstanding large majority based on the support of only about a third of the public.
To balance that, we should have a second Chamber that creates greater equity. On that point, I agree with the White Paper: party membership should aim to reflect party strengths in the country. The best way of doing that is proportional representation. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) that a party majority would be possible under that system, but only if that party had more than 50 per cent. support in the country.
Surely expertise is best ensured by improving the Committee system and bringing in relevant expertise, especially for pre-legislative scrutiny. On length of term, I agree with the Leader of the House and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) that 12 years seems too long. The size of the second Chamber should be reduced. If we have a reduced-size Chamber that is elected on a PR basis with large constituencies, and it is made absolutely clear that Members do not have constituency duties in our sense but legislative duties—and that they will not get the budget or the support to have constituency duties—we would not have the nightmare that was being conjured

241
up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). The problem in the Scottish Parliament to which he referred was a result of list MSPs being treated—stupidly—as though they were super-constituency MSPs and given special assistance to interfere in constituencies. That is not necessary. The experience of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) is an exception: most of us find that MEPs do not frequently interfere in constituency business.
Mr. McCabe: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Savidge: I am sorry, but I do not have the time.
I favour a 100 per cent. elected upper House, and one that is elected on a proportional system so that it balances the current system for the House of Commons. Its powers would be limited de jure to those that are exercised de facto by the current House of Lords. I do not believe that it would rival this House or that that would lead to constant battles with this House. I refer to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin). Many other elected democracies have elected second Chambers and do not face the nightmares that were conjured up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley).
Despite my preference for an upper Chamber that is 100 per cent. elected on a PR basis, I recognise that compromise may be necessary. I also recognise that, in this building, constitutional change often moves almost as slowly as the lifts.
5.6 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: The most worrying thing about the debate has been the impression given by the great majority of speakers that, if we go ahead with the reform plan, great advantages will result, democracy will be strengthened and we will not face any new problems. As the majority appear to believe that, I hope that they will think about the issue and ask themselves how reform will make things any better.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is unfortunately no longer in his place, said that the new system will strengthen our democracy and give us more control over the Executive. However, let us consider the last two days in Parliament. Last night, we had the wonderful debate on herbal foods. There was great discussion but, even if the Conservatives had won the vote, nothing would have happened. The directive would have to apply in any event. What the blazes of a difference would an elected House of Lords make? Last Thursday, the splendid Minister for food told us all about the agreement on fishing that was reached in the European Union. About 20 Members asked him all sorts of questions and demanded more action, but we could do nothing. What difference would an elected House of Lords make?
We must also ask ourselves what is wrong with the current position. The power is here in the House of Commons and the House of Lords might ask us to
242
reconsider an issue, and its suggestions are often sensible. However, the most that it can do in extreme circumstances, if it thinks that there is a threat to freedom or liberty or something agricultural, is to say that it wants to halt a measure for a year. If we change the upper House and make it elected, how will that strengthen our democracy, particularly if its elections have taken place more recently than those to this House? It will say that it has the power that we do not have.
We have introduced many constitutional changes recently without thinking them through. Sadly, they have brought about far more problems than advantages. If we go ahead with the plan, we will simply create a costly nonsense that will further undermine our democracy, which is already dying. That can be seen from the continual reduction in the percentage of people voting in elections. For example, the turnout in the European elections was 25 per cent. and the figure of about 60 per cent. for the general election was down on the previous one. What is even more worrying is the effect on young people. I have the impression that they have switched off from democracy.
In the old days, our strength was that the people who came to this House made laws, passed the taxes and were answerable directly to the people. If the people did not like us, they could chuck us out. The people had real control. Our other strength was that, although the House of Lords did not have any power, it was a wholly independent body that could ask us to think again. Things have changed. We often fail to talk about or even understand the fact that a massive amount of power has gone from the House of Commons because of our European arrangements. We can no longer decide a huge number of things but, instead of facing up to the issue perhaps by reducing the number of Members of Parliament, we have set up whole new armies of politicians and the people are not sure who is responsible for what.
Hon. Members should ask themselves what their constituents would do if some members of the Government got their way and we had Euro MPs who were elected one way or another, and one never knew exactly who belonged to what party. In addition, our constituents will have MPs, an elected House of Lords answerable in some way to their area, people who are elected to regional governments and councillors. If we create the nonsense of a massive democracy, with all kinds of governance, there will be less and less power to share around.
We also have to ask about the cost. Surely we are all aware that although we do not have elected assemblies in England, we have regional government and it is costing a fortune. We know that an elected House of Lords will cost a fortune, and it will be a total disaster. [Interruption.] Someone seems to disagree. Surely not.
Mr. Bryant: Many hon. Members would disagree with everything the hon. Gentleman says. However, on the specific contention that an elected second Chamber would cost an inordinate amount, surely that depends on the number of Members, how much they are paid and how they are resourced. That is not written in stone.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I accept that, but what good will come from the reform? What damage are we doing to

243
the House of Commons? If the hon. Gentleman is a real democrat, he should be worried that the views of his constituents do not have the slightest effect on most of the decisions that we used to make. He knows that is a fact because of the European factor. [Interruption.] It is not funny but desperately serious. If we think about the amount of money that is spent on destroying food and all the crazy things demanded by Europe, we should be worried, but of course what we think does not matter.
What is the problem with the House of Lords at the moment? It is a strength to the House of Commons. Although it considers our issues, it does not have the overall power to interfere. If we go ahead with the mad plan of creating a 60 per cent. elected House of Lords, we will create a body that is a threat to the House of Commons. If it is elected more recently than us, it will claim to have greater authority and that will be a nonsense for our democracy.
We should all say that our basic duty is to defend our democracy. When we find people switching off from politics and not having the slightest interest in elections and the rest of it, we should ask what is going wrong. More elections and more highly paid elected people, allegedly representing constituents and trying to make decisions on things over which they have no control, will further undermine democracy. How can those hon. Members who want the new House of Lords say that it is democracy if three out of four people do not bother to vote? How can it be democracy if the same thing happens with elected regional councils? Is it a triumph for democracy if only one in five people bother to vote in elections for the House of Lords?
The worst thing of all is the creeping nonsense in the report. Instead of proper direct elections, we will have party lists. Rather than independent people coming to Parliament, we will get people whose sole task is to please their party leaders so that they get up to No. 1 or 2 on the list. Slowly but surely, we are destroying our democracy, freedom and liberty, and undermining what people have fought for many years to achieve. If we go ahead with the nonsense proposals for the House of Lords, we will make things worse, not better, and less representative. We will spend even more money on a democratic system, the powers of which are fading away.
5.14 pm
Mr. Calum MacDonald: Much of the debate has focused on the basic question of the role and function of the upper Chamber. That is an appropriate starting point. Indeed, the Joint Committee report began at the same place. If we want the Lords to be a powerful upper House along the lines of the American constitution cited by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), sharing responsibility for determining and initiating legislation, or helping to decide and control the Government of the day, without doubt it should be directly elected. Only elected and mandated representatives of the people should determine questions of government and legislation.
However, it is not at all clear that a majority of Members want the upper House to have that role. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)
244
made it clear that his motive for wanting direct elections was to bring about a more powerful upper House that was better able to challenge the Commons. If all the Members of an upper House, or a majority of them, were directly elected, his prediction about the future relationship between the two Houses would prove much more accurate. Some of my hon. Friends and, indeed, the Leader of the House made the point that, in many bicameral systems, the powers of the two chambers are relatively stable. The situation here is very different for two reasons. Most bicameral systems operate within the context of a written constitution that sets out clearly the chambers' respective powers. We have no such constitution—the powers of our Chambers have evolved over time and will evolve further if there is a directly elected upper House.
The other big difference is that, in almost every other bicameral system, the same principle of election applies to both chambers. Almost always, both are elected through a proportional system of representation. Here, there will be a unique situation in which the Chamber will continue to use a first-past-the-post system of election and the new Chamber will inevitably use a proportional system of election. The Conservatives are deluding themselves if they think that there will be anything other than a proportional system. Such a contrast or conflict would inevitably mean that, in five, 10 or 15 years, either the Commons would have to adopt a proportional system, which I personally favour, or the Lords would assert itself as the true representative voice of the people. Instability is inevitable if we go down the route of a directly elected second Chamber.
To return to the role and function of the upper House, the majority view is that it should remain, as the Joint Committee said, strictly limited. That role is important, but it should remain limited. The upper House is engaged in the necessary but secondary task of scrutinising and revising legislation. In effect, it is an enormous and rather grand scrutiny committee—it is like an audit commission examining legislation passed by Parliament. We should be clear about the role of the upper Chamber because selecting people to perform a scrutiny or audit role is very different from selecting people to produce legislation, or determine public policy and the shape of a Government.
The Joint Committee was therefore right to stress in its report the importance of three key attributes if an effective upper Chamber is to hold the Commons and Executive to account. The first attribute is an independent viewpoint; the second, expertise; and the third, legitimacy. Those three qualities are essential in an effective scrutinising and auditing upper Chamber. I have heard no one argue in favour of direct elections on the ground that that would make Members of the upper House more independent-minded and therefore better able to scrutinise the Commons. On the contrary, the new directly elected Members of Parliament at the other end of the Corridor will be exactly the same as the existing directly elected Members of Parliament here in the lower House, as they will be party loyalists for the most part. They will have a great natural reluctance to act against the party Whip and will depend on party authorities for their present and future political careers. Likewise, nobody has yet argued in favour of directly electing Members to the upper House on the grounds

245
that they will provide a perspective, range of experiences or expertise that is different from those already provided by directly elected Members in this Chamber.
Mr. Forth: Is it not perfectly possible that, if the elected Members of an upper House had completely different constituencies and terms of election and a different electoral cycle, and if there were no Ministers in the upper House, so that they did not have to worry about careers or Whips, the result that the hon. Gentleman doubts will occur could be achieved?
Mr. MacDonald: I do not accept that view. Such Members would be no more independent than directly elected Members of this place, and no different in type. Extending terms or introducing different constituencies or even electoral principles would not change the type of person who got into the Chamber next door.
Neither the independent scrutiny of legislation nor the breadth, quality and diversity of public debate would be enhanced by establishing what would be a replica Chamber of "Mini-Mes" at the other end of the Corridor. There is only one serious argument for creating a new army of directly elected Members of Parliament: the accepted need to give the upper House the appearance and substance of democratic legitimacy. That important point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), but direct election is not the only way of bestowing democratic legitimacy. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe spoke about the over-mighty Executive, and if direct elections were the only way of achieving accountability and legitimacy, there would be arguments for establishing a directly elected political Executive such as that which exists in many other countries.
Quangos were also mentioned. Most quangos have more power and more money to spend than the upper House, but there is no clamour for directly electing them. There is no such demand because people accept that the democratic legitimacy of quangos and the Executive derives from their accountability to this directly elected House of Commons.
There is no reason why the relationship between the upper Chamber and the House of Commons cannot be built around the same principle. That could be achieved in a variety of ways, some of which have already been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase mentioned the Bryce commission of 1918, which proposed a system of indirect elections in which the House of Commons would be involved. Such elections might be conducted on a regional basis, or there could be a system of genuinely independent appointments or a mix of those methods. I hope that there would also be a role for the assemblies and Parliaments in the different regions and nations of the UK, but whatever the final mix, the fact that the composition of the upper House would be decided and monitored by this House would be sufficient to achieve the democratic legitimacy that it rightly wants to see there.
On the question of whether there should be a compromise in which 20 per cent. or 40 per cent. of Members are elected, I share a view that has already been expressed: asking people to turn out and vote to elect 20 or 40 per cent. of a Chamber that is essentially limited in power is ludicrous. No rational voter would engage with such a system.
246
In conclusion, I believe that the solution lies in a system of indirect election or genuinely independent appointment that is accountable to the House of Commons. It would have democratic legitimacy and would, above all, maintain the expert, independent, authoritative and different voice that we want in an effective upper Chamber.
5.24 pm
Mr. John Maples: I share many of the misgivings that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) expressed about an elected second Chamber, which I oppose. We have heard many interesting speeches, but almost all have a ring of familiarity. Nearly all were made in the previous debate on the House of Lords and they will doubtless be made again. I fear that my speech is about to fall into that category. Whatever the achievements of the Joint Committee that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) chaired, it does not appear to have changed anybody's mind. The Committee members who spoke in the debate and were so anxious to hear the House's views on their proposals have not hung around to listen to them.
Joyce Quin: There are exceptions.
Mr. Maples: I exempt the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin). I thought up the line when she was absent from the Chamber and I could not resist using it.
I believed that I was in a small and rather beleaguered minority in opposing an elected House of Lords, which reflects the zeitgeist, but I took comfort today from an article in The Times. It reported that the Prime Minister was joining my side—or, at least, that I was about to be on his side. I shall put renewed effort into the cause because the Prime Minister's presidential style of government has given a new meaning to the phrase, "one man, one vote". If he casts it in the way in which The Times reports, our cause is won. Indeed, he will not need me to help him on his way.
An elected House of Lords is a bad idea because it will challenge the authority of the House of Commons. That is inevitable. It already has considerable powers that it does not exercise, for example, to delay Government business and oppose business in the governing party's manifesto. If it is elected, there is no reason to abide by self-restraining conventions. It is highly unlikely that a group of 300, 400 or 500 elected politicians will issue the self-denying ordinance of not becoming interested in subjects above their station about which they are supposed to show no curiosity.
On some occasions, the democratic legitimacy of an elected House of Lords could he greater than ours, for example, at the fag-end of an unpopular Government who were about to lose the next election and used their dying days to ram through an unpopular measure. The House of Lords might be right to oppose it; it might have the public on its side and be more representative of views outside. That clash would come—in a month, a year or 800 years. I suspect that it would happen before 800 years had passed.
Mr. Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maples: I want to finish the point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)

247
rightly said that unless we accept that an elected House of Lords will be stronger and more assertive, we should not embark on that course. Sooner or later, the Government in the House of Commons would have to negotiate with an elected second Chamber to get its business through.
Mr. Bryant: They do that already.
Mr. Maples: Not for long, because of the Parliament Acts and the self-denying ordinances.
We must ask a few more questions. What sort of people would be elected to the second Chamber? They would comprise those who cannot get into the House of Commons. The intelligence and ability hurdle for entering the House of Commons is not of Olympic proportions. The people who cannot even surmount that hurdle—those who cannot get selected or elected—will run for the second Chamber.
We must also consider who would vote for the second Chamber. The council tax in my county of Warwickshire is on average £1,000 a year and one third of the electorate bothers to vote in county council elections. The county council has genuine power: it runs the education system and social services. A second Chamber will hold little interest for electors, especially if elections are conducted on the basis of proportional representation. The numbers that turn out to vote will resemble those for parish council elections.
We must also consider the sort of people who will be elected. Under a system of proportional representation, we will get a bunch of party politicians. A party list is guaranteed to weed out independents and mavericks. The few independents and mavericks in this place get in by slipping through the net. However, they will not slip through the net of a party list, which will be full of professional party hacks who are not good enough to get in here.
Those elected will get ideas above their station. They will want secretaries, researchers, salaries and office costs allowances. Soon they will want a pleasant building with an atrium and rented trees suitable to their status. They will then, heaven forbid, begin to clutter up the Pugin Room, where they will give their constituents tea. We will not be able to get in there. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is the clincher.
The Joint Committee set five criteria: legitimacy, being representative, no dominance by one party, independence and expertise. They are mutually incompatible. How can a party list provide independence and expertise? It might grant legitimacy, however, and mean that the elected person is representative. At present, we have a good deal of independence and expertise in the House of Lords, and, I agree, precious little legitimacy or representativeness, but we are living in cloud cuckoo land if we think that we are going to get all five by some magic formula. We will not get that; we will have to settle for one system or the other.
We cannot have a part-elected House. It must be either elected or not. We could leave it roughly the way it is, although I would take out the remaining hereditary peers and detach it from titles. I do not care what we
248
call it; it could be called the House of Lords or not. I certainly have enough of the moderniser in me to see that there is absolutely no legitimacy in hereditary voting rights in Parliament. If, however, the House of Lords is to have limited powers, as is proposed, nominations are the way to go. I hate the idea of an appointments commission. The idea that we are reforming the second Chamber by taking away hereditary voting rights and putting the rights of nomination into some super-quango of the super-good and great is anathema to me.
I would like the Prime Minister to have that right, because he is accountable to this House and to the public. Traditionally, there has been a kind of self-denying ordinance on the exercise of that power, too, in that many in the House of Lords are people of genuine distinction, and the Opposition parties get a few people in there as well. I want this power to be out in the open where we can see it being exercised. No Prime Minister is here for ever, and one of the ways in which they destroy their reputation is by abusing their ability to put people into the House of Lords. Two or three of them have done this. I am not saying that the present Prime Minister will fall into that trap, although he has appointed some pretty odd people, but we need to see that power out in the open. I find it absolutely inconceivable that we should accept the idea of some quango with a couple of retired permanent secretaries, a diplomat, the master of a university college and the senior partner of McKinsey and Company, for example, deciding who will have the right to vote on legislation. I would rather have someone who was democratically accountable to this House, namely the Prime Minister, making that decision.
If, as I suspect will happen, the Prime Minister and I lose this argument—or, if not the argument, at least the vote—and end up with an elected second Chamber, I would like to make a suggestion. If we want to make it really different, let us have no Ministers in there. Let us make a rule that there should be no Ministers and no party patronage. There would then be a really good chance of the upper House behaving more like one of the American Houses of Congress and being a genuine check on the Government. It would be a genuine House of Parliament that could scrutinise the Government and whose Members would not be worried about their careers or what the Whips might tell them to do. That would provide something different. It would be my second choice, but it would almost be worth paying that price.
I say to those hon. Members who are in favour of a second House: do not elect a pale imitation of this one, with people who are half as good, who are hacks, elected on some party list, while getting rid of all the independents, the mavericks and the people who really know about things. Let us at least create a House that will scrutinise the Government.
To return to my main point, I am happy to remove the hereditary peers, but, apart from that, I would like to see the House remain pretty much as it is, with pretty much the same powers as it has now. A change to an elected House will lead to a demand for greater powers, but if we want to keep it as a revising Chamber we should do so. I do not know who first said that to every great problem in politics there was an answer that was simple, obvious and wrong, but this is a case of that.
5.33 pm
Mr. David Clelland: There seems to be a preconception among some hon. Members that elections confer legitimacy whereas appointments do not. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), because I hope to show that an appointment system can satisfy all the five points relating to desirable qualities described in the report, while elections would not. I shall remind the House of those five qualities: legitimacy; representativeness; no domination by any one party; independence; and expertise. To those, I would add a sixth, which I was surprised to find missing from a report that seems to have been dominated by Members wanting an elected House: accountability. That is not on the list, but I would add it to the qualities needed in the system that I propose, because it is an essential element.
I am not going to be told that I am somehow not a democrat because I oppose elections. As has been pointed out in this debate, we are not a 100 per cent. pure democracy in the United Kingdom. In fact, we believe that democracy is so important that we should not dilute or devalue it by applying it to every aspect of public life. It is reserved for decision-making bodies such as local government, the devolved Assemblies and the House of Commons. They are the democratic institutions. In my view, a second Chamber of Parliament should not be put into that category. As has been said, people would be reluctant to come out and vote for such a Chamber if they were not electing a Government, so we would have all the problems of low turnout and dissatisfaction that apply to other institutions now.
I should explain why I oppose elections, because I count myself as a democrat. Elections for a wholly elected second House would inevitably be fought along political lines, whatever electoral system we might invent for it, and it would therefore divide along political lines. In other words, we would be creating another House of Commons. Much loved though this institution is out there, I see no great demand among the electorate for the creation of another House of Commons.
Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend accept that the present House of Lords—largely appointed, admittedly, by means of a system for which no one here has argued—divides on political lines? Does he not believe that any future appointed House would find itself doing broadly the same?
Mr. Clelland: Not always. My hon. Friend should have let me finish: I am going to suggest a system for appointments that may prove attractive to Members who favour election but who are not too blinkered.
we are faced with the possibility of another set of elections to fight and finance. I find no great appetite in the political parties, or indeed in the electorate, for either prospect. We are faced with the possibility of yet another tier of national politicians representing the same people in the same Parliament—MPs who will have fought on the basis of a manifesto and who
250
will have a mandate. Regardless of any attempts to gerrymander the elections, they will have a mandate and they will have constituents to look after.
Mr. Bryant: How does my hon. Friend deal with the fact that the Labour party manifesto committed us to a more democratic and representative House of Lords?
Mr. Clelland: I hope that, if I am given an opportunity to do so, I will demonstrate that that is what we will have.
With an electoral system, the interests of party politics would undoubtedly dominate in the second Chamber. Frustrating and defeating the Government would take priority over scrutiny and good, considered advice. Such a system would be a recipe for parliamentary gridlock—as other bicameral arrangements around the world have shown—and for bad government. Moreover, as has been said, there is the issue of office costs, allowances, secretaries, salaries and so forth.
Members should also bear it in mind that, out there in the constituencies, two or more MPs may represent the same electors—MPs in the same Parliament too busy scoring points off each other to look to the needs of their constituents. That will apply particularly when elections are approaching, on both sides. We can imagine an Opposition Member using this place to try to embarrass opponents.
What of the five qualities in relation to for elections? Elections cannot guarantee no domination by any one political party. They cannot guarantee independence or expertise. In my view, a partly elected second Chamber would be even worse: it would have all the disadvantages of an elected Chamber, which I have just mentioned, while creating two classes of Member. We can imagine the cries of "Foul!" when elected Members are outvoted by unelected Members. It would be only a matter of time before there was a demand for a wholly elected Chamber, if indeed a majority were elected in the first place. That would, I think, become irresistible.
What, then, do I propose? I want the same as the Members who want elections. I want an end to the hereditary system, and an end to a Chamber dominated by patronage. I want all five of the desirable qualities, plus accountability, in the second Chamber. So why am I going to vote for an appointed second Chamber?
Let me make it clear to the Joint Committee that in voting for that I will not be voting for the status quo. In fact, I am disappointed that the Committee showed so little imagination in considering methods of appointment. I am also sorry that indirect elections did not figure in the final recommendations, although they were mentioned in the report.
I must emphasise that, in promoting and voting for a fully appointed Chamber, I will not be supporting the methods of appointment suggested in the report. I want a wider structure for the appointing bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) should have given way to me earlier, for I would have agreed with him. The idea of an appointments commission has been tried and found wanting: all that we got were people like the commission's members. That suggests that, given such a commission, the composition of the second Chamber would be in the hands of those who appointed it. We would have patronage by the back door.

251
The problem, as I see it, is that we started from the wrong place. We should have decided long ago what we wanted the second Chamber to be for. We should have decided what it should do before deciding who would sit there and how they would get there. The Joint Committee went some way towards dealing with that question, but it needs more consideration.
I agree with those Members who say that if the second Chamber is to become more embroiled in the legislative process it should be elected, but if it were to do that it would just become a duplicate of the House of Commons. What would be the point of that? Members may as well vote for abolition rather than creating another House of Commons.
There is a role for a properly constituted second Chamber, not as a check on the Executive, as has been suggested—that is the job of the Opposition and Back Benchers in this place—or as a duplicate of the House of Commons, but as an advisory, deliberative and scrutinising Chamber where debates on matters of national importance can be held in full public view, informing and educating. There would still be a role for the second Chamber in the legislative process but not directly. It could suggest amendments, as it does now, but we would not be obliged to consider them. Members in this House would pick them up and move them in this Chamber. We would get far less of what we get at the moment, which is a lot of political posturing and trying to upset the Government's programme. We would get meaningful, helpful amendments that commanded much more respect in the House of Commons.
To achieve that, we must have Members who command respect and are generally recognised as having expertise and experience. How can we assemble those experienced, knowledgeable, respected individuals, independent yet at the same time representative? It can be achieved by widening the responsibility for making appointments, by calling for representatives from bodies such as the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, religious and voluntary organisations, devolved Assemblies, local government and political parties, too—they are an important part of the national system.
The representatives would have a fixed term of office, following which they would either be replaced or reappointed, one third at a time. That would produce a Chamber that had legitimacy and representativeness. It would not be dominated by any political party. It would have independence and expertise. Its Members would be accountable to the appointing body that sent them there. It would be different from the House of Commons, a second Chamber preserving the primacy of the elected Commons but commanding respect in the country and among Members of Parliament.
Such a process of appointment has important advantages, as has been pointed out. Appointing bodies can be required to ensure proper representation of women and ethnic minorities, something that elections have failed to do and will continue to fail to do.
Julie Morgan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Clelland: I do not have time.
We can be assured that the appointing bodies will wish to ensure that representatives are knowledgeable,
252
able and can articulate their interests in the second Chamber. That will ensure that it is an effective and useful tool in our democracy. It need not be entirely divorced from the electoral process. Appointing bodies such as the devolved Assemblies may want to appoint representatives by way of indirect elections. In that sense, indirect elections could be introduced into the system.
Once the Government have tabled the motion to deal with the issue, which they have not done yet, it may be possible to table amendments to give clearer guidance to the Joint Committee on alternatives such as those that I have described. If not, I appeal to colleagues on both sides to vote for an appointed House, but on the clear premise that the Joint Committee must examine the contents of the debates, not just the results of the votes, and come up with a more imaginative and diverse system of appointments than is currently the case or is on offer in the report before us.
5.43 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: I apologise to hon. Members, especially those on the Front Benches, for having missed some of the debate. I have been on Committee duty scrutinising the Government without much effect on the Communications Bill. That is relevant to what we are discussing.
It has been dispiriting and disheartening to listen to much of the debate. It was disappointing to hear so many Members advocate an appointments system of which Caligula would have been proud, and turn their backs on a truly democratic opportunity to reform the bicameral system of Parliament.
Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party are firmly committed to the view that democracy must pervade any representation in this Chamber or the other place, so both parties have turned down opportunities to nominate while the present Gilbert and Sullivan farce continues in the House of Lords. We hold firmly to the principle that all Members of the second Chamber must sit as the result of an electoral process. If one is a democrat, one cannot believe anything else. We sit in this House as the result of an electoral process. Our legitimacy and accountability would be washed away if there were any suggestion of appointment from above by the great and good or of this place serving as a retirement home for people from the TUC or public bodies. That is a sure-fire way of creating a poor second Chamber for review and scrutiny.
We are not debating a bicameral system but a multi-cameral system—with the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly and Greater London Assembly and with regional government for England yet to be introduced. All those chambers provide some scrutiny and, in some cases, legislation.
In reforming the House of Lords, we must address a multi-cameral, semi-federal system. Plaid Cymru wants the abolition of the other place and its replacement by a very different second Chamber. The Scottish National party does not even see the need for a second Chamber in Westminster because the Scottish Parliament fills that important role. The present state of devolution in the Welsh context means that much legislation is still rushed through this House—such as with changes to the criminal justice system and terrorism legislation.

253
A second Chamber can play an important role but it should not be based on heritage, patronage or any type of appointments system. A totally different second Chamber is needed, based firmly on election.
I was disappointed with the Joint Committee's report because the second Chamber cannot be divorced from its make-up, from which flows its legitimacy. At present, the other place provides a convenient excuse for the Government, who can claim that legislation such as the Bill on blood sports has become stuck in the House of Lords, even when that is not true. Ultimately, Government business always gets through. Cronies can be whipped in and independent Cross Benchers can be picked off at will. It is a political urban myth that the other place shows great independence of mind. There are great independents in the House of Lords but on the whole, until recently, its history was one of entrenched conservatism married to the occasional flash of reform.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), that any reformed second Chamber needs teeth to hurt, if not disable, the Executive. That means rejecting one of the Joint Committee's key principles—that the second Chamber must be constructed in such a way that it never has a Government majority. If we accept the principle of election, the Government would occasionally enjoy a majority in the second Chamber but that would be rare.
Mr. McCabe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that an elected second Chamber should have the right to overturn legislation passed by the Welsh Assembly?
Mr. Thomas: Unfortunately, with its present make-up the Welsh Assembly does not have the power to initiate primary legislation so that situation could not arise.
It follows that, on occasion, any party could have a majority in the second Chamber—that could be the party of government or of opposition. The second Chamber should have much the same powers as now but entrenched more in a closer approach to a written constitution—in effect, a new Parliament Act. It should be able to initiate or amend legislation and to veto secondary instruments. It should also have the right to debate all matters relating to public life in the United Kingdom.
In that context, all those things are subject to the primacy of the House of Commons, and we would need a new Parliament Act to sketch that out. Of course, the Commons would also need to retain complete control over Finance Bills, but more important than delivering some form of in-built non-majority for the Government or the Opposition is the principle of divorcing the second Chamber completely from the Executive and the judiciary. No Member of the reformed second Chamber should be a member of the Government. Elections to a second Chamber should be for a period longer than that for elections to this House—perhaps for a period of two Parliaments—and they should not be constituency-based. Members of a second Chamber do not have a constituency role in this regard. Rather, we should take the opportunity to introduce regional proportional representation and look to what has happened in Scotland and Wales, where PR has changed the nature of the Chambers, particularly by introducing younger people and many more women.
254
Despite some of the comments made during this debate, such a system would attract independents and prominent individuals to stand for election to a reformed second Chamber. As the experience of city mayors in England shows, it is not always the case that such reforms lead to the Labour party's, or any other party's, getting its candidate in place. We have seen that in London, Gateshead and all over the place in England. The second Chamber will have its element of strong independence.
Joyce Quin: What the hon. Gentleman said is not true of Gateshead.
Mr. Thomas: I accept that correction, but it was certainly true of other places in the north-east.
It follows that the second Chamber should be much smaller—certainly no more than 200 Members—and that its Members should be remunerated for their work in scrutinising legislation and the Executive, but not for constituency work. Constituents are well provided for by MPs, Assembly Members, Members of the Scottish Parliament, and—perhaps increasingly—regional assembly members.
Mr. Clelland: The hon. Gentleman suggests that Members should be elected. Presumably, people will elect them, and people are constituents. We cannot avoid that link. If we are to avoid the link between people and election, where is the democracy?
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has to realise that what I am advocating is a regional PR list involving large regions, in which it would be very difficult to deliver such constituency business. We could employ the same convention that exists in this House, whereby a constituent with a problem is simply referred to the Member of Parliament for that constituency. That is what happens informally in the relationship between MPs and AMs, and it could well be done in the new reformed second Chamber. Of course, the final part of the reform is the establishment of a supreme court. We cannot allow Law Lords to remain within that second Chamber.
A completely elected second Chamber is the most democratic option, but I must admit that the principle that all Members should be elected allows some flexibility. It is possible to conceive of the indirect elections to which reference was made, and perhaps the National Assembly or the Scottish Parliament could have a small role—certainly no more than 20 per cent.—in an elected second Chamber. However, I prefer a completely elected second Chamber. Patronage and nomination by political parties is totally unacceptable in the 21st century, as we try to establish a reasonable level of scrutiny of the Executive's performance.
The final element is ending automatic membership of the Lords for Church of England bishops. They should not be barred from standing for election—I should love to see bishops stand for election—but they should not be Members by right.
Andrew Mackinlay: What about a gender balance among bishops?
Mr. Thomas: Indeed. All faith communities should be able to stand for election to a reformed second Chamber. Of course, the Church in Wales has been disestablished for more than three quarters of a century.

255
Such reform would provide a new and very different model from the House of Lords. It is true that it would cost more, but that is the cost of democracy. I understand that the House of Lords has a nice throne and lots of gold; I am sure that we can find somebody to sell that off, which would create a little income stream to provide for the initial establishment costs of a more democratic House of Lords.
We would also need to change the name. This is the House of Commons, and "Commons" means communes or communities. We are indeed "the House of Communities", and I hope that the second Chamber will become either "the Senate", or "the House of the Nations and Regions of the United Kingdom."
5.54 pm
Fiona Mactaggart: I feel a heavy responsibility in this debate: I am one of many Labour Members who support a more democratic second Chamber, but one of the few of them who have been called to make the case. I hope that some of my colleagues who share my view will have a chance to contribute to the debate. Down at the other end of the Palace, peers will read the report of our proceedings. They will not know how many Members who would have argued for democracy had they had the opportunity to do so.
It is important that we grab the opportunity to deliver a democratic reform of the second Chamber, not just because it is in the Labour party's manifesto, but because it goes to our sense of ourselves as a nation. For me, the key issue of principle is who chooses our legislature. I do not see democracy as a kind of bolt-on mechanism for delivering good government. It is a value that should inhere in our Government. Strengthening the democratic institutions of governance is a critical part of the process of expressing our values in practice.
When we vote on the options before us, I will not simply vote for my favourite option. I believe that it is incumbent on us to grab the opportunity to find a solution, so I will vote for all the options, however flawed, that offer a substantial element of election in the second Chamber. I am determined that we should not repeat the mistake that has been made so many times before, and lose the opportunity for reform because the perfect reform is not available.
Some have questioned whether the people share our commitment to democracy in this era of declining turnouts. Let me state explicitly that they do. Surveys of political opinion demonstrate a massive interest in politics, particularly following 11 September 2001. Where elections are hard fought, engage people in issues and make it easy to participate, that engagement is reflected in participation. Every time people are asked whether they want to elect the second Chamber, they say they do, in huge majorities—73 per cent. in the YouGov poll today, and 84 per cent. in earlier polls. Even when they were asked by Lord Norton of Louth whether they would prefer an expert on a particular subject to decide on a specific piece of legislation, or an elected Member, people said that they would prefer elected Members.
256
It is clear that that is what the people of Britain prefer. If we do not make sure that they remain in the driving seat for both Chambers, they will feel that their right to decide who runs the country has been rejected. We will confirm their growing suspicion of the political class.
Mr. Clelland: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the outcome of polls depends on the question that is asked? How does she imagine people would react if they were asked whether they wanted a Chamber full of experienced, knowledgeable people, or a Chamber full of MPs? What does she think the result would be then?
Fiona Mactaggart: That is almost exactly what Lord Norton of Louth asked. He asked in his question, which got the smallest majority in favour of elections, "What do you prefer—a specific expert or an elected person?" and people preferred the elected person. At every opportunity to ask people, they have made it clear that they want election.
There is a myth growing that the Lords are automatically better at scrutiny of legislation. I do not agree. The failures of this House at that function arise not from the fact that we are elected but from our working practices and Standing Orders. I confidently predict that the growth of pre-legislative scrutiny introduced by the present Leader of the House and the other changes that we are making through modernisation will hugely increase the rigour of scrutiny in the Commons.
I am grateful to the Lords for the way in which they pick over the detail of Bills. Some of the changes that they have made to Bills since I have been in the Commons have been changes for which I argued in the Chamber, but too often age and tradition have led the Lords to prevent reforms which are popular, such as the fox hunting ban, or which would end injustice, such as their failure to support the abolition of clause 28.
In the debate taking place today and tomorrow, claims will be made that we fail to scrutinise in this House because of the power of the Whips. But what power do Whips have? They do not have the power of hiring and firing. That is in the hands of our constituents. They have influence over promotion and opportunities to join Committees or study tours. However, such patronage is what underpins the whole existence of the House of Lords; it is at the heart of that place. I do not accept the assurances of some that if we find different methods of appointment, the super-quango route, they will be completely free of it. The opportunity for appointment to the Lords at present is used as just another goody by the Whips. I think that it would still be used even if there were an independent appointments commission.
If amending legislation were just a technical role requiring expertise, the people could choose to elect experts to do it. The power is not technical, and should lie with them.
There are many other things to commend in the Joint Committee report. Like every report on this subject, it concluded that the Commons, with its current mandate and its role in providing the Government, must be pre-eminent. That is one of the reasons—that we provide the Government—why we do not risk the deadlock that troubles other legislatures. But I cannot accept the view

257
put forward earlier today by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) that somehow appointed members are automatically more expert advocates of the liberties of the people. If we look at those bicameral systems that have appointed second Chambers, do we believe that their citizens' human rights and civil liberties are better defended? Let me go through the list: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Bahrain, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi—I have not even got past the Bs. The point is simply made by the list.
Before I conclude, let me share my concern about the size that the Committee report suggests for the second Chamber. I think that 600 is extreme. Other hon. Members have compared it to chambers such as the Chinese legislative assembly, the only one that will be bigger. It is striking that the next largest second chamber is almost exactly half the size proposed—that of Spain, with 324 members. The vast majority of second chambers have around a hundred, or maybe slightly more. We should not make the mistake of having a huge second Chamber. There is an argument for having a large Commons. When we have constituency elections, and that constituency link, our electors can grab us, as they do me in Tesco's in Slough and say "And another thing, Fiona, why haven't you sorted out this?" That is one of the powerful—
Mr. Tyler: Has the hon. Lady recognised the significance of the comment in the Joint Committee's report that
"A fully elected House suggests a smaller House since members might be expected to be largely full time",
which makes her point for her?
Fiona Mactaggart: Indeed, it does. I hope that at the end of our deliberations the Joint Committee will go back to that question. If we get rid of the embarrassment of an inherited element in the second Chamber, I do not want us to have the embarrassment of an over-huge second Chamber.
I hope that the House of Lords will ensure that the views of the Commons are respected in its vote. I do not think that the debate has been wholly reflective of those views. It is disappointing that so many of the minority of the Commons who do not support elections have been called to speak, because it is inevitable—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady has now made that point twice. I remind her that if she wishes to criticise the selection of the Chair she must do so on a substantive motion.
Fiona Mactaggart: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding me of the proper procedure. I will follow it in future.
Inevitably, the decision of the members of the House of Lords will be affected not only by their belief of what is best for the governance of Britain, but by the effect upon their lives. What decision we make about the future of the second Chamber will hugely affect the lives and working conditions of the people who are in it now, not just people for whom election was fine when they were in this place, and who suddenly found that it was not quite what they liked as they went down the
258
Corridor, but also other people who argued compellingly for elections before they themselves were appointed to the House of Lords. Lord Lipsey used to be a clear advocate of such elections, and is an example of someone whose views have been changed by experience. I urge people to listen to the view expressed by the majority in this House.
At the beginning of my speech, I said that I intended to avoid making the quest for the perfect solution the enemy of the good solution. I have a perfect solution for the composition of this Parliament's second Chamber, but I have not put it forward, as we need a solution around which we can unite. The process that is under way gives us an opportunity to make that happen. All of us will have to make sacrifices, but we can make progress towards a modern democratic state in which the power is in the hands of the people. If we miss this opportunity, we may not have another for the next 100 years.
6.5 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: I apologise to the House for missing the early part of the debate. The point that I want to make has hardly been made this afternoon, although it has been alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow Leader of the House, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples).
We are losing sight of an essential problem with our legislature. We should not spend so much time arguing about the mix between elected and appointed Members in the other place. We should direct our attention to the quality of those Members, and their ability and wish to hold the Executive to account.
The problem with our House of Commons is that too many hon. Members want to become Ministers. It was said that every private in Napoleon's army had a field marshal's baton in his knapsack. In the same way, every young Member of Parliament coming to the House believes that he has a ministerial red box in his knapsack.
Mr. Greg Knight: As you did.
Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend says that I did. That is true of many of us, although we may deny that ambition. The point was put charmingly by Mr. Speaker when he was bidding for his present post. He said that he had never become a Minister, but also that no one had ever asked him to. Many of us share the genuine and proper ambition of playing a part in governing the country, but what does that mean for Parliament? The Executive is drawn from the legislature, and that means that it has overwhelming power when it comes to getting its will through the House.
How often do hon. Members seriously test the Executive? We have wonderful debates on occasions like this, and free votes on hunting and other matters, but how many first-class debates are there on substantive issues, with Government policy at stake? How often are substantial numbers of hon. Members prepared to rebel against their parties? It is very rare, as too many of us are former or would-be Ministers.
When we consider the composition of the other place, we should not concern ourselves only with the mix. I am a Fabian gradualist in this matter. The consensus seems

259
to be that we should get rid of the hereditary peers. I am a traditionalist and therefore regret that, but that appears to be the settled will of this House. I am prepared to have an elected element in the other place, but the problems with that solution have been set out.
For example, who will comprise the elected element? I believe that it will be made up of people who cannot get into this House. People will probably be elected on a closed list of proportional representation. That appears to be the Executive's favoured way to proceed. There are many devices—lengthy terms of election, or different forms of election—by which we can try to prevent them being party hacks. I support all those options, but the fundamental problem remains. It is that the people who go into the other place will be young 30-somethings or 40-somethings. The other place will have a Whips' Office, and those people will be ambitious to become Ministers.
A model exists for the second Chamber—the American model. That may not be popular with the House. Colleagues seem to reject any argument based on what the founding fathers tried to achieve in the 18th century. Should we spurn the model of the US Senate? Members there are elected for six years, and cannot be part of the Executive. They therefore have genuine independence, which we do not have in this place. It is inevitable that we shall move to some form of election for the upper Chamber, but I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon. Please, let us not replicate what we have here; we must not create a new cadre of young, ambitious politicians. We must try to ensure that there are independent men and women in the second Chamber.
Mr. Forth: May I remind my hon. Friend and the House of the words of James Madison, one of the founding fathers? He said that the idea of the upper House was
"to protect the people against their rulers"
and the
"transient impressions into which they themselves might be led".
Surely, that makes the argument as well as anyone could.
Mr. Leigh: Yes, especially when it is expressed in the fine and eloquent English spoken by so many of the American founding fathers in their debates.
Members of the upper House may be elected, but let us make them genuinely independent. I agree that it is useful for the Executive to be able to appoint technocrats as Ministers in the other place. Sometimes, there is a shortage of people who are capable of holding the position of Attorney-General and suitable people can be drawn in from the legal profession and placed in the House of Lords and made Ministers. I am happy with that arrangement.
However, perhaps the elected element of the upper House should be told that they cannot become Ministers—although I realise that the Government will not give us a final answer on that. We could create an assembly, such as the US Senate, that can advise and give consent, for example, on senior appointments such
260
as permanent secretaries or ambassadors. Such a House would have limited powers; it could scrutinise measures without being too party political. Its appointed Members would be in their senior years, and their personal ambition would be spent. They would want to consider the detail of our legislation.
One of the finest Members of the other place, Lord Renton, has been a Member of this and the other place for between 50 and 60 years. In his 90s, he is still working in the House of Lords, tabling amendments. What a great man. We want more people like him, who are not personally ambitious. We want such people to be the elected Members, not young ambitious politicians who are thinking only of themselves and wanting to become Ministers.
6.12 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the Chairman of the Joint Committee, and all its members for bringing us their report in a timely fashion. Their critics claimed that the Joint Committee was established to kick the issue into the long grass. The critics have been proved wrong and, instead, the report offers options on which the Committee was able to agree, with the promise of further work to fine-tune and develop the process if the House votes firmly—as I believe it will—for a second Chamber with a majority of elected Members.
The effrontery and brass neck of some Opposition Members never cease to amaze me. In opposition, they plead that we need to bring the Executive under control, yet for 18 years, while they were in government, they did everything possible to ignore the legislature and to ensure that the Executive remained over-mighty. It is good that they have changed their minds.
The Opposition failed to mention, however, that this debate is a sign that the Commons are seeking to establish their power and credentials against the will of the Executive as expressed in the White Paper. Labour Members told their Government that the White Paper was unacceptable, so the Joint Committee was set up. We are holding the debate because this House has concern for parliamentary democracy. That is why we need reform of the second Chamber and democratic elections to it.
I should like the second Chamber to be 100 per cent. elected, but I appreciate that, for the sake of consensus, I may have to settle for 80 per cent. or, perhaps at worst, 60 per cent. If 80 per cent. of hon. Members voted for 80 per cent. of the second Chamber's Members to be directly elected, there would be no need for me to support any lesser option because it would be very clear that the broad consensus in the House was in favour of that proposal.
Much play has been made of the fact that those who do not want the second Chamber to be directly elected want total appointment or most of its Members to be appointed. I am surprised that hon. Members—some of them are my right hon. and hon. Friends—lack the confidence to allow a second Chamber to exist with the powers that it broadly has now while making both Houses of Parliament democratic. I have the feeling that a large element of democracy is being interpreted through the perspective of the benevolent despots of the

261
19th century, who at the time were regarded as a step forward but who certainly did not have a lot to do with concepts of democracy.
The idea that wholly or mainly electing the second Chamber will somehow lead to conflict with this House is not upheld by history or experience. There can be such gridlock in the United States because its constitution was framed exactly to prevent the Executive from becoming over-mighty. That was a deliberate choice of the founding fathers and James Madison, who, perhaps more than anyone else, can be regarded as the writer of the American constitution, wanted it that way, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has kindly pointed out to hon. Members. However, other second Chambers around the world do not challenge the first Chambers. In fact, the Canadian second Chamber, which is appointed, has proved to be the most difficult for that country's first Chamber.
Mr. Greg Knight: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that temporary gridlock is sometimes a good thing if it leads to better scrutiny and better legislation?
Mr. Griffiths:I do not deny that that can happen, but I am trying to make a point about the opposition to a democratic second Chamber. I do not call it an upper House. In fact, one of the historical problems is that the House of Commons was the junior partner for much longer than it has been the senior partner. The earlier reference to Old Sarum reminded me that the House of Lords owned the House of Commons at one time. We have swept all that away. We have taken about 100 years, from the first Reform Act of 1832 to the legislation under which women over 21 got the vote in 1928, to create something akin to a modern democracy in this country.
A fellow Celt, Lloyd George, was instrumental in significantly reducing the power of the second Chamber, and we now have the opportunity, led by the Leader of the House, who is a fellow Celt, to finish the job that Lloyd George began. Let us set aside the argument about permanent conflict because it is not true. With another Parliament Act, we could ensure that the House of Lords has the job of scrutiny and bringing the Executive to account and, yes, let us ensure that no Minister sits there because that will help that process.
I have also been rather upset by the way in which one or two Members have almost denigrated us in comparison with experts in the other place, which is not fair. There are plenty of experts on a diverse number of subjects on both sides of the House who are as good as any in the upper House. In relation to the experts in the upper House, it is a pity that the Joint Committee did not have an attendance register of the appointed life peers to show us which of those experts were regular attenders and which were not. I am sure that we would find that most of the life peers were not regular attenders. If we want those particular experts, they can be called before Select Committees or Committees considering drafting legislation.
Jim Knight: Does my hon. Friend also agree that if a political party wants to have such experts in a second Chamber, it would be perfectly open to it under a list
262
system to nominate those experts to appear on the list, so that they can be elected as part of the democratic process?
Mr. Griffiths: Yes. With a wholly or mainly directly elected second Chamber, it will be up to the political parties to act responsibly in drawing up their list of candidates to make sure that they achieve representation across the United Kingdom, which will help to reflect the make-up of our land.
Julie Morgan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Griffiths: I think that I have already given way twice, which is the accepted number of times. May I give way again, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can certainly give way again, but he will get no additional time for it.
Julie Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very worrying that those Members who support nomination have implied that that is the only way of achieving good gender representation? Does not he agree that if the political parties want women in Parliament and in power, they are able to ensure that?
Mr. Griffiths: Under the new legislation, there should be no reason for that not to be done.
The Joint Committee was wrong to suggest 600 Members: about 200 should be an absolute maximum. In that context, the issue of cost should not be a problem. When people talk about the cost of democracy, they are perhaps wavering about the value of democracy. We should push ahead and have a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber and trust in our political parties and our judgment to get the job done. The fact that we have held this debate today shows that we are already making some of the right decisions about bringing the second Chamber into the 21st century.
6.23 pm
Mr. Bill Wiggin: The most outstanding contribution in this debate has probably been from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who said that this was a question of Parliament against the Executive rather than the Commons against the Lords. I am speaking on the basis that, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." My experience of the Animal Health Bill was that the other place was extremely effective in holding the Government to account and editing the Bill to such an extent that it became quite—sadly, only quite—acceptable.
Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wiggin: I am afraid that I have only a short time.
If we elect a second Chamber, the consequence will unquestionably be to introduce competition. If we have elections, we must have something for which the voter must vote. If we elect on the basis of proportional representation, we will introduce compromise to the

263
system. It would be a huge mistake to introduce election. If we do so on any system apart from first past the post, the whole system will be based on compromise.
Legitimacy is not the key to better government. I agree with the earlier comments that squaring the circle will be impossible. What we need is wisdom. If legitimacy is considered to be more important than wisdom, it will not be long before the Parliament Acts are repealed, and one political party could, after a landslide, occupy both Houses. That would create a risk for the minorities in this country. We must also consider which House provides the best form of government. At the moment, it is clearly this House but, if the system is changed, which House will be the best one to sit in if we want to make a difference?
The most important result of the proposal relates to cost. As Members of Parliament representing our constituents, probably the most significant thing that we can do is to restrict the amount of money spent on the democratic process outside this House. We need to ensure that, when we spend money on elections, it is spent wisely. Establishing an elected upper House would not necessarily provide the wisdom that is so important. It is absolutely vital that, when we are given the choice, we act like Solomon and choose wisdom.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The winding-up speeches must begin at 6.30 pm, so I ask the hon. Gentleman whom I am about to call to respect that fact. I call Mr. Lazarowicz.
6.26 pm
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I shall speak in support of an elected House of Lords, and, in so doing, I will respond to those arguments that have been made in this House and outside that suggest that we should not have an elected House of Lords because the public would be bored by the prospect and would not turn out in the elections to it. That is a counsel of despair. Of course, we should all be concerned about declining turnouts, but are we accepting that they are a permanent state of affairs in British politics? Are we really suggesting that we could not get the British public to take an interest in elect ions to the upper House? After all, it will take important decisions that will affect their daily lives. Are we really suggesting that people in Britain are somehow inferior in their intelligence and ability to understand the political process than people in the United States and many parts of Europe who frequently vote for lower Houses, upper Houses, local government, mayors, provincial government, regional government and, sometimes, for many other elected officials—and sometimes also in referendums.
There is a problem with voter turnout, but the question that we should ask is what is wrong with our political process; what is wrong with us and with the system that means that people do not turn out to vote? The answer may not be dramatic. It might not have anything to do with the fundamentals of our democracy. Much of the problem, I suspect, is the result of the way in which we organise elections. We now know from
264
sexperiments that we can achieve turnouts of as high as 60 per cent. even in local government by-elections because of the use of postal votes. In the summer, I came across a community council in Scotland, roughly the equivalent of a parish council in England, where the turnout was 64 per cent. in the elections to it. The Electoral Commission's recent report on the Scottish elections of 1999 showed that, of the 40 per cent. or so who did not vote in the Scottish Parliament elections, two thirds did not do so because they had commitments at work, faced travel problems or had moved house. It was not that they had chosen not to vote; it is rather that the electoral system does not take account of the way that people live now. That is one of the issues that we must address if we want to encourage higher voter turnout.
One sure way of bringing about greater public disillusionment with the political process would be to replace the hereditary House of Lords with an appointed House of Lords that would inevitably, under any system of selection, be dominated by members of the political class and predominantly by members of the metropolitan political class. They might be joined by a few adjuncts from places such as my city, which sometimes tends to function as an offshore island to the metropolitan establishment. That political class would not face the ultimate sanction of removal from the upper House in the way that we all face removal from this Chamber.
I support a House of Lords that is elected by a form of proportional representation. I do not accept the argument that it might present an unreasonable challenge to the authority of this House. I do not think that it is a bad thing to place restraints on a Government who are elected by a minority, as most Governments inevitably are, which sometimes allow the majority public opinion to hold back the minority voices. My hon. Friends who are enthusiastic about the untrammelled power of the House of Commons and a Government based on a minority of the popular support should remember what happened not so many decades ago when a Government with a big majority in the House and a minority of popular support in the country did not act in a way that we found acceptable.
6.30 pm
Mr. Eric ForthThe issue is in danger of becoming a sorry saga. Let us hope that the debate, which has been positive, will save the Government from themselves and put us back on the right track.
I recall the heady days of the Government's manifesto in 2001, to which one or two other hon. Members referred. In it, the Labour party said:
"We are committed to completing House of Lords reform, including removal of the remaining hereditary peers, to make it more representative and democratic".
It made that commitment to the voters before the 2001 election. In the White Paper that appeared later that year, the Labour party said:
"The Government will welcome responses to this White Paper by 31 January 2002. It intends to introduce legislation thereafter, incorporating decisions on the issues raised in the consultation."

265
One would have thought that we were set fair for a move towards reform, which the Government told us was important to them and the electorate, yet a year on we are still debating the principles of the direction that we should take.
We have been arguing about the labours of the Joint Committee for some time and are duly grateful that it has completed the first phase of its work. However, in the same document of November 2001, the Prime Minister himself said:
"A credible and effective second chamber is vital to the health of Britain's democracy … The Government is determined to proceed with this wider reform of the House of Lords."
The introduction said:
"The Government intends to complete reform of the House of Lords early in this Parliament".
Fine words, but what has happened? In The Times today we read an astonishing account, which no one has denied:
"The Prime Minister is to scupper demands by Labour MPs for a majority elected second chamber by making a statement declaring his opposition to a 'hybrid House': part elected, part appointed."
Even more astonishingly—although knowing the Prime Minister as we now know him, perhaps it is not much of a surprise—it goes on to say that the Prime Minister
"will make plain that he has always favoured and continues to believe in a wholly appointed chamber."
Where did all the words about democracy come from in the manifesto and the White Paper? The Prime Minister obviously did not read them because otherwise he would not have let them go ahead.
We have come from heady aspirations—words of determination—to where we are now. In fairness, the House has been given the chance to debate the issue yet again, and the Lords will debate it today and tomorrow. We will then have the votes. But what happened to the House of Lords as an affront to democracy, an idea that was bandied around fairly freely before 1997? Are we to believe that a wholly appointed House would not be an affront to democracy? One or two hon. Members had the gall to argue that an appointed House would, mysteriously, be pretty well democratic. Although they have tried hard to explain that, I have yet to come fully to terms with it. That is the sort of argument to which hon. Members have been driven.
However, in contrast to that negative aspect of the debate, the House has demonstrated that it is capable of positive thought. I was encouraged by the tone and content of our discussion. Perhaps to the surprise of many, the House has demonstrated that we have the collective capability to look at such an issue and try to find as much common ground as possible. The Leader of the House made a plea for common ground in the early stages of the debate, and I am sure that he will be as gratified as me that nearly every Member who has spoken said that although they had a distinct preference, they would now be prepared to consider something other than that preference in the cause of advancing the debate. I think that that is new, and I am sure that many of my hon. Friends feel the same. Although they may have strong, fixed views, they want something to happen and, to that end, are prepared to support something
266
other than their preferred option. I expect that that will be reflected in the voting that will take place in about two weeks.
Mr. Foulkes: While the right hon. Gentleman is talking about voting, will he confirm for the avoidance of doubt that Conservative Members will be given a completely free vote?
Mr. Forth: Yes, I am more than happy to do so. Some of my colleagues have asked about that, so I shall remind them of our policy—we do have one—and push my luck even further and invite them to vote the same way as me.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Forth: In a moment, but I want to help my hon. Friend first. For the avoidance of doubt, I shall vote for a 100 per cent. elected House and an 80 per cent. elected House. Unless I hear something persuasive to the contrary in our debate or the debate in the other place, I will probably vote against all the other options.
Sir Patrick Cormack: When my right hon. Friend last addressed the House on this subject, he told us that the party had no policy, but announced one within 48 hours, much to the annoyance of many of us. Will he confirm that some members of the shadow Cabinet take the same line as me and others, that they will have the same freedom, and that he will not attempt by any means to force his extreme views on other people?
Mr. Forth: My answer is yes to all those questions. I am surprised that I am now being criticised by a senior distinguished colleague for our having a policy, which is a new departure. However, nothing in the House should surprise me.
Tony Wright: I cheered up when the right hon. Gentleman said in his new spirit of consensus-seeking that people had changed their position and were willing to support views that they had not supported before in the search for common ground. However, curiously, he went on to say that he will not support the one bit of common ground established by all the surveys—the 60 per cent. option.
Mr. Forth: My consensuality only goes so far. Good Lord, this is enough of a transformation—I cannot reinvent myself overnight. As I said, I am prepared to study our debate, although I have been here for most of it. I want to hear what the Lords say—I hope that we all do—so that we can take a view on it. There is a great willingness to move. Even the Leader of the House said in his opening remarks that he was "80 per cent. in agreement" with my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), which set the tone for the whole day. For example, most people who expressed a view about the size of the upper House—this may not please the Chairman of the Joint Committee and his colleagues—were not happy with the idea of 600 Members. We have had bids ranging from as few as 100 to 300, which is our policy. Although there was not very much support for the Joint Committee's position,

267
Members expressed helpful and positive views, and I am sure that we shall find a fair amount of agreement on the issue.
Similarly, in the argument about length of term for Members of a revised upper House, although not everybody was happy with a period of 15 or 12 years, the Leader of the House suggested that he would be prepared to contemplate a term equivalent to two terms in this House, which could be interpreted as eight or 10 years. Again, many Members would coalesce around using a figure of that magnitude to differentiate the term of office of Members of an elected upper House from that of Members of this House.
I also detect movement on the argument about a hybrid Chamber. Although some months ago most hon. Members would have preferred either a wholly appointed or an elected House—that was certainly my position—there is now a lot of agreement about hybridity and perhaps a more relaxed attitude to it, whether the proportions are 80:20, 20:80, 60:40 or whatever.
Sir Patrick Cormack: How could that have been my right hon. Friend's position when the official policy was 80:20?
Mr. Forth: I took that position before the policy was 80:20.
My right hon. Friends the Members for Richmond, Yorks and for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), and the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) all said in terms that they believed that a hybrid Chamber of some sort could be acceptable if we did not end up with their preferred solution. I exonerate my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) in that regard, as he said that he could not quite go that far. None the less, those contributions show the tone of this debate.
Mr. Bryant: I do not know how much the right hon. Gentleman knows about gardening, but will he confirm that hybrids are the strongest plants around and that there might indeed be significant added strengths in a hybrid Chamber?
Mr. Forth: We must be careful before getting into genetic modification, but I shall accept the hon. Gentleman's advice.
What has emerged from this debate is that most hon. Members are prepared to give some consideration to hybridity, but the debate will continue to be about where the majority membership should lie, which is a more difficult issue. Although the percentage that should be elected or appointed is the crux of the matter, a surprising degree of movement has again been evinced in that respect by hon. Members as varied—if I can put it that way—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who concluded his speech a few minutes ago. There were indications that hon. Members would be prepared to consider the
268
80 per cent. option or the 60 per cent. option to which the Chairman of the Public Administration Commit tee has just alluded. We can see that there is a fair degree of agreement.
Unfortunately, such agreement breaks down elsewhere, and it is obvious why. Time and again, Opposition Members heard arguments about the need to strengthen Parliament as a whole, as opposed to the Executive. Not every Labour Member agreed with those arguments, which illustrates a point that has repeatedly been well made and of which I am, perhaps, a living example: the perspective that one has when sitting on the Government Benches is often rather different from that which one has when sitting on the Opposition Benches. There is nothing wrong with that; it happens. Those of us who have moved in one direction or another will have had that experience and will understand it.
However, that does not belie the fact that there has to be a serious debate about our view as parliamentarians on the relationship between the Executive of the day and the Parliament of which we are all honoured to be part. That must be part of our debate about the upper House. We cannot have that debate in isolation. A key aspect of a number of speeches was that, in looking at the relationship between an upper House and our own House now or in future, we must look very seriously at our relationship with the Government. We are the providers and sustainers of the Executive. Although one of our important responsibilities is to scrutinise, examine and hold to account the Government of the day, the fact that we provide and sustain the Government must inevitably compromise that role. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to look to an upper House to give strength and relevance to that role. I hope that that will be part of what we do—a view expressed in a number of speeches. If we can try to avoid a party element or overlay in that respect, so much the better, although whatever we say about it must be informed by who we are and where we sit in the Chamber.
I want to ask the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary, who will wind up the debate, a few questions about where we go from here. Several speakers have alluded to that. Do the Government still have a policy? Sadly, it appears that they do not. I use the word "sadly" because we believed that they had a policy, but now it seems that they do not. It is all very well for them to claim that they had a policy to which no one signed up and that they therefore no longer have one. It is all very well for the Lord Chancellor to say on the radio that he was no genius, could not work matters out and would therefore leave it to the Joint Committee. However, that leaves us a mite rudderless.
The Lord Chancellor also referred to
"the nonsense of a hybrid House".
I hope that he will study today's debate and thus be better informed.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one reform would receive overwhelming support in the House and in the country? It is that the House of Lords should consist of 0.16 per cent. of elected Members—the Lord Chancellor.
Mr. Forth: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a braver man than me in reducing the Lord Chancellor to 0.16 per cent.

269
We are entitled to know the Government's view of our current position, our starting point and, more important, our destination. The Leader of the House tried to be helpful by saying that there would be votes in two weeks and reference back to the Joint Committee. However, the Government's terms of reference to the Joint Committee will be crucial. In his opening remarks, the Committee's Chairman told us that it was constrained by the terms of reference that it was given initially. It is therefore important to know the terms of the Government's marching orders to the Committee, if they intend to issue such orders, for events after the votes in the House of Commons and in another place.
It is crucial to know what happens if the House of Commons produces a centre of gravity—to use the Leader of the House's favourite term—which is radically different from that of another place. I suspect that that will happen. If two different views are expressed at each end of the building, what will the Government conclude? Where will that lead us, via the Joint Committee, in future? What is the timetable? Much work remains to be done. After reading the Joint Committee report, one wonders whether we are near any sort of conclusion.
Will there be Ministers in a reformed upper House? The answer is crucial, not only to the constitutional dispensation, the relationship between the Houses and the Government of the day, but to whether we could have directly elected but relatively independent Members in an upper House. Without Ministers, that could happen because there would be no promotion ladder, arm-twisting or Whips, whose position would be rendered meaningless. I should like to add that issue to the list that the Joint Committee will consider. I hope that it will examine it seriously.
I hope that the debate will help the process. Its tone gives ground for optimism, but that could be tempered by the Government's attitude. If the report from The Times, which no one has refuted, about the Prime Minister's attitude is accurate, I am profoundly pessimistic about the process. It is up to Labour Members to do their best to ascertain what is happening. If they are unhappy, they should use their influence. We have done our bit in the debate. We must wait and see what Members of another place have to say, but in the end, as always, it will be for the Government to decide where they want to take us, how they will get us there and how they will work with and through the Joint Committee. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is about to give us as many answers as he can and that he will not leave us believing that the Government are divided, have no clue about their destination and do not want to get us there.
6.49 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Our debate has been excellent, good humoured and, at times, humorous. That is not unusual when we discuss a matter that will be subject to a free vote. I am in a slightly unusual position because we are considering a subject about which the Opposition have a policy, whereas the Government have no view, at least on composition. I emphasise that because some hon. Members have drawn attention to a couple of recent newspaper articles, referred to dark forces or to people who want to kick reform into the long grass. I
270
assure them that that is not the case. The Government do not have a view on the vote that we shall have in two weeks' time on composition, but they are certainly of the view that they want to get Lords reform concluded in this Parliament. That was a manifesto commitment, and we shall try to stick to it.
I would like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and the other members of his Committee for their excellent work. I also want to thank those members of the Committee who have contributed to the debate this afternoon, as well as non-members who have done so. I am sure that they have all heard the interesting and constructive contributions made by a number of right hon. and hon. Members, including the shadow Leader of the House, which will help them in their further work when we have got over this interim stage of voting on the composition of the upper House.
It is worth noting that, in this debate, a large majority of Members have spoken in favour of a largely or wholly elected upper House. In doing so, they have reflected opinion in the country and the findings of the surveys that have been conducted previously by Members of this House. They have done so from a variety of perspectives—some, such as the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), from what sounded like a Damascene conversion to the need for a stronger check on the Executive and for more pluralism, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe put it. That is very nice, coming from two former Members of a Government who commanded a massive majority not only in this House but in the other place—something that the Labour party has never done. But we should welcome converts where we find them.
The same point about the importance of checking the Executive was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), who has at least been consistent in his concern about the power of the Executive. Drawing on the excellent report produced by his Public Administration Committee, he also extended the democratic argument. The desire to extend democracy has been shared by most right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in favour of a largely or wholly elected House. They include the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), for Salisbury (Mr. Key), and for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), and for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz).
I have to say that, when I go round schools in my constituency—as I do increasingly, following the introduction of citizenship studies—and when I travelled abroad in my previous capacity as a Minister in the Foreign Office, I have had a problem, in a personal capacity, explaining to emerging democracies in other parts of the world, for example, that I was trying to sell the value of democracy while defending a system in which the membership of one of the two Houses of our Parliament was based solely on appointment.

271
The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) called a mixed or hybrid system with a majority of elected Members a fudge, although he said that he would vote for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) used a different term, calling it a sensible compromise. He, and a number of other hon. Members, saw an opportunity to improve the regional and, in some cases, the Scottish and Welsh representation in the upper House. Coming from a part of England that is seriously under-represented in the other place, I share that desire.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) tied their banners firmly to the abolitionists' mast, with, in the case of the former, a wholly appointed Lords as his second preference. He was supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), and my hon. Friends the Members for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) and for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), and by the anti-election contingent on the Opposition Benches in the form of the hon. Members for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), and, I think, for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), although I was not quite clear whether that was his position. I think that he is nodding in assent.
Much of the opposition to elections, particularly on this side of the House, seems to stem from a fear that a more democratic second Chamber would challenge the supremacy of this place. I have to tell my hon. Friends that that fear was not shared by other hon. Members who spoke this afternoon, or by others who share the desire to maintain the supremacy of this place. Nor was such a fear expressed in the report of the Public Administration Committee, which looked into this matter.
Mr. Leigh: Will the Minister consider the possibility that elected Members of the other place will not become Ministers in order to ensure that independence?
Mr. Bradshaw: That, along with a number of other interesting suggestions made this afternoon, will be first and foremost a matter for the next stage of the Joint Committee's work. Anything recommended in its final report will of course be taken on board by the Government.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge introduced the idea of syndicalism. The Joint Committee might like to take that up as well, but it does involve enormous challenges and complications. That is another reason why it too was not favoured in the Public Administration Committee's report. Interestingly—as far as I am aware; I was not present for a couple of speeches, although I watched them on my screen—no speaker supported the idea of electing a minority element.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, the hon. Member for North Norfolk and one or two others were troubled by reports that the Government
272
might seek to delay change. Some raised a couple of recent media reports that the Government, or members of the Government, were retreating into favouring an all-appointed second Chamber. I can reassure them that that is not the case. As I said earlier, the Government have no policy on composition, and there will be a genuinely free vote. I must, however, tell those who have that fear, wherever they may be in this House, that the best way of preventing—or avoiding—such an eventuality is for this House to send the clearest possible message in a fortnight, when the options will be voted on.
Jim Dowd: I am somewhat confused. There will be seven votes a fortnight from now, and my hon. Friend says that we should send the clearest possible message. How on earth can we send a clear message on the basis of seven votes producing seven results—for if any are identical I shall be astonished—and what on earth do we expect the Committee to do after receiving the seven results if the House gives it no clear direction on priorities?
Mr. Bradshaw: I am sure my hon. Friend knows that Members will have more than one vote. They will not have to vote for just one option; they can vote for all seven.
I was simply reinforcing a point made by a number of other speakers. However much individual Members may favour a particular solution, it is important for them to be willing to compromise a little so that the Commons can send a strong signal of its settled will—not least to make the Joint Committee's further work easier. My hon. Friend is right: if we send mixed messages, or if the results of the votes on the two most popular options are very close, that may make the Committee's life much more difficult.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the Minister confirm that the Government still hope to resolve the issue by the end of the current Parliament? Will he perhaps indicate to the Joint Committee that it might seek to conclude its labours by the end of the present Session, so that that timetable seems realistic?
Mr. Bradshaw: It would be extremely helpful if the Committee could do that—and yes, the Government still intend to wrap up the issue during the current Parliament. I sincerely hope that we can.
This is not the last word on the Joint Committee's report, of course. A similar debate has been held in the other place today. I am sure that Members of this House will want to read Hansard to see what was said there, just as I hope that their lordships will pay close attention to our proceedings today and to some of the excellent speeches that were made. We will return to the issue on 4 February. We will have a shorter debate, Members will have a chance to vote on the seven options, and the Joint Committee will note what has been said and resume its work. I look forward to that debate, and hope we can send both the Committee and the House of Lords a good strong signal.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made,
That the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Robin Cook relating to Select Committees (establishing a Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department) and the Motion in the name of Mr John McWilliam relating to the nomination of the Lord Chancellor's Department Committee not later than one hour after commencement of the proceedings on the first Motion; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and the Questions may be decided, though opposed, at any hour and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 29th October 2002 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply to them.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
Hon. Members: Object.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  KAVA-KAVA
  Ordered,
  That the Kava-kava in Food (England) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 3169) and Medicines for Human Use (Kava-kava) (Prohibition) Order 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 3170) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. —[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

  NATIONAL CARE STANDARDS COMMISSION
  Ordered,
  That the National Care Standards Commission (Fees and Frequency of Inspections) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 3211) and Domiciliary Care Agencies Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 3214) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(1)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That—

  (1)the Northern Ireland Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 6th February at a quarter-past Two o'clock; and

  (2)at that sitting:

  (a)the Committee shall take questions under Standing Order No. 110 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answers)); and

  (b)at the conclusion of the business appointed for consideration, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).— [Mr. Jim Murphy.]

  Question agreed to.

Broadcasting (Wales)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
7 pm
Ian Lucas: I am pleased to secure this debate and to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister from his long hours in Committee. I am sure he is glad of the change of scenery. I hope not to detain him too long.
I want to talk about radio and the proposals on access radio in the Communications Bill; to set out the position in my constituency of Wrexham and in north-east Wales; and to explain why community-based access radio is important and why the money must be found to set it up as soon as possible.
Talk-based local radio is a great success story. It is a trusted medium. It encourages debate. It helps local community groups to publicise their activities. It has an especially valuable role for the disabled. It is popular with the elderly, who may live alone and use it for company. Alongside music-based stations, it can create a vibrant community radio sector. The young tend to listen to music-based commercial stations. The rest of us rely on talk-based local radio.
I was brought up in north-east England. I recall the early days of BBC Radio Newcastle, which, along with regional television, was an important part of the region's identity. It created its own personalities and is greatly valued still. The BBC has a prized reputation in local radio, which was at the forefront of establishing its reputation as impartial and strongly based in local communities.
Talk-based radio is so successful that the BBC has 40 local radio stations in England. In Scotland, the BBC sees the value of local news bulletins across the nation, with places as disparate as the borders and Shetland given dedicated time on the airwaves. Northern Ireland has two stations, with Radio Ulster and Radio Foyle serving the community together, but for reasons that I cannot understand Wales is a different story.
The commercial sector focuses on music, the youth market and advertising, but the BBC in Wales is not interested in local radio. It seems institutionally incapable of responding to constituents' demands that they are entitled to as good a service as listeners across the border in England. My constituents are very angry about it.
I wrote to my local newspaper canvassing views on the absence of a local talk-based station for Wrexham and for north-east Wales. These are just some of the responses:
"Why when I listen to Radio Wales do I feel a stranger in my own country?"
"BBC Radio Wales thinks 'Wales' is just Cardiff and the Valleys."
"Since Radio Clwyd finished, there has been a void in people's lives."
"We tune in to Radio Stoke and Radio Merseyside which have a far superior service than Radio Wales."
"My wife and I listen to Radio Shropshire, which we think is an excellent example of what local radio should be, closely followed by Radio Merseyside."

275
Saddest of all is this:
"I am only one of many I know who do not listen to the radio any more."
Before 1995, Clwyd had its own radio service. Radio Clwyd is still fondly remembered in Wrexham and throughout north-east Wales. It was taken off but the BBC justified its action in 1995:
"Despite the fact that Radio Clwyd no longer exists as a separate entity there is a substantial provision of Clwyd news as an 'opt out' from the main Radio Wales service … In fact listeners in Clwyd can hear some more 40 news bulletins a week."
Lembit Öpik: I would not contradict the hon. Gentleman's experience, which is that a community will tend to adopt a local radio station and feel empowered as a result. That can never happen if listeners are simply slotted into a station with which they do not feel any connection.
Ian Lucas: That is absolutely correct. Regrettably, the position is even worse now than in 1995. Last year, the BBC removed the opt-out news bulletins in north-east Wales. By contrast with the position in Scotland, Wales has no opt-out news bulletins from the BBC but it provides a single service through BBC Wales for the whole of Wales.
It seems that the BBC in particular has an inability to recognise that Wales is a nation having distinct regions. I began to wonder why my constituents were getting such an inferior service from the BBC. Could it be a lack of money? According to the corporation's annual report and accounts for 2001–02, £18 million was spent on radio in Wales. That compares favourably with Scotland, which received £19 million for a larger population and a wider geographical area. So why does Scotland have six sets of geographically based local news bullets when Wales has none?
Could it be that the regions within Wales were too small? The BBC funds a separate Radio Guernsey and Radio Jersey service, despite listening audiences of 50,000 and 74,000 respectively. Radio Shropshire, which I know well, provides an excellent service to an audience of 361,000—fewer listeners than would be covered by a service for north-east Wales, which has a population of more than 391,000.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the BBC provides Radio Cymru, the Welsh-language news programme in Wales, which better reflects the geographical diversity of Wales? Does he also accept that south Wales has a number of independent radio stations, from Radio Ceredigion to Real Radio and Valleys Radio? Perhaps he should encourage his constituents to put in a bid for the licence for the Wrexham area.
Ian Lucas: I will come to that. Radio Cymru is a national, not a local, radio service. I am making the point that there is no locally based radio service from the BBC in north-east Wales. There is a commercial station but it is music based and focused on a younger listening audience. My constituents—particularly the more elderly—are saddened that they are not served by a community-based talk station.
276
The BBC is in denial. The corporation tells me that there is no demand for a station in my area, but hundreds of Wrexham people signed a petition, so I beg to differ. Members of Parliament get a taste of the response to a particular issue in their communities. When I wrote to the local newspaper, my letter produced a flood of correspondence by constituency standards. I have received more letters on that subject than on the issue of war with Iraq. There is a definite demand in my constituency for the type of service that it currently lacks. The BBC also told me that there is sufficient local news on Radio Wales for the people of north-east Wales, but my constituents tell me they listen by choice to Radio Shropshire, Radio Stoke and Radio Merseyside instead, because they feel that they get more information about their local community from those stations.
I am not the only person to pursue this issue. Constituents of mine who have been writing to the BBC about this issue for some seven years have contacted me. Mr. Glyn Roberts handed me a correspondence file dating from 1995. It pains me to say this, but it seems that the BBC is simply not interested in providing a local radio service for my constituents. There is a commercial
sector in north-east Wales—Marcher Sound is the local radio station—but it allocates limited time to community news. The prevailing tendency in the commercial sector is to get organisations to pay for "what's on" features.
There is also an increasing tendency for commercial stations to franchise national broadcasting. In my own area, between 9 am and 3 pm the commercial station actually buys in a national broadcasting programme, which prevails during that period. So there is little time for discussion of local issues, but the huge demand for local radio to which I have referred remains. The current structure for local radio stations is clearly inadequate. Neither the commercial sector nor the public service sector—in the form of the BBC—is delivering the service that my constituents want, and nor are they getting the response from broadcasters that they would like. I therefore greatly welcome the new proposals in the Communications Bill for access radio, which should be used to fill this void.
A project at the North East Wales Institute of Higher Education—the local university college in Wrexham—is considering applying for a restricted service licence, with a view to providing a local community station. Of course, under current legislation such a licence is valid for only a limited period, unless it applies only to the university or only to the local hospital. So the current system is inadequate, and I greatly welcome the Government's broadening access to local radio through the access radio initiative.
However, it is clear that access radio will have to be funded, and my concern is that the Government might be intimidated by the BBC in terms of going after the substantial funds of public service broadcasters. Such broadcasters use that money to deliver services, but at the moment they are not delivering them. The BBC spends some £4 million a year on BBC 2W, a digital service in Wales that many of my constituents cannot receive, and which very few of them ever see. Indeed, the viewing figures are so low that they cannot be measured, and they are certainly not publicly available. That money could be used to fund access radio. I am rather

277
unclear as to how access radio will be funded under the current system, and I urge the Government to consider the issue of funding from current public service pots.
I want to conclude by pressing two main points on the Government. First, I greatly welcome the provision of access radio, and I am keen that the Government should proceed as fast as possible, because I know that demand for it exists in my community, and that there are those in my community with the skills to deliver it. The current legal and institutional structures for the radio that we need in north-east Wales are not in place.
Secondly, I want the Government to review the £18 million that is being spent on radio in Wales, and at the £4 million that is being spent on BBC 2W, and see whether the public service remit of the BBC is being extended far enough to provide for local radio in the community. As a great supporter of the BBC for many years, I have been disappointed by the lack of responsiveness to my community and to the call from communities throughout north-east Wales for a local radio station. That case is long-standing and has been argued passionately for many years by many of my constituents. The present structures will not deliver what we need. I urge the Government to create the necessary structures, and to let us have the money to create a new radio station for Wrexham and north-east Wales. Please let that be done as soon as possible.
7.15 pm
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on giving us the opportunity to discuss the subject. There is a good story to tell about access radio. I understand my hon. Friend's case. I have always had the impression—I may be wrong—that, from the perspective of Cardiff, north-east Wales is the most remote part of Wales. That is interesting. In many ways, it is a geographical phenomenon.
We have some distinguished Members in the Chamber tonight. I am lucky enough to have been in the House for 14 years, so I remember previous discussions. The issues of north-east Wales are somehow seen as different from those of the rest of Wales. I shall try to explain why. I suspect that that perception has something to do with the traditional economic links that exist with Cheshire, Chester, Manchester and Merseyside, and to a certain extent with the west midlands.
As someone who has always been a news junkie and who watches the media carefully in Wales, I have always had the impression that north-west Wales is different. In a sense, it fits the politics of Cardiff much better. It often involves issues that are dear to the heart of many people who have traditionally—not necessarily now—worked in the media in Cardiff. The issues of mid-Wales and south-west Wales also receive quite a bit of attention. In south-east Wales, we get an enormous amount of attention, and we always have done so. That is partly an effect of population concentration, geography and so on.
The issues raised by my hon. Friend tonight are important. I was not familiar with the comparisons with the number of local radio stations in England and Scotland, and the two in Northern Ireland. There is
278
always a kind of complacency in Wales. After all, we are 2.9 million people. We have had an effective broadcasting industry in south-east Wales, but until recently—until Menna Richards took over at BBC Wales in Cardiff—we have always been a little reluctant to admit that we live in a large geographic area; it is not large compared to England or to Scotland, but it is in terms of population. We have tended to lose parts of Wales in that respect, and not to take advantage of huge technological advances that have been made. We should have done that before now.
My hon. Friend picked on one of those advances—access radio. He spoke, for example, about the possibility of the university college in Wrexham being a home for it. Who knows? It could be elsewhere.
I am lucky enough to have in my constituency one of the 15 pilot projects in Britain with an access radio station—GTFM Radio, based on the Glyn Taff Farm estate, probably one of the most deprived wards in my constituency. It has become an enormous success. It has a very limited signal, and that is a difficulty in Wales, because of the topography, but I am starting to get letters from people who write "I cannot receive the signal. Why cannot I get GTFM?"
Mr. Chris Bryant: And in the Rhondda.
Dr. Howells: They cannot get it, because it has limited power. It is a limited experiment, but a very important one.
I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham to ensure that his constituents, perhaps led by him, put together a good bid for access radio. In my constituency it is run part of the day by the people who live on the Glyn Taff Farm estate and for the other part of the day by students of the university of Glamorgan. There is a mix of talk and music, with sufficient variety to attract people. It now has a very solid audience and is very popular. It has also pointed the way. Those involved want to know how they can make it bigger and how it can be sustained without falling back on the usual problem in Wales—reliance on a benefit culture. It bodes very well for the future. It could well be a way of encouraging entrepreneurial businesses within communities.
I was lucky enough recently to open a local television station in Southampton that has a very strictly controlled, limited signal footprint. I asked how they were obtaining the money to do it and the reply was "For the first time Indian restaurants can advertise on television. They could not do it on a regional level." There are dangers, because these are very much public interest, non-profit-making organisations. We do not want to start taking advertising from very valuable commercial stations, some of which my hon. Friend mentioned. We have to sort that out. We are dealing with it in the Communications Bill.
Clearly, to use the awful jargon that is employed, in the ecology of broadcasting there is a real part for access radio and local radio. The Radio Authority has taken matters forward and has licensed 15 pilot projects covering a wide part of the United Kingdom. I was very surprised to discover from my hon. Friend that there was not one in north-east Wales. There cannot be one in every part of the country. Fifteen pilot projects mean a

279
pretty big pilot operation. The pilot projects will report back and we shall try to judge their effectiveness and see how we can take them forward.
I have a feeling that that is the way we must go in Wales. I understand my hon. Friend's disappointment over the way in which he has been dealt with in the past by BBC Wales. For the reasons I set out at the beginning, it is a difficult matter. A guy I climb with is from Mold. Mold might as well have been in Moscow for kids who grew up in the valleys of south Wales; it was a long way away, very difficult to get to. I began to discover north-east Wales when I had to go to Llandudno for Labour party conferences. Some people used to tell me to go right the way round and then back along the A55. They said that was the fastest way. I do not think that it is. In terms of geography, it is an isolated area. It should not be isolated, because it is one of the most dynamic areas of Wales. If we look at any index we shall see that it is an area where industry has grown fastest, where the rates of employment are now very high, where there is a real go-ahead feeling in the communities, and yet I do not think that that has been reflected in the importance it has been given in terms of the broadcasting ecology or whatever expression we want to use.
I think that the motive in respect of local radio has to come from the grass roots. A good case has to be made. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham has spoken to Aled Eirug, who is in charge of news in Wales, and that he has corresponded with Menna Richards and others. I know those people and believe that they want to help. However, the arguments still have to be made. They can be made, and they should be made.
I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham is in the worst possible position in the Chamber, geographically: if I turn around to speak to him, I turn my back on your good self.
280
I think that broadcasting in Wales will be very different in the future. The explosion of technological innovation has opened up all sorts of possibilities for how people might communicate by radio. We might even start calling it the wireless again—my mother has never stopped using that term, and neither, by the way, has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
People in Wrexham and north-east Wales must continue to make the argument that they have every right to have the matter of north-east Wales discussed through the public media. They must not depend on articles in the Liverpool Post or items carried on BBC Wales' excellent services. They must be able to enjoy the sort of dynamic interaction enjoyed by the areas that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham described in his speech. There is no reason why that should not happen, and I am confident that it will.
In the Communications Bill, the Government are trying hard to ensure that Ofcom, the new regulator, sees radio as the vital medium that it is. I am one of those hon. Members who gets most of his news from the radio. I do not have time to read the newspapers. As a result, I understand the vital importance of radio, and not just of Radio 4 or Five Live, excellent services though they are. People want variety—music that they can associate with, and the ability to speak to each other across the airwaves. That is the great strength of GTFM in my constituency, and of similar stations elsewhere.
I give my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham this undertaking from the Dispatch Box: I will do everything that I can to help him in his quest to get better radio coverage and services in north-east Wales. I know that many people, in this Chamber and outside it, and in BBC Wales in Cardiff, share his ambition. The problem is not insoluble, and I am glad that we have had the opportunity to discuss it this evening in the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. EDWARD O'HARA in the Chair]

UK Manufacturing Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Dan Norris.]
9.30 am
Ross Cranston: On Friday, just around the corner from my office in Dudley, I visited an archaeological dig led by Pete Boland, Dudley's archaeologist. The dig is uncovering features of the local glass industry dating from the 1700s. It closed around the mid-19th century. I saw the remains of a glass cone and its furnace, which are now being unearthed, cleaned and studied with the help of Birmingham university archaeologists.
So Dudley has had a long association with manufacturing. Abraham Darby, father of the industrial revolution, was born on the Wren's Nest in 1678. A forerunner of the coking process had been developed earlier by the son of the local Baron of Dudley. By the mid-19th century, glass, iron and other manufacturing dominated the life of Dudley, as manufacturing did other parts of the black country. Stuart Crystal—a major glass company in the area—was the manufacturer of the crystal glass used on the Titanic.
Although manufacturing is alive and well in Dudley and the black country more generally—and I will return to that later—its character and size have changed. The large iron and steelworks have closed, although there are still castings and the fabrication of metal products. Royal Brierley Crystal has a limited presence in my constituency. There was a steep decline in those employed in manufacturing in the 1980s from 43.3 per cent. of the work force in 1981 to 31.9 per cent. in 1991. The relative number employed in the manufacturing sector seems now to have stabilised at about a quarter of those working in Dudley.
Also on Friday, I spoke about this debate to four people in Dudley whom I know especially well: Bob Duncan, Barry Guest, Rod Adams and Melvyn Mottram. All have worked in manufacturing and all have experienced its vicissitudes, the redundancies, the closing of factories. It is fair to say that they all acknowledge the realities of a globalised economy—the competition from cheap-labour economies such as China and the restructuring of British industry that that involves. They are conscious of the present downturn in the world economy, but they are adamant about the continued importance of manufacturing to this country. They raise serious issues, with implications for Government policy—the loss of skills, the availability of training opportunities, the access of smaller businesses to finance, the balance between large and small companies and the burdens on business such as the present costs of liability insurance. I would welcome the Minister's assurances on some of those points.
2WH
As to the continued importance of manufacturing to this country, those four men are absolutely right. Manufacturing contributes importantly to our earnings from abroad with more than three fifths of our exports. Any further fall in manufacturing's share of the economy would, as the Engineering Employers Federation has put it, create the danger of a large structural trade deficit, which would leave us dependent on our earnings from investments abroad and on attracting capital inflows. Moreover, manufacturing is a key to closing the productivity gap with other European countries such as Germany and with the United States, as it achieves faster growth in productivity than the rest of the economy.
Manufacturing is also an important source of innovation in the economy; it is responsible for around 80 per cent. of research and development. Finally, there is the contribution of manufacturing to particular regions of the country. In the west midlands, more than 500,000 people are employed in manufacturing—more than in any other English region. In the 1980s, manufacturing took a hammering in the west midlands, with devastating consequences for individuals and their prospects. Any downturn in manufacturing has a disproportionate impact on the region, and on Dudley, which is part of it.
In the past year or so, the Government have made explicit their belief that a strong manufacturing sector is vital to our future prosperity. That explicit commitment to manufacturing in "The Government's Manufacturing Strategy" published in May 2002 was important in correcting a perception that in their first term the Government did not take manufacturing as seriously as they should have done. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions have done much to assert that manufacturing matters. The seven pillars that they identified in the strategy highlight key goals and policies and will prove useful in measuring progress. I commend them for their work so far.
In the past six years, the Government have provided macro-economic stability, with low inflation and low interest rates, and there have been specific fiscal measures such as the lowering of corporate tax rates, especially for small firms. The issue that manufacturers consistently raise with me, however, is the value of the Cap pound. Yesterday, Gemini Ernst and Young helpfully provided me with the results of the business outlook survey carried out in December 2002 on 750 manufacturing companies. It found that 38 per cent. of UK manufacturers increased the proportion of their total output produced overseas during 2002 in a bid to cut labour costs and—this is the point relevant to macro-economic policy—to obtain a more favourable exchange rate.
I cannot see an easy way round the exchange rate issue. Manufacturers are certainly not overwhelmingly of the view that entry to the euro will solve the problem. In the Financial Times yesterday, a MORI poll of 164 chairmen and chief executives from the country's top 500 companies showed that 50 per cent. do not support the principle of entry, against 42 per cent. who do. That reflects a movement against entry, which is also evident in the recent British Chambers of Commerce survey.

3WH
An attempt to manipulate the exchange rate, by the Bank of England lowering interest rates for example, would stoke inflationary pressures. That might be good for property owners in the south-east, but not for west midlands manufacturers. Deflating the economy through fiscal measures, in another attempt to manipulate the exchange rate, would have unacceptable social consequences as well as reducing the demand on which manufacturers partly depend, unless they export their total output.
I return to some of the concerns raised by my four Dudley informants: first, the loss of skills. By that they mean not simply personal skills but our collective knowledge as a nation. Firms in Dudley and the black country were often pioneers and innovators. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is concerned with encouraging more innovation and getting British companies to invest more heavily in R and D. Compared with other major industrial countries, we have invested proportionately less, although the Treasury's reports on productivity in the UK chart encouraging improvement since 1998. The R and D tax credit and the fiscal measures to encourage science should reinforce that trend. Although the UK has a strong science base, however, the conventional wisdom is that we fail to translate that into commercial success. The most recent confirmation of that was the report last June, to my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury, by the UK nanoscience and technology advisory group.
There is much to hope for with the launch of the Department of Trade and Industry Manufacturing Advisory Service and its mission to encourage manufacturers to innovate with new technology and practices. I am especially pleased that the regional centre for manufacturing excellence in West Bromwich adjacent to my constituency is up and running and already providing advice and assistance to companies in Dudley. I congratulate the Minister on that initiative, with which he had a close involvement. Perhaps he can inform us of the experience of MAS to date and the comparisons with other national advisers to industry such as MICE, which seeks to deliver improvements in the metal sector through the application of lean manufacturing practice and supply-chain efficiency.
The picture is disappointing for individual skills in Dudley and the black country. In January 2001, the Basic Skills Agency reported that 46,660 adults in the borough aged 16 and over had poor literacy, and that 48,920 had poor numeracy. That places Dudley slightly above the national average for poor literacy and numeracy. Information technology skills are also under-represented in the Dudley work force.
The low skills base is reflected in the vacancies that are unfilled at professional, technical and senior levels. However, I am especially pleased at the progress that David Wray and his team at the Black Country learning and skills council have made. The black country has had one of the worst staying-on rates in the country for young people over 16, but there are the first real signs of change. Reports published in December suggest that Dudley has seen the largest increase in 16 to 18-year-olds staying on in sixth-form colleges, which takes us from well below the national average to just above it.
4WH
Tackling adult literacy and numeracy skills has taken a turn for the better after a local publicity campaign overcame the shortage of tutors.
I am especially pleased with the excellent work being done by Dudley college, which has 1,000 staff and 40,000 students, including 500 from abroad, and has earned the Basic Skills Agency post-16 kitemark and three beacon awards for excellence. The college provides most of the training for MG Rover apprentices. An adult learning inspection recently awarded MG Rover six grade 1s for its training for apprentices. The inspectors' report states that work-based learning in engineering, technology, and manufacturer business administration and management are excellent. The college is in the process of establishing a Black Country centre of vocational excellence for engineering and manufacture to provide for advanced technology skills in support of regional manufacturers. I invite my hon. Friend to visit the centre once it is established.
Skills are also necessary at the top level of manufacturing. The Engineering Employers Federation report of late 2001 identified important management failures, such as not adopting techniques such as lean manufacturing, despite evidence that 30 per cent. of companies that do so reap significant productivity gains. Last October, a McKinsey report examined 100 manufacturers and concluded that the crisis in the sector was due above all to poor management. It suggested that the key to the relatively strong performance of foreign-owned companies in the United Kingdom was management, not employee performance or Government regulation.
There are good UK managers in manufacturing, who are concerned about innovation and investment and not simply about reducing costs. They focus on design and marketing as much as on making things. On 26 March, the Black Country chamber of commerce will launch its manufacturing support campaign in the Palace of Westminster. My hon. Friend is sure to be invited. The policy and representation director of the chamber of commerce, Ian Brough, told me about some of its major themes. I am pleased that helping management to identify niche segments, promoting high value-added products and fully exploiting design and innovation will be at the forefront.
That approach resonates with that advanced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Last year, she launched a study led by the United States management expert Professor Michael Porter to review and collate existing studies of UK management practices and to analyse their effect on productivity. I hope that his report, which I understand is due to be published soon, will help to guide those in British management to make the best of their resources in people, processes and equipment. They need constantly to ensure that they are providing the right products for the world outside. British managers should try to keep up to date with developments and provide the right environment for harnessing innovation in their organisations. I look forward to seeing Professor Porter's report, and hope that there will be useful lessons for the black country.
The McKinsey study downplayed the role of regulation in manufacturing difficulties, yet a constant refrain from business is that it is overly burdened by regulation. Only last Friday, the Black Country chamber of commerce was quoted in The Birmingham

5WH
Post as calling on the Government to help to boost business confidence by slashing red tape. Indeed, at regular meetings with the chamber of commerce, the subject of red tape is raised, but when members of the chamber are challenged to produce examples, they are strangely silent. I would need several hours to unpick the notion of over-regulation. I do not deny that in some cases, a lighter touch might be justified, but let me make three brief points.
First, the notion of regulatory burden often ignores the interests of other stakeholders in manufacturing—notably employees and their interests in, say, a healthy and safe working environment. Secondly, the notion is not always borne out by the response of management to specific aspects of regulation. For example, I was especially taken last year with the SGS Consultancy national survey of small and medium-sized enterprises. Nearly three quarters of respondents said that the minimum wage had had no effect, while almost two thirds said that equal opportunities legislation had had no effect and 19 per cent. said that it had had positive effects.
That leads to my third point: the acknowledged benefits of regulation. One example that I shall mention in passing is the Black Country forging and foundry project, the aim of which is to reduce noise in the industry. That will benefit employees and residents of the area.
The Government have a prime role in providing institutional support to industry and not just in regulating it. I mentioned the Manufacturing Advisory Service. The Small Business Service is also up and running, providing support to small manufacturers and other businesses. In its 2002 report, the Trades Union Congress warmly welcomed the refocusing of the Government's industrial and economic policies towards regional level, as do I.
Last week, my hon. Friend the Minister met the new chairman of the West Midlands regional development agency, Advantage West Midlands, to discuss its priority of supporting industry. Perhaps he can give a brief report on those talks. It is early days for AWM, although I have struck a couple of unexpected bottlenecks in relation to projects in Dudley, which I may need to bring to my hon. Friend's attention later this month. That said, AWM's agenda for action—modernisation, diversification and excellence—is certainly the right one.
In 200 years, industrial archaeologists will, I imagine, still be excavating in Dudley. If industry invests in R and D and pursues technical design and innovation, and if the Government's manufacturing strategy delivers skills and expertise to factories and workshops, the archaeologists' reports will be of the historical success of manufacturing and its adaption to the challenges in the first part of the 21st century.
9.48 am
Mr. Jim Cunningham: I was particularly interested in what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) had to say about manufacturing. I think that we are really talking about the situation in the west midlands and nationally. Some hon. Members will know that the west midlands has been one of the economic
6WH
powerhouses of the country in manufacturing innovation. However, it is fair to say that in western countries manufacturing has been in decline for some years, and the decline in the United Kingdom seems to have been sharper. Let us consider the economy of the west midlands, for example. A quarter of the industries are manufacturing industries, so a quarter of the jobs are in the manufacturing industries.
One issue that my hon. and learned Friend touched on and which we have campaigned about is research and development. Anyone who knows anything about manufacturing knows that a considerable percentage of outside labour costs goes into R and D. A company such as Rolls-Royce, for example, would invest heavily in projects and new engines, but would not get a return on that for 10 to 15 years. That is one of the problems that such companies have experienced over the years. Over the past five or six years, Rolls-Royce—as—as I am sure hon. Members know—has gradually been shedding labour. That process started before 11 September; I remember attending a series of meetings with the company. It might be argued that, in that loss of labour, there is an element of outsourcing to other countries. The trade unions will raise that as an issue, if anyone ever has discussions with them, but such outsourcing does not occur only in companies such as Rolls-Royce. Outsourcing is widespread, and it might be said that it is costing jobs in this country.
A further aspect of declining manufacturing in the west midlands is one that we sometimes tend to forget: the small supplier. The small supplier can be badly hit when there are cuts. Such suppliers are often small companies which, in brighter times, we would say were the backbone of innovation in British industry. We should be aware that some of the events and actions that emerge from central Government or result from world events can often hit the small company.
I am sure that some hon. Members will remember the Rover situation a few years ago. Anyone who visited the area at that time would have been struck by the fact that many people——even those who worked at the corner shop—knew someone or had a relative who worked at Rover. It is probable that thousands of small suppliers would have been badly hurt if Rover had been allowed to go to the wall. The Government and the Trade and Industry Committee put tremendous effort into trying to save Rover, and, fingers crossed, MG Rover seems to be thriving these days.
Coventry, in a similar way to the black country, has a tremendous industrial history, from the manufacture of bicycles to motor cars. Coventry was one of the first places to be devastated by the recession of the early 1980s. I remember the thousands of redundancies there during that period. However, through diversification over a number of years, the city has been able to reinvent itself economically.
Although we should not be alarmed by current trends, we should nevertheless be cautious. Recently, there has been the Marconi situation and its ramifications not only in Coventry but nationally and internationally. Although Marconi has restructured, it is still going through a process of job losses. Over the next couple of weeks, the local MPs will meet the employees of Marconi to see how far the company has progressed in its restructuring and, more important, how many jobs can be saved or will be lost.

7WH
We should not talk ourselves down; we should remain optimistic. However, the textile industry gives cause for concern, as I am sure the Minister will be aware. We might debate the reasons why the textile industry is in decline in this country. Traditionally, the industry has been the preserve of the east and west midlands as much as of any other part of the country, and its decline has been having a sharp effect on the east midlands. I am sure that colleagues from the east midlands could elaborate on that a great deal better than I can.
We should, however, welcome the new manufacturing strategy; I am sure that those who work in industry will also welcome it. A manufacturing strategy can offer a five to 10-year programme for training and investment to meet the needs of the economy and, more important, to promote exports. The strategy is probably the first attempt for about 30 years to try to take manufacturing seriously. We must also encourage investment—my hon. and learned Friend mentioned red tape—and do nothing that hinders it, because investment is very important to manufacturing industry.
It is also important to get our transport structures right. We all know of difficulties with the railways, which play a vital part in transporting our manufacturing goods abroad. That is why, a few years ago, the west midlands took an interest in the Hams Hall project. My hon. Friend the Minister will know exactly what I am talking about. Without that project, goods coming from and going to Europe would not have stopped in the midlands. The next stop would have been Newcastle and then Glasgow. The midlands would have been bypassed, accelerating its decline. That shows how vital it is to have a proper transport structure for transporting our goods.
The regional development agency has been up and running over the past two or three years; it played a major role in reviving Rover. The RDA is still in its infancy, but the resources made available to it to help industry are insufficient and should be increased. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that. More generally, we need to help industry by providing a major retraining programme. Several retraining programmes are in force in Coventry, but I wonder how strong programmes like them are nationally and in the east midlands more widely.
I welcome this morning's debate and I thank my hon. and learned Friend for introducing it. Despite what people think, the west midlands still takes manufacturing seriously and we are always guarded about its future. The area has a tremendous history of innovation, enterprise and inventions such as the motor car.
The bulk of employment today is in small rather than major companies, many of which outsource. Today, about 4 million people work in the manufacturing sector. It is worrying, but I try to remain optimistic without being over-confident. We should certainly be vigilant about manufacturing in this country and try to learn from our competitors abroad.
One important body not often mentioned is the World Trade Organisation. People do not realise the significant role that it plays in manufacturing. Some
8WH
agreements are made—or foisted on us—that make it difficult for us to subsidise our industries, whereas the French and certainly the Americans can, particularly to do with research and development for defence. The costs of such R and D are covered through defence programmes—always a burning economic issue. The public in this country often do not realise that the WTO fixes everything from the price of sugar to that of an aircraft engine. We do not debate the WTO often enough, though it is half the problem of third-world exploitation. We should focus more on the effect of the world economy on people's daily lives.
I shall conclude on that note and congratulate my hon. and learned Friend once again on securing this debate.
9.58 am
Mr. David Drew: I am pleased to participate in this debate at such an opportune time and I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) on securing and introducing it. He gave a precise run across the terrain, though manufacturing is so diverse that much more could and should be said—and I hope to make a few additional points.
When people hear of Stroud, they often misunderstand the nature of the area that I represent. To many people, it means the Cotswolds and the Severn vale—a beautiful environment with a large service industry. In fact, something approaching 40 per cent. of employment in the Stroud valley is still in manufacturing. Therefore, when manufacturing catches a cold, at the very best we sneeze but sometimes we get the flu. We saw the decline of the early 1980s, which my hon. and learned Friend well described. Manufacturing has been in the doldrums for some years, but there is another side to consider.
I had the opportunity yesterday to visit one of the new companies that have come into my constituency. It is a company of which many hon. Members will have heard, and it has held a conference today at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. It is Unite, the leading manufacturer of what are technically called modular built units, which we are now providing for students and key workers. It was good to see under the leadership of John Tonkiss the way in which the company has embedded itself into the local economy. It is providing jobs and would seem to be destined for success.
I want to make three points to put manufacturing in a sensible context. One is entirely positive, although the other two are less so. I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister. We have had dealings on a particular case, which I will not mention for reasons that he and I both know about, and he has always been interested and responsive when I have been to see him. I hope that that relationship can continue, as the nature of manufacturing means that the Department of Trade and Industry has to act quickly on particular cases.
The positive point, which relates to those congratulations, is about the work of regional development agencies, which my hon. and learned Friend mentioned. We are fortunate in the south-west, as the South West of England Regional Development Agency has been keen to make its mark and has benefited from its chairman, board members and full-

9WH
time staff. I am particularly grateful for its intervention in Dursley, where a major diesel manufacturer, Lister-Petter, was in considerable difficulties. I pay tribute to the RDA's strategic direction and willingness to get its hands dirty in the nitty-gritty issues of keeping companies going and sites available for manufacturing.
More than that, I pay tribute to the way in which the RDA brought on board not only the company, its work force and the trade unions but the local community in a groundbreaking attempt to consult widely on how we wanted the site to be redeveloped. The agency went to enormous lengths to lead that change and examine how to return industry to that site, which was mixed with housing in order to factor in some income and make the development as important as possible given the wider background of difficulty in manufacturing. Notwithstanding some of the Conservative party's comments about RDAs, I hope that it will reconsider its opposition to them. They are important, strategic and detailed organisations that can make an enormous difference.
The first of my two less positive points concerns the interpretation of state aid rules on manufacturing. I spoke about the subject in a recent debate in this Chamber, and I make no apology for returning to do so again. One of the worst aspects of the European Union is that it restricts the way in which companies can build relationships with the Government. We are prevented from intervening when it is appropriate by the simple fact that a competitor or European rival could complain that any intervention falls foul of the so-called state aid rules. I am sure that the state aid rules are written down, but they are subject to wide interpretation. The difficulty is that the system is negative in that it prevents one from intervening in the way in which one otherwise might, so one cannot test the waters because of the likelihood of being fined and hauled over the coals by the European Commission.
It is often alleged that other countries are far more liberal in their interpretation of state aid rules. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be robust in defending industries and companies, because manufacturing is the lifeblood of this country. Our attitude in that field can be contrasted with our willingness, on all occasions, to intervene in agriculture. As someone who represents farmers and spends much time talking to them and seeking to change the common agricultural policy, I suggest that we move some of the money from agriculture to industry, which would have benefits all round.
I am talking not about favouritism or bolstering companies that are clearly past their sell-by dates, but about investing in high-tech and in research and development to rebuild our industries from within. Some money could go in that direction rather than being spent entirely on agriculture. I say that as someone who, as I am sure hon. Members know, always advocates fairness to farmers and the food chain. Sometimes, however, subsidy levels in the food chain have been counter-productive.
10WH
I am afraid that my third point is very critical of one of the seven strands, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister knows about and which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North has already touched on: the role of the banking system. I am not here to criticise individual banks or to cast aspersions on everything that banks do, but when this Government were elected in 1997, I genuinely believed that the banking system was beginning to look more to the longer term. That was my experience in the Lister-Petter case. The banks involved were signed up to trying to stay on board over a period of time, including taking ownership of companies if that were required. It is a difference between us and the Germans that banks in Germany have always had shares in companies, to the extent that they have almost taken ownership of some. I see that as part of a genuine partnership between Government, companies and the banking system.
It is with some sadness that I have to say that my experience locally and nationally suggests that, although some banks seemed convinced in 1997 that a new relationship was required, that relationship does not yet really exist in practice. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on how we are trying, by talking to those in the banking system in this country and—as one now has to—globally, to find ways of creating a brand new environment in which banks understand that they cannot invest in manufacturing for the short term. That must be for the long haul, but if it is done properly and partnerships are developed appropriately, rewards will be reaped. If we are looking at only short-term returns, manufacturing is, quite simply, doomed. We cannot do that. I hope that the Government have some good messages about how, at the individual and the wider environmental level, they are going to get to grips with ensuring that banks play their part, along with companies, the Government, employees, trade unions and local communities.
I have a quick rejoinder to my hon. and learned Friend, who rightly highlighted, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), the roles of training and bringing skills into industry. We have to be sorry that we have lost so many skills as a result of the closure of so many important companies. We must ensure that we attract younger people, particularly as the generation of people who currently work in engineering begins to die out.
I strongly agree with my hon. and learned Friend that there is a need for work-based training. Through the work of the regional agency and business link in Gloucestershire, we have tried to encourage those on industrial estates to make available a training room with up-to-date equipment so that people can train during as well as outside work time, and so that they do not have to make the effort to attend college courses—notwithstanding the fact that many such courses are very good.
We all know that time is precious. Many trainees work for small and medium-sized enterprises and, because of the constraints of the company's operation, they cannot be allowed to disappear for parts of the day. Therefore, I would like training rooms on every industrial estate throughout the country where, with the support of employers and initiative from trade unions, more people can be given encouragement to upskill or build the skills that are sadly lacking. Such measures will

11WH
give people the hope that they are working in the right area and ensure that we begin to join the circle so that manufacturing in this country can again be strong and receive the support that it deserves.
10.11 am
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) on securing the debate and on the way in which he introduced the topic. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), because I may not be able to stay to hear the winding-up speeches.
Unlike my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North and my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I do not come to the debate with any important parochial manufacturing interests to help to inspire my contribution. My constituency is not famous for its manufacturing industry, but I seek to lock into the Minister's brain the name Thales Acoustics. The company is not in my constituency but just outside it, in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). It is an example of a successful, modern and effective acoustics engineering and manufacturing business. When the Minister is in discussions about contracts with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, particularly the Minister for Defence Procurement, Lord Bach, I ask him gently to press the case of Thales Acoustics.
My interest in taking part in the debate is to make a case for a potential area of manufacturing for British industry. Renewable and sustainable energy technologies offer considerable new opportunities for British manufacturers, particularly as we try to accelerate the process of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Britain is well known for its windy climate and, therefore, for the potential of wind energy. Many in the fledgling wind industry await with interest the energy White Paper that is to be published soon by the DTI. At present, there is just one major manufacturer in the UK of wind turbines—the Vestas plant in Scotland. For other renewable technologies, there was only a manufacturer of solar panels, Intersolar in Bridgend, south Wales, which I understand has recently gone into insolvency.
Many in the House will be well aware of the problems faced by those who seek to develop combined heat and power systems, given the impact of the new electricity trading arrangements and, more important, the rise in gas prices, which has effectively killed off many of the plans for CHP manufacturers to expand in the UK. That is why CHP manufacturers are looking to the White Paper to begin the process of restoring confidence and providing new opportunities in the manufacturing of those technologies.
It is fair to say that the DTI has not always been a friend to Britain's fledgling renewable energy industry. Until 1997, under the previous Conservative Government, it was notorious for being a friend of the
12WH
nuclear industry and of the coal industry—when Baroness Thatcher was not trying to destroy it to accelerate the take-up of gas. The Department was certainly not a generous funder and supporter of the development of renewable energy. Since the Labour party came to power, however, there has been a shift in the Department's attitude to renewable energy, which was no doubt helped by our 10 per cent. target, based on 1990 levels, for the take-up of renewables by 2010, and by our manifesto target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent.
I urge the Minister to take away from the debate the need to champion the case for more investment in capital grants for offshore wind power and solar panels to allow us to create the domestic market from which to win new export orders. I say that not only because of the needs of British manufacturing but because CO2 emissions are rising in the UK. Accelerating the development of renewable industries in this country offers a win in terms of both British manufacturing and bringing down CO2 emissions.
If the Minister shares my enthusiasm for the development of renewable energies, I hope that he will seek to discuss with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister the problems with planning applications, which thwart and delay the take-up of renewables in the UK and therefore limit the expansion of the manufacturing side of the industry. Some two thirds of planning applications for wind farms end in rejection or substantial delay. I know that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is looking at that issue and is sympathetic to it, but I hope that my hon. Friend's considerable talents will be put to good use in making the case for the speedy reform of PPG22.
Although the National Assembly for Wales is an excellent institution, which is led extremely effectively by the Labour party in Wales, I hope that my hon. Friend is willing to persuade his officials to encourage a more positive attitude to wind farm applications from the civil servants who serve it. For some reason, Wales has suffered from a planning blight in which renewables applications have been turned down.
My hon. Friend may also be aware that the take-up of renewables in the UK, and thus the opportunity to develop the manufacturing potential of renewable technologies, has been in part frustrated by the objections of the Ministry of Defence to a number of wind farm sites. I do not condemn it for its objections—wind farms interfere with radar—but a solution needs to be found if we are to see an expansion in the take-up of manufacturing opportunities in renewables. Any further effort that can be put into resolving and speeding up the MOD's handling of its objections to wind farm applications will be important.
The need for sensible regulation of the manufacturing industry is a point that has been well made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North. If we are to see the take-up of manufacturing opportunities for renewables, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets is an important source of regulation. With that in mind, the selection of a new chair and chief executive of Ofgem, which is beginning, is a particularly important process for the DTI. I ask my hon. Friend to remind other Ministers in the Department of the need to ensure that the person who is appointed is not the usual dry economist with no understanding of the needs of

13WH
renewable technologies, but someone with a genuine sympathy for the manufacturing opportunities that renewables offer in the UK.
Mr. Drew: As I would expect, my hon. Friend is making an excellent speech in support of renewables. Does he agree that the two key points, for the promotion of renewables and the companies themselves, are the need to try to build the entrepreneurial spirit and the need to ensure that there is engineering expertise? That is why the background that he talked about is necessary; we need people to have both skills.
Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend is right, and I want to consider some of the institutional mechanisms that can support the take-up of renewables and therefore the manufacturing potential of renewable energy technologies.
On the planning argument, I ask the Minister to offer to meet Opposition Front Benchers to encourage their party to adopt a more sympathetic attitude to renewable technologies. Conservative Members have often opposed wind farm applications in the House. I hope that the Minister will encourage them to dissociate themselves from that notorious flat-earther Bernard Ingham, who has led many a campaign to prevent wind farm applications from being accepted. I hope that the Minister will encourage the Liberal Democrats to be consistent in their attitude to renewable technologies. They say that they are always keen to support them, but whenever there is an application in a Liberal Democrat constituency, they are always willing to oppose it.
I hope also that the Minister will consider the institutional mechanisms. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I have long believed that we need a sustainable energy agency in the Government to help to make a case against enthusiasts and lobbyists for nuclear power and the coal and gas industries—not that I am against those things. Given the fledgling nature of the renewable and sustainable energy industry in the UK, we need such an agency to bring together the expertise in the Government and to provide one clear point of access for those who seek to make their case and to develop renewable energy options. There is a sense that regional development agencies are beginning to recognise the manufacturing potential of renewable technologies. I hope that when the Minister meets the heads of the regional development agencies, he will encourage them to look with a bit more enthusiasm at the potential in that area.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. We have 37 minutes left. For reasons of equity and courtesy, it is desirable that Front-Bench spokesmen each consume no more than one third of that time.
10.24 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I shall honour your request, Mr. O'Hara.
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston). The challenge in such debates is to say something new. This is the fifth or sixth debate that I have attended on manufacturing industry. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman is doing us a service. This is an important subject for the reasons that
14WH
he explained. It is not just important at a parochial level for many constituencies; the manufacturing sector is still large in aggregate terms. We are talking about almost 20 per cent. of the national economy. It accounts for over half of trade and is important for productivity growth. Even though the themes and arguments are the same, it is important that we keep making them.
The key point is the pronounced long-term trend—it has been going on for half a century—of manufacturing industry slowly declining as a share of the national economy, regardless of which Government have been in power. Since 1979, the share has declined from 27 per cent. to 17 per cent. One can draw a line along a ruler to reflect that; there has been no marked deviation. That has been happening in the rest of the industrial world, but it has probably gone further and faster here than in other countries.
The most recent trend, however, is a little worrying. In the past five years, manufacturing industry has hardly grown at all. On average it has grown by 0.4 per cent. a year. The service sector has grown 10 times faster—by about 4 per cent. a year. The British economy is doing reasonably well, and growing at a rate of 2.5 per cent. It is stable, out-performing the rest of the western world and sustains a fair degree of buoyancy. However, it is almost entirely driven by the service sector. The manufacturing sector has been stagnating, and it is right to ask why.
Before dealing with that question, I want to make the point that it is unhelpful to draw a clear distinction between manufacturing and services and say that there is no connection between them. The contribution to the debate of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) was useful in that regard; there is a connection. In my constituency, we have only one factory, which employs 75 people. There are others employed by "services", but that is misleading.
Over the past generation, many manufacturing companies which used to conduct design and marketing in-house or have their own IT consultancy branch have begun outsourcing such work. It is carried out by firms called service companies, but which are fully integrated with manufacturing. I often joke that Twickenham is one of the largest shipbuilding centres in Britain. Boats are not actually built there, but specialist IT companies in my constituency carry out all the design work for the Tyneside shipbuilding industry. There is a link between the service and the manufacturing economy, which we are in danger of overlooking.
Why has manufacturing apparently had uniquely difficult problems? They are not unique to manufacturing. The same sort of crisis has affected agriculture and traded services. As MPs in London know, a very sharp contraction is taking place in financial services, partly because of the problems of the stock exchange, but partly for the same reasons that manufacturing and agriculture have been affected. They are traded parts of the economy that are exposed to international competition. If there is a recession in the world economy, as there has been during the past year, it will hit those traded sectors more than others.
One factor makes the British manufacturing problem much worse than that of other countries, and it was mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman: the problems of the exchange rate. People often do not

15WH
realise how damaging that has been. Manufacturers often produce a list of grievances about their difficulties, and the exchange rate is one of them. British manufacturing, agriculture and traded services have taken an enormous hit in recent years.
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, British manufacturing has lost about 30 per cent. of its competitiveness. In the jargon, the real, effective exchange rate, which is a measure of how one loses competitiveness because of exchange rate movements, stands at 30 per cent. The International Monetary Fund suggests that it is even 40 per cent. That is a staggering amount to lose. It is amazing that so many manufacturing industries keep going, make money and compete despite the enormous hit that they have taken.
That issue is central to the difficulties of manufacturing, particularly in recent years. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said—it is not a partisan point—it is difficult to deal with that. I do not pretend that there is a magic cure for the problem. We believe that if the Government declared their intention to lock in sterling to the currencies of Europe at a much lower and competitive rate, they would help the process to happen because the market would respond. I do not pretend that that is easy; we are not discussing a magic cure. The exchange rate is crucial to a definition of the problem.
What else can be done? The Government have produced a manufacturing strategy and many of its elements are sensible, so we can agree with them. It tends to emphasise macro-economic stability, training, infrastructure, attracting foreign investment and creating the right market framework—all of which are right and sensible and from which I doubt any of us would dissent. It is also important, not so much for what they say but for what they do not say, that the Government have not gone down the road of massive intervention and trying to rescue companies that are in difficulty or trying to bail out failing enterprises. That is right and an important development, although the Government do not advertise that. I have no quarrel with the basic framework of the manufacturing strategy, but I want to make two specific points.
First, the Government still have some manufacturing intervention. We still have the innovation budget, which amounts to around £1.4 billion. Some parts of that are well received and the small-industry element is popular with business, but how far are the Government evaluating the effectiveness of their own programmes? From time to time we hear reports that the Secretary of State has commissioned studies into how effective the programmes of the Department of Trade and Industry are in helping business and particularly industry. I am a bit sceptical about where some of the money goes and the results. Is there a point at which the Government will produce a self-critical evaluation of their own efforts in the DTI to help business? Which programmes are succeeding and which are not? How much of the money allocated reaches the front line and how effective is it? It would be useful in a non-partisan way to examine what the money is buying and how successful it is.
16WH
My second specific point concerns complaints about regulatory burdens and business taxes. Although such burdens and taxes are minor in their impact compared with the exchange rate, they have an effect. One of the particular problems for manufacturing industry is that if a new tax, national insurance surcharge or whatever is introduced, it cannot pass it on to customers—unlike the service sector which can pass it on to consumers. So, the problem is doubly difficult.
The one area in which the Government should think again about policy is the climate change levy, which has aroused enormous ire because it bears disproportionately on manufacturing industry. I fully understand the environmental reasons for it, but the same objectives could have been achieved in other ways—through a carbon tax, applied upstream to filter through the whole economy without bearing disproportionately on manufacturing. The Government have heard that many times from manufacturers and I hope that they will rethink the matter while retaining their environmental objectives.
In conclusion, where do we go from here? I want to be optimistic, but dark clouds are appearing over the world economy. The United States economy is poised on a knife-edge and things could go badly wrong, particularly if the prospective war goes badly wrong. Japan is in a serious state of deflation and the German economy is in serious difficulty. All that will have an impact on our manufacturing industry and the outlook is not particularly good. I fear that in a year the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North might return with another debate on the same subject and we shall, unfortunately, be saying many of the same things.
10.33 am
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) on securing this debate because the matter is crucial to the constituencies of many hon. Members.
I should declare an interest: I am a non-executive director of a plastics manufacturing company. There is a strong manufacturing base in my constituency, especially in food processing and engineering, and several other manufacturers are based there.
Although the economy has done well in the past few years, the manufacturing base has been in decline compared with the service sector. I agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) that we cannot be insulated from the global economy. There are some worrying trends. The service sector, which has been the driver behind the fall in unemployment, will come under pressure if consumer confidence starts to falter. That confidence has to a large extent been built on rising house prices, low interest rates and the ease with which consumers have been able to remortgage houses and spend the money on improvements to their homes and other things. I do not expect a hard landing, but if the economy gradually slows down, the weakness in manufacturing compared with the rest of the economy will be even more important, and it is vital that the Government do their best to arrest that decline.
The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North talked about the structural trade deficit, about which the Engineering Employers Federation expressed concern

17WH
when I met its representatives recently. They said that the recent trade figures were pretty deplorable—the worst for 300 years, I believe. That is very worrying, as there has also been a big increase in the number of days lost to strikes and a fall in the European productivity league and the inward investment figures, which have been extremely good for the last 15 years.
There is obviously a limit to what the DTI and the Treasury teams can do to insulate this country from the global economy, but they have taken various initiatives, which the Opposition support. The Government cannot control the increasing trend of sourcing manufactured products in low-cost economies in the far east and elsewhere, and they cannot do anything about the companies who are looking in that direction, but there are positive steps that they can take.
The hon. and learned Gentleman played down the damage done by red tape, bureaucracy and other burdens on business, which organisations in industry and business have told me is what worries them most. Taken individually, many of those burdens are not show-stoppers or deal-breakers, but the accumulated burden is starting to have an impact. The Government inherited an extremely vibrant supply-side economy with a very flexible labour market, which was the envy of the rest of Europe. In a number of years, we have moved much closer to the American model and away from European rigidity and inflexibility. However, rather than supporting what was going on because more companies wanted to invest in Britain as the No. 1 location in Europe, and bringing its regulations and burdens down to the British level, Brussels wanted our regulations to be increased in line with those in other European nations.
One regulation—the agency workers directive—will be of pivotal importance in its potential to damage the economy, and it sums up the attitude of Brussels. To be fair to the Minister, he is doing his best to oppose the directive and I congratulate him on his efforts in that respect. I invite him to give us an update and to say when the matter will next be discussed by the Council of Ministers. He has not been helped by his MEPs, who voted for the directive. I do not blame him, as he was not a Minister when the Government decided that they would re-adopt the social chapter without any provision for flexibility or opt-outs from directives that were clearly going to damage the United Kingdom economy. The Government's hands are therefore tied to some extent.
The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North mentioned the Engineering Employers Federation, which is very concerned about the agency workers directive, as are the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, the CBI and many other organisations, including trade unions. When we talk of agency workers, people who are not conversant with that part of the market often think of gang labour in East Anglia—people who work on the land for very low wages and are exploited by ruthless agencies. That may be typical of a small part of the agency workers market, but the most important part of the sector is the often highly paid, highly motivated people who are comfortable with the flexibility and way of life. They may go from one job to another depending on the contracts that they can secure.
18WH
I have talked to several companies, including British Aerospace and IBM. Both those companies have a significant number of highly paid technicians whom various agencies have supplied. IBM made it clear to me that agency workers are an important part of its business, as they increase flexibility. Moreover, the agency workers do not want permanent contracts and the firm does not want to put them on to permanent contracts; nor are the trade unions agitating for them to do so. No one seems to be pushing in that direction except the Commission. It is extraordinary that several of our European counterparts do not understand how the UK labour market is different from their own. There are very few agencies in countries such as Denmark, Holland and Belgium, as they have few agency workers.
The directive will hit this country disproportionately. It will not suit anyone: not the agencies, employers or the employees. Confidential details about wages and other terms and conditions of employment will have to be made available to the agencies and agency workers, which will undermine confidence and the good working relationship between certain agency workers and the companies for which they have been working. There is no doubt that the directive will lead to a significant loss of jobs.
The directive will especially affect the interim management market, which is positively the top end of agency work. The interim management market is extremely vibrant. There are many retired chief executive officers, managing directors, people who may have lost their job as a finance director in their forties or fifties and others who may have retired early because they sold their business, who want to go on working and to put something back into business.
Those people can go to specialist agencies that can find them interim management positions, and take a temporary job in a "turnaround situation", or in a company where the key finance director or divisional manager is ill and the agency is providing a suitable replacement. The interim manager will then work for three, four, five or six months on a high salary. He does not want a permanent contract and the firm does not want to give him one. The directive could completely undermine this important sector, and it would be a disaster for British industry. I wish the Minister well in his attempts at least to water down that damaging directive, although we are not optimistic. It will be a grim day for British business if he fails.
To conclude, we support several of the Government's initiatives to help industry. I simply flag up some of the ones mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North. They secure all-party support. We also take a pretty favourable view of the Government's handling of the macro side of the economy. We know that their hands are often tied when it comes to regulating and controlling business, but we implore them to look at those areas where they are in the driving seat and where our domestic legislation gives them a significant say in what happens. We also urge them to fight as hard as they can for British business in Europe. We could be moving into far more turbulent times. There are parts of the global economy from which we will not be insulated and we must do our level best to help manufacturing and jobs in this country.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): The Minister, of course, may use all the available time.
10.45 am
The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): Thank you, Mr. O'Hara. I should like to say at the outset that I am genuinely pleased that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) has raised this issue. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, we have been over the ground several times, but this is a serious time for manufacturers, and it is right that we debate it as fully as we can. This has been a very constructive debate, and it has lacked the Punch and Judy atmosphere that these debates sometimes have. If we are going to help British manufacturers we must concentrate on resolving the problems, rather than indulging in synthetic indignation, which we are all too good at manufacturing here.
My hon. and learned Friend's four Dudley informers put their finger on the main issues. The Government feel that we inadvertently gave the wrong message during our first term. We care about manufacturing, but we gave the impression to manufacturers themselves that we regarded it as the industry of the 20th century, not the 21st. We have tried hard to address that problem over the last 12 to 18 months. Of course manufacturing is important. It represents 60 per cent. of our exports, a fifth of our GDP, 4 million jobs directly and millions more indirectly. Let us not get this out of context: manufacturing is 16 per cent. of GDP in the USA and 18 per cent. in France. In Germany it is 22 per cent., which is higher, although not much. We should not run away with the feeling that manufacturing in this country is collapsing as a percentage of our GDP while it is holding up in other industrial countries.
Manufacturing matters. When I talk to manufacturers, I am amazed at how much they value Ministers and Members of Parliament repeating that phrase. We have probably said it to the point of exhaustion. That message has got across. So what are we going to do about it? Just over a year ago in Birmingham we met all the major manufacturers, the trade associations, the regional development agencies and the trade unions. We tried to thrash out a practical strategy, not a pouch of fairy dust, for manufacturing. It was the first such strategy in this country for 30 years.
To a large degree, this is boring stuff. It will not make front-page news. It is hard slog rather than quick fix. Nevertheless, we have identified the issues on which we need to concentrate and where the Government have a role. This is not a command economy, and we are not returning to the days of bailing out lame ducks, as they used to be called in the early '70s. There are areas where the Government obviously have a role.
My hon. and learned Friend was quite right to point out major issues of skills and best practice. He mentioned the problems in management. Sometimes manufacturers and business people feel insulted, thinking that we are being derogatory; we are not. We are saying not that this country does not produce good people, but that we have not paid enough attention to managerial skills in the past. We assumed that when people became managers they would acquire the appropriate skills on the job, so the correct training was not provided.
That is an important part of Professor Porter's review, which examined competitiveness with particular focus on managerial skills. The Council for Excellence
20WH
in Management and Leadership said that 36 per cent. of managers are not fully proficient. The number of managers with NVQ-equivalent qualifications in managerial skills is tiny. We have not focused on the issue seriously enough and I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend highlighted it.
Regulation is another important issue. I am extraordinarily pleased that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) did not bang on about it. He banged on about the agency workers directive, and I will deal with that in a second. On regulation, the OECD said in its most recent report that we are in many ways a beacon. We set up the Better Regulation Task Force and other initiatives because we were concerned about the issue. As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is becoming a hero on our Benches, recently pointed out, the idea that all the problems of government relate to regulation is extraordinary. We should reflect carefully on where regulation is needed, weed out bad regulation and provide more sunset clauses so that it does not stay on the statute book any longer than necessary. The contribution of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North was extremely thoughtful.
In my remaining time, I shall attempt to respond to the contributions before reading the script. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) has long taken an interest in these matters and often plays a constructive role, sometimes behind the scenes, in assisting manufacturing industry in his constituency. He spoke about the importance of research and development, one of the seven strands of our manufacturing strategy, which is recognised by all major manufacturers and has been helped by the research and development tax credit.
My hon. Friend also referred to outsourcing, which needs to be tackled. With tariff barriers coming down and communications becoming much easier, the flow of companies into central Europe and other parts of the world is bound to happen. The move into central Europe is partly due to the efficient geographical location of countries such as Slovakia and the Czech Republic and partly to the low-wage, high-skill nature of the economies there. We cannot deal with those problems by pulling up the drawbridge and becoming a fortress UK economy.
My hon. Friend also mentioned textiles. No Government sat down with the textile industry and the trade unions to discuss problems in the sector until 1998, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), now the Secretary of State, set up the textiles industry forum. Similarly, in the whole history of this maritime nation, the Government had never sat down with the shipbuilding industry and its work force to discuss problems until the recent establishment of the shipbuilding and ship repair forum. Problems will not necessarily diminish as a result, but the opportunity to debate how best to deal with them is useful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South also mentioned the World Trade Organisation, which is an important issue, and Longbridge. It is right to note that we move on from problems and do not look back at them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) was Secretary of State when we were urged to feed Longbridge to the asset strippers, and he held out until a company prepared to keep it as a going

21WH
concern—Phoenix—moved in, saving thousands of jobs. Thanks to him, many people are still working, successfully producing cars at Longbridge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is right about the bucolic image of the Stroud valley. I was trying to think of a manufacturing version of "Cider with Rosie", but could not do so in the time available. I was pleased to hear what he said about the South West of England Regional Development Agency. Its recently retired chairman, Sir Michael Lickiss, was personally attacked in an Adjournment debate, which I thought was disgraceful, by two Members who turned out to know little about what the development agency was doing. My hon. Friend is right: the agency had to tackle the problems, including those in tourism, caused by foot and mouth disease, and the Eden project is a monument to the agency's interest and energy in the south-west. My hon. Friend also asked the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk to end his party's opposition to RDAs, and I will come to that in a second.
My hon. Friend made two less positive points. One was about state aid rules. Everywhere I go, I hear that the UK plays by the rules—it seems that people do not say "cricket" any more—whereas other countries bend the rules. I was in Denmark recently when its Government held the EU presidency, and the Danish are convinced that Denmark plays by the rules and every other country in the EU does not. Apart from the fact that it is a saloon bar discussion, we always ask manufacturers to give us one example of state aid rules being breached elsewhere so that we can pursue it, which we have done. This example has nothing to do with manufacturing, but Deutsche Post was found to have breached state aid rules recently and was fined heavily.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the banking system, and that issue is under review. We have set up regional venture capital funds to help, but I know that my hon. Friend's point was about banks' attitudes to failing companies. That goes a bit wider than manufacturing, but we are keen to work with other Departments to influence the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) cannot be here. I think that he has an exaggerated sense of my abilities. He asked me to speed up the Ministry of Defence, to ask the Liberal Democrats to be consistent, to encourage the Conservatives to have greater sympathy for renewables and not to appoint dry academics to positions in the regulator. That is all a bit beyond me, but I will try my best.
The hon. Member for Twickenham made several important points, in particular about the synergy between manufacturing and services. They are
22WH
interlinked, and that point needs to be made more often. For every manufacturing job, between one and four jobs are created in the service sector, depending on which analysis we use. The synergy argument is not raised enough.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about business support, which the DTI is evaluating. That is a difficult process, and I have nothing but admiration for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for many reasons, but especially because she is asking stakeholders what they think about the DTI. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to abolish the DTI, as I explained to my staff. I said, "If there's a Liberal Democrat Government, you're out of a job", and they were pleased to get that assurance of job security.
Nevertheless, we were brave in asking stakeholders what was wrong with the DTI. Again and again, they said that we have many good people doing lots of valuable work, but our business support system is too complex and much of the support that we offer is outdated. It may have been relevant in the mid-1970s, but not any more. We are examining that and looking to streamline the system into four or five portfolios, so that people understand where to go depending on which type of business support they want. We hope to announce at least the first tranche of change in the spring, although I realise that spring is loosely determined in political circles as any time between February and December.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the climate change levy, which is an important development for manufacturers. Announcements about that in the pre-Budget report will help, but the companies that are excluded from the integrated pollution prevention and control directive and cannot gain access to the 80 per cent. discount have a point. The Engineering Employers Federation produced a good document on that recently.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk spoke about the limit to what the DTI and the Treasury can do, although he placed too much emphasis on the agency workers directive. We are pleased and proud to have signed the social chapter. It was the right thing to do, and we should do nothing other than crow about workers in this country having basic, civilised standards. That is an important development. The point about not having opt-out from the directive is that we engage in debate. The directive is a problem: there should be a directive, but it should provide for a longer derogation period.
Finally, I urge the hon. Gentleman to talk to his party about its opposition to RDAs and its commitments to abolish the Small Business Service and to wipe out £300 million of business support. That would not help manufacturers.

Vibration White Finger
10.59 am
Liz Blackman: I was extremely pleased to secure this debate and had sought it for quite some time. The subject is vibration white finger. That term is commonly recognised, but the correct term is hand-arm vibration syndrome, or HAVS.
I shall concentrate on what I consider to be the out-of-date nature of the prescribed list, PD A11; the prevalence of HAVS in occupations outside the prescribed list; new developments in assessment procedures; the differences in practices between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Work and Pensions; aggregated disability; and, if I have time, health and safety practices.
The list of those in certain occupations and the use of certain related tools that creates entitlement to industrial injuries disablement benefit for HAVS was prescribed in 1985 and is very limited. It came about on the recommendation of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. The IIAC is an independent body that was set up to advise the DWP on matters relating to the industrial injuries scheme. It comprises representatives of the Confederation of British Industry and the TUC, and experts in occupational medicine and epidemiology. According to its website, the major part of its work is considering whether the list of prescribed diseases for which benefits should be given should be amended.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), in early-day motion 160 in 1993–94, expressed concern that the prescribed list did not embrace certain victims of the disease who had
"indisputably contracted it as a result of their work".
He went on to
"urge the extension of the list to include all occupations which cause vibration white finger to correct this anomaly".
In 1995, the IIAC produced a report on HAVS for Parliament that recommended changes.
In a letter to the then Secretary of State for Social Security—the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)—Professor Harrington, the then chair of the IIAC, made a number of pertinent points and recommendations, which I shall outline. Although the prescription covered vascular effects—blanching and numbness—it should also cover the well recognised neurological effects. At the 1986 Stockholm workshop held under the auspices of the International Commission on Occupational Health, conclusive evidence was presented that exposure to vibration causes neurological disturbances as well as blanching of the fingers. Science and medical knowledge of the condition had improved and should be reflected in the way in which the condition was covered in legislation.
The syndrome should be linked to a list of tools, or rigid material held against those tools, rather than to occupational exposures. That would recognise the fact that the use of a tool may not be confined to a particular industry. Current working practices make it more likely that a worker will be exposed to a range of tools than was previously the case, so identifying tools instead of occupations was a more realistic approach to prescription for this condition.
24WH
The IIAC recognised, however, that the administrative costs of the industrial injuries scheme could be increased, and a 14 per cent. disability threshold for payment of benefit might produce few additional payments. It also recognised that a small assessment of HAVS could be aggregated with another award to satisfy the 14 per cent. rule or to increase a current benefit payment for another industrial injury. The council pointed out, however, that recognition of the condition in the prescribed list and for the individual had important preventive implications for industry and employees.
On 31 January 1996, the Conservative Government rejected those recommendations in a written answer. They were
"not persuaded that the additional benefits to individuals would be sufficient to warrant the high administrative costs".
They were also concerned about
"the costs associated with developing a usable, repeatable and acceptable test for diagnosing the condition and assessing a person's disability."—[Official Report, 31 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 823W.]
Nevertheless, the Government were confident that the council would continue to monitor scientific advances and literature on the condition and developments in diagnostic and assessment techniques, and would give careful consideration to further advice from the council. It has been seven years since the council's report was published, and six years since the Government's response. I would like to know whether there have been any advances.
I wrote to the DWP last year on behalf of a constituent who had spent his working life in the upholstery industry and suffers from HAVS as well as bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, as evidenced by his consultant plastic and hand surgeon. I received the same response from the then Minister that I received in 1996. However, I think that further evidence, developments and contradictions have emerged since then, and I would like to draw them to the Minister's attention.
There is evidence that the prevalence of HAVS is significant in a greater number of occupations and tools than in the prescribed list. The Health and Safety Executive website presents detailed statistics on that. Additional areas affected include construction, manufacturing, agriculture and fishing, and people using industrial sewing machines, grinders and floor polishers.
A Medical Research Council survey commissioned by the HSE, and carried out in 1997–98, gave a national prevalence estimate of 301,000 sufferers from vibration white finger, of which 268,000 were male and 33,400 female. That survey indicated that many occupations outside the prescribed list were affected. Moreover, working practices have changed, particularly because of the development of the flexible job market. Many employees are therefore exposed to a variety of tools as they move from one job to another in related industries.
I became interested in the limitations of the prescribed list when I was contacted by a local union representative, who had been supporting another constituent of mine at a tribunal. There was no question but that the man concerned suffered from HAVS, caused by the vapour-blasting machine that he had used since 1976. Copies of the tribunal documents, which I

25WH
studied carefully, detailed engineers' reports, and the medical reports clearly showed that that was the case. However, the appeal had to be withdrawn because the machine was not a hand-held rotary tool, as required under PD A11. That constituent became part of a study carried out by Dr. Ian Lawson into nine sufferers from HAVS who had used high-pressure hoses alone or with other tools. His study was published in Occupational Medicine in September 2001. He concluded:
"In all cases this group presented with the disease when their use of high-pressure hoses became a significant or exclusive part of their job. These hoses fall outside PD A11."
The constituent whom I mentioned earlier who has HAVS has worked in the upholstery trade for 38 years, using a variety of compression tools: sanding tools, frame, staple and matting guns, and what he calls "the big gun" for putting in seat springs. When he first started work, the tools were bigger and heavier than they are today, although in one of his letters to me he writes, quite poignantly, that
"with today's tools you still get the thumping in your hands from the power."
Clinically, there is general agreement that HAVS may have at least two separate components, the vascular and the neurological. The internationally agreed Stockholm classification, which includes neurological effects, is now the most widely used method of grading the disease. It is known that vibration can also cause damage to nerves, and that 20 to 25 per cent. of those who have HAVS experience only those neurological effects—altered sensation in the fingers such as tingling and numbness. Compensation to workers thus affected is now available in many countries, but not in the United Kingdom through industrial injuries disablement benefit.
I will now discuss the mismatch between the DTI and the DWP in their approach to the disease. There is a clash of medical opinion supported by two different legal decisions. The DTI miners health compensation scheme has a judicial underpinning. Compensation is based on agreements between claimants and acting solicitors and extensive tests. In the DWP scheme, which is set out in legislation, the claimant has to show a link between the disease and occupation, loss of faculty and 14 per cent. disability. There is a reliance on medical reports and discussion.
The miners compensation scheme is functioning well. Sensory testing, which was flagged up as a reason for not accepting the 1995 report, is already carried out to determine entitlement to compensation under that scheme. The DWP awards IIDB for HAVS only if a person's occupational background fits within the prescribed list and they have episodic blanching and/or circulatory or vascular effects. There is no test under the DWP for the neurological component because the factor is not recognised. Miners getting compensation cannot get IIDB for all those reasons.
In any event, the DTI uses a different vascular test from that used by the DWP, which causes duplication. To complicate matters further, the social security commissioners report recommendation states that in assessing disablement the Benefits Agency must take account of neurological as well as vascular damage.
Less than 14 per cent. of claims are given an assessment of disablement. The recommendation on aggregation in the 1995 report by the Medical Research
26WH
Council still stands: it would make a difference to sufferers if compensation were aggregated with other industrial disease assessments or with existing industrial benefits. My constituent has carpal tunnel syndrome and has just had two operations. He received sick pay only when he was having his operations, and has to return to work on the same "thumping" machines, as he puts it.
I shall briefly touch on health and safety, which is the other side of the issue. In the study to which I have already referred, Dr. Lawson concludes that the ultimate goal for tool manufacturers, hygienists and engineers should be to reduce workplace vibration levels to meet national and international standards and guidelines, including HSE guidelines and EU directives. The HSE 1994 advisory booklet "Hand-Arm Vibration" recommends preventive measures where workers' exposure regularly exceeds the recommended level. To date, the proposals have not been adopted by regulation, which means that when inspectors investigate work sites with potential vibration problems they may only recommend specific corrective action.
The Medical Research Council's research working group is looking again at HAVS, and I gather that a further meeting is scheduled for next month. That work has been urged on by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), who is so active in this field. The working group is looking at using information on a sufferer's work history to back up diagnosis. We hope that it will recommend that the DWP adopt the DTI scheme tests as a low-cost way to deal with those who come into the miners compensation scheme, although that would not address those who are outside the scheme. In any event, it is looking at a functional test of neurological damage for which the DTI already has a test.
Will the Minister undertake to look again at the issue? In particular, will he look at the evidence of the wide number of tools and occupations in which HAVS is significant? Will he consider the issue of aggregated disability in the light of international practice, the mismatch between DWP and DTI practices and the health and safety issues? Above all, will he look carefully and sympathetically at the council's recommendations?
11.14 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. O'Hara. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) on securing the debate and on raising this important issue on behalf of her constituent. It is a wider constituency matter, too, and I acknowledge that Government Back Benchers have been interested in it for some while.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, our approach towards work and disability is focused on preventing injuries through health and safety action—she acknowledged the importance of prevention—and enabling people with health problems and disabilities to return to work through the help offered by Jobcentre Plus. However, the industrial injuries scheme, which dates back to the foundation of the post-war welfare state in 1948, is a vital part of the support that we offer to people who have become disabled as a result of an

27WH
accident at work or an industrial disease. That is a non-means-tested, tax-free, non-contributory benefit, payable even if the person continues in or returns to work. It is effectively a no-fault insurance scheme. In 2001–02, that benefit cost £775 million and there were 377,000 recipients.
Not everyone with vibration white finger, to use one description of the condition, has a prescribed disease for which industrial injuries disablement benefit is payable. Only the most severe forms of the condition are compensated through the industrial injuries scheme. In those cases, the condition is so advanced that it causes disablement in the sufferer, by comparison with someone else of the same age and sex. Hence the prescription of prescribed diseases A11 equates to a more advanced state of the disease.
As my hon. Friend rightly points out, PD A11 has been prescribed as an industrial disease in relation to specific occupations since 1985. As she acknowledged, the disease was reviewed by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council in 1994. It recommended that the list of prescribed occupational exposures should be replaced with a list of tools and rigid materials held against such tools. It also recommended changes in the way in which the disease is diagnosed and assessed for benefit purposes. Careful consideration was, of course, given to those recommendations, but the then Conservative Government were not persuaded that the additional benefit to individuals would be sufficient to warrant the high administrative costs of implementing the recommendations.
My hon. Friend asked why some people with the disease pass assessments carried out by the DTI but are not awarded benefit. That is because, in compensation claims, the degree of disablement does not have to be as severe as that required under the strict qualifying criteria laid down in the industrial injuries scheme. It is not possible, therefore, to compare the two schemes directly.
My hon. Friend noted the apparent disparity between the tests used by the DWP to determine entitlement to industrial injuries disablement benefit and those used by the DTI to diagnose and assess the disablement caused by vibration white finger. The fact is that there is no simple, reliable and universally accepted test for vibration white finger. Diagnostic procedures must be viewed in the context of the high volume of applications to the industrial injuries scheme. Claims need to be resolved speedily and consistently.
Jeff Ennis: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) on securing this important debate.
As I am sure the Minister is aware, my constituency has received the highest level of compensation for vibration white finger through the DTI in the country, because of its number of former miners. The difference between the approach of the two Departments causes difficulties. Miners go through two detailed and excruciating DTI medicals to qualify for compensation for VWF. When they go to see a doctor from the DWP,
28WH
the assessment is usually very quick. Few questions are asked and the person's hands are looked at very briefly. The miners have difficulty understanding why some of them get benefit and others do not. Some of the decisions seem to me to be wrong. Will the Minister comment on that?
Malcolm Wicks: I certainly acknowledge that having two schemes appears perplexing at first sight, not least to those who are directly affected and to hon. Members. However, the two schemes are not the same; otherwise, they would be one. One is about compensation; the other is about possible entitlement to a regular weekly benefit, regardless of whether one is in work. The nature of the schemes is different. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's role in raising the issue. As he said, it is important to his constituents, and I recognise his interest in and conviction about the matter.
Having said that, because concerned Members of all parties continue to raise the matter, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Work felt that it would be appropriate to ask the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to review it. It is the council's role to monitor developments in medical knowledge and improved diagnostic procedures, and to provide sound evidence-based recommendations to the Government. Medical knowledge has moved on and new industrial trends have appeared since the council last made recommendations. The council also advises on whether the extent of occupational cover needs revising in the light of changes to working practices.
The Government approached the council in March 2002 and asked it to carry out a review of prescribed disease A11. I understand that the council will meet on Thursday to discuss progress. Once we have seen its report, which we expect to be finalised this year, we shall consider what changes to the scheme would be appropriate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash raised the issue of employment activity, in which we are particularly interested. She may be aware that my Department is now the sponsoring Department for the Health and Safety Executive, which has published extensive guidance on hand-arm vibration syndrome. It has also mounted two campaigns on the hazards of vibration, most recently targeting the manufacturers of vibrating tools. My hon. Friend may be aware also of the vibration directive, which will further reinforce the HSE's action and set legal requirements for action at certain levels of exposure. That will come into force in 2005.
We continue to monitor and advise employers on good practice. We believe that we have the good will and support of industry—those who make the tools and those who use them.
My hon. Friend also touched on aggregated disability. Although the majority of assessments for vibration white finger are under the threshold of 14 per cent., as she said, benefits can be awarded if the disabled person has an assessment or assessments for other accidents or diseases and the aggregate amounts to 14 per cent. or more. I hope that that is some comfort to her.

29WH
I appreciate that it is difficult at first sight to understand the logic of two schemes, and I understand the difficulty that hon. Members have in communicating it to their constituents.
Liz Blackman: Before the Minister sits down—
Malcolm Wicks: I am not about to sit down. Let me finish, as I am enjoying the debate.
The schemes apparently assess the same disease. However, as I said earlier, they have somewhat different purposes. I hope that that helps to explain the logic of having two schemes.
Liz Blackman: Does the DWP accept in principle that the disease causes neurological effects? At present, the scheme does not. Will the Minister look favourably on reviewing the situation if and when the council decides on the functional tests of neurological damages, which it is now considering?
One problem is that the DTI and the DWP define the disease differently. The DWP must accept that there are neurological implications, as has been recognised internationally.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. This is becoming a very long intervention.
Liz Blackman: I beg your pardon, Mr. O'Hara. I believe that the Minister gets my point.
Malcolm Wicks: I am advised that neurological effects are taken into account because of case law. However, if I feel that it would be useful to write to my hon. Friend on this or other points that she raised, I will do so.
Although the council will monitor the debate, I give the assurance that I shall send it a copy of the Hansard record so that it can take fully into account the issues raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash and for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis).
I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash for raising an issue of great importance to her constituents and to others, and by assuring her that the council's report, which is expected later this year, will be taken very seriously by the Government.
11.26 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Brain Injury Rehabilitation Services
2 pm
Bob Russell: First, I must thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who originally secured this 90-minute slot for a debate, but had to give it up because it clashed with other business in the House that required his presence. There is some justice in his misfortune, for such a clash would not have occurred under the previous sitting arrangements, which he campaigned to change. Next I must thank whoever it was in the Speaker's Office who drew my name to fill the vacated space. That was appreciated not only by me but by the all-party acquired brain injuries group, which I have the honour of chairing.
The group takes the view that more needs to be done to improve brain injury rehabilitation services not only in the interests of the individuals who have suffered brain injuries through accidents at home, at work or at play, in road crashes or owing to medical causes, but in the interests of those who care for them, be they NHS workers, other health providers, the voluntary and charitable sector or families.
I should like to offer my personal appreciation as well as that of the all-party group to each and every person and organisation who individually and collectively seeks to improve matters for brain injury victims. In particular, I mention Headway, the leading UK charity dedicated to providing help, support and services to people affected by brain injury. It also gives much-needed support to families and carers. There are more than 100 Headway groups around the UK. My thanks also go to the United Kingdom Acquired Brain Injury Forum for its valuable contribution, to Rehab UK whose aim is to enhance the social and economic independence of people with disabilities, and to the Brain Injury Rehabilitation Trust, which is a division of the Disabilities Trust.
The seriousness of today's debate stems from the stark fact that every year around 1 million people attend accident and emergency departments with some form of traumatic brain injury. It is estimated that for every 100,000 of the population as many as 15 will receive a serious head injury, up to 20 a moderate head injury and up to 300 a mild head injury. It is estimated that about 120,000 people in the UK live with the long-term effects of a severe traumatic brain injury.
I should declare my personal interest in the general subject of brain injuries. This coming July marks the 25th anniversary of the death of my first daughter. She died as a result of head injuries that she sustained when she fell from wall bars during a gym lesson at school. She was seven years old. Regrettably, despite the efforts of her teacher, who had recently qualified as a first aider, the ambulance personnel and medical teams at Essex County hospital and Oldchurch hospital, Romford, she did not survive. I dread to think what her condition would have been if she had lived. It was my daughter Joanne's tragedy that caused my wife and me to do what we could to help survivors.
We know that medical science has made advances over the past 25 years. More people appear to be surviving as a result of better and earlier diagnosis and the improved treatment that follows. However, that has

31WH
not been matched by advances in rehabilitation—something that the Health Committee set out in its excellent report on the subject in March 2001. It is most regrettable that progress on the Select Committee recommendations has not materialised. I hope that today's debate will contribute towards ensuring that the improvements, which are both necessary and obtainable, can be provided.
I recognise that better rehabilitation services for those with brain injuries will cost money, but greater investment from the outset will cost the public purse less in the long run, which I assume appeals to the Treasury. In addition, of course, it will greatly improve the quality of life of those who have suffered brain injury and their families, who so often have their own lives torn apart by what has happened to their loved one. Perhaps the Minister will give an assurance this afternoon that all the Health Committee's recommendations will be put into action. Those with brain injuries and all who are associated with them would welcome such a declaration.
Headway has told me that the Select Committee's report entitled "Head Injury: Rehabilitation" is a seminal document. Its recommendations define an ideal brain injury service. However, Mr. Graham Nickson, Headway's policy and campaigns manager, told me:
"Whilst there were elements in the Government response (Command Paper 5226) which Headway welcomed, overall we were very disappointed at what we felt was a complacent approach.
Given that it is nearly two years since the publication of the report, Headway feels that it would be an opportune moment to ask what progress has been made in meeting the standards recommended by the Health Select Committee."
Let us hope that there will be real progress. I know that other hon. Members hope to participate in the debate. No doubt they will discuss some of the Committee's recommendations.
I am grateful to Professor Lindsay McLellan, Professor of Rehabilitation Medicine at Southampton university and chairman of the UK Acquired Brain Injury Forum, for his professional thoughts. He tells me that unless the management structures of the national health service are reformed at the same time as the national service framework is developed, any new resources for meeting NSF standards may be spent in areas other than rehabilitation. The Government already face that issue in respect of the money that they have provided for cancer care services. Professor McLellan suggests that a senior manager in each NHS trust be given responsibility for brain injury rehabilitation services, thus ensuring that the budget is spent correctly and progress is made.
I am sure that the Minister will readily confirm that the NSF will lay down what her Department believes that health and social care services in England need to do for those who have brain injuries. Unfortunately, when it comes to rehabilitation, it is clear that insufficient is being done to honour the spirit and letter of the NSF.
There are no pharmacological treatments for brain injury, which is the poor relation in medical research, even though each year, as I have already pointed out, some 1 million people in this country will seek treatment
32WH
for a head injury. Road crashes are the biggest cause of injury. I am sure that everyone will welcome the moves that are being made across the board to reduce the number of road accidents so that there is less pressure on health services. However, this debate is about people who already have head injuries.
The Health Committee reported:
"Head injury is the foremost cause of death and disability in young people. In an age of increased motorisation and violence, head injury is a healthcare problem which is not going to go away. There is a growing population of head-injured people in this country, as improved medical techniques have led to many head-injured people now surviving their accident and living into old age, with a normal life expectancy."
The majority of brain injuries—40 to 50 per cent. of all cases—are sustained by young men aged between the ages of 15 and 29 who are involved in road crashes. Accidents at work and in the home account for 20 to 30 per cent., sports-related injuries 10 to 15 per cent., and violent assaults about 10 per cent. of brain injuries. Men are two to three times more likely to sustain a head injury than women.
Despite the widespread prevalence of brain injury, services to help and support the victims are woefully inadequate. The brain, with its 1 million million nerve cells, can be injured by illness, a physical blow to the head or internal neurological malfunction. Brain injuries can affect young and old, rich and poor, men and women and people from all cultures and ethnic backgrounds.
Greater importance must be attached to rehabilitation. Intensive rehabilitation must immediately follow acute care, which could last several weeks or many months. That should be followed by long-term rehabilitation. Given the importance of rehabilitation following brain injury, have the Government given serious consideration to the Health Committee's recommendation xix, which called for each NHS trust to identify a named manager with responsibility for rehabilitation services?
I would also draw the Minister's attention to recommendation xxi, which states:
"We recommend that the Department of Health should help charitable organisations, where they are providing core services, to develop these services further."
I very much regret that the inadequate funding for rehabilitation is likely to get worse if the example of my local branch of Headway is typical. Many Headway groups are struggling financially just to survive, although they are providing a vital service for those with brain injuries and saving the state a fortune. Such groups need more resources, not fewer.
Colchester Headway has been led to believe that the Colchester primary care trust will not be renewing its annual grant. A shortfall of £15,000 in the current financial year has not been paid. It gets even worse for the financial year due to start in April. The ongoing grant, which would be about £56,000, is in doubt.
Colchester Headway says:
"Should Colchester PCT decide to withdraw its support from Headway the repercussions will be immediate and very distressing for the people with brain injury and the families from the Colchester area who currently attend the day centre and receive our general support. The knock-on effect of this withdrawal, at a time when the world believes money is pouring into the Health Service, would not only be difficult for the public to understand, but would probably affect the viability of our organisation."

33WH
Will the Minister explain why money for rehabilitation for those with head injuries is being reduced? Perhaps my example is purely localised, and more financial support is being provided elsewhere. Either way, intervention by her in this funding crisis would be appreciated. Will the Minister point out to her Treasury colleagues the overall saving that will accrue to the public purse if proper resources are put into rehabilitation? Continuing the theme of joined-up government, I suggest that she involves the Department for Work and Pensions, from which I detect mixed messages.
Mr. Russell Brown: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I hear what he is saying about Headway, which works so well in my locality. However, vocational rehabilitation can also be important to people who are making even greater recoveries from their injuries nowadays.
Bob Russell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that welcome comment, which I fully endorse.
Is the Minister aware of the views of Lord Morris of Manchester, the much-respected former Minister who did so much to help those with disabilities? In November, he attacked cuts in services to disabled people with acquired brain injuries, which are forcing the closure of centres specifically designed to help them. What is her response to that?
Rehab UK estimates that, for an average investment of £15,000, their 48-hour-a-week vocational rehabilitation programme saves the benefits system £300,000 over the lifetime of a person. The Brain Injury Rehabilitation Trust estimates that lifetime savings are in the range of £400,000 to £1 million per person, depending on the severity of the injury and the person's life expectancy. Those are huge savings for relatively little outlay.
The financial benefits are one thing. Of even greater importance is the improvement to quality of life for those with brain injuries and those who care for them.
2.14 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter: I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on securing the debate. I do so with some degree of jealousy, as I have been applying for a debate on this subject whenever my diary has permitted me since October 2001. I did not have an Adjournment debate in the House for the whole of last year. I wanted to initiate a debate not because I have been personally touched by a tragedy such as the one so movingly described by the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he has our condolences—but because, as is often the case for Members of Parliament, people had come to my surgery in great distress about people who had received severe head injuries that were virtually, but not completely, terminal. They are people with very high dependency.
To give hon. Members the flavour of what I am talking about, I will mention the case of a young girl who was badly injured in a car accident. She was unable to speak, and her mother was in real distress. The young girl was placed in a home that had the duty to look after her. The subject of the debate that I wanted to secure was the role of family and friends in the care of those
34WH
with severe head injuries. I hope that the Minister agrees that it is vital that family and friends are given a much clearer role in the care of such people.
In the case in question, the mother alleged that the home was not treating her daughter in the way that had been intended. Specifically, her mother said that the state was giving the home resources for physiotherapy that were not being applied to her daughter's physiotherapeutic needs. One tremendously important aspect of the debate is that the patients have no voice. They literally cannot talk or sign, and if they are in distress, the only voice that they have is that of those who are either good friends or family—the voices of those who love and cherish them.
The mother asked to see the physiotherapy that was being given, not least because she was more sensitive to her daughter's distress than someone who was new to her daughter's needs and forms of communication. She was denied that access and told effectively that she would be in the way; that the treatment was medical and would be carried out in a way that would not require her presence. The mother put a tissue in the wheelchair behind her daughter's back and one under her arm. Her daughter came back from an hour's "physiotherapy", and the two tissues were still there. That, of course, is an allegation and there may be a problem with a particular home. Indeed, extensive inquiries are being conducted into the home.
However, it is important that we do not focus on one home and say that it failed this young girl and did not respect her mother or family and friends. I submitted an extensive dossier to the Department of Health in October 2001 on that and related cases. In all of them the role of family and friends was marginalised, and patients were denied a voice. For example, if a family visiting a patient in room A went into room B to find out how another patient was doing and ask how their family were coping with the stress and pain of someone they loved being in such a sad state, they were told that they were a source of infection and were not allowed in room B. Fraternising between relatives was discouraged.
I understand that it is extremely difficult for the carers of people in a dreadful state to cope with the distress of the family. Some people do not have families to represent them; the only person who visits them may be someone who serendipitously calls into their room on their way to visit a relative or friend. However, unless there is a regime that integrates into their care those who have love and concern for them, patients' quality of life is even further reduced and family and friends are denied the capacity to endure the pain of the patient's suffering constructively.
This issue arose in the House yesterday and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), spoke eloquently on the matter. People have made representations to her about the over-medicalisation of thinking about people's needs. We must allow those with brain injuries to be given an effective voice, and allow those who take on that role to contribute to their care. It should be absolutely clear that to marginalise that voice and prevent people from receiving visits is a major infringement of human rights.
When it comes to the crunch, looking after those with severe brain injuries is not like "Footballers' Wives"—I have to confess that I have followed that programme

35WH
rather avidly. The football manager in that programme who was in intensive care had someone looking after him all the time. In reality, one does not expect such levels of care to be available. People who have severe brain injuries have problems, such as the fact that they are incontinent of faeces, which makes caring for them extremely difficult. It does not come over on television, but patients can suffer grave indignity in a situation that may generate infection unless there are people around who can act as their eyes and ears and attend properly to them, which is something that family and friends often do. They must be able to say that they believe that someone is in distress, and there must be someone to pay attention to that instead of telling them, "It's not your business. You shouldn't have been there anyway. We're the professionals and we know best."
We must find a way of factoring in a role for family and friends, and extend it so that the family can care for their relative at home if they have visited them in a nursing home for some time and believe that they could be better looked after, loved and more constantly attended to there. It is right that we do everything that we can to extend to those people the Government's current policies on looking after people at home.
Brain injury victims are not just patients. Most of the families have some form of communication with them, and a sense of whether or not they are comfortable, and whether they are at peace or in distress. The expertise of family and friends and their potential for caring are the most important considerations of the debate. It might mean that someone dies when they might otherwise have lived. I do not know, but I would prefer to die having been loved than to live a long time in a state of distress.
2.26 pm
Mr. John Hayes: Like the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), I have long taken an interest in the subject of brain injury. I am a founder member of the all-party group on brain injury; the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who secured the debate, is now chairman of that group, on which I congratulate him. I am also co-chairman of the all-party group on disability. Most significantly, I might be alone among those contributing to today's debate in having had the misfortune to suffer a serious head injury, from which, fortunately, I made a good recovery. I will go into the reasons for that later. My interest in the subject is therefore profound and of long standing.
I intend to highlight three of the key issues that we should address in the short time available to us today, and I hope that the Government will take them up. Before I do so, it might be worth emphasising some of the background information without, I hope, replicating what has already been said. I can do no better than to quote from the Health Committee's 2001 report, to which hon. Members have referred. The report states:
"Head injury is the foremost cause of death and disability in young people. In an age of increased motorisation and violence, head injury is a healthcare problem which is not going to go away. There is a growing population of head-injured people in this country, as improved medical techniques have led to many head-injured people now surviving their accident and living into old age, with a normal life expectancy."
36WH
That observation raises several points, the first of which is that head injury is a significant and growing problem, especially among some sections of the population such as young men, who are more at risk from head injury than any other group.
The second point is that the problem is under-recognised. Head injury is not the most glamorous of issues. Headway does a fine and important job, but it is not a charity that springs to the minds of those who are not interested in the subject when they list the charities that they know best. That may be because the wider population does not find some of the images associated with head injury comfortable. It is not a glamorous or sexy subject for many people until they come up against it because they, a member of their family, or someone they know happens to suffer head injury, and they are forced to deal with the realities associated with it.
The third point made by the Health Committee is that the problem is becoming more serious because of the impact on the need for ongoing rehabilitative provision of people living longer. In the past, a significant proportion of people suffering major head injuries might not have survived the initial trauma, but that is no longer the case and effective treatment at the traumatic stage often confers a normal life expectancy.
It is important to set out the terms of the debate and to clarify for those less familiar with the subject how brain injuries are classified. Brain injuries are usually divided into three categories—mild, moderate or severe—and the ongoing effects of the injury are often a result of the speed at which treatment is provided. If people receive the good-quality medical treatment that they need quickly, leaving them unconscious for a shorter time, they are likely to make a better recovery. If the loss of consciousness and responsiveness continues much longer, it is more likely to result in long-term effects.
What are the effects of head injury? They are many and varied—and can be invisible. Many of the impacts cannot be recognised at first sight. They include short-term memory loss, concentration and sensory problems such as loss of taste and smell, lack of motivation, inappropriate behaviour, dramatic mood swings, changes in personality, emotional instability, problems with comprehension, loss of organisational and planning skills as well as physical problems such as lack of balance and co-ordination. Many of those symptoms would not necessarily be apparent on meeting a head-injured person. They are not always apparent even to carers or colleagues at work—certainly not employers—if head-injured patients return to their old jobs.
Suffering from several conditions but showing no obvious physical sign of injury poses massive difficulties to the person concerned. The invisibility of their disabilities often prevents them from gaining the consideration or treatment that they warrant and deserve.
Mr. McWalter rose—
Mr. Hayes: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot hope to match his comprehensive knowledge of popular culture, so I hope that he will not challenge me on that.
Mr. McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the people who know the injured best are the family, and that giving the family's representations more credence might go some way towards dealing with the problem?
Mr. Hayes: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I intend to amplify that point. The family often has to pick up the pieces, and it is vital to ensure that family members are well informed and able to anticipate what they will have to deal with. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his informed and heartfelt contribution to the debate.
Let me summarise three main points. First, the Government must recognise head injury or brain injury—the subject of today's debate, which amounts to the more traumatic effects of head injury resulting from a blow or knock to the head—as a distinct condition. We have already mentioned car accidents and other injuries, and I suffered head injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident, but, if you will allow me an aside, Mr. Benton, I well remember meeting in hospital a postman who had suffered a similar injury, but with much worse effects, from slipping on the ice and banging his head on the pavement. The risks of head injury are many and varied and the extent of the resulting damage does not necessarily reflect the drama of the incident that caused the injury. I hope that the chap involved in that accident made a good recovery, but the journey for him and his family was long and difficult.
Recognition of brain injury as a distinct condition means applying the appropriate services. In that respect, it is important to highlight an earlier point: the sooner someone is treated appropriately, the better is their chance of recovery. There is a useful comment on precisely that subject in the Health Committee's report, which states:
"We recommend that Health Improvement Plans and Community Care Plans have a section for planning services which will include the rehabilitative services needed by those with complex neurological conditions such as head injury. We recommend that the Government makes explicit the level at which responsibility for planning different levels of rehabilitation for head injury should be located…We recommend that the Government spells out clearly what steps it will take to improve the situation in the provision of rehabilitation services for head-injured people, and that it instigates plans for action which will come into place long before 2005."
The report is about making initial treatment speedy and appropriate, while ensuring that it is matched by the rehabilitative treatment that needs to follow—a point that the Select Committee was anxious to emphasise. Recognition of brain injury as a distinct condition is a prerequisite for ensuring that we get all our ducks in a row for both initial treatment and rehabilitation.
My second point concerns the co-ordination of services between different agencies. Addressing brain injury is often a multi-agency task. We have already heard about health services, but many other organisations such as the Department for Work and Pensions, social services, local authorities, the charitable sector, the private sector and a range of other central and local government departments have a role, particularly in the rehabilitative aspects of the problems.
Frankly, the level of communication at the moment ranges from poor to very poor. It is not good enough to say that we are getting there and making the right moves. We need to put in place some dramatic measures on exchanging information and communication between agencies, and we need to be able to give head-injured people and their families a guarantee that there will not be duplication or contradiction in the
38WH
information with which they are provided and the type of treatment that they receive. Up and down the country, the picture is patchy, as I am sure the Minister knows, and those involved with head injuries will confirm that view.
My third point brings me back to the intervention by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead. We need to work in a more thorough way on the provision of information, and the understanding and comprehension of the problems associated with head injury. That applies first to the people affected and their carers, which is the hon. Gentleman's point. Those dealing with someone who is head injured face extraordinary challenges, not least possible changes in personality—the head-injured person may become like someone one does not know.
The wife of a head-injured man told me that her husband's memory of their life together had virtually been extinguished, although he could remember his childhood, his family and various other things. In cognitive terms, he could have passed many of the tests that might reasonably have been set for him, but his memory of their life together was almost a blank. Imagine the impact that such memory loss has on any relationship, be it between husband and wife, mother and child, or siblings. Head injury is extraordinarily dramatic for not only the person concerned, but their loved ones. If we are going to give people the support they need to help them to play their part in the recovery of the head injured, we need to let them know the issues with which they may have to deal and to cope. Greater information for carers who are immediately affected is fundamental.
The second challenge is to make information available to the wider public. At the beginning of my contribution, I said that head injury is a forgotten—one might even call it hidden—disability. We have to be much more ambitious in our plans for making the wider public aware of the problem. I know that many of those responsibilities will fall to charities and pressure groups involved in the sector. They do a very good job, and I pay tribute to Headway, which the hon. Member for Colchester mentioned. The organisation does so much good work, not only through Headway Houses in its direct caring role, but through its advocacy role of making people aware of its concerns and advancing its cause. Having said that, Headway needs help. It must work in partnership with Government if head injuries are to become the subject of general knowledge, understanding and concern.
I shall not take much more time, because other hon. Members want to contribute and I know that the Minister wants to reply paying full attention to all the points raised and, no doubt, making many new announcements of what the Government are going to do to address these pressing issues. The hon. Member for Colchester—I almost called him my hon. Friend, but I would never want to apply that description to any Liberal Democrat—mentioned the Government's response to the Health Committee report. His description was very polite, but I will be less so. I think that the Government's response so far ranges from inadequate to pitiful.
I say that not for my own or for party-political purposes, but because it is what most people involved with head injuries say. Most people involved in the

39WH
sector are unhappy with the speed and quality of the Government response. There is room for improvement and I live in hope—although not expectation—that things will improve. It would be less than generous not to expect the Minister, who is diligent and responsible and takes such matters seriously, to listen to today's comments. I hope that she will respond immediately and then in a more considered way, so that we can make progress in this vital field.
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order. Before I call the next speaker, can I remind hon. Members that this debate lasts for only an hour and a half? On such an important subject, I want to ensure that the Opposition spokesman and the Minister have adequate time to reply. I do not want to impose time limits, but I remind hon. Members to keep their remarks as brief as possible. It is important that everybody has the opportunity to speak.
2.42 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I shall be brief, because I want to ensure that other colleagues have a chance to contribute. I should like to address three issues on which I hope the Minister can give some answers. I come to the debate with an interest in neurology, which I have developed in this House during the past five or six years, and as the vice-chair of the all-party group on disability. I have also been prompted by constituents who suffer from brain injuries.
My first point is on data and the adequacy of the epidemiological research conducted in this country to enable the Department of Health and national health service organisations properly to understand the scale and scope of the challenge. According to the Health Committee's report, the most up-to-date data are more than 10 years old. The Minister who gave evidence to the Committee accepted that there were real difficulties with the figures, with data collection and with the diagnosis of head injuries.
The second recommendation of the Health Committee's report urged the Government to address that serious deficiency in their ability properly to put in place services that match need. Without accurate figures, how can the NHS plan services that meet the real needs of people who have suffered traumatic brain injury and subsequent disability? Back in June 2001, the BMA was prompted to suggest a system of health and injury surveillance in this country and internationally. It said that
"the systematic collection, analysis, interpretation and timely dissemination of health care data"
would play a vital part in
"the planning, implementation and evaluation of public health programmes."
I hope that the Minister can tell us whether such a surveillance system is in Ministers' minds and whether it will become a practical, working reality any time soon.
The second, and related, issue concerns the national service framework, which was announced by the Secretary of State in February 2001. The NSF is meant to address long-term medical conditions. During the Health Committee's deliberations, the then Minister for
40WH
Public Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said that the NSF may be used
"to assess the data currently collected, and to look at what improvements might be made or what research might be needed."
I hope that the Minister can tell us that the early work that is being undertaken in relation to the NSF includes ensuring that the basic evidence base on which services are to be built has been properly established and is robust. There is some question about whether that is currently the case.
Subsequent to the NSF, there was the scoping study in November 2001. I acknowledge that that study, which was published on the internet, identified a need for epidemiological research and a disability needs analysis. That was more than a year ago. Will the Minister tell us whether the work has been commissioned and is in the pipeline?
The NSF is a welcome initiative, but many are concerned about it because, in a way, the current system has successes, saving seven in 10 of those who suffer brain injuries. However, it leaves them in limbo, because it does not adequately provide for their long-term care, support and rehabilitation. We save people's lives, but we do not allow them to go on and live those lives. The NSF faces the challenge of enabling people to live their lives after such a traumatic experience.
In 1996, the social services inspectorate carried out an interesting piece of work that considered the work being done in the national health service. It found that one of the major gaps in service provision was long-term rehabilitation. That remains true. Will the Minister tell us how far the Government have got in implementing the recommendations of the Health Committee and the social services inspectorate on improving services?
The last of my three points relates to specialist commissioning, which is an important part of the overall picture of the provisions of services for people with brain injuries. There are relatively few severely brain-injured people in each primary care trust area, so proper provision of rehabilitation requires co-ordination across several primary care trusts. That raises questions about the arrangements for specialist commissioning. Before Christmas, I tabled several written questions on that subject. I have had one or two answers to those questions, but several still await a reply.
I asked the Secretary of State:
"what the process and timetable is for completion of the review into commissioning specialised services;"—
which include neuroscience and neurosurgery—and
"how the views of patients will be taken into account, and when he will announce the outcome."
I was told:
"A summary of the responses will be placed in the Library in December and guidance will be issued in the new year."—[Official Report, 25 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 144W.]
I checked with Library staff today and they confirmed that the responses to the consultation have not yet been put in the Library. Will the Minister tell us what the process is, what the timetable is, and when we will get clear announcements about how we intend to safeguard services that will need to be commissioned by a number

41WH
of PCTs in the near future? Several patient organisations are concerned that there is a degree of uncertainty about the commissioning of those services.
I end by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on securing this important debate, which is not just about medical care, but about building in the rights, roles and concerns of carers and ensuring that we reflect the needs of patients, who should be treated first and foremost as people.
2.49 pm
Siobhain McDonagh: I shall be as brief as possible. I hope that hon. Members will excuse me if I am not as fluent as I can be, but I shall be chucking out parts of my speech as I go because I realise how important it is that hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on securing the debate and I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Select Committee on Health. I was a member of the same Committee in the last Parliament. The Committee produced a report on head injuries that contained 28 well scrutinised and practical recommendations, which would have moved brain injury care and rehabilitation into the 21st century and ensured that the type of NHS services that brain injury sufferers and their families have a right to expect were provided. Sadly, judging by the Department of Health's response to that report and by conversations that I have had with Peter McCabe, who is the chief executive of Headway, the Brain Injury Association, as well as my constituent and friend, it appears that the DOH does not yet give brain injury the focus that it deserves.
The brain is the most precious part of the human body. It consists of highly specialised tissue and is far more complex than the 21st century's supercomputers. Due to that awe-inspiring complexity, even the slightest damage can have extreme consequences. The brain can be damaged in a variety of ways, and depending on the areas damaged and the severity of the damage, it can prove to be anything from relatively harmless to fatal.
As has been said, each year about 1 million people attend hospital as a result of head injury. Having been concussed after a motorbike accident as a teenager and cared for at St. George's hospital in Tooting, I have been one of those people, although I do not wish to overplay my injuries. Many other hon. Members have talked about injuries that members of their family or they themselves have suffered. Some people might say that I have needed my head examining ever since the accident, but I got off lightly. My life could have been different, and I might not have been standing here today. Happily, I am. Sadly, many are not so lucky and are left to pick up whatever pieces they can while coping with severe, ongoing problems.
On average, every year in constituencies such as mine, between 15 and 20 people suffer a severe head injury, 23 to 30 suffer a moderate head injury, and between 375 and 450 sustain a mild injury. Most people recover and return to their normal state or something close to it, but a number of individuals and families have to live with the consequences for a long time.
Brain damage can have various causes, be they genetic, a blow to the head, a blood shortage, a blood clot or cancerous tumours. However, the most common
42WH
reason, which applies in 58 per cent. of cases, is a road traffic accident, as in my case. Other categories include accidents at home and at work, sporting and recreational injuries, and assaults, which include gun crime and domestic violence. There is also the deplorable violence against children, as in shaken baby syndrome.
The more severe the injury, the worse the damage to the brain and the longer it takes to recover, which is why rehabilitation services are vital. Even a minor head injury can leave someone with dizziness, memory problems, poor concentration, tiredness or depression. The vast majority of people recover in a few weeks or months, as I did, but it is important to give people time to recover and not to expect them to cope instantly with demanding situations or to accuse them of malingering.
Thousands of brain injury victims face the difficulty of getting back to work or finding new work. In 1998, it was estimated that 60 per cent. of people with brain injuries had failed to find work after discharge from hospital. It is estimated that nine out of 10 people with brain injuries suffer psychological difficulties. Three quarters have some intellectual impairment, and 44 per cent. have lasting pain and headaches. The cost to the taxpayer is estimated to be £266 million a year, and in cases of severe and lasting difficulty, the cost will mount to many times that in coming years. Emotional and behavioural problems are the most difficult for individuals and their families to cope with.
The Government announced in early 2001 that they would develop a national service framework for long-term medical conditions with a neurological focus, including brain and spinal injury. They later announced, in June 2002, that brain injury would have its own chapter. The NSF is due to be published in 2004 for implementation in 2005. I welcome the Government's intention to set up national standards for long-term conditions such as brain injury. As a Member of Parliament, I am acutely aware of the length of time that it takes to produce NSFs. The recent one on diabetes is a prime example, causing frustration to interest groups and disappointment when it was eventually published.
I am sure that the hope of the groups and individuals who are concerned about brain injury is that, with the NSF in place, there should be an improvement in the quality of services for people surviving a brain injury and in the support offered to their carers. If that is not the case, I hope that the Commission for Health Improvement will enforce the standards set out in the NSF. The net result would be that sufferers and their supporters knew more about the models that the local health and social care providers should follow and the standards that they should achieve. They would have a new reassurance.
I am concerned that the planning process to establish any health or social care services must be based on robust data to ensure that decisions regarding the shape of the service, the likely level of demand, staff training needs, capital investment and all other relevant factors are based on reality, not impression. The epidemiological data that describe the number of people who have sustained a traumatic brain injury, often quoted by the Department of Health, are based on research work carried out in 1991 by McMillan and Greenwood.

43WH
Last October, with Peter McCabe of Headway, I met the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), to discuss the Government's response to the Health Committee inquiry into rehabilitation services following a head injury. I draw the Minister's attention to the Select Committee's second recommendation:
"We recommend that the DoH finds ways of improving the methods of data collection on incidence, prevalence and severity of head injury and subsequent disability, as a matter of urgency."
If the Government are still using that data, will the Minister indicate whether they will look favourably on bids for funding for such research?
When considering research proposals, it is necessary to learn the lessons of the Warwick study, which was commissioned by the Department of Health to examine the effectiveness of rehabilitation and used as a basis of good practice to the NHS. When the Department of Health gave evidence to the Health Committee, it accepted that there were problems with the Warwick study and undertook that if another were created, it would be designed differently. That is welcome, as the Warwick study was used as evidence that rehabilitation does not work, and I hope that the Minister agrees that any future research needs to collect data in a systematic way that is consistent and reliable and allows comparison.
2.57 pm
Dr. Doug Naysmith: I understand that if we are brief and confine our remarks to three minutes, all Members will be able to take part in the debate, so I will rattle through my speech.
I want first to congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on securing the debate. He is a first-class officer of our all-party group on brain injury, and today's debate emphasises that. I want also to pay tribute to the Headway group in Bristol and Mrs. Rita Rees in particular for their pioneering work, which began many years ago and continues still.
I want to draw attention in a slightly different way to an aspect of today's subject: the clear requirement for more research, which has already been partially covered in the remarks of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). The excellent Health Committee report of 2001, which has been much mentioned in the debate. drew attention to that in two of its recommendations. That is not self-praise, as although I am now a member of the Committee, I was not on it when it produced the report, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh).
The Committee's recommendation ii asked the Department of Health as a matter of urgency to find new ways of improving methods of data collection on the incidence, prevalence and severity of head injury. The Committee wanted that information to be more readily available, mostly in the context of better treatment planning, and that, I think, is what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam was emphasising. However, the epidemiology of traumatic head injury is important too, and there is an underlying need for better information to be more readily available.
44WH
It has already been pointed out that much of the information that is currently used is up to 10 years old and based on research done for the Department in 1991. I know that in their response to the Health Committee report the Government have accepted that there are problems with the data, but I am not aware that much has been done to improve the situation, as a few Members have pointed out.
In the context of epidemiology, it is important that brain injury can be easily and robustly identified, particularly following traumatic situations such as car accidents when brain injury may go unnoticed and undiagnosed because of other multiple physical injuries. That can result in patients being placed inappropriately, for example, on orthopaedic wards where staff may have little training in the management of brain injury. I look forward to the Minister telling us whether her Department is, somewhat belatedly, about to put the matter right by commissioning more research in that area.
The Health Committee's other proposal to which I want to draw attention is its recommendation xi, which states:
"We recommend that the DoH allocates more of the R&D budget to research into traumatic brain injury rehabilitation".
It was correct then and it remains correct.
I want to make two related points. First, as an ex-medical scientist, I know how difficult it is to interest not only most scientists but research funders, never mind media people, in areas where there will not be major breakthroughs. Everyone likes to be associated with research that is looking for the magic bullet, an anti-cancer drug, a new anti-viral agent or a wonder drug to stop tissue rejection. It is much harder to fund research into the small advances that make life better for people with degenerative diseases and improve the rehabilitation process following trauma.
Secondly, on the importance of steady, small improvements in treatments, I want to urge the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and those who influence its programme of projects to ensure that it carries out more assessments of whole treatments. I am an unashamed admirer of NICE and possibly its best supporter in the House, but I sometimes feel that it is pressurised into spending too much time on new technologies and wonder drugs when it should be looking at more mundane treatments that could bring benefits to many somewhat neglected patients.
I am grateful for having had the chance to contribute to this important debate and look forward to hearing the Minister commit the Government to an adequate level of research in this area, both epidemiological and pathological.
3.2 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: May I use my three minutes to pay tribute to the work of the Royal hospital for neuro-disability in my constituency which, among other things, has set up the first brain injury rehabilitation unit for those in a vegetative state, the first unit for cognitive retraining of brain-injured people with cognitive impairment and the first unit for those with a combination of physical and behavioural disorders? During the past months it has placed great emphasis on research and education in the setting up of the new

45WH
institute of complex neural disability led by Dr. Keith Andrews. He is my mentor and gave evidence to the Health Committee. That institute will enable many brain-injured people, and their families, professionals and carers, to gain access to up-to-date information.
I want to draw the Chamber's attention to the excellent documentary "Coma: Locked In", on BBC2 on 17 December, which followed the treatment of Joanne Douglas from Ayrshire who came down to the Royal hospital for rehabilitation. Joanne's mother, Jeanette Douglas, said after the programme:
"Joanne is much better now. I'd really like the programme to give hope to people who find themselves in that situation. It's important to know that there are other people with similar experiences and to know that there is somewhere to go for help. I want other people to know the Royal Hospital for Neuro-disability is there."
During my last minute, I want to make five quick points about the Royal hospital and my knowledge of its work. First, the hospital is not part of the NHS but is a national charity. Any extension of its work, including the units that I described and the institute, must be financed by donations. I was pleased that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), found time to visit the hospital in September. That was the first visit by a Minister during the 100-odd years the hospital has been open. It is good news that the hospital is now on the NHS radar screen. Many of the specialist hospitals and institutions in that area are independent charities, and we must work out a way forward that enables the co-funding to take place. At the moment, with increased salaries—rightly—being paid to doctors and nurses, many of those hospitals are being squeezed.
Secondly, to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), we need to ensure better diagnosis. I draw the Minister's attention to the work being done at the Royal hospital on SMART, which stands for sensory modality assessment and rehabilitation techniques. That has been worked out over a 10-year period using the occupational therapy staff, and has led to patients' potential for recovery and interaction with their environment being greatly enhanced.
Thirdly, other Members have said that the Royal College of Surgeons report clearly shows that funds invested in neurosurgery save on long-term costs. I pay tribute to the investment that is going into the relocation of the Atkinson-Morley hospital, which will be co-located with St. George's hospital in Tooting. I would like to see more neuro-surgical centres.
Fourthly, it is very important, as Dr. Keith Andrews has said, that there should be champions in PCTs and area PCTs. Dr. Andrews is the chair of the neuro-rehabilitation sub-group of the specialist commissioning group that provides a specialist resource to all London PCTs. That group leads the way, and was suggested by the Select Committee report. There should be champions on a regional level, not simply within each PCT, because many of the most serious brain injuries are uncommon.
Fifthly, brain awareness week begins on 11 March. As many hon. Members have said, we welcome the national service framework, but there are many actions that can be taken now that would make a significant difference.
46WH
I hope that the Minister will take those up, and not wait for the national service framework to be fleshed out in detail.
3.6 pm
Jim Knight: I shall make three quick points. I congratulate the hon. Members for Colchester (Bob Russell) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is currently speaking elsewhere, on securing the debate.
I have been asked to speak by Headway Dorset, which does a fantastic job in my constituency in caring for people with acquired brain injury. I am told that it is unique in receiving NHS funding for rehabilitation. That is working well, and I commend that to the Minister as a practice that could be extended elsewhere.
There is particular interest in the subject in my constituency because of the furore over our search-and-rescue helicopter moving from Portland to Lea-on-Solent, increasing its response time by 30 minutes. The move would increase the problems that may arise from cliff-top accidents and cerebral bends. Someone with cerebral bends was picked up by the helicopter this year, and the case was only dealt with when the helicopter reached the decompression unit at Poole. There is no doubt that in that case, as in many others, an extra 30 minutes would have increased the cost to the NHS considerably.
Finally, has the Department looked at some of the work done in the United States on care pathways for acquired brain injury? People there are examining not only the care pathway, but the whole pathway from incident to rehabilitation. That work is focusing on the fact that if one can decrease the time to treatment, one reduces the effects of the injury and the amount of rehabilitation that is required.
In some cases, paramedics, who in this country have to go straight to accident and emergency, are trained to monitor patients. They have a direct link to neurosurgeons and can make an assessment there and then as to whether it is better to go straight to the neurosurgeon rather than to accident and emergency. In some cases in this country, one may find that a leg is fixed while brain trauma is allowed to continue, making the whole injury much more severe. I would be grateful if the Minister could examine that work and see whether it could be extended to this country. I welcome the recommendations of the Select Committee and look forward to the Minister's response.
3.9 pm
David Cairns: I have just one point. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced the pathways to work programme in November last year, I asked him whether the new specialist advisers who would be helping people on incapacity benefit into work would have specialist knowledge and training in the important area of head and brain injuries. He assured me that that would be the case.
If that is to be the case—we certainly hope so—very close working will be required between the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions, as well as between the DWP and the Scottish Executive, who have responsibility for health matters in Scotland. I do not expect the Minister to reply now, but will she

47WH
ensure that, on the pilot schemes, the DWP works as closely with Malcolm Chisholm and the Scottish Ministers as it does with her?
Finally, in my constituency, 39 per cent. of adults of working age, or two in five, are economically inactive. That means that they are neither in work nor looking for work. I urge the Minister to do all that she can to ensure that one of the six pilot schemes is located in Inverclyde.
3.10 pm
Mrs. Patsy Calton: In common with others, I shall attempt to gabble my way through my speech. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on securing the debate. We offer him our sympathy on the loss of his daughter and our admiration for his determination to initiate the debate.
As many hon. Members have said, head injury is the foremost cause of death and disability in young people. It affects young men disproportionately. My indirect experience was to be present at a road traffic accident in which a young student from the school at which I taught was injured, and had to have rehabilitation afterwards, and at a swimming pool accident, in which someone dived into the shallow end. Obviously, that caused massive trauma for the individual and the family. Many people have made the point that family and carers need a great deal of assistance. I ask the Minister to ensure that they are able to obtain at an early stage the information that they so clearly need.
As I was doing research for the debate, it occurred to me that there are massive links between head injury and other long-term conditions. I understand that a debate tomorrow will consider long-term conditions in the round. There is a great deal of linkage between the effects that all long-term conditions have on carers and families, and the way in which the health service, social care and other agencies work together.
The numbers of people affected have been mentioned, and it has been said that working with figures that are based on projections that are 10 years out of date is not really good enough. Clearly, the Select Committee's recommendations need to be put into practice. However, I make an additional point. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) said that head injury is not a sexy condition, unlike others such as cancer and heart attack. It is worth bearing it in mind that breast cancer affects about 39,000 people a year, whereas head injury affects 176,000 people a year—four and a half times as many—yet we seem to pay rather less attention to it.
Road traffic accidents account for nearly half of head injuries; accidents at work and at home make up 20 to 30 per cent. of cases; sports-related injuries account for 10 to 15 per cent. and violent assaults 10 per cent. I do not believe that anyone so far has mentioned the part that prevention can play. Clearly, it would be an improvement if we were to prevent the accidents from happening in the first place.
Ninety per cent. of people with head injuries suffer psychological impairment, 75 per cent. suffer intellectual impairment and 44 per cent. suffer pain and headaches. This huge problem has effectively been forgotten by most people, including me. We need better
48WH
data collection. I add my voice to those of the many people who have called for the Select Committee's second recommendation to be implemented.
People who are trying to get back to work or to meet their needs through the disability living allowance should be dealt with by people who are aware of their condition. Disability living allowance staff need training to recognise the problem. As I said in the debate on autism last week, Connexions staff also need to recognise the condition when they are dealing with young people.
Acute rehabilitation services and most community rehabilitation services are run by the NHS. Specialist services for cognitive and behavioural problems tend to be in the private sector, and are too expensive for many people to access. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester paid tribute to the charities that are working in the area, but charitable groups are struggling.
I have received information from Headway, the Disabilities Trust and Rehab UK. They all make the point that the reorganisation into PCTs and the new health care arrangements mean that the PCTs find other things on which to spend their money, partly because there are too many claims on that money. If we are not careful, that money will not end up where we think it should. Given the numbers that we discussed earlier, it is important that people receive proper rehabilitation.
In the extensive briefing that I received from Headway, for which I am grateful, the point is made that a life worth saving must be a life worth living. I do not know whether Headway is the first to express the point in that way, but it is important. Rehabilitation frees up acute beds, gives people a greater chance of returning to work and reduces the cost of long-term care. As my hon. Friend said, Rehab UK estimates that if a person has access to the 48-week course costing £8,000 to £10,000, there will be a saving of £300,000 per person in disability benefits. We are spending money at the wrong end of the service.
According to Headway, despite the numbers of people concerned, services are woefully inadequate. The growing population of head-injured people presents society with problems that did not exist when medical treatment was not so advanced. Leonard Cheshire estimates that, after acute care in hospital, 70 per cent. of residential placements are inappropriate. As other hon. Members have said, head-injured people need specialist tertiary diagnosis. They need neuro-psychiatric diagnosis and should not be counted as mentally ill although, sadly, some of them become mentally ill as a result of their inability to access the services that they need.
The national service framework has been mentioned. That has been promised for a long time, and the scoping event held on 12 November 2001 was extensive. We expect to see the NSF published in 2004 for implementation in 2005.
I see, Mr. Benton, that I am overrunning my time. I shall conclude by saying that many valuable points have been made in the debate.
3.18 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: This debate may prove to have been something of a landmark in demonstrating an enhanced parliamentary focus on an area of great

49WH
public importance which has not previously received adequate attention. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) deserves our thanks for introducing the subject, as do many other contributors who have drawn on their personal experience and commitment in the area. There is an understanding that things are not as good as they should be, and an overwhelming determination to make things work better.
I shall focus on two main themes. The first of those, on what may be termed the professional level, is that the Department needs a greater understanding of what we are facing. Many important figures were given earlier in the debate, and I will add one of my own: every year, half a million children under 16 present at accident and emergency with head injuries, and that is in addition to those suffering from various potentially threatening diseases in the same medical area. It is a huge and growing problem. It is not just a matter of counting heads, but of the Department's ability to identify a condition. As was noted earlier, conditions are sometimes latent or eccentric and may reappear later, with damaging consequences for individuals and their families.
The Department should also reflect carefully on the cost-effectiveness of various treatments. Traditionally, it relied on the Warwick study, but some advisers outside the Department questioned the viability of the calculations and asked whether rehabilitation is worth while. The British Society for Rehabilitation Medicine, for example, took a different view.
American experience should also be taken into account in two main respects. First, strong evidence from American studies shows that early and intense intervention is highly cost-effective and will speed the process of healing and rehabilitation. Secondly, the Americans proved remarkably successful at getting people who have suffered traumatic brain injury back into work. It is not always possible to make people economically active, but it happens much more frequently in America than in this country. Rehab UK published statistics showing that many sufferers in this country are unable to find useful work after rehabilitation.
There is a dynamic pattern to recovery. When people have a serious accident, they may need immediate acute care to save their life. Subsequently, they need further medical care, but the position is dynamic, as new needs—social, economic and educational—develop. We must sort out the different pathways. Recommendation xvi was the most important of all those specified in the excellent Health Committee report.
The present problem is that the path towards a final outcome is strewn with barriers at every turn, and there seems to be a gaping chasm in NHS support for medical care. There is no formal responsibility or duty for vocational rehabilitation and all the follow-through provision from social and employment services. Only rarely do we see good practice; for example, in Aylesbury, where a community rehabilitation team can take people back and forth to the world outside. More typically, the pattern is of unplanned transmission, readmission or emergency therapy after a crisis incident, wasted effort and missed opportunity.
I twice visited an NHS rehabilitation centre at Northwick Park hospital and saw patients having contractures remedied, which is the medical equivalent
50WH
of rework. I also noticed rehabilitation beds lying empty because the funding had been siphoned off elsewhere in the hospital, which suggests that all is not well.
The Minister should note, though without relish, that her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions are also at fault. When Rehab UK wrote to me on 22 November, it pointed out that the
"lack of support from statutory agencies is creating severe funding problems which are likely to impact the rehabilitation services we are able to offer".
The letter was headed "Urgent Crisis". The Minister for Work replied ahead of his counterpart in health—some consolation. He acknowledged that helping people with brain injuries made good sense not only for the individuals helped, but for the public finances in the longer term. Somewhat chillingly, however, he insisted that it had to be
"balanced against other priorities for public spending".
Securing rehabilitation is an expensive process, but it often proves much less expensive than doing nothing or continuing with the present muddled pathways to care.
The Health Committee set the tone two years ago and we now have to wait for the national service framework. We must ensure that it is not characterised by a further wait and inaction, but becomes a genuine long-term framework for change in a sector where we are all committed to securing much better provision than we have at present.
3.24 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): In the six minutes that remain I shall try to reply to as many hon. Members as I can. If I do not get to some points I will follow them up in writing. We have seen the Chamber at its best this afternoon. Hon. Members have brought a range of personal and constituency experience to the debate as well as some specialised knowledge from members of the Health Committee. This is a landmark occasion. It is an opportunity to raise the profile of head injury in the Department and with all our partners.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on securing the debate and on the way in which he presented it, including the extremely personal incident in his life. I should like to reassure all hon. Members that the Department has no intention of being complacent about the Health Committee's recommendations. It carried out an excellent inquiry and made a series of recommendations. All that information is being fed into the external reference group of the national service framework. Those recommendations were very important in developing the Department's work.
The hon. Gentleman and others raised the issue of support for voluntary organisations. There is a section 64 grant for Headway, which will increase its funding over the next three years by £97,000. That is evidence of the Government's commitment to try to support voluntary and charitable organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) made the important point that much of the ground-breaking work has been done in the independent and charitable sector. We have to find better ways for the NHS to incorporate that funding, not simply with grants, but with more deep-rooted partnership working.

51WH
As for joined-up responses by the Government, I can assure hon. Members that the Treasury is indeed on board. It recognises that prevention work in the longer term saves money to the NHS and to the Government. I would draw hon. Members' attention to the job retention and rehabilitation pilots that are being carried out by the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions, funded by a generous £12 million from the Treasury. A further £4.7 million was agreed in August last year. There will be a series of pilots. I note the plea from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) for one of those pilots to be in his area. There will be one in Glasgow, although I know that that is not in his area. It is important that we work closely with the Scottish Executive in developing those issues as they relate to both our nations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) presented a moving case in his constituency and emphasised the central role of users, carers and their families in developing these services. Users and carers are at the heart of the national service framework groups. They know whether the services are working well, what needs to be done and what should be done in a different way. We feed the views of patients and the carers into everything we do in the NHS. It is a key consideration.
I have met people with serious brain injuries in my constituency. It is often difficult for them and their families to adjust to the changes that have occurred. People's characters can change completely after a head injury. They will have different qualities and different ways of approaching situations. That applies just as
52WH
importantly to their employment opportunities. I have met people who did one type of job before their head injury yet after it, although they still have many skills, they do a completely different kind of job.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) described a moving personal experience. He is right to say that head injuries have been an under-recognised problem. I hope that the debate will go some way towards increasing awareness. We are developing the NSF for long-term conditions as a whole, but with a particular focus on head injuries and neurological problems, precisely because it is recognised that services have been patchy across the country. The NSF and the NICE guideline should help to address that.
Several hon. Members raised the important issue of data. I am fully seized of that. Our data at the moment depend on accident and emergency departments and various consultants making different classifications. These are complex problems and I will certainly undertake to discuss with my colleague the Minister of State whether we can strengthen the evidence base there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), in a passionate and practical speech, raised, on the Health Committee report, the importance of ensuring that we have a proper focus on the matter. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) mentioned data, the national service framework, the scoping study and trying to ensure that specialist commissioning is in place. I can reassure him that specialist commissioning will be extended for another year, so that we can ensure that the consortium of PCTs has time to develop, to maximise their special commissioning qualities. We recognise that that is important not only in this field but in others.

Derbyshire Dales District Council
3.30 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: There are several reasons why I wish to raise this debate today. I hope that by the end of it, the Minister will be able to reassure a great number of my constituents and me that they have not been treated unfairly by the Government. Certainly, the view in Derbyshire Dales at the moment is that 5 December, the day on which the Government—[Interruption.]
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but will members of the public leave the Chamber quietly, please?
Mr. McLoughlin: As I was saying, 5 December brought a bitter blow to Derbyshire Dales. On that day, the Government announced the grants that they will make to district councils to provide services such as leisure, sheltered housing, environmental services, refuse collection and many others. They announced that Derbyshire Dales district council will receive an increase, on the Government's figures, of only 3 per cent., compared with a 12.5 per cent. increase for every other district and borough council in Derbyshire. I believe that that shows that Derbyshire Dales district has been very unfairly treated. Of course, that increase was not really 3 per cent., because there was a bit of double-counting, not dissimilar to what we have come to expect from the Government.
My constituency covers approximately 90 per cent. of Derbyshire Dales district and 30 per cent. of Amber Valley borough council. The other 10 per cent. of the Derbyshire Dales area is represented by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt). The leader of the council, Lewis Rose, wrote to the hon. Gentleman and me, saying:
"I am sure you will appreciate that these proposals leave us in an impossible position. The amount that the Government thinks we should spend at is higher than we do spend at. The average Band D for non metropolitan Districts is 180 pounds yet we are at 140 pounds. The real increase in our Grant Settlement year to year is not the safety net of 3 per cent. but a mere 1.6 per cent … We do have many problems, which we need to tackle. Our working in partnership with High Peak Borough and our joint LSP"—
local strategic partnership
"arrangements demonstrate we have much in common and similar problems to solve, yet we are now on the back foot and they at least have a more equitable settlement.
On top of all this all Authorities face as you know wage increases of 5.6 per cent. next year with the recent settlement and the extra National Insurance payments. It is not difficult to see that without a fairer settlement this Council will be left behind in Derbyshire through no fault of its own and unable to participate fully and properly in the valuable partnerships such as the one I have already mentioned, which will bring benefit to those parts of the Dales which require all our efforts.
The Council is faced with a large increase in Council Tax (which appears to be the rationale behind the settlement to bring us up to the level of Band D elsewhere) or finding the money from increased fees and charges and balances. These last two options will only partly solve the problem, so unless you and others can bring about a change in the Settlement, we are faced with a large hike in Council Tax due to lack of proper funding in the
54WH
Settlement. I am not sure why we have been singled out in Derbyshire for this treatment and we appear to fare a lot worse than many of our rural bench mark colleagues".
That is why there is a lack of understanding about why Derbyshire Dales district council has been badly treated under the settlement. During the four years when Derbyshire Dales was controlled by Labour and Liberal coalition, the council tax for band D increased by 46.7 per cent. In the three years so far of Conservative control, the council tax has increased by 14.19 per cent. That shows a council that is determined to do everything possible to keep the burden on its council tax payers to a low minimum. However, it now finds that its work over the years to keep the council tax down is undermined by one fell swoop of the Government.
The cash increase this year for Derbyshire Dales district council is £52,000, which is an increase of 1.6 per cent. rather than the 3 per cent. that the Government claim. Of that £52,000, some £19,000 must be paid to the Peak District national park—there is no discretion for the council. West Derbyshire is a beautiful constituency, and we get many visitors each year. The Peak district, which covers a large part of the Derbyshire dales, is estimated to get 20 million-plus visitors each year. It is an area of outstanding beauty, but that does not mean that it does not have problems. Indeed, that number of tourists sometimes brings problems as well.
I hope that the Minister will say that she is willing to examine the case for Derbyshire Dales district council. Unless the Government reverse their decision, we will be looking at a council tax rise for band D properties of about 23 per cent. That is art unacceptable increase, as the council leader has said. If it comes about, it will be a result not of what the district council has done but of Government policy.
Derbyshire Dales is a large rural council that borders many different constituencies and district councils. Will the Minister tell me why the people in Sudbury in Derbyshire Dales will get an increase of £1.91 while the people down the road in Foston in South Derbyshire district council get an increase of £7.07 per person? Why will the people of Matlock get an increase of £1.91 while the people in Chesterfield get an increase from Government funding of £8.71? Why will the people of Tansley get an increase of £1.91 while the people of Lea in Amber Valley borough council get an increase from the Government of £7.50 and the people in Ashover in North East Derbyshire district council get £6.78?
Will the Minister tell me why people in Bakewell in Derbyshire Dales will get an increase of £1.91 while the people in Buxton in High Peak borough council get an increase of £7.88 per head? Why will people in Ashbourne get an increase of £1.91 while the people down the road in Mayfield in East Staffordshire borough council get an increase of £5.39? Why will people in Longford get an increase of £1.91 while the people in Church Broughton, just down the road, get an increase of £7.07? Why will the people in Earl Sterndale get an increase of £1.91 while the people in King Sterndale, which is literally just down the road but in the High Peak borough council, get an increase of £7.88 per head?
All those figures are the increases that different councils in Derbyshire and neighbouring East Staffordshire will see in Government funding. However,

55WH
in Derbyshire Dales, the funding increase per head is a mere £1.91. It is a huge difference, even if one looks at the Government's figures.
The actual increases this year are as follows: Amber Valley £696,000; Bolsover £492,000; Chesterfield £635,000; Erewash £648,000; High Peak £565,000; North East Derbyshire £528,000; and South Derbyshire £472,000. However, the increase for Derbyshire Dales is only £52,000, and £19,000 of that has automatically to be paid to the Peak District national park.
There has always been a great mystique about local government funding. The Government assured us that they would make it simpler but they have not done so. I await with interest the Minister's explanation of why the Government have treated the people of Derbyshire Dales so badly. The variations in the figures are dramatic. For example, the figure for every person in Matlock is £1.91; in Chesterfield it is £8.71; in Tansley it is £1.91, but in Lea, which is just a mile away in Amber Valley, it is £7.50; in Bakewell it is £1.91, but in Buxton £7.88. I do not understand it, and neither will the people of Derbyshire Dales. I hope that the Minister can explain it today.
The district council has asked for a meeting with Ministers to discuss the matter and I hope that that meeting can be arranged. If not, perhaps the Minister herself or one of her colleagues will come to Derbyshire Dales to explain why it has fared so badly in this settlement.
3.41 pm
The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) on securing the debate, which gives us the opportunity to discuss the provisional local government settlement for Derbyshire Dales district council in the coming year.
The matter is also of considerable interest to other hon. Members' constituencies and local authorities. We are considering the comments received during consultation on the proposals that were announced in the House on 5 December. The hon. Gentleman mentioned meetings and representations; he will be aware that many local authorities came to see Ministers before the deadline for consultation, which has now ended. I assure him that all the representations that were made to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister before the end of the consultation will be considered in detail, as he would expect.
Many local authorities, including Derbyshire Dales, have made representations on the settlement. Many hon. Members, too, have made representations to us on behalf of local authorities in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) wrote on the issue of funding for Derbyshire Dales and the hon. Member for West Derbyshire was kind enough to refer to that in his remarks.
We will carefully consider all the comments made on the proposals before we take final decisions. We expect to be able to announce the final settlement early in February. I shall certainly make some detailed comments about what it means for Derbyshire Dales, but I think that it will help if I put the overall framework in context, as the hon. Gentleman invited me to do.
56WH
Our proposals for the funding of local government revenue expenditure provide for an overall increase in Government grant including grants for specific initiatives of £3.8 billion—an 8 per cent. increase at a time when inflation is below 3 per cent. In the light of the overall grant increase, we have also been able to set floors and ceilings, which will ensure that every authority in England receives an above-inflation grant increase, and Derbyshire Dales will certainly benefit from that guarantee.
Derbyshire Dales district council will no doubt be pleased by that, although I know from what the hon. Gentleman has said that it is not the happiest of local authorities. However, it will we hope be pleased to learn that we intend to keep the system of guaranteeing a certain level of grant for the foreseeable future. We do not believe, though, that it is appropriate to set the level of that guarantee for future years.
Mr. McLoughlin: That is where one problem arises, and it has taken some digging to establish the position on it. The Minister has referred to a figure of 3 per cent. This morning, I spoke to the chief executive of Derbyshire Dales, who told me that its increase is 1.6 per cent. in actual terms because the cash increase is £52,000. I have mentioned the fact that money has to go straight to the Peak District national park. Why do we continue with the fallacy of giving different figures? It is either a 1.6 per cent. increase on last year's figure, which it is, or it is a 3 per cent. increase, which the Government say that it is. Floors and ceilings offer no comfort when the Government say one thing but the actual figures do something else.
Mrs. Roche: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but he has got to look at the current formula, under which all districts receive at least a 3 per cent. increase on a like-for-like basis. He also has to take into account the transfers of responsibility that have taken place. Derbyshire Dales, for example, will receive a far higher grant from the Department for Work and Pensions for council tax and housing benefit administration, which must be included in the calculation.
Mr. McLoughlin: I know that the details were slipped out in a parliamentary answer on Friday and I happen to have them with me. The truth is that while Derbyshire Dales got an increase in its grant from the DWP, so did every other authority in Derbyshire. We did not get a higher than average increase, so we are still in the same position as every other authority in the county. I have sat on a Government Bench in my time and was warned that the increase in the DWP grant would be thrown in as a diversionary tactic; it does not alter the figures.
Mrs. Roche: Anyone who knows me knows that I would never go in for diversionary tactics. If the hon. Gentleman gives me a little time to make my case, I will deal with the exact position of Derbyshire Dales. We do not believe it appropriate to set the level of the guarantee for future years. That is because factors such as data can vary considerably each year, which makes firm decisions on the levels of the floors and ceilings very difficult.
The provisional settlement is generally good news for shire district councils. The average increase in general for those authorities is 7.6 per cent., and we have also

57WH
been able to set a ceiling of 12.5 per cent. Our proposals are also good news overall for those authorities such as Derbyshire Dales with education and social services responsibilities. The county council receives a grant increase of 7.9 per cent., which is near the very top of the increases for county councils in England. I certainly hope that that settlement will bring considerable benefits to the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
If the hon. Gentleman is saying that other districts in Derbyshire have done better in the provisional settlement, he should take into account that only the two most deprived Derbyshire districts, Chesterfield and Bolsover, receive a greater formula spending share per head, with the others receiving similar or lower levels than Derbyshire Dales.
I will talk in some detail about Derbyshire Dales and how we calculated the formula there, but before I do so, I will comment briefly on the formula grant review. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we had a series of debates on the Floor of the House that reflected the wide range of views on the formula grant review. I hope that he will agree—I know that he is a fair man—that my colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have tried to consult all hon. Members as comprehensively as possible. It was a challenging task. We announced that we would introduce a grant distribution system for local authorities that would be fairer and more transparent, as the old standard spending assessment system was outdated. There was a widespread belief among local authorities of all political persuasions that change was needed.
In a year, the Department has held meetings of a technical group, complex discussions with local government and detailed meetings with other Departments. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we carefully considered all the responses that we received.
The result is a grant distribution system that is less complex and easier to understand. It also removes outdated and inadequate indicators. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the environmental, protective and cultural services—the EPCS block—is the main driver of resources for shire district councils such as Derbyshire Dales. There was a widespread belief that that was a main area for reform. The new system is based on a basic level of funding, with top-ups for various factors such as deprivation, high labour costs and sparsity.
The hon. Gentleman made specific points about the changes that have affected Derbyshire Dales district council. The authority has not received a greater grant increase for several main reasons. It has done fairly well on the relative need side of the equation, with an increase in formula spending share of 11.3 per cent. on a like-for-like basis. The figure was not higher for several reasons—the main one being a 2.9 per cent. fall in the population as recorded by the 2001 census, to which the leader of the local authority referred in correspondence.
The Government must rely on the best and most robust data available at the time. If the local authority has questions about the census data, I urge it and the hon. Gentleman to take up the matter with representatives of the Office for National Statistics, who I am sure will listen carefully to any representations made to them. I understand that several local authorities are considering doing so, and we will listen to anything that they have to say.
58WH
Derbyshire Dales has also been adversely affected by the removal of the overnight visitors indicator, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I understand his point about visitors. One can make a plausible argument that visitors impose some additional costs on authorities, but spending patterns suggest that they also bring in revenue, especially through car parking. That may not be the case for every authority, but there is no evidence that overnight visitors impose a significant net burden on councils.
Derbyshire Dales has also been affected by the changes that we have made to take account of deprivation and sparsity. Some of those changes have been favourable to the local authority; others have not. We have removed certain housing indicators, and the long-term limiting illness indicator, because those measures were badly out of date and no longer held to be plausibly linked to councils' costs. I repeat that all the measures were extensively discussed and canvassed with local authorities.
As part of the general reduction of top-ups in the environmental, protective and cultural services block, and to enhance the basic amount for all authorities, we made changes to the factors affecting sparsity and deprivation. Most sparse areas, including Derbyshire Dales, have gained from the reduction in deprivation and density top-ups.
Formula spending share is only part of the equation that drives grant. We deduct from the assessed relative need the amount that authorities would receive from council tax if they charged at the same rate.
The national assumed council tax has been referred to by the hon. Gentleman and in correspondence. That is a notional figure used solely to distribute grant; it is not a target or a prediction. We have set it at broadly the same levels that councils charged in 2002–03, with a small increase for inflation. With the new formula, we have emphasised that, rather than pretending that we can say how much councils should spend or what their council tax should be, we are focusing on how we divide up grant—the real money—between them.
The hon. Gentleman asked why Derbyshire Dales had done so poorly on grant compared to the formula spending share. There are probably two main reasons. The first is the move towards greater resource equalisation. He will know that that is not a new concept; it also existed under the former system. Again, there was some concern among local authorities of all political persuasions about the way in which it had operated in the past.
In the provisional settlement, there was an increase in the EPCS block for districts of more than £1.2 billion. However, that is not real money; the extra is from an increase in the assumed council tax to a more realistic level. As a high tax-base authority—Derbyshire Dales is well above the national average and is the highest tax-base authority in Derbyshire—Derbyshire Dales' contribution to the extra council tax is relatively high.
Mr. McLoughlin: The Minister says—I think that I have got this right—that the council should move its council tax to "a more realistic level". Is she saying that

59WH
it should increase it more than every other district in Derbyshire because it has so much less money from the Government than every other district in Derbyshire?
Mrs. Roche: No, that is not what I am saying at all. The level of council tax is not a matter for Ministers or even Members of Parliament; it is a matter for the local authority. I was talking about the move to greater resource equalisation and pointing out that Derbyshire Dales is a high tax-base authority. That is one of the considerations to which the new formula works.
The second reason is that we have a new system of apportioning assumed council tax levels, and hence grant, between the authorities in an area. We have used our judgment to determine the fairest allocation. In comparison with the former system, that has tended to favour shire counties in shire areas rather than the districts, although the effect on taxpayers in an area is marginal.
The changes that we have made are the result of considerable consultation with experts and those with an interest. We consulted widely and at length over the summer on a range of options for the new grant distribution system. We have tried to make the new system understandable. I do not deny that the hon. Gentleman is right to say that any system of local government finance is complex by its very nature, but we have tried to make it as transparent as possible through a system of basic entitlements and top-ups for certain factors. We have guaranteed that every local authority receives an above-inflation grant; that is unprecedented. Derbyshire county council has had a good provisional settlement, with benefits for all residents—
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order.

Hyndburn and Rossendale
4 pm
Mr. Greg Pope: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise issues that are very important not only to my constituents, but to people across east Lancashire. That is why I am particularly pleased to see my hon. Friends the Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). The issues that affect people in Accrington equally affect people in Nelson, Colne and the villages and towns of Rossendale.
Those areas were the birthplace of the industrial revolution. They built their prosperity on coal, engineering and textiles, which are industries that have been in decline for about 70 years. There was a time when people could leave school. go to work in a mill or factory and confidently expect to work there for their entire lives until they retired. Round the corner from my office in Accrington, there is a factory that, at its peak, employed 8,000 people. The factory closed a long time ago and the site has now been regenerated and changed to provide offices, shops and restaurants. Even today, after many years of decline in the traditional industries, in my constituency and across east Lancashire about twice as many people as the national average work in manufacturing. About one third of people in my constituency work in manufacturing compared with a national average of about 15 per cent.
However, manufacturing is incredibly vulnerable and fragile. Hardly a day goes by without my reading in the local papers of manufacturing jobs disappearing in east Lancashire. There are a variety of reasons for that. Traditional manufacturing is typified by old-fashioned enterprises, often working in unsuitable converted Victorian cotton mills. It is often low tech, low skill and low paid. Essentially we are making a low-tech product at an uncompetitive price compared with, say, eastern Europe. Only a couple of years ago, Leoni Wiring Systems Ltd., a large company in my constituency that made wiring for the automotive industry, shipped out its operations to eastern Europe simply because the labour rate was uncompetitive. That resulted in the loss of 500 jobs.
The question is not whether we should change the economic base in east Lancashire, because it will change anyway, but how we manage the change effectively and ensure that there is an economic future for my constituents and other people in east Lancashire. There are a couple of initiatives that I want the Government to support. First, there is the Centre for Environmental Research and Technology Transfer, which I have been involved with for a while and support. In this context, it makes sense to see east Lancashire as a city, rather than as five separate boroughs with different interests. It is essentially a city with five boroughs, but it does not have a university. I am not making a case for another undergraduate institution in east Lancashire. There are already 10 excellent universities in the north-west and two of them are in Lancashire; we do not necessarily need another situated in the east of the county.
However, we want the kind of university research facility that brings with it high-tech spin offs and well paid, highly skilled jobs. That is what the CERTT initiative would provide and that is precisely the kind of

61WH
thing that would give us an economic future and would provide a hook for attracting other high-tech industries. It would give an added value to our economic base. When that project seeks support from a Government Department, I hope that it receives it.
Secondly, there is the site at junction 6 of the M65, which is on the boundary between Blackburn with Darwen council and Hyndburn and which is the only one of 25 strategic sites identified by the North West Development Agency that is in east Lancashire. Early purchase of that site would provide some real employment opportunities in the east Lancashire region. It would be the focal point for the gateway employment development zone. We have already secured £7 million from the European regional development fund, and it would be helpful if the Government could give it their support. I have already said that east Lancashire was the birthplace of the industrial revolution. If it is not to be its graveyard, we need a helping hand from the Government. We want an entrepreneurial approach, and we want to work with partners in the public, private and voluntary sectors.
The big issue that I want to address this afternoon, and the largest one concerning regeneration facing my constituents and people across east Lancashire, is housing. In my constituency, the housing situation is nothing short of appalling. As someone who has been a Member of Parliament for 10 years, I am absolutely ashamed of the condition of streets in my constituency. A quarter of all properties are unfit for people to live in, which means that more than 9,000 families live in unfit accommodation. To put that in context, the English average is 7 per cent.
Half the houses in my constituency were built before the first world war. The appalling truth is that the houses in which the Accrington pals—those sacrificed on the Somme—grew up are still occupied today by many of my constituents. Somewhere between 2,500 and 3,000 houses are abandoned. People cannot sell them.
As a diversion, some of the housing prices in east Lancashire are utterly amazing. I know the Minister's constituency because when my daughter was a university student she was an elector in Hornsey and Wood Green, so I have some idea of house prices in that area. In Hyndburn and other towns across east Lancashire it is really common for houses to sell for less than £20,000. Houses go for less than £10,000, £5,000 or are given away.
Houses cannot be sold; people walk away from them because they are unsellable. That leads to other problems. One needs only one abandoned house in a terrace for the entire terrace to end up in a difficult situation in the housing market. The housing market has collapsed; we need to provide a platform in the housing market on which house prices can be built. In some neighbourhoods in Accrington a fifth of all houses are empty. That causes massive problems.
Unscrupulous landlords can buy up properties incredibly cheaply in such areas, and can house young people, or those with drink or drug problems. That creates a huge problem of antisocial behaviour. When one meets the decent people who live in those neighbourhoods, one realises that the sick joke is that the problem is funded by housing benefit. Decent people whose lives are made a misery and who cannot sell their
62WH
houses are funding through their taxes the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. We will clearly have to get a grip on that problem.
We have a multiplicity of problems: abandoned and unfit houses, houses that cannot be sold, people trapped in negative equity and antisocial behaviour. Many of my constituents are forced to live in that cycle of dereliction and despair. At the beginning of my speech, I said that it makes sense to consider east Lancashire as a whole—as a city. When one considers it as a single entity of half a million people, rather than a collection of large towns, small towns and villages, it becomes apparent that there are more than 100,000 houses in east Lancashire that are either unfit for habitation or are in disrepair. Five of the nation's 30 worst wards for housing are in east Lancashire. Accrington Central ward is in the top 1 per cent. of all wards in England in Wales.
Where do we go from here? First, let me say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I am delighted that east Lancashire has been designated one of the nine pathfinder areas. The programme offers us a real opportunity, which we shall take as best we can.
I wish to pay tribute to my noble Friend, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. In his time as a Housing Minister, he accepted my invitation to come and look at the housing crisis in east Lancashire. In my experience, he was the first Minister who fully understood the nature of the problems faced by so many of my constituents. I believe that he was the first person to point out that Ministers often attend to problems in inner cities—that is understandable and fair—and that the local authorities of cities such as London and others were getting resources from central Government to replace the housing that replaced the terraces, whereas in east Lancashire we had not even managed to replace the terraces.
There are historical reasons for that. For example, urban district councils were too small in the 1950s and 1960s to tackle the problem. I do not mean any disrespect to local authorities in east Lancashire, but the fact is that the borough councils of Rossendale, Hyndburn, Burnley, Pendle and even Blackburn with Darwen, which is a larger unitary council, are just not big enough to cope with the scale of the problem. Perhaps Ministers will bear that in mind when next there is a local government review, which is much needed for east Lancashire local authorities.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen will refer to this later, but I hope that the Minister will confirm this afternoon that parts of Rossendale will be included in the pathfinder project. They were originally left out. I hope that the excellent campaign that was run by my hon. Friend and to which I gave some support has been successful.
I cannot stress enough my final point, which is that we must move quickly and symbolically. We must take action very swiftly indeed. For the people who are trapped in the terrible housing conditions that I have described, the end to the misery cannot come soon enough. People are becoming incredibly disillusioned and alienated from the political process.
I have mentioned before—I make no apology for repeating it—a lady in Accrington who I spoke to during the last general election. I asked her to vote for me, the Labour candidate. She said that she would not

63WH
vote for anyone because of the slum conditions in which she had to live, through no fault of her own. She felt that she had been let down by a previous Conservative council, a Labour council, a Tory Government, a Labour Government and me. Frankly, if I lived in her house, I would not vote for me either. It is a disgrace.
We must start giving people some hope—there is so much despair. They have been told for much too long that help is on the way, but it has not come. I know that it takes time to make a difference, that it is difficult compulsorily to purchase properties, to go through the legal procedures, to determine prices and so on, but I just wanted to share with the Minister the frustration experienced by many decent people.
A widowed lady came to my advice surgery a couple of weeks ago. She has lived in a house in Accrington since the end of the second world war. She told me that the area used to be a really nice part of town and much sought after. It is now like a war zone.
People look to us to offer a helping hand. They look to me as their Member of Parliament but, more than that, they look to the Government to help them. The pathfinder initiative is very welcome, and I am sure that it will make a huge difference. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform the lives of thousands of my constituents and tens of thousands of people in east Lancashire. I know that we have the support of my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government in making such a transformation a reality.
4.14 pm
Janet Anderson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) on securing this debate on a very important issue for east Lancashire. I thank him for all the support and assistance that he gives me. We each represent parts of Rossendale—I represent a large part of the Rossendale valley, but the Haslingden part falls within my hon. Friend's constituency—and I like to think that we work very well as a team. I am entirely at one with him on the need—should a reorganisation of local government take place—for an east Lancashire authority. As he said, we work together as an entity.
Alongside six other local authorities, Rossendale is a key member of the East Lancashire partnership. That sub-regional partnership recognises the value of joined-up thinking and working in tackling the major regeneration problems and challenges that it faces. That approach acknowledges not only that we in east Lancashire share a legacy of urban problems stemming from the historic evolution of the built form of our towns, as my hon. Friend illustrated, but that many regeneration issues transcend local boundaries and local markets. The approach also chimes with the messages that come consistently from national Government and the regional development agencies about the necessity of addressing the challenges of urban regeneration at strategic level via sub-regional delivery mechanisms. I believe that we in east Lancashire are following that guidance very closely.
64WH
My hon. Friend referred to the housing problems in east Lancashire. I shall touch on the problems in Rossendale itself. There are more than 29,000 households in Rossendale. More than half—nearly 54 per cent.—occupy properties within council tax band A. That presents particular problems of which my hon. Friend the Minister is aware. Some 11,950 properties are terraced properties, which represent about half our total stock, and the vast majority of those were built before 1919. Some 2,234 properties are classified as statutorily unfit, and the proportion of those classified as such rises to 15.1 per cent. in the Bacup area of my constituency. If there is one reason why I hope the Minister will consider formally acknowledging Rossendale as a pathfinder authority in the housing renewal project, it is the conditions in the Bacup and Stacksteads part of my constituency. The unfitness rate of pre-1919 houses is 17.7 per cent. Overall, 4,622 properties are classified as unsatisfactory by way of unfitness or being in poor repair.
I underline what my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn said about the housing problems we face. Friends often visit us in our constituencies and they are astonished to see how cheap our housing is, and how in some areas of east Lancashire people literally cannot give the houses away. The problem of poor stock condition can be found throughout Lancashire, but it is especially problematic in the local authorities in the east of the county—Blackburn, Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle and Rossendale—because all contain huge swathes of pre-1919 terraced housing constructed to house workers in the cotton mills.
Some 62 per cent. of wards in Rossendale are in the worst quartile nationally for poor private sector housing. That is an important point, because if there is one thing that marks Rossendale out, it is that we have serious pockets of deprivation surrounded by areas of relative affluence. That means that, all too often in the past, we have missed out on various pots of funding.
I shall be brief because my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) wants to make a contribution, but I just want to tell the Minister that one reason why I think there has been a reluctance to include Rossendale as a pathfinder authority is the damning Audit Commission report that identified the council as a failing council. As a result, when my Labour colleagues took control of the council in May, they were faced with an uphill task—a very difficult challenge indeed. My colleague the leader of the council has sent a brief note to all members of the council informing them that the referral monitoring group of the Audit Commission met on Tuesday last week and decided not to recall a meeting of commissioners to consider a referral to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, because it believes that the new council is making progress and doing an excellent job of turning things round. On that basis, I hope that the Minister can confirm that Rossendale is to be included as a pathfinder authority.
4.19 pm
The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) on securing a debate on this extremely important issue. If I may say so, I thought that he articulated his case very well. He rightly drew a distinction between the different

65WH
housing problems in this country. In constituencies such as mine the problems are very high house prices and a lack of affordable accommodation; in other areas, the issues are such as he outlined. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson), who has championed the issue. It is good, too, to have my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) here.
It is right to say that regeneration in Hyndburn and Rossendale is broadly illustrative of the situation across east Lancashire. Many towns are characterised by high proportions of aged terraced housing in poor condition, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn referred. The physical effects of the decline in traditional manufacturing industries add to that problem, resulting in some very poor-quality urban environments. I take his point about the effect when one house in a terrace is abandoned.
Although there are many facets to regeneration, I think that housing presents the single biggest issue. More than 60 per cent. of housing stock in east Lancashire was built before 1919, and at 22 per cent. of all dwellings, the overall level of unfitness is more than twice the national average. I want to be absolutely honest about the fact that we know that problem is getting worse. Available mainstream resources are insufficient to meet the identified repair costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn was right to say that people want and deserve better. It is vital that we are committed to regenerating communities and to delivering high-quality public services. Housing is an essential element of that.
The East Lancashire partnership strategy, which was launched almost three years ago, is about to be revised and updated alongside the regional economic strategy. It sets out a vision for east Lancashire in 2020 and identifies the significant challenges for the sub-region in tackling a low-skill, low-wage economy with the attendant problems of poor health, poor housing and crime. We need to put housing issues in that overall context. The strategy envisages a new integrated rapid transport scheme along the lines of those in metropolitan passenger transport authority areas, and an expansion of cultural and sporting activity and higher education opportunities, as my hon. Friend mentioned. However, it is clear that the No. 1 priority is to tackle the acute housing problem.
In Hyndburn, neighbourhood renewal fund projects are already achieving success. For example, a scheme to provide advice to the over-75s on claiming benefits has resulted in enhanced benefits. Several things are happening in the region and sub-region that we believe will considerably help the region in the long term.
In the remaining minutes, I shall return to housing, the single biggest issue in east Lancashire. In April 2002, in response to research funded by the Housing Corporation and local authorities, the Government announced a new radical approach to combating low demand: the housing market restructuring fund. That contains various innovations, including the establishment of nine pathfinder projects across the
66WH
country. My hon. Friends have referred to those projects, which are made up of local stakeholders such as Hyndburn borough council. The pathfinders operate with a sub-regional remit and are charged with developing and delivering an overarching strategy to bring the supply and the demand for housing back into balance. That is not an easy thing to do, and it requires that approach.
Nine months is a short period for action to turn around decades of under-investment in mainly private housing stock, but we are pleased that much has already been achieved in east Lancashire. A board has been established, drawn from local and regional organisations, and the pathfinder has already moved to convert the money into tangible outcomes that residents will recognise as making a difference to the housing market. A programme of interventions worth £900,000 has been agreed and designed to meet residents' concerns about crime, environment, appearance and demolition, and that will include projects in Hyndburn. We recognise that even with further contributions from the Housing Corporation and the regional development agency, that sum is insufficient for the task facing the pathfinder. That is why we look forward to the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement in the next few weeks, after which I hope all pathfinders will have a clear indication of the resources that they will receive in the next three years.
However, I have one announcement that I can make today which I hope will be of great interest to my hon. Friends. I know of the great campaigning work that my hon. Friends the Members for Rossendale and Darwen and for Hyndburn have done on the pathfinder, and I am delighted to tell the Chamber that it has been decided that Rossendale should now be included in the pathfinder project. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] The announcement has been brought about by a tremendous amount of campaigning and lobbying in which my hon. Friends have played an important part. Initially, the pathfinder was designed to incorporate the four local authorities of Hyndburn, Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, and Pendle. We will issue a press notice to announce the decision at the conclusion of today's debate and write to the local authority and pathfinder today.
That is good news for the people of Rossendale, particularly those in Bacup and Stacksteads, who have suffered from the problems of low-demand housing for some time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen mentioned. There is an opportunity to transform their neighbourhoods for the better. The Government are making that possible: the challenge is to Rossendale borough council and the east Lancashire pathfinder to deliver. I was delighted to hear the good report about the local authority that my hon. Friend delivered, and we will start negotiations immediately with the local authority and the pathfinder about the precise intervention area.

67WH
As I said at the outset, we are dealing with serious and long-term problems. Everyone would agree that there are no quick fixes. We are already providing substantial funding for regeneration and neighbourhood renewal, and we are looking for ways of doing more. Additional funding alone is far from sufficient, and it is our firm conviction that local solutions are needed to local problems. In the past, regeneration has failed because it has been a solution imposed either at local authority level, or from Westminster or Whitehall. To regenerate
68WH
many of our neighbourhoods, we need regeneration to come from local people, and many people are working locally and nationally to come up with sustainable and affordable solutions.
We know that there is a great deal of urgency about getting this right, and we are absolutely committed to doing so. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn again on securing the debate and on ensuring that the issue was given the important airing that it needed.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.

WALES

  Buildings Maintenance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his estimate is of the costs of repair and renovation work to the buildings of the Welsh Office in each year from 1999–2000 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [89958]

  Mr. Touhig
  Repair and renovation costs are not separately recorded but account for most of the Department's capital expenditure which was: £8,000 in 1999–2000; £299,000 in 2000–01; £21,000 in 2001–02; and has been £5,000 in 2002–03 to date.

  Entertainment
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the estimate is of the total spending of his Department in all forms of entertainment in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92410]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Wales Office came into existence in July 1999. It spent some £21,000 on hospitality in 2000–01 and some £8,000 in 2001–02. In the current year to date it has spent some £6,000. Figures for 1999–2000 are not readily available.

  Fraud and Theft
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been lost by his Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies, through(a) fraud and (b) theft in each year since 1996–97. [92489]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Wales Office was created on 1 July 1999 and has no NDPBs.

  There has been no reported theft or fraud against this office.

  Ministers' Tenures
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh Office Ministers there have been in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [89962]

  Peter Hain
  From 1993 to 30 June 1999 the Welsh Office had three Ministers. Since 1 July 1999 the Wales Office has had two Ministers.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many press releases were issued by his Department in each year from 1999–2000 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [89955]
  204W
  Peter Hain
  The figures for press releases issued by the Wales Office since 1999 are as follows:

  Number of press releases

  1999–2000

  30

  2000–01

  100

  2001–02

  86

  2002–03

  129

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department spent on (i) publicity and (ii) advertising in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [92245]

  Mr. Touhig
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 749W.

  Special Advisers/Press Officers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) special advisers and (b) press officers have been employed by his Department in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and at what cost in each year. [92488]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Wales Office came into being on 1 July 1999. It employs two special advisers and three press officers. Special advisers are paid in accordance with the national pay scales for special advisers. Costs of the press office are not separately recorded.

  St. David's Day
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce a bank holiday for Wales on St. David's Day. [90247]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Government have carefully considered the case for the designation of St. David's Day as a bank holiday in Wales, but does not currently believe that an economic case has been made for any additional bank holidays throughout the UK.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in 2002. [89898]

  Peter Hain
  None.

  University Research Funding
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the level of central Government funding for university research was for the current year in Wales, per head of population. [86465]

  Mr. Touhig
  Funding for university research in Wales is delivered largely by research councils and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW).
  205W
  Research councils are sponsored by the Office of Science and Technology (OST) on a UK-wide basis. Figures are not yet available for the academic year 2002–03. The latest available figures are for 2000–01 when the total amount provided by the research councils to Welsh higher education institutes was £23,007,000.

  HEFCW's budget is provided by the National Assembly for Wales out of the Welsh block voted by Parliament, but it is a matter for the National Assembly how much funding it allocates to HEFCW. HEFCW contributed £54.6 million in 2000–01 towards university research.

  Using the latest population estimates for Wales provided by the Office for National Statistics of around 2,903,200 people, Central Government funding can be estimated at approximately £93 per head of population for 2000–01. If both central Government (research councils) and HEFCW funding are taken into account, this rises to £26.76.

  In addition, Government Departments fund individual research projects. However, a total figure is not available.

TRANSPORT

  Freight Facilities Grant
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much Freight Facilities Grant was paid in each year since 1997; and how much is planned to be paid in each year under the 10 year plan(a) at current prices and (b) at outturn prices, broken down by organisations in receipt of such grants. [91647]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following table shows UK Freight Facilities Grants for the five years from 1997 and the next three years at current and outturn prices:

  £million

  Current

  Outturn

  1997–98

  9.3

  8.4

  1998–99

  10.3

  9.6

  1999–2000

  12.7

  12.1

  2000–01

  20.4

  19.9

  2001–02

  59.5

  159.5

  2002–03

  56.5

  257.9

  2003–04

  63.9

  267

  2004–05

  62.6

  267.2

  2005–06

  61.8

  268

  12001–02 and 2002–03 include some rephasing for change to resource accounting.

  2Indicative budgets.

  Note:

  GDP deflator 2001–02 applied.

  The FFG scheme is demand led and it is not therefore possible to say how much will be paid to individual organisations over the period of the 10 year plan.

  Track Access Grant
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much track access grant aid was paid to freight operators, broken down by company, in each year since 1992(a) at current prices and (b) at outturn prices. [91646]
  206W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The first track access grant to a freight operator was awarded in 1995 and paid the following year. The following table shows annual payments of track access grant. Details of awards to specific companies are commercially confidential.

  £million

  1996–97

  12.2

  1997–98

  21.3

  1998–99

  19.3

  1999–2000

  17.2

  2000–01

  13.9

  2001–02

  19.9

DEFENCE

  Armoured Vehicles
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Warrior, (b) Challenger II, (c) Challenger I, (d) AS90, (e) FV430 series and (f) MLRS armoured vehicles have been written off in accidents in the past five years. [91035]

  Mr. Ingram
  Over the period 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2002, two AS90 self propelled artillery systems and one FV 430 Armoured Fighting Vehicle have been written off in accidents.

  Civilian Victims (Compensation)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions exist for compensating(a) injured civilian victims and (b) the surviving families of civilians killed as a result of military action taken against another sovereign state; and what his policy is on compensating civilian victims of military action taken to enforce the no-fly zones over Iraq. [90235]

  Mr. Hoon
  Article 91 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions 1949 provides that a party to an international armed conflict which violates the provisions of the Conventions or the Protocol "shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation."

  Coalition aircraft monitoring the no fly zones over Iraq respond in self-defence only to the sustained efforts of Iraq's defences to shoot them down. They do so, in accordance with international law, only against targets posing a threat to the safety of our forces. No liability to pay compensation arises.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the(a) estimated gross expenditure, (b) authorised appropriations in aid, (c) supply grant, (d) gross expenditure, (e) appropriations in aid applied, (f) net expenditure, (g) amount to be surrendered to the consolidated fund and (h) extra receipts payable to the consolidated fund were in 2001–02, in cash terms, broken down by vote; 91462]

  (2) what the (a) grant and (b) expenditure for the Ministry of Defence were in cash terms, broken down by top level budget holder, in 2001–02. [91461]
  207W
  Mr. Ingram
  In accordance with the Government Resource Accounting Act 2000, the Department's financial performance is reported to Parliament in the Consolidated Departmental Resource Accounts. The 2001–02 accounts were laid on 21 November 2002 (HC47). Copies are available in the Library of the House. The Department is not required to, and does not, account for cash under the headings upon which information is sought. Cash requirements are accounted for at departmental level, and details of estimate and outturn are included in Schedule 1 of the Resource Accounts.

  Depleted Uranium
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use has been made of depleted uranium ammunition on live training exercises in training areas in Wales by(a) UK armed forces and (b) the armed forces of other countries since 1980. [91645]

  Dr. Moonie
  Depleted uranium ammunition has never been fired on any military training exercise in the United Kingdom.

  Royal Navy Resources
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the(a) allocation and (b) cost of Royal Naval resources used to assist the UK community during (i) the foot-and-mouth crisis and (ii) the firefighters' strike. [91230]

  Mr. Ingram
  The aggregation of many of the Ministry of Defence's resources into central and tri-service budgetary organisations makes it impossible to provide a comprehensive picture of Royal Naval resources used on deployments such as those cited by the hon. Member. The number of personnel and amount of equipment used are, moreover, constantly changing in the course of a deployment lasting several months. It is estimated that around 180 RN personnel and their equipment were assisting the United Kingdom community at the height of the foot-and-mouth crisis. The bulk of the cost of RN resources will have fallen to the two distinct naval budget areas, those of the Commanders-in-Chief Fleet and Naval Home Command, which between them incurred additional expenditure of around £200K. MOD recovered these additional costs from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  An estimated 3,000 RN personnel and their equipment were deployed on a typical strike day during the firelighters' industrial action in November 2002. It is too early to estimate how much the military assistance has cost to date, because the costs incurred since November have yet to be fully captured through the Ministry of Defence's central cost reporting system. The additional costs for the two budget areas referred to in the first part of this statement are expected to be of the order of £800K for the period to 30 November. These costs will be recovered from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Gas Masks
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether defects have been found in S10 gas masks supplied to armed forces units; and what inspections are routinely made.[91041]
  208W
  Mr. Ingram
  There have been no defects reported in relation to the S10 Respirator supplied to the armed forces. Units are required to carry out routine inspections at regular intervals and prior to operations.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the serviceability rate is of(a) Gazelle, (b) Lynx, (c) Sea King, (d) Chinook and (e) Puma helicopters (i) on operations, (ii) for training and exercises and (iii) overall. [91037]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Warships
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to (1) what extent HMS Glasgow will be able to fulfil the specialist functions of HMS Nottingham as developed in her 1999–2000 refit; [91280]

  (2) when HMS Glasgow was placed in extended readiness; and when she is expected to be fully operational; [91221]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the (a) air defence and (b) anti-terrorist maritime capabilities of HMS Glasgow in comparison with those of HMS Nottingham. [91281]

  Mr. Ingram
  While the Type 42 Destroyer, HMS Glasgow, will help ease the short term programming gap in the Fleet created by the unavailability of HMS Nottingham, she is not a direct replacement for that ship. Although both ships are designed to provide area air defence, either independently or as an integral component of larger joint or coalition maritime Task Groups, Glasgow does not have the enhanced air defence capability to take over HMS Nottingham's programme. However, there is no difference between the "anti-terrorism" capabilities provided by the two ships.

  HMS Glasgow was placed at extended readiness from May 2002 (Official Report 2 May 2002, column 965W). Further to the answer given to the hon. Member on 27 November 2002 (Official Report, column 334W), Glasgow's return to service is delayed by the requirement to provide personnel to Operation Fresco.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether HMS Sovereign is fully operational; and if he will make a statement. [91033]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Sovereign has recently completed a long period of maintenance and is currently undertaking the training required, which will return her to a full operational state of readiness.

  Oilfield Platforms (Terrorists)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of possible terrorist threats to UK oilfield platforms. [91232]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have been asked to reply.
  209W
  All terrorist threats to the UK and to UK interests overseas are monitored very closely. This is an ongoing process. In doing so, we bear in mind the need for vigilance and for a measured, proportionate response which does not generate unnecessary public alarm.

  Pilots
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the requirement is for(a) Sea Harrier pilots and (b) Harrier GR7 pilots; and how many there are in each case. [91036]

  Mr. Ingram
  The position as at 15 January 2003 is set out in the table.

  Aircraft

  Requirement

  Strength

  Sea Harrier

  172

  48

  Harrier GR7

  269

  368

  1The Sea Harrier pilot requirement includes 'cockpit' and career broadening appointments in the Royal Navy, plus a training margin. Both front line squadrons are fully manned and forecast to remain so for the foreseeable future.

  2The Harrier GR7 requirement comprises wing commander, squadron leader and junior officer posts on front line squadrons, operational conversion units, operational evaluation units and wing appointments. In addition to these established flying posts, fast jet pilots are required for instructional duties within the RAF's flying training system, overseas exchange posts, the RAF Acrobatic Team and a number of ground posts shared by all serving in the General Duties Branch.

  3 Figure includes three Royal Navy officers flying GR7 aircraft. These officers are acting as pathfinders for the scheme under which Joint Force Harrier will gradually migrate to a fleet equipped with GR7/GR9 aircraft.

  Radio Mast (Lagopatria)
  Mr. Anthony Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in erecting a radio mast in Lagopatria, north of Naples, to provide broadcasting services for the Armed Forces South British Services community. [91215]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is not currently seeking to erect a radio mast at Lagopatria (or any other location in the Naples area) to provide a British Forces Broadcasting Service (BFBS) radio channel for United Kingdom personnel serving at HQ Allied Forces, South. The provision of such a facility is not currently assessed to be a high priority against other welfare needs or against the size of the service population who might benefit. The erection of such a mast could, in any event, only proceed with the prior approval of the Italian authorities, for both its construction and the use of a viable radio frequency. The Italian authorities have previously declined to grant the use of such a frequency.

  RAF (Contractors)
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures are in place for evaluating the financial stability of contractors working on behalf of the RAF. [88641]

  Mr. Ingram
  Works requirements are advertised in the Ministry of Defence Contracts Bulletin, and where appropriate, the Official Journal of the European Community. The adverts request that companies wishing to express an interest in tendering submit 210W
  specific details to demonstrate their financial standing. This will normally be confirmation of the firms registration on Construction Line (a database jointly maintained by Department of Trade & Industry and Capita on behalf of all Government Departmens), details of a companies registration with an official list maintained by another Member State, or a statement of the firms overall turnover and turnover on construction works over the last three years.

  Tender lists are thus drawn up using contractors of proven and established financial health, workload and performance.

  The financial standing of contractors is regularly monitored and vetting is carried out where appropriate.

  As a result of signs that the company might be in trouble the financial standing of Inframan Ltd was under review just prior to the company going into administration on 12 December 2002

  RAF Leuchars
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Inframan Ltd. and its continuing role at RAF Leuchars. [88598]

  Mr. Ingram
  Inframan Ltd. was placed into Administration on 12 December 2002. Grant Thornton were appointed as administrators of Inframan by the High Court of Justice.

  With effect from 19 December 2002 Grant Thornton concluded a transaction with Steill Ltd., a subsidiary of Alfred McAlpine plc, for acquisition of the assets of Inframan Ltd.

  It is intended that the existing contracts between Inframan Ltd. and the Ministry of Defence will shortly be transferred to the new owners.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much is owed to sub-contractors in respect of work completed at RAF Leuchars. [88599]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence does not hold the information requested.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the main contractor at RAF Leuchars changed in 2002. [88600]

  Mr. Ingram
  Hyder Infrastructure Management Ltd. were appointed the main contractor at RAF Leuchars in April 2001 following a competitive tender process to support Commander Royal Engineers (Airfield Section) re-role. Hyder Infrastructure Management Ltd. changed their trading name briefly to Inframan Ltd. by Special Resolution as provided by Section 28(1) of the Companies Act 1985. As a consequence the contract was amended to reflect the contractor's new name and the change referred to was in name only.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures are in place for(a) reimbursing sub-contractors who are due monies from Inframan Ltd. and (b) allowing them to reclaim assets from RAF Leuchars for which they have not been paid. [88639]
  211W
  Mr. Ingram
  Sub-contractors who are owed money by Inframan Ltd. should present their claim to the administrators, Grant Thornton, who were appointed administrators of Inframan Ltd. on 12 December 2002.

  Sub-contractors who wish to make a reservation of title claim in respect of stock supplied to Inframan Ltd. should equally present their claim to Grant Thornton.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sums have been paid to Inframan Ltd. in each month since their appointment as contractor to RAF Leuchars. [88640]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is withheld in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information as it is Commercial in Confidence.

  SA80 Rifle
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the SA80; and if he will make a statement. [91413]

  Mr. Ingram
  The SA80 modification programme has significantly improved the reliability and performance of the weapon. Extensive trials were carried out across all climatic conditions before the modified weapon was introduced. More recent trials and demonstrations in Afghanistan and Oman have established beyond doubt that the weapon is reliable and accurate, and can be maintained in an operational environment.

  Tomahawk
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which SSNs have been given Tomahawk capability; which further SSNs will be refitted with Tomahawk capability; and when these refits will take place. [91031]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following RN SSNs have been made Tomahawk capable:

  HMS Splendid;

  HMS Triumph;

  HMS Trafalgar; and

  HMS Turbulent.

  Two more SSNs will be made Tomahawk capable this calendar year, with the remaining three receiving the capability by 2007. All Astute class SSNs will be made Tomahawk capable on build.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Bio-waste
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's position on forthcoming EU negotiations on a bio-waste directive. [89620]

  Margaret Beckett
  I cannot at this stage be precise as we have yet to see a Commission proposal for a bio-waste directive. A proposal is expected to come forward later this year. In general terms, we will seek to protect UK interests, while negotiating constructively for a positive outcome. We recognise that a well thought out 212W
  and relevant bio-waste directive could play an important role in achieving our aim of a sustainable waste management system.

  Chewing Gum
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will meet the manufacturers of chewing gum to discuss the impact of their product on the environment; and if she will explore the potential for biodegradable chewing gum. [91348]

  Alun Michael
  At the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), I met the Wrigley's company on 8 January to discuss the effect chewing gum has on the environment. The meeting was positive and we agreed to hold further discussions to explore measures that would help to minimise the irresponsible disposal of chewing gum.

  Cod Fisheries
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what evidential basis her Department stated that fisheries in cod related fisheries will be able to fish for 15 days per month, with reference to the terms of Annex XVII to regulation 2341/2002. [91772]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: Annex XVII to the Regulation provides in paragraph 6a for nine days at sea per month for fishing vessels carrying demersal trawls, seines or similar towed gear of mesh size equal to or greater than 100mm except beam trawls. Paragraphs 6b and 6c provide for the Commission to allocate additional days to Member States in certain circumstances. During the Council the Commission confirmed to me that on the basis of these paragraphs the UK will be allocated a further six days per month for vessels carrying the above gear types, bringing the total to 15.

  Contracts
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which companies her Department and its predecessors have had contracts with since 1 May 1997; what the period of those contracts was; and what areas of work they(a) are and (b) have been involved in. [91216]

  Alun Michael
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many full-time equivalent staff are employed in(a) the Department and (b) each of the agencies it sponsors; and what the equivalent figures were for 1997. [90675]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 16 January 2003,Official Report column 697W.

  Drainage Boards
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what legal rights drainage boards have to carry out their duties. [91180]

  Mr. Morley
  Internal drainage boards have powers to exercise a general supervision of all matters relating to the drainage of their districts. These are set out in the Land Drainage Act 1991.

  Farm Subsidies
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her most recent estimate is of the cost to the average British family of all subsidies paid to the farming industry and to rural areas in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [90256]

  Mr. Morley
  Transfers to producers under agricultural policies take place through taxpayer expenditure and through higher prices to consumers. We estimate that the total average weekly cost, to a notional family of four, of all transfers under the CAP and UK national agricultural policies was between £11–£12 in 1999 and £9–£10 in 2000 (the latest year for which estimates are available).

  Farm Values
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her latest calculation is of the change in the value of(a) farm land, (b) farm houses and (c) other farm buildings over the last 10 years. [90252]

  Mr. Morley
  Estimates are available only for the value of farm land and farm buildings combined. Estimates for the value of farm houses are not available

  The overall value of farm "land and buildings" in the UK increased by £43 billion, or 85 per cent. (52 per cent. in real terms) between 1993 and 2000. Estimates for years prior to 1993 are not comparable.

  Whilst estimates of the value of all farm land are not separately available, statistics are available on the average price of farm land sales. These show that the annual average price of agricultural land sold in England increased by £3,300 per hectare or 87 per cent. (55 per cent. in real terms) over the same period.

  Farm Waste
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farm waste grants have been awarded in nitrate vulnerable zones. [90962]

  Mr. Morley
  Fifty eight waste grants have been awarded in nitrate vulnerable zones, since the start of the scheme tin 1996 to 31 December 2002.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average size of farm waste grants was in the last period for which figures are available. [90964]
  214W
  Mr. Morley
  The average size of farm waste grant paid, since the start of the scheme in 1996 to 31 December 2002, is £6,800.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farm waste grants have been awarded in Lancashire in each of the last five years. [90726]

  Mr. Morley
  No applications for farm waste grants have been received in Lancashire in each of the last five years. The Farm Waste Grant Scheme only operates in designated Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs). NVZs were not designated in Lancashire until October 2002.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farm waste grants have been awarded in each of the regions; and how much each region has received. [90750]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of farm waste grants awarded so far and the number each region has received, since the start of the scheme in 1996 to 31 December 2002, is:

  Number awarded

  Total grant awarded(£)

  Applications received

  Value of claims (£)

  South West

  3

  37,377

  3

  37,377

  East

  17

  93,512

  18

  118,766

  North West

  4

  35,230

  6

  44,592

  York and Humberside

  3

  9,078

  3

  9,078

  East Midlands

  13

  89,909

  15

  100,151

  South East

  11

  76,036

  12

  110,036

  West Midlands

  7

  53,218

  8

  72,129

  Farmers (Compensation)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department and its predecessors spent on compensatory payments to farmers, broken down by(a) type and (b) region, in each year since 1997. [91217]

  Alun Michael
  The amounts of compensatory payments made since 1997 are as follows:

  Scheme

  Scheme year payments (in £million)

  2001

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  AAPS1

  87.2

  883.0

  1,130.4

  985.9

  1,055.7

  SAPS1

  59.4

  105.4

  143.0

  167.7

  117.6

  BSPS1

  121.2

  114.7

  142.7

  127.0

  135.7

  ESP1

  45.1

  56.3

  0

  0

  0

  SPS

  33.1

  26.1

  0

  0

  0

  SCPS1

  67.9

  775

  106.0

  77.9

  78.8

  HLCA

  Closed

  Closed

  40.7

  25.8

  38.4

  HFA

  39.0

  42.6

  0

  0

  0

  ERDP2

  90.8

  85.8

  64.2

  55.4

  44.5

  DAIRY3

  54.9

  15.6

  0

  0

  0

  1Includes Agrimonetary compensation

  2Relates to Financial years.

  3Relates to calendar year payments.

  The information is not available broken down by regions.

  HFA applications are made in one year and paid in the Spring of the following year. Therefore the figure for 2001 is for applications made in 2000.

  Fisheries (Aid)
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what discussions she has had with the Treasury regarding additional funding for aid to fishing communities since the agreement reached at the recent Fisheries Council; [91773]

  (2) what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive in respect of aid packages to fishing communities since the agreement reached at the Fisheries Council. [91771]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: In considering the need for funding for fishing communities I am discussing the issues both with other Whitehall Departments and the devolved administrations.

  Flooding
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the chairmen of flood defence committees have to declare other jobs they hold. [91170]

  Mr. Morley
  All Defra appointments to Regional Flood Defence Committees are made following the Code of Practice of the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA). On application for appointment, chairmen are asked to declare their present employment, other business interests, other public appointments and any other possible factors which may affect their suitability for appointment, including involvement in political activities. This information is updated regularly.

  There are also requirements under paragraph 14 of Schedule 5 to the Environment Act 1995 regarding declarations of interest by members of regional and local flood defence committees.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress with the flood defence scheme for the Silkstream, Edgware. [91179]

  Mr. Morley
  Operational responsibility for flood management measures rests with the local operating authorities, normally the Environment Agency (EA) and local councils, who decide which projects to promote and their timing.

  The EA is not seeking Defra grant for their proposed flood defence scheme for the Silkstream, Edgware, but do require our approval given the scale of public funding involved. Defra is considering the EA's proposed scheme against the normal technical, economic and environmental criteria. In the meantime the EA are working on the detailed design and negotiating with landowners. Subject to the necessary agreements, the EA plan to start work by the winter of 2003 and expect the construction phase to take two to three years to complete.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many flood defence committees there are in England. [91509]

  Mr. Morley
  There are nine Regional Flood Defence Committees in England and one in Wales. There are statutory Local Flood Defence Committees in Anglian,216W
  Southern and Wessex Regions and in Wales. In the North West region there are three non-statutory advisory committees.

  All committees are listed below:

  Anglian Region

  Local committees (5): Lincolnshire, Welland and Nene, Great Ouse, Norfolk and Suffolk, Essex.

  Northumbrian Region

  No local committees.

  North West Region

  Non statutory advisory committees (3): Cumberland. Lancashire, Mersey and Weaver.

  Severn Trent Region

  No local committees.

  Southern Region

  Local committees (3): Isle of Wight and Hampshire, Sussex, Kent.

  South West Region

  No local committees.

  Thames Region

  No local committees.

  Wessex Region

  Local committees (3): Bristol Avon, Somerset, Avon and Dorset.

  Yorkshire Region

  No local committees.

  Wales

  Local committees (6): Dee and Clywd, Gwynedd, South West Wales, Wye, Usk, Glamorgan.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will advise insurance companies that premiums on flooding policies should relate directly to risk and not to the post code areas in which the property is situated. [91400]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: It is not for Government to advise insurance companies how they should calculate premiums. However, the Environment Agency are shortly to provide data to the Association of British Insurers which will enable them to develop a better understanding of the risk of flooding within a particular area.

  Immunocapillary Electrophoresis
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement on the research conducted by her Department and its non-departmental public bodies regarding the immunocapillary electrophoresis test; [90036]

  (2) what assessment her Department has made of the correlation between the immunocapillary electrophoresis test and other pre-clinical tests; and if she will make a statement. [90286]

  (3) what plans her Department has to evaluate the Immunocapillary Electrophoresis (ICE) test in a large surveillance trial; [90840]

  (4) what steps her Department is taking to (a) develop and (b) validate the Immunocapillary Electrophoresis test with the European Union; and if she will make a statement. [90841]
  217W
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, (1) how many sheep have been tested by her Department and its non-departmental public bodies using the immunocapillary electrophoresis test; and what proportion of sheep were identified as(a) scrapie-infected and (b) non-scrapie infected, [90035]

  (2) if she will make a statement on her policy on the continuation of the application of the immunocapillary electrophoresis test. [90287]

  (3) what assessment her Department has made of the use of the immunocapillary electrophoresis test for diagnostic purposes; and what steps she is taking to enable the test to be used throughout the United Kingdom. [90845]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answers 15, 16 and 20 January 2003]: DEFRA has commissioned the Veterinary Laboratories Agency to evaluate and further develop the ICE test (Immunocapillary Electrophoresis Test) with a view to its potential use in the pre-clinical diagnosis of BSE and scrapie. Work on this test has also been funded since September 2002 by the EU Commission with EU laboratories and the VLA under the Framework 5 Programme.

  The technology has been transferred from the USA and the test is still in the development phase. It has not yet been applied to field samples on a larger scale commercial level. Technical issues have had to be resolved, further improvements are envisaged, and the implementation of field case testing has been delayed by Foot and Mouth Disease.

  To date the ICE method has been used on sheep within a controlled scrapie-infected flock. The test has been shown to identify positive animals at certain stages of infection before clinical disease develops. Further work is being done to determine the exact age range in which positive animals can be identified. Scrapie-free animals give negative results with the test. The method therefore shows promise as a diagnostic tool but its use on a wide scale will be determined by the final characteristics of the test, in particular the optimum time for the test to be used to identify TSE positive sheep. Further validation will be required when the final test protocol is defined.

  In the absence of other validated confirmatory pre-clinical tests, the results from ICE testing are being correlated with biopsy materials and eventual postmortem confirmation of infection in the tested sheep. Facilities to expand the use of the test for field sampling are in place at the VLA and sample materials have been
  218W
  collected to use in a validated test. The preparatory stages for samples in this test are relatively complex and require several days to process; this may limit the number of samples that can be processed and the scale of use of the test. Currently the ICE method remains the only non-invasive live animal test that has been developed to the potential for identifying TSE-infected sheep or sheep flocks.

  Internal Drainage Boards
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the internal drainage boards in England and Wales, broken down by constituency. [91578]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: The information is not available in the form requested. However, a list of drainage boards wholly or partly in England together with associated constituent councils has today been placed in the Libraries of the House. A map of internal drainage districts (Ref: PB 5455 Flood Defence and Land Drainage in England and Wales) is available from The Stationery Office. Flood defence is a fully devolved responsibility and the information relating to Boards in Wales should be sought from the National Assembly.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much(a) public and (b) other money internal drainage boards have received in each year since 1997; how much money internal drainage boards have spent in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [91579]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: Internal drainage boards' income and expenditure is as follows:

  Internal drainage boards' income and expenditure

  £

  Public

  Other

  Total

  Income

  1999–2000

  21,459,845

  19,088,311

  40,548,156

  2000–01

  21,439,538

  20,221,600

  41,661,138

  2001–02

  24,377,419

  20,403,613

  44,781,032

  Expenditure

  1999–2000

  40,721,041

  2000–01

  41,983,118

  2001–02

  43,305,755

  Notes:

  1. The information for earlier years is not available other than at disproportionate cost. That for 2002–03 is not yet available; information is collected annually.

  2. The funding referred to as 'public money' comprises of special levies paid by local authorities, Environment Agency contributions and Government grants.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the effectiveness of internal drainage boards in dealing with flood alleviation in England and Wales. [91580]
  219W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: There are 223 internal drainage boards (IDBs) in England, of greatly varying size, whose role is to secure the effective land drainage of their area. I believe that they generally perform this role well.

  The great majority of IDBs have produced policy statements setting out their approach to flood defence issues. IDBs have also generally played a full role in inspecting flood defences and watercourses, reporting the results to the Environment Agency as required under Defra's High Level Targets.

  The institutional arrangements for flood and coastal defence are currently being considered in the Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Review. While I see a continuing role for internal drainage boards I shall wish to ensure that their activities are compatible with wider Government policies and that they are organised in a way well fitted to the 21st Century.

  Sheep (EU Regulations)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the annual cost to the farming industry of the introduction of the EU draft regulations on the double-tagging of sheep; and what proportion of that cost she plans to meet from her Departmental budget. [91420]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: A full regulatory impact assessment is being prepared and officials will be seeking advice from key stakeholders to ensure that costs are accurately reflected.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in 2002. [90548]

  Alun Michael
  Records are not yet available for the number of days lost due to sickness absence in 2002, but these will be announced in due course. Sickness absence figures for previous years are published in the Cabinet Office annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service", copies of which are placed in House Libraries.

  The Department is committed to the effective management of sickness absence, and to meeting its Service Delivery Agreement target of reducing sickness absence to 6.9 days for 2003.

  Sustainability
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with industries dependent on unsustainable activities to encourage a transition to more sustainable ways of earning their living. [90622]

  Mr. Meacher
  Promoting sustainable business is a key objective of the UK Government's Sustainable Development Strategy 'A Better Quality of Life'. It has been highlighted as a priority in recent reports from the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit covering Resource Productivity, Energy and Waste. Encouraging 220W
  sustainable consumption and production was also one of the key concerns at the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

  Engaging with UK business forms an integral part of all of this work. Ministers and officials have frequent contact with business leaders through advisory bodies such as the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment (ACBE), the Advisory Committee on Consumer Products and the Environment (ACCPE), the Trades Union Sustainable Development Advisory Committee (TUSDAC), and the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC).

  We have been working closely with business in the development and introduction of a range of initiatives, including the Climate Change Levy and its associated negotiated agreements, the Emissions Trading Scheme, and the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP).

  We also engage with business in the course of work on Government sponsored support programmes such as Envirowise (which offers advice on waste minimisation), ActionEnergy (which offers advice on energy efficiency) and the Pioneers Group' (which provides practical advice to sectoral bodies in drawing up sector-wide strategies on sustainable development).

  This engagement will continue and expand as we take forward new initiatives, such as the implementation of the Government's Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food, in revising the UK Sustainable Development Strategy, and in responding to the recommendations of the Strategy Unit's report on waste.

  Tallow
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much tallow produced under the over-thirty-months scheme has been sold(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) overseas in each year since the scheme began; for what purpose it has been sold; and how much revenue has been raised from sales (i) in the United Kingdom and (ii) overseas, in each year since the scheme began. [90843]

  Alun Michael
  In total over 213,000 tonnes of tallow from the over thirty month scheme (OTMS) have been sold for energy recovery. No OTMS tallow has been sold overseas. The OTMS began in 1996. Receipts for each financial year since together with details of the tonnage sold follow:

  Financial Year

  Income (£)

  Tonnes sold

  1996–97

  1—

  21,356

  1997–98

  1—

  26,362

  1998–99

  333,397.00

  17,099

  1999–2000

  1,454,308.00

  31,223

  2000–01

  968,638.00

  35,105

  2001–02

  857,855.28

  31,518

  2002–03

  21.670,546.44

  350,399

  1Income for tallow sales not separately identifiable. Included under general receipts

  2Invoice payments are outstanding

  3Tonnes sold to date

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Peace Process (Middle-East)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for peace and the cessation of terrorism in the middle-east. [91794]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has stated, urgent progress on the MEPP is essential. Our goal is to achieve an Israeli state free from terror, a viable Palestinian state based on 1967 boundaries. The Quartet is working on a roadmap to realise President Bush's goal of a final status agreement within three years. It represents best current chance of securing peace. I was pleased with the progress made at the London meeting, intended to support the Quartet's efforts, on Palestinian reform. We judge that this will have made a contribution towards both improving prospects for peace and clearing the way for a cessation of terror.

  EU Enlargement
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received on the level of public awareness in the UK of the forthcoming enlargement of the EU. [91797]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Eurobarometer survey of October 2002 suggests that 38 per cent. of the UK population are for enlargement, while 35 per cent. are against and 28 per cent. have no opinion. The Government accept the importance of informing public opinion on this matter and have recently stepped up its public information activities.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with EU applicant countries on the Convention on the Future of Europe. [91681]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary and I have regular discussions with colleagues in EU accession countries on many issues including the Convention on the Future of Europe.

  North Korea
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to seek a change of nuclear policy by the Government of North Korea. [91799]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement to the press deploring North Korea's stated intention to withdraw from the nonproliferation treaty on 10 January and has made representations to the North Korean Government through the Embassy in Pyongyang, in addition to holding regular discussions with key international partners on this issue.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has initiated with his counterparts in the UN Security 222W
  Council concerning the withdrawal of North Korea from the Non-Proliferation Treaty; and if he will make a statement. [91564]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has held bilateral discussions on this issue with a number of UN Security Council (UNSC) colleagues. We also expect the UN Security Council to discuss it.

  The Foreign Secretary issued a press statement 10 January expressing his deep concern about North Korea's recent actions. We subsequently delivered a similar message to the North Korean Government through our Embassy in Pyongyang. We also protested to the DPRK chargÉ d'affairs in London.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to normalise relations with North Korea since establishing diplomatic relations with it. [91565]

  Mr. Rammell
  Diplomatic relations between the UK and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea were established in December 2000, and the British Embassy in Pyongyang opened on 30 July 2001. This established a channel of communication which has allowed us to address the North Korean authorities directly on issues of international concern, such as non-proliferation and human rights.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether North Korea possesses nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement. [91566]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have no hard evidence that the North Koreans have produced nuclear weapons, but we assess that they have sufficient fissile material for one or two nuclear weapons, and the technical capability to produce them. In October 2002, North Korean Government officials admitted to the visiting US Assistant Secretary of State, James Kelly, that North Korea had been pursuing a secret uranium enrichment programme. If North Korea begins to re-process the spent fuel rods at Yongbyon, it is possible that they could be used to produce nuclear warheads within a matter of months.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the countries to which missile technology has been exported by North Korea; and if he will make a statement. [91865]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  North Korea is the world's biggest supplier of ballistic missiles and related technology to countries of concern. Missiles are North Korea's most significant export and, by channelling profits back into the programme, an almost self-sustaining missile industry has been developed, supporting the requirements of both the domestic programme and the export market. North Korea has provided No Dong missile technology to Iran and Pakistan, enabling them to acquire their own versions. SCUD technology is also available for export, and has been sold to Iran, Syria, Egypt, Libya, UAE and Yemen. Over the last 15 years North Korea has exported at least 400 missiles

  Israel/Palestine
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has initiated at the United Nations for a new resolution in relation to Israel and Palestine. [91801]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our immediate priority is the implementation of those resolutions already passed; most recently, Security Council Resolution 1435 of September 2002, which called for a complete cessation of violence, withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian cities and action by the Palestinian Authority to bring those responsible for acts of terror to justice. The UK played a leading role in the adoption of this resolution. There are no plans for a further resolution in the near future, but we remain committed to further Security Council action whenever this might be useful.

  Iraq
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to ensure long-term stability in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [91802]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained in his written statement of 7 January, our priority is to secure Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council resolutions, including on giving up weapons of mass destruction. We are working to ensure that Iraq becomes, in the Foreign Secretary's words, "a stable, united and law abiding state, within its present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, abiding by all its international obligations and providing effective and representative government for its own people."

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the action the UK Government will take should the UN decide not to take military action against Iraq. [91804]

  Mr. Rammell
  In the event that there is a material breach, the preference of the British Government is for a second resolution. So far, the UN Security Council has, as Kofi Annan has said, "faced up to its responsibilities". We believe it will continue to do so. But we must reserve our position in the event that it does not.

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason the report from Iraq on weapons of mass destruction was not presented in its entirety to the UN. [91514]

  Mr. Rammell
  Under relevant non-proliferation conventions, China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States of America are obliged to prevent the dissemination of information relating to the production of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.

  The President of the UN Security Council therefore decided that the full Iraqi declaration should only be given to these members of the Security Council, who
  224W
  also have the expertise to assess the risks of proliferation. His decision followed consultations with all members of the Security Council.

  The other members received the main body of the Declaration excluding a number of sensitive passages and words that were omitted by UNMOVIC and the IAEA who, after consulting the Security Council members with expertise to assess the risks of proliferation, judged them to contain information that might be of use to potential WMD proliferators.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the preliminary findings of UN weapons inspectors about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. [91791]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We maintain regular contact with UNMOVIC and the IAEA about the progress of inspections. Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei will be reporting to the UN Security Council on 27 January 2003 Their report is expected to cover in some detail their initial findings and their impressions on the level of co-operation received. We will then be in a position to assess their findings.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the work of the weapons inspectors in Iraq. [91800]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We maintain regular contact with UNMOVIC and the IAEA about the progress of inspections. Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei will he reporting to the UN Security Council on 27 January. We look forward to receiving their report.

  Dr. Blix had a meeting with my right hon. Friend The Prime Minister on Friday at which he told the Prime Minister that, while the inspectors had encountered no direct obstruction in carrying out their task, the onus was on Iraq to be more proactive in their cooperation.

  African Great Lakes
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the African Great Lakes region. [91803]

  Mr. Rammell
  The situation in the Great Lakes is dominated by the conflicts in DRC and Burundi. Progress has been made in both countries recently, but there are still outstanding issues to be addressed before peace is fully achieved.

  Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on UK adherence to the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty; and if he will make a statement. [92339]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABMT) is no longer in force between the US and Russia, and the UK was never a party to it.

  Chechnya
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary. of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what
  225W
  representations he has received on the forced repatriation of Chechen internally displaced persons from their displacement camps in Ingushetia; and if he will make a statement. [91766]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK has played a prominent role in international efforts to press the Russian Government to halt the closure of internally displaced persons camps in the North Caucasus. Bilaterally, we have informed the Russian Government that the suspension of food, water and energy supplies to the camps constituted, in our view, a forced closure and reminded Russia of her obligations under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. The UK has also initiated and helped draft a number of EU demarches, calling for the closure of the camps to be stopped. We were therefore encouraged by President Putin's statement last month that the closures should be halted. However, we will continue to monitor the situation closely and take further action if necessary.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution the UK has made to the cost of sealing the nuclear reactors at Chernobyl; and if he will make a statement. [91870]

  Mr. MacShane
  The United Kingdom has pledged £25 million to the Chernobyl shelter project. Some of these funds were disbursed prior to 2001, while £16.6 million have been allocated from 2001 to 2004. The project is due to be completed in 2008.

  Cyprus (Missing People)
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the new Turkish Government on what has happened to the people missing since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. [91526]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]We share the concerns of both the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities over the missing persons following the events of 1974. However, this is a humanitarian issue on which the UN Committee on Missing Persons, established in 1983, leads. We support the actions of the Committee and urge full co-operation with it.

  Such humanitarian concerns are among the many reasons why we urge both sides in Cyprus to achieve a settlement, based on the UN Secretary-General's proposals of 10 December, by the UN deadline of 28 February. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I reiterated Her Majesty's Government's support for an early settlement when we met Turkish Ministers at the Copenhagen European Council in December. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence did likewise during his visit to Ankara on 8 January.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the running costs of(a) the Department and (b) each of its sponsored agencies were in (i) 1997 and (ii)the most recent year for which figures are available. [90712]
  226W
  Mr. Rammell
  Detailed information on administration costs for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its agency going back to 1998–99 and with projections to 2003–04, is set out in Table 2 of the 2002 departmental report (Cm 5413). Data for years before 1998–99 are not available on the same basis. Provisional outturn for gross and net administration costs limits were published in Public Expenditure 2001–02 Provisional Outturn (Cm 5574), Tables 4 and 5. Updated information, with plans to 2005–06, will be published in the 2003 departmental report in the spring.

  EU Diplomatic Service
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the recommendation of Working Group VII of the European Convention for an EU diplomatic service working under the authority of the proposed European External Representative; and if he will make a statement. [91545]

  Mr. MacShane
  We believe that it remains for EU member states to organise their respective bilateral Diplomatic Services at the national level, although co-ordination and co-location of diplomatic missions with EU partners may be appropriate. The External Action Working Group report makes clear that any EU Diplomatic Service would work alongside those of member states, not replace them.

  The recommendation in the Working Group report is not that member states' bilateral embassies should work under the authority of the High Representative, but that the Commission's delegations should be re-badged as EU embassies/delegations, staffed by officials of the Commission, Council Secretariat and seconded national diplomats. These officials would work formally under the authority of the High Representative on Common Foreign and Security Policy issues, and under the authority of the Commission for other aspects of external action.

  Europe (Constitution)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the evidential basis was for the statement contained in a letter by Neil Sharp of his Office's European Union Department to the Democracy Movement that a constitution for Europe would not fundamentally change the relationship between the EU and its citizens, nor alter the position of the nation states as the fundamental basis of the European Union. [89128]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 9 January 2003]The Praesidium of the European Convention issued its preliminary draft Constitutional Treaty on 28 October. This can be accessed through their website at: http:// european-convention.eu.int/. It contains, as does the current EC Treaty, provision for union citizenship additional to nationality of the member states (Article 5), and makes clear (in Article 1) that the member states are the fundamental basis of the union. The Government would not agree to any constitution which changed this.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had in the past month with the Spanish Foreign Minister regarding Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [90289]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke with the Spanish Foreign Minister in the margins of the European Summit in Copenhagen and he had a further telephone conversation with her on 18 December. Neither discussion concentrated on Gibraltar.

  Greece (Violence against UK Tourists)
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) murders and (b) other serious crimes of violence were committed against UK nationals whilst on holiday in Greece in each of the last five years. [91817]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of murders and other serious crimes of violence (including rape) committed against UK nationals in Greece, of which consular staff were notified, from 1998–2002, are as follows:

  Murders and serious crimes of violence committed against UK

  nationals in Greece notified to consular staff

  Murders

  Serious crimes of violence

  1998

  2

  23

  1999

  0

  36

  2000

  2

  36

  2001

  0

  51

  2002

  0

  57

  Guantanamo Bay
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with(a) NGOs and (b) Amnesty International on Guantanamo Bay; and if he will make a statement. [91089]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary (and officials) have written to Amnesty International on the issues raised about Guantanamo Bay. The Foreign Secretary has not had discussions with other NGOs on the subject.

  We continue to encourage the US to move forward with the process of resolving the position of the detainees. The Foreign Secretary discussed Guantanamo Bay most recently with the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, on 5 January.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his US counterpart on the position under international law of those detained at Guantanamo Bay. [91868]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had regular discussions about the detention of British nationals at Guantanamo Bay with the US Secretary of State, most recently on 5 January. Whatever their status, the detainees are entitled to humane treatment, and if prosecuted, a fair trial. We 228W
  have encouraged the US to move forward with the process of determining the detainees' future, and shall continue to do so.

  Honduras (Child Murders)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise the issue of child murders in Honduras at the March meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva. [90220]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are deeply concerned by child murders in Honduras and we regularly raise our views.

  We are discussing with EU partners what action to take on Honduras at the forthcoming session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (CHR). The UK, as part of the EU, will continue to support the CHR resolution on the Rights of the Child.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the initiatives taken by the United Kingdom since May 1997 in respect of furtherance of the aims of Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. [91963]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK has a very good record in fulfilling its NPT obligations. In furtherance of the aims of Article VI of The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the UK has, since May 1997:withdrawn and dismantled the RAF's freefall WE 177 nuclear bomb, so that Trident is now our only nuclear weapons system;
  reduced our operationally available stockpile to fewer than 200 warheads, which is a reduction of more than 70 per cent. in the potential explosive power of our nuclear forces since the end of the Cold War;
  dismantled the UK's last Chevaline warhead in April 2002;
  reduced the readiness of our nuclear forces. Only a single Trident submarine at a time is now on deterrent patrol, carrying 48 warheads. The submarine on patrol is normally on several days 'notice to fire' and its missiles are de-targeted;
  placed fissile material no longer required for defence purposes under international safeguards, and all enrichment and reprocessing facilities in the UK are now liable to international inspection;
  been more transparent about our nuclear and fissile material stockpiles and begun a national historical accounting study for fissile material produced;
  published an initial summary report on the verification of the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons. The Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston is undertaking work on this issue;
  ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and promoted its early entry into force;
  ratified the relevant protocols to the Treaty of Raratonga (South Pacific Nuclear Weapon Free Zone) and signed and ratified the relevant protocols to the Treaty of Pelindaba (African Nuclear Weapon Free Zone);
  supported Nuclear Weapon Free Zones in central Asia, south east Asia, and the middle east, and is in negotiations with the relevant states for the first two of these; and

  229W
  continued to press for negotiations to begin at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.

  Plutonium
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2003,Official Report, column 266W, on plutonium disposition, what proportion of the funds committed by the United Kingdom to the disposition of Russian plutonium is earmarked to convert the plutonium into MOX nuclear fuel. [92060]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The United Kingdom has committed £70 milion over ten years to help Russia dispose of plutonium, as it agreed to under the 2000 US/ Russia agreement. That agreement saw both Russia and the US commit to dispose of 34 tonnes of plutonium each. The Russian 34 tonnes will be disposed of as MOX. The UK, unlike some other contributors, has not earmarked its funds for a particular purpose. We believe this programme to be an important part of our wider non-proliferation policy, as it will ensure that a substantial quantity of fissile material cannot fall into terrorist or criminal hands.

  Public Service Agreement Targets
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to publish his autumn departmental reports on public service agreement targets; and if he will make a statement. [91006]

  Mr. Rammell
  We hope to publish the report in the next few weeks.

  Religious Tolerance
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with governments of other countries on protecting those who convert from Islam to other faiths, from(a) persecution and (b) arrest and punishment. [90730]

  Mr. Rammell
  We condemn all instances where individuals are persecuted because of their faith or belief. Ministers and officials take every opportunity, including with our EU partners, to urge states to pursue laws and practices which foster tolerance and mutual respect and to protect religious minorities against discrimination, intimidation and attacks. The UK cosponsored a resolution at the UN General Assembly in November, 2002 in New York, to work to eliminate all forms of religious intolerance. We regularly raise specific cases of religious persecution with the Governments concerned.

  Russian Federation
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 16 January 2003, ref 91205, when the Russian Federation has had its attention drawn to the need to put in place a legal framework satisfactory to donor countries. [92615]
  230W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK has been engaged in both multilateral and bilateral negotiations with Russia on such a legal framework for some time, but these negotiations are yet to be concluded. Throughout the negotiating process, UK officials have taken every opportunity, both in the negotiations themselves and at appropriate international meetings, to resolve difficulties and to stress the importance of a legal framework. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the matter in discussions with the Russian President Putin in Moscow in October 2002. We hope the remaining legal obstacles can be overcome in the near future, and work can begin on this important programme.

  Zimbabwe
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with African leaders on the situation in Zimbabwe. [91798]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are in regular contact with African leaders about Zimbabwe. The crisis there is of concern to the entire region. Zimbabwe was discussed at two recent ministerial meetings attended by Baroness Amos: the EU-Southern African Development Community meeting in Maputo and the EU-Africa meeting in Ouagadougou, both in November 2002.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects he estimates reside in Zimbabwe; and how many have left in the last 12 months. [91263]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are 26,000 British nationals registered with our high commission in Harare. We believe that in total there are approximately 35,000 British Nationals in Zimbabwe. We do not have precise numbers for those that have left Zimbabwe. However, based on contact with the British community and our consular warden network, we estimate that 2,000 British nationals may have left Zimbabwe in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which occasions banned representatives of the Zimbabwe Government have visited(a) the UK and (b) the EU in the last 12 months, and under what authority. [91267]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Members of the Zimbabwe Government have been refused entry to the UK in line with the EU's travel ban.

  The EU Common Position of 18 February 2002 states that member states may grant exemptions from the travel ban where travel is justified on the grounds of attending meetings of international bodies. For this reason, the following Zimbabwean Government officials have visited the EU in the last six months.

  Aeneas Chigwedere, Minister of Education, Culture and Sports was in Paris for a UNESCO meeting on 9 and 10 January. Two junior ZANU(PF) Ministers, Christopher Kuruneri, Deputy Minister for Finance and Paul Mangwana, Minister of State for State Enterprises were in Brussels for an EU/ACP meeting in November 2002. This meeting broke down when the European Parliament refused to grant the Zimbabweans access to

  231W
  the building. ZANU (PF)'s Trade Minister, Samuel Mumbengegwi was in Brussels for an EU/ACP meeting in September. Police Commissioner, Augustine Chihuri, was in Lyon for an Interpol meeting in August.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Solicitor General when she expects the CPS to publish its autumn departmental reports on public service agreement targets; and if she will make a statement. [91008]

  The Solicitor-General
  I expect the autumn performance report of the Crown Prosecution Service to be published by the end of January, or shortly thereafter.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Appointments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who have been members of the Broadband Fixed Wireless Access Consultative Group since its inception; what(a) expenses and (b) salary each received; and if she will make a statement. [91664]

  Aerospace Committee membership list—1999 to date

  Name

  Position

  Company/Institution

  Date

  Mr. Colin Green

  (Chairman) Director

  Rolls-Royce plc

  From March 1999

  Dr. David Anderson

  Managing Director

  Future Systems Technology QinetiQ

  From April 2002

  Mr. Norman Barber

  Chairman

  Smiths Industries plc

  Until May 2000

  Mr. Martin Broadhurst

  Managing Director

  Marshall of Cambridge Aerospace Ltd.

  From March 1999

  Mr. Larry Brooke

  National Secretary

  MSF

  Until December 2000

  Mr. Ken Brundle

  Vice President and General Manager

  Shorts Brothers plc

  Until May 2000

  Mr. Robin Clark

  Director

  Cobham plc

  From March 1999

  Mr. Graham Cole

  Director of Government Affairs

  GKN plc

  From March 2001

  Mr. Allan Cook

  Deputy Chief Executive

  Cobham plc

  Until January 2001

  Prof. Bill Dawes

  Francis Mond Prof. of Aeronautical Engineering

  Cambridge University

  From March 1999

  Dr. John Ferrie

  Group Managing Director Aerospace

  Smiths Group plc

  From March 2001

  Mr. Simon Frost OBE

  Chief Executive

  Claverham Ltd.

  From March 1999

  Mr. Chris Geoghegan

  Chief Operating Officer

  BAE Systems

  From July 2002

  Mr. Ken Maciver

  Consultant—formerly Executive Vice President

  TRW Aeronautics—Lucas Aerospace

  From March 1999

  Mr. David Marshall

  Director General

  Society of British Aerospace Companies

  From March 1999

  Mr. John McGowan

  Director of Strategic Planning

  GKN Westland Ltd.

  Until December 2000

  Ms Eva Persson

  Business Development Director

  Rolls-Royce plc

  From March 1999

  Prof. Ian Poll

  Head of the College of Aeronautics

  Cranfield University, MK43 0AL

  From March 1999

  Mr. John Quigley

  National Officer (Shipbuilding and Aerospace)

  AMICUS

  From March 2001

  Mr. Mike Rouse

  Group Managing Director

  Military Aircraft and Support Systems, British Aerospace plc

  Until January 2002

  Mr. Michael Ryan

  General Manager, Aerospace Operations

  Bombardier Aerospace, Shorts Brothers plc

  From September 2000

  Major General Alan Sharman

  Director General

  Defence Manufacturers Association

  From March 1999

  Mr. John Sharman

  Executive Director

  Spectrum Capital Ltd.

  From March 1999

  Mr. Mike Stacey

  Chairman

  Meggitt plc

  Until March 2001

  Mr. Tom Williams

  Managing Director and General Manager

  Airbus UK

  From May 2001

  Mr. Richard Wood

  Managing Director

  Weston Aerospace

  From March 1999

  British Energy
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the extent is of foreign ownership of British(a) gas and oil exploration, (b) electricity generation, (c) oil supply, (d) gas supply, (e) electricity supply and (f) other energy industries. [89569]
  232W
  Mr. Timms
  The purpose of the Broadband Fixed Wireless Access Consultative Group is to advise the Radiocommunications Agency on a wide range of issues relating to the award of Broadband Fixed Wireless Access licences. There are over 200 members, representing telecommunications operators, manufacturers and others with an interest in the development of broadband fixed wireless access. It also has representatives from the Agency and its advisers and from other Government organisations. Members' salaries and expenses are met by themselves or their employers.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who have been members of the Aerospace Committee since its inception; what(a) expenses and (b) salary each received; and if she will make a statement. [91660]

  Alan Johnson
  The members of the Aerospace Committee since its inception are listed in the following table.

  Aerospace Committee members are unpaid, although travel expenses may be reimbursed.

  Mr. Larry Brooke, a member from March 1999 to December 2000, claimed travel expenses totalling £26.10.

  No other travel expenses have been requested or paid.

  Mr. Wilson
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Gas and oil exploration is carried out by a range of private companies, most of which operate on a global basis. It would not be meaningful to measure offshore activity in this way, and we do not attempt to do so.

  233W

  (b) Based on 2001 volumes of generation and current company ownership, around 55 per cent. of UK electricity generation is foreign owned.

  (c) The international nature of the oil market makes this difficult to calculate. Based on 2001 figures, around two-thirds of the oil products produced by oil refineries located in the UK were produced by refineries in foreign ownership (Shell has been treated as British). However, not all of this production is consumed within the UK, and the UK also imports refined products. It is not possible to determine how much of the traded oil products came from foreign-owned oil refineries.

  (d) Based on 2001 gas supply figures and current company ownership, around 25 per cent of downstream gas supply is the responsibility of non-UK companies.

  (e) Based on 2001 volumes of supply and current company ownership, around 65 per cent. of UK supply is foreign owned.

  (f) Information provided by The Coal Authority, based on their principal licensees only, shows that in terms of coal production in 2001, the entire UK coal industry is under UK control.

  British Hardware and Housewares Manufacturers Association
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with the British Hardware and Housewares Manufacturers Association. [91842]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not had any recent discussions with the British Hardware and Housewares Manufacturers Association. However, officials in the Department maintain contact with the Association, and regularly discuss a wide range of issues of concern to the sector.

  Debt
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress of the National Debtline. [90847]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The National Debtline aims to deliver free specialist debt advice and a debt repayment planning service to consumers in financial difficulty. I launched the pilot project on 14 March 2002. It was funded with £1 million from the Invest to Save Budget, and £50,000 each from the DTI, Scottish Executive and the Lord Chancellor's Department. The credit industry contributed a further £850,000.

  As of 14 January 2003, the National Debtline had given advice to 22,648 clients (from telephone, e-mail and face-to-face services). Of these, 19,582 clients were from England, 1,853 from Scotland and 984 from Wales.

  My officials are currently carrying out an evaluation of the National Debtline, which will establish:
  the strength of the business case for national, independent, free, telephone money advice services; and
  the best balance between a single national contact centre and smaller centres around the country.

  Motor Industry
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received about skills shortages in the retail motor industry. [92652]
  234W
  Alan Johnson
  I receive regular representations about skills shortages in a wide range of sectors, including the retail motor industry. I was therefore pleased that a development contract has been granted for the Automotive Skills Council, which is designed to address critical skills issues in this sector.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effect of the Government's Supply of New Cars Order 2000. [92651]

  Alan Johnson
  Responsibility for monitoring the Supply of New Cars Order 2000 and investigating allegations of anti-competitive behaviour lies with the Director General of Fair Trading.

  One of the main provisions of the Order is designed to ensure that manufacturers do not unjustifiably discriminate between discounts for fleet customers and dealers. The OFT's most recent investigation was published on 29 January 2002. The OFT found that in that particular case, the anti-discrimination rules had not been broken. The OFT will continue to monitor compliance with the Order and investigate any complaints.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the value is of British Energy's Decommissioning Fund; and what the value was in each year since 1993; [91926]

  (2) how much British Energy has paid into the Decommissioning Fund in each year since 1995. [91922]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Nuclear Decommissioning Fund was established in 1996 when British Energy was privatised. The value of, and British Energy's annual contribution to, the Fund are reported annually in the company's report and accounts. On 28 November 2002, British Energy announced a restructuring proposal intended to achieve the long-term viability of the company, including new and enhanced arrangements to fund decommissioning and other back-end nuclear liabilities. The proposal is currently being considered by the company's creditors. A copy of the company's announcement was placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Post Offices
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 7 January 2003,Official Report, column 152W, on post offices, if she will list the post office closures which were put out to consultation on (a) 29 November and (b) 16 December 2002. [91273]

  Mr. Timms
  Proposals put out to consultation for post office closures under the urban network reinvention are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Sub-Post Offices
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effect of Automated Credit Transfer on sub-post office revenue. [91999]
  235W
  Mr. Timms
  The current value to Post Office Ltd. of encashment business from the Department for Work and Pensions is some £400 million a year. The migration of benefit payment to Automated Credit Transfer (ACT) begins this year and the Post Office's strategy is to respond to that challenge with a range of banking and other services. How the migration of benefit payments affects the revenue of sub-post offices will depend on a number of factors, not least how benefit recipients and other post office customers respond to change. But the contract for the Post Office card account is potentially worth £1 billion to Post Office Ltd. over its 10-year lifetime.

  Zimbabwe (Trading Links)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the United Kingdom companies who had trading links with Zimbabwe in 2002. [92058]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]Trade Partners UK does not hold comprehensive information on UK companies trading with, or investing in, Zimbabwe.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has made to United Kingdom companies to end trading links with Zimbabwe. [92059]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]I have not made any representations to UK companies to end trading links with Zimbabwe. Her Majesty's Government do not favour economic sanctions. These would harm the people of Zimbabwe and the region at a time of humanitarian crisis, while having little impact on the ZANU (PF) leadership.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the running costs of(a) the Department and (b) each of its sponsored agencies were in (i) 1997 and (ii) the most recent year for which figures are available. [90716]

  Dr. Howells
  Detailed information on administration costs for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Royal Parks Agency, going back to 1998–99 and with projections to 2003–04, is set out in the table on page 106 of the 2002 departmental report (Cm 5423). Data for years before 1998–99 are not readily available on the same basis. Provisional outturn for gross and net administration costs limits were published in Public Expenditure 2001–02 Provisional Outturn (Cm 5574), Tables 4 and 5. Updated information, with plans to 2005–06, will be published in the 2003 departmental report in the spring.

  Entertainment Licences
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the number of events that took place in places of 236W
  public religious worship in 2002, which under the new proposals would require an entertainment licence; and if she will make a statement. [92332]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has made no estimate of the number of events that currently take place in places of public religious worship.

  However, as I stated in the House of Commons on 16 December 2002, Official Report, column 517, the Government have made a commitment to reconsider their position on the licensing of churches and will announce their conclusions as soon as possible.

  External Consultancies
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much(a) her Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body spent on external consultancy in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (planned); and if she will make a statement. [92256]

  Dr. Howells
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Contracts awarded to consultants on behalf of DCMS during the relevant periods are as follows:

  £

  1995–96

  164,000

  1996–97

  309,000

  1997–98

  728,000

  1998–99

  424,000

  1999–2000

  227,000

  2000–01

  358,000

  2001–02

  693,000

  2002–03

  323,820

  This includes the Royal Parks Agency.

  (b) As DCMS is responsible for over 60 non-departmental public bodies, this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Licensed Premises
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether her Department will(a) control and (b) set the level of licence fee for licensed premises; and whether local licensing authorities will be allowed to vary those licence fees. [91392]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the Licensing Bill the Secretary of State will make regulations prescribing that applications and notices made under the Bill must be accompanied by fees and that annual fees must be paid in respect of premises licences and club premises certificates. Regulations will also be made prescribing the amount of those fees.

  Licence fees will be set at a level which will enable licensing authorities to recover the full costs of exercising the licensing functions of administration, inspection and enforcement. Local authorities, as licensing authorities, will not be permitted to vary those fees.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much(a) her Department and

  237W
  (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by her Department spent on (i) publicity and (ii) advertising in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if she will make a statement. [92255]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department's spend on publicity in each year between 1995–96 and 2002–03 (estimated) is detailed in the table. During this period the Department has incurred no expenditure on advertising.

  Publicity and advertising expenditure by the Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies is a matter for each individual body and information is not held centrally.

  Year

  Publicity spend (£)

  1995–96

  348,000

  1996–97

  609,531

  1997–98

  440,781

  1998–99

  388,100

  1999–2000

  613,630

  2000–01

  537,983

  2001–02

  318,141

  2002–03

  1440,000

  1 Estimated.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress being made on the Wembley Stadium project; and when the Wembley Stadium project is expected to be complete. [91980]

  Table 1: Economic activity rates' by age and sex; adjusted to reflect the 2001 Census population data; United Kingdom; 1999–2000 to

  2001–02

  Percentage

  December 1999 to November 2000

  December 2000 to November 2001

  December 2001 to November 2002

  All persons

  All aged 16 and over

  62.9

  62.8

  62.9

  16–59/642

  78.7

  78.5

  78.5

  16–17

  57.9

  55.7

  54.3

  18–24

  75.5

  75.4

  75.5

  25–34

  84.2

  83.9

  83.7

  35–49

  85.0

  84.7

  84.8

  50–59/642

  69.7

  70.2

  70.6

  60/65+

  8.2

  8.3

  8.7

  Men

  All aged 16 and over

  71.2

  70.9

  70.8

  16–64

  84.2

  84.1

  83.9

  16–17

  57.5

  56.2

  53.7

  18–24

  80.4

  80.6

  80.5

  25–34

  93.6

  93.2

  92.9

  35–49

  92.3

  91.7

  91.9

  50–64

  72.4

  73.2

  73.2

  65+

  7.7

  7.4

  7.9

  Women

  All aged 16 and over

  55.2

  55.2

  55.5

  16–59

  72.9

  72.7

  72.9

  16–17

  58.4

  55.2

  55.0

  18–24

  70.6

  70.2

  70.6

  238W
  Mr. Caborn
  Demolition of the old Wembley Stadium is currently at an advanced stage. All work is on schedule, with much of the foundation work for the new building already complete. Wembley National Stadium Limited are confident that the new stadium will be open in time to stage the 2006 FA Cup Final.

TREASURY

  Economic Activity Rates
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the rates of economic activity were in each of the last three years in(a) the UK and (b) each region, broken down by (i) age and (ii) sex. [91635]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Hywel Williams, dated 21 January2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about economic activity rates. (91635)
  The attached tables give the information requested based on data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). Table 1 shows estimates for the United Kingdom which have been reweighted to reflect the results of the 2001 Census. Comparable estimates for countries and regions within the UK are not yet available. This is because the revised population estimates for regions consistent with the 2001 Census, which are needed to produce the LFS estimates, will not be available until February 2003.

  LFS estimates for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England are available based on population estimates which have not yet been reweighted to reflect the Census results. These LFS estimates are shown in Tables 2–4.
  239W

  Table 1: Economic activity rates1by age and sex; adjusted to reflect the 2001 Census population data; United Kingdom; 1999–2000 to

  2001–02

  Percentage

  December 1999 to November 2000

  December 2000 to November 2001

  December 2001 to November 2002

  25–34

  75.2

  74.9

  74.9

  35–49

  77.8

  77.9

  78.0

  50–59

  66.0

  66.2

  67.2

  60+

  8.5

  8.7

  9.1

  1 Total economically active as a percentage of all persons in the relevant age group.

  2 Economic activity rates are usually given for the working age population. This is defined as men aged 16 to 64 and women aged 16 to 59. The age breakdowns in this table reflect that definition.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Table 2: Economic activity rates1 by region, age and sex; not adjusted to reflect the 2001 Census population data; United Kingdom;

  December 1999 to November 2000

  Percentage

  Government office region

  All aged 16 and over

  16–59/64 2

  16–17

  18–24

  25–34

  35–49

  50–64 to 50–59 2

  60–65 2

  All persons

  North East

  58.9

  74.7

  61.6

  73.0

  81.6

  82.4

  60.1

  5.4

  North West including Merseyside

  61.4

  76.9

  55.6

  74.7

  84.1

  84.2

  64.2

  6.5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  62.8

  78.8

  55.6

  76.1

  85.1

  84.6

  69.9

  7.1

  East Midlands

  64.2

  80.7

  63.1

  74.2

  85.3

  87.4

  73.1

  7.2

  West Midlands

  62.5

  78.3

  58.3

  75.8

  82.9

  84.7

  69.7

  7.9

  Eastern

  65.6

  81.9

  63.5

  80

  85.3

  87.1

  74.9

  9.7

  London

  65.1

  76.9

  43.7

  70.6

  83.5

  81.4

  70.0

  10.2

  South East

  67.1

  83.3

  69

  78.6

  87.3

  88.5

  76.6

  10.6

  South West

  64.1

  82.6

  64.4

  79.6

  87.3

  88.7

  74.4

  8.9

  Wales

  58.0

  74.3

  58.5

  73.3

  82.5

  82.1

  60.3

  6.7

  Scotland

  62.9

  78.4

  59.5

  78.3

  84.5

  85.4

  65.2

  6.9

  Northern Ireland

  58.7

  71.1

  27.3

  69.9

  81

  77.7

  60.4

  7.7

  Men

  North East

  67.2

  80.1

  60.4

  80.5

  91.3

  90.4

  61

  3.7

  North West including Merseyside

  70.1

  82.6

  58.1

  82.5

  93.5

  90.6

  67.0

  5.4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  71.0

  83.8

  55.0

  80.0

  94.2

  91.4

  71.7

  5.9

  East Midlands

  72.7

  86.2

  61.6

  80.5

  94.3

  93.2

  76.9

  7.2

  West Midlands

  70.9

  83.8

  54.4

  80.8

  92.8

  92.2

  71.9

  6.8

  Eastern

  74.1

  87.7

  65.2

  84.6

  93.9

  94.5

  78.2

  8.9

  London

  74.1

  83.5

  45.0

  72.9

  92.7

  90.6

  73.3

  9.8

  South East

  75.7

  88.8

  66.3

  83.1

  95.9

  95.7

  79.6

  10.8

  South West

  72.1

  87.3

  65.8

  82.5

  95.8

  94.8

  76.7

  8.3

  Wales

  65.9

  79.4

  54.7

  79.5

  90.8

  89.6

  62.5

  5.6

  Scotland

  70.9

  82.8

  59.5

  82.1

  92.1

  90.8

  68.1

  6.8

  Northern Ireland

  68.9

  78.5

  30.7

  76.9

  91.0

  87.6

  64.5

  10.8

  Women

  North East

  51.1

  68.7

  62.9

  65.4

  71.6

  74.4

  58.8

  6.3

  North West including Merseyside

  53.0

  70.6

  52.9

  66.6

  74.1

  77.8

  60.5

  7.1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  54.9

  73.2

  56.3

  72.0

  75.4

  77.6

  67.3

  7.8

  East Midlands

  56.0

  74.6

  64.5

  67.2

  76.0

  81.5

  67.8

  7.3

  West Midlands

  54.4

  72.1

  62.2

  70.5

  72.5

  77.1

  66.7

  8.5

  Eastern

  57.4

  75.5

  61.8

  75.2

  76.4

  79.6

  70.4

  10.3

  London

  56.3

  69.6

  42.3

  68.2

  73.5

  71.7

  65.7

  10.4

  South East

  58.8

  77.3

  71.8

  73.9

  78.4

  81.2

  72.5

  10.5

  South West

  56.5

  77.4

  63.0

  76.5

  78.3

  82.6

  71.2

  9.2

  Wales

  50.5

  68.8

  62.1

  66.7

  73.8

  74.5

  57.3

  7.4

  Scotland

  55.6

  73.8

  59.4

  74.4

  76.8

  80.1

  61.3

  7.0

  Northern Ireland

  49.3

  63.2

  23.8

  62.8

  70.8

  68.2

  55

  6.1

  1 Total economically active as a percentage of all persons in the relevant age group.

  2 Economic activity rates are usually given for the working age population. This is defined as men aged 16 to 64 and women aged 16 to 59. The age breakdowns in this table reflect that definition.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey
  240W 241W

  Table 3: Economic activity rates1 by region, age and sex; not adjusted to reflect the 2001 Census population data; United Kingdom;

  December 2000 to November 2001

  Percentage

  Government office region

  All aged 16 and over

  16–59/642

  16–17

  18–24

  25–34

  35–49

  50–64 to 50–592

  60/652

  All persons

  North East

  58.5

  74.2

  53.6

  75.4

  80.2

  80.9

  61.8

  4.8

  North West including Merseyside

  61.3

  76.7

  56.5

  72.2

  83.5

  84.3

  65.3

  6.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  62.2

  78.0

  56.5

  73.3

  83.7

  84.9

  69.0

  6.6

  East Midlands

  63.8

  80.0

  59.5

  76.2

  83.6

  86.7

  72.7

  7.1

  West Midlands

  62.8

  78.6

  56.2

  76.8

  83.3

  84.8

  70.6

  7.7

  Eastern

  66.3

  82.7

  59.9

  81.2

  87.1

  88.0

  75.3

  9.9

  London

  64.8

  76.3

  37.9

  70.5

  82.3

  81.2

  70.6

  10.0

  South East

  67.0

  83.1

  65.4

  78.1

  87.0

  88.2

  77.3

  11.0

  South West

  63.9

  82.3

  66.0

  78.9

  86.8

  88.9

  73.6

  8.9

  Wales

  57.5

  73.3

  53.8

  74.5

  81.3

  80.2

  60.3

  7.7

  Scotland

  63.0

  78.6

  58.3

  78.2

  85.2

  84.0

  68.0

  6.5

  Northern Ireland

  59.5

  72.1

  32.0

  71.4

  82.5

  79.4

  58.8

  7.9

  Men

  North East

  66.6

  79.5

  57.1

  81.4

  89.9

  88.6

  62.3

  3—

  North West including Merseyside

  69.3

  81.6

  56.9

  78.4

  92.5

  89.5

  67.6

  5.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  70.3

  83.0

  59.4

  78.9

  92.3

  90.5

  71.5

  5.6

  East Midlands

  72.0

  85.3

  58.3

  81.6

  93.3

  92.9

  75.3

  7.4

  West Midlands

  72.1

  85.2

  57.4

  83.9

  93.6

  92.4

  74.1

  7.2

  Eastern

  74.5

  88.5

  60.3

  86.9

  95.2

  94.5

  79.6

  8.5

  London

  73.8

  83.3

  39.4

  74.0

  92.0

  90.5

  73.9

  8.7

  South East

  75.4

  88.7

  63.7

  81.9

  96.1

  95.5

  80.3

  10.6

  South West

  71.5

  86.6

  65.4

  80.6

  94.9

  94.2

  76.9

  8.3

  Wales

  65.2

  78.3

  52.8

  81.1

  91.0

  86.0

  62.3

  6.5

  Scotland

  70.8

  83.1

  57.6

  83.4

  91.6

  89.9

  70.9

  5.2

  Northern Ireland

  69.9

  79.9

  38.2

  79.9

  91.9

  88.9

  64.7

  9.2

  Women

  North East

  50.8

  68.4

  49.8

  69

  70.3

  73.3

  61.1

  5.8

  North West including Merseyside

  53.7

  71.3

  56

  65.8

  73.9

  79.0

  62.0

  7.4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  54.3

  72.4

  53.1

  67.6

  74.6

  79.1

  65.5

  7.2

  East Midlands

  55.8

  74.2

  60.8

  70.5

  73.6

  80.4

  69.3

  6.9

  West Midlands

  53.7

  71.3

  55.1

  69.0

  72.3

  77.0

  65.8

  7.9

  Eastern

  58.3

  76.5

  59.3

  75.4

  78.7

  81.4

  69.5

  10.8

  London

  55.8

  68.6

  36.3

  66.9

  71.7

  71.3

  66.3

  10.8

  South East

  58.8

  76.9

  67.2

  74.1

  77.8

  80.7

  73.2

  11.2

  South West

  56.7

  77.5

  66.7

  77.0

  78.2

  83.7

  69.2

  9.3

  Wales

  50.2

  67.8

  54.8

  67.3

  71.1

  74.3

  57.6

  8.4

  Scotland

  55.7

  73.9

  59.1

  73.0

  78.7

  78.1

  64.2

  7.2

  Northern Ireland

  49.9

  63.7

  25.5

  62.8

  72.9

  70.2

  50.9

  7.1

  1Total economically active as a percentage of all persons in the relevant age group.

  Economic activity rates are usually given for the working age population. This is defined as men aged 16 to 64 and women aged 16 to 59. The age breakdowns in this table reflect that definition.

  3 Sample size too small for reliable estimate

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Table 4: Economic activity rates1 by region, age and sex; not adjusted to reflect the 2001 Census population data; United Kingdom;

  December 2001 to November 2002

  Percentage

  Government office region

  All aged 16 and over

  16–59/64 2

  16–17

  18–24

  25–34

  35–49

  50–64 to 50–59 2

  60/652

  All persons

  North East

  58.3

  73.9

  48.7

  73.2

  79.4

  82.8

  60.7

  4.5

  North West including Merseyside

  61.4

  76.7

  50.4

  75.0

  83.5

  84.0

  65.7

  6.9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  62.3

  77.9

  57.5

  73.5

  83.5

  84.5

  68.9

  7.3

  East Midlands

  64.3

  80.4

  60.9

  74.7

  82.8

  88.0

  73.7

  8.1

  West Midlands

  63.3

  79.1

  53.2

  76.6

  83.9

  85.1

  71.8

  8.7

  Eastern

  65.8

  82.3

  59.3

  80.0

  84.8

  88.2

  76.7

  9.8

  London

  64.7

  76.0

  34.8

  69.6

  83.5

  80.3

  70.3

  10.6

  South East

  67.2

  83.2

  65.3

  80.6

  86.8

  88.1

  77.2

  11.6

  South West

  64.3

  82.5

  65.6

  82.0

  87.1

  88.5

  73.7

  9.6

  Wales

  57.8

  74.0

  53.6

  69.0

  81.1

  82.9

  62.9

  6.8

  Scotland

  63.1

  78.8

  61.5

  78.7

  84.3

  84.7

  67.7

  6.6

  Northern Ireland

  59.7

  71.9

  27.5

  68.3

  83.5

  78.3

  62.0

  9.7

  242W 243W

  Table 4: Economic activity rates1 by region, age and sex; not adjusted to reflect the 2001 Census population data; United Kingdom;

  December 2001 to November 2002

  Percentage

  Government office region

  All aged 16 and over

  16–59/642

  16–17

  18–24

  25–34

  35–49

  50–64 to 50–592

  60/652

  Men

  North East

  65.3

  77.8

  49.3

  79.6

  87

  88.7

  60.2

  3.4

  North West including Merseyside

  69.0

  81.3

  47.8

  79.8

  91.8

  90.4

  67.7

  5.5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  70.8

  83.5

  58.6

  79.0

  93.0

  91.0

  72.2

  6.4

  East Midlands

  72.1

  85.4

  60.9

  78.5

  91.8

  94.1

  76.7

  7.4

  West Midlands

  71.9

  84.7

  55.3

  80.9

  93.5

  92.3

  74.6

  8.5

  Eastern

  74.1

  88.1

  59.2

  84.8

  94.5

  94.9

  80.0

  8.5

  London

  73.6

  82.8

  35.1

  75.2

  92.3

  89.2

  73.6

  9.9

  South East

  75.6

  88.8

  62.5

  84.3

  95.4

  95.9

  80.0

  11.3

  South West

  71.5

  86.7

  63.6

  84.1

  96.3

  93.6

  75.9

  8.1

  Wales

  65.9

  79.3

  56.6

  77.2

  90.5

  88.6

  65.2

  6.5

  Scotland

  70.3

  82.6

  58.4

  82.9

  90.5

  91.0

  68.5

  5.6

  Northern Ireland

  69.3

  78.9

  28.8

  76.0

  93.0

  86.9

  67.0

  12.0

  Women

  North East

  51.6

  69.6

  48.1

  66.3

  71.7

  76.8

  61.4

  5.2

  North West including Merseyside

  54.0

  71.5

  53.0

  70.1

  74.7

  77.6

  63.0

  7.7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  54.0

  71.5

  56.4

  67.6

  73.4

  77.8

  64.5

  7.9

  East Midlands

  56.7

  74.8

  60.9

  70.6

  73.5

  81.8

  69.6

  8.5

  West Midlands

  55.0

  72.7

  50.9

  72.0

  73.7

  77.8

  68.0

  8.8

  Eastern

  57.9

  76.0

  59.5

  75.2

  74.8

  81.3

  72.1

  10.6

  London

  56.0

  68.5

  34.5

  64.0

  73.8

  71.0

  65.9

  11.0

  South East

  59.2

  77.2

  68.1

  76.8

  78.1

  79.9

  73.4

  11.8

  South West

  57.4

  77.9

  67.7

  79.7

  77.3

  83.4

  70.8

  10.6

  Wales

  50.1

  68.1

  50.5

  60.3

  71.1

  77.3

  59.7

  7.0

  Scotland

  56.4

  74.8

  64.8

  74.4

  78.0

  78.6

  66.6

  7.1

  Northern Ireland

  50.7

  64.4

  26.1

  60.5

  73.8

  70.1

  55.5

  8.4

  1Total economically active as a percentage of all persons in the relevant age group.

  2Economic activity rates are usually given for the working age population. This is defined as men aged 16 to 64 and women aged 16 to 59. The age breakdowns in this table reflect that definition.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many projects are likely to be affected by the ending of the waste management and recycling element of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme in April 2003; which projects they are; and what representations he has received from the waste management industry about the proposal to end the waste management and recycling element of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. [91487]

  John Healey
  The Government estimates that approximately 300 projects are likely to be affected by the ending of the waste management and recycling element of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme in April 2003. It is not possible to identify affected projects precisely given the information available about the scheme. However, information on the scheme and projects is available at www.ltcs.org.uk/database/default.asp. The Government receives representations from industry about a range of issues but the Treasury has not received any significant number from the waste management industry about the proposal to end the waste management and recycling element of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the likely impact on the match funding which will be lost when the waste management and recycling element of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme ends in April 2003; [91498]
  244W
  (2) what assessment he made of the likely impact on the match funding available which would be lost before taking the decision to end the waste management and recycling element of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme in April 2003. [91486]

  John Healey
  The impact of the changes to the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme on match funding was one of the factors which the Government took into account in deciding to make the changes announced in the 2002 Pre-Budget Report. No clear information is available on the quantities of match funding obtained by projects, nor the source of such match funding. However, a study by Glasgow Caledonian University for Entrust, the Scheme's regulator, has estimated that on average waste management and recycling projects have levered in approximately 34 per cent. funding in addition to Landfill Tax Credit Scheme funding. The Government recognises that the change from a tax credit scheme to public spending may reduce the availability of match funding but decided that the benefits of converting funding on waste management and recycling from tax credits to public spending outweigh any loss in match funding.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of the ending of the waste management and recycling element of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme on the match funding available(a) from the European Social Fund and (b) from other public funds. [91499]
  245W
  John Healey
  The impact of the changes to the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme on match funding was one of the factors which the Government took into account in deciding to make the changes announced in the 2002 Pre-Budget Report. No clear information is available on the quantities of match funding obtained by projects. Information is also not available on the quantities of match funding from the European Social Fund or from other public funds. The lack of transparency in the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme was criticised by the Public Accounts Committee's report on the scheme in July 2002, and both the PAC and the National Audit Office have criticised the lack of information on the scheme. These factors were taken into account by the Government in its decision to make the changes announced in the 2002 Pre-Budget Report.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he received from industry relating to the likely impact on the ability to source match funding for recycling projects of the changes to the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme from April. [91500]

  John Healey
  The Government receives representations from industry about a range of issues. The Treasury has not received any significant number of representations from industry about the likely impact of the changes to the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme in April on the ability to source match funding for recycling projects.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total amount is of(a) European and (b) other match funding which will be lost when the waste management and recycling element of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme ends in April. [91501]

  John Healey
  No precise figures are held on the quantity of match funding obtained by projects funded through the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. However, a study by Glasgow Caledonian University for Entrust, the Scheme's regulator, has estimated that on average waste management and recycling projects have levered in approximately 34 per cent. funding in addition to Landfill Tax Credit Scheme funding.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many responses were received to the Treasury consultation on the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme which(a) supported and (b) opposed the proposal to end the waste management and recycling scheme from April 2003. [91485]

  John Healey
  676 responses were received to the consultation on the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. 45 per cent. of these were from organisations which had benefited directly from funding through the scheme and a further 30 per cent. were from local authorities. Of the total responses, 82 per cent. were in favour of retaining the scheme as a tax credit scheme. However, 62 per cent. also supported giving greater priority to funding for sustainable waste management.

  The Government took the responses to the consultation into account in making its decisions on the future of the scheme, together with other information
  246W
  includinguding criticisms of the scheme by the Public Accounts Committee, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, and the National Audit Office.

  The summary of responses to the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme consultation was published 4 September 2002 and is available on the DEFRA website.

  Capital Modernisation Fund Applications
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer ifhe will make a statement on his Department's assessment of the application by Citizens Advice Scotland to the Treasury's Capital Modernisation Fund in 2001 for funding of an electronic case recording system; and for what reasons the application was declined. [91458]

  Mr. Boateng
  The devolved administrations automatically receive a share of allocations made from the Capital Modernisation Fund for devolved matters, calculated according to the Barnett formula. Partial consequentials were awarded to the Scottish Executive in respect of an allocation made to the Department of Trade and Industry, on behalf of the National Citizens' Advice Bureaux in England and Wales, because the Department's responsibilities span both devolved and reserved matters.

  Where it is not possible to fund a project fully because there are other higher priorities for funding, it is open to the Department and the devolved administration to consider whether they can fund the project from within the resources already allocated to them.

  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his Department's assessment of the application by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux to the Treasury's Capital Modernisation Fund in 2001 for funding of an electronic case recording system in England and Wales; and for what reasons the application was successful. [91459]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department of Trade and Industry was allocated £20 million in 2001 to provide electronic access from Citizens' Advice Bureaux. The application was successful because it was considered that it met the criteria for the Capital Modernisation Fund, when judged against the other applications received for funding at that time.

  Data Protection (Inland Revenue)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many breaches of the Data Protection Act there have been in respect of tax information supplied by taxpayers to the Inland Revenue; how many taxpayers are affected; whether an investigation has taken place in respect of such breaches; how many Inland Revenue staff have been involved in such breaches; and what reports he has received as to which agencies such information was sold. [92361]
  247W
  Mr. Boateng
  There are only two known instances of Inland Revenue staff selling information about taxpayers. Two Inland Revenue employees did so in 1994 to a debt collection agency, and one employee sold information in 1996 to a solicitor. All three were dismissed from the Department and jailed. In relation to the Data Protection Act, there will also from time to time be technical and unintended breaches of the Act in an organisation as large as the Inland Revenue.

  The Inland Revenue take very seriously both their general duty of confidentiality and the particular need to comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase the powers and responsibilities of the Financial Services Authority; and if he will make a statement. [92563]

  Ruth Kelly
  The powers and responsibilities of the Financial Services Authority are set out in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and secondary legislation under it. The Government keeps the position under review to ensure that the regulation of financial services continues to strike the right balance between the interests of firms and consuMerseyside. Whenever the Government plans changes to the scope of regulation this is generally subject to full public consultation.

  Infant mortality by age at death and social class based on father's occupation1.2 1997–2001, England and Wales

  Numbers

  Rates3*

  year of death

  Social Class

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Neonatal deaths

  I

  153

  134

  135

  125

  116

  3.5

  3.0

  2.9

  2

  0.7

  2.6

  II

  472

  504

  489

  444

  405

  3.0

  3.2

  3.0

  2

  0.8

  2.5

  IIIN

  240

  204

  209

  230

  203

  4.1

  3.6

  3.8

  4

  0.4

  3.9

  HIM

  738

  670

  656

  611

  587

  4.1

  3.8

  3.9

  3

  0.8

  3.7

  IV

  378

  370

  386

  343

  348

  4.2

  4.1

  4.6

  4

  0.1

  4.4

  V

  151

  146

  166

  147

  124

  4.8

  4.8

  5.8

  5

  0.5

  4.7

  Other

  172

  177

  178

  203

  135

  5.7

  6.0

  5.8

  6

  0.8

  4.4

  All births (excl. sole registered births)

  2304

  2205

  2219

  2103

  1932

  3.9

  3.8

  3.9

  3

  0.8

  3.5

  Postneonatal deaths

  I

  37

  55

  52

  42

  51

  0.9

  1.2

  1.1

  0

  0.9

  1.2

  II

  199

  188

  162

  156

  188

  1.3

  1.2

  1.0

  1

  0.0

  1.2

  IIIN

  90

  75

  88

  68

  47

  1.6

  1.3

  1.6

  1

  0.3

  0.9

  HIM

  291

  256

  274

  239

  252

  1.6

  1.5

  1.6

  1

  0.5

  1.6

  IV

  231

  172

  171

  169

  163

  2.6

  1.9

  2.0

  2

  0

  2.1

  V

  80

  90

  79

  66

  71

  2.5

  2.9

  2.8

  2

  0.5

  2.7

  Other

  145

  137

  138

  130

  121

  4.8

  4.7

  4.5

  4

  0.4

  4

  All births (excl. sole registered births)

  1073

  973

  964

  870

  906

  1.8

  1.7

  1.7

  1

  0.6

  1.6

  Infant deaths

  I

  190

  189

  187

  167

  167

  4.4

  4.2

  4.1

  3

  0.6

  3.8

  II

  671

  692

  651

  600

  593

  4.3

  4.4

  4.0

  3

  0.8

  3.7

  IIIN

  330

  279

  297

  298

  250

  5.7

  4.9

  5.4

  5

  0.6

  4.8

  HIM

  1029

  926

  930

  850

  839

  5.7

  5.3

  5.5

  5

  0.3

  5.4

  IV

  609

  542

  557

  512

  511

  6.8

  6.0

  6.6

  6

  0.1

  6.4

  V

  231

  236

  245

  213

  195

  7.3

  7.7

  8.6

  7

  0.9

  7.4

  Other

  317

  314

  316

  333

  256

  10.6

  10.7

  10.3

  11

  0.2

  8.4

  All births (excl. sole registered births)

  3377

  3178

  3183

  2973

  2838

  5.7

  5.4

  5.5

  5

  0.3

  5.1

  1Numbers of infant deaths by social class are based on father's occupation at death registration

  2Numbers of live births by social class, used in calculating rates, are based on father's occupation at birth registration

  3Rate per 1000 live births

  Great George Street
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the value of the land and buildings at Great George Street, London SW1, on the basis of(a) existing use and (b) the best valuation for alternative use; and if he will make a statement. [92220]

  Ruth Kelly
  A valuation of the land and buildings-based on existing use value, that is, their value as general office accommodation-was includinguded in HM Treasury's Resource Accounts for 2000–01 (January 2002, HC 573). The 2001–02 accounts will be published shortly. No other estimate of value has been made.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the infant mortality, broken down by category, for each social class in each year since 1997. [91986]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Marsden dated 21 January 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking to list the infant mortality, broken down by category, for each social class for each year since 1997. (91986)
  The table below provides infant deaths by social class based on father's occupation in England and Wales for the years 1997–2001. Father's occupation is only collected for births that occur inside marriage and those outside marriage that are jointly registered by both parents.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many press releases have been issued by his Department in each(a) year and (b) quarter from 1995–96 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92435]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information, which does not includingude Budget, PBR and Spending Review press releases, is set out in the table below.

  jan to Mar

  Apr to june

  July to Sept

  Oct to Dec

  Total

  1995

  51

  36

  39

  52

  178

  1996

  57

  47

  39

  39

  182

  1997

  36

  35

  44

  53

  168

  1998

  41

  66

  51

  60

  218

  1999

  57

  51

  49

  59

  216

  2000

  44

  37

  25

  45

  151

  2001

  40

  34

  29

  46

  149

  2002

  30

  32

  38

  38

  138

  Staff Relocation
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the cost savings from re-locating HM Treasury Staff out of central London premises; and if he will make a statement. [92514]

  Ruth Kelly
  No such estimate has been made. Since August 2002 all Treasury staff have been located in the refurbished 1 Horse Guards Road.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the running costs of(a) the Department and (b) each of its sponsored agencies were in (i) 1997 and (ii) the most recent year for which figures are available. [90714]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on administration costs for the Department for Education and Skills and the Office for Standards in Education showing outturn from 1998–99 and plans to 2003–04, is set out in Annex E of the 2002 Departmental Report (Cm 5402). Data for years before 1998–99 are not available on the same basis. Provisional outturn for gross and net administration costs limits were published in Public Expenditure 2001–02 Provisional Outturn (Cm 5574), Tables 4 and 5. Updated information, with plans to 2005–06, will be published in the 2003 Departmental Report later in the Spring.

  Electronic Registration (Secondary Schools)
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the progress of the tender for electronic registration systems in secondary schools. [91149]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 16 January 2003]The £11.25 million Capital Modernisation Funding project to provide electronic registration systems in over 500 secondary schools with high truancy rates is a key initiative in the continuing drive to tackle truancy. There 250W
  is no tender involved as schools are allocated funding through the Standards Fund and are free to contract with any suitable supplier.

  Since the first round of funding was released last May, schools have been working together with local education authorities to purchase and implement suitable systems in schools subject to the approval of the Department for Education and Skills. Currently a third of the targeted schools have had their proposals to implement systems agreed and we expect the remainder to be approved by August.

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many 16 to 17-year-olds took their employer to an employment tribunal to enforce their right to reasonable paid time off to achieve a first Level 2 qualification in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [90922]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We are not aware of any such cases since the legislation was introduced.

  Entry to Employment Programme
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the budget profile is for the Entry to Employment programme for(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04; and how many participants are expected to enter the programme in each year. [90919]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Entry to Employment (E2E) will become part of the Learning Gateway which provides a client-centred approach to support young people who need additional help to enter mainstream learning opportunities. E2E will be implemented nationally from August this year. Expenditure on the current 11 E2E pathfinders in 2002–03 will be £19.8 million. The budget for the programme in 2003–04 is likely to be £142 million. Over 47,000 young people are expected to join the programme in 2003–04.

  Language Assistants
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many language assistants are employed in maintained primary schools. [92327]

  Mr. Miliband
  As at January 2002, there were 29.5 full-time equivalent foreign language assistants and 1,193.1 minority ethnic pupils' bilingual assistants in maintained primary schools.

  Level 2 Qualifications
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many 16 to 17-year-olds exercised their right to reasonable time off to achieve a first Level 2 qualification in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [90921]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of Modern Apprentices in each profession receive the minimum

  251W
  training allowance; and what is the average (a) wage and (b) training allowance received by Modern Apprentices in each profession. [91331]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In 2001–02, 2 per cent. of starts on Advanced Modern Apprenticeships, and 15 per cent. of starts on Foundation Modern Apprenticeships, were by people who received a training allowance. These trainees receive at least the minimum training allowance of £40 per week, but some will receive more than this. However, we are not able to give the proportion that are on the minimum allowance, or break this down by sector. The majority of Modern Apprentices are employed and are paid a wage by their employer. The rate of pay for a Modern Apprentice is agreed by the employer and the individual apprentice.

  National Skills Task Force
  Dr. Vincent Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who the members of the National Skills Task Force have been since its inception; what(a) expenses and (b) salary each received; and if he will make a statement. [91658]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Skills Task Force was established as an Executive NDPB by the previous Secretary of State for Education and Skills to advise him on the

  Skills Task Force members

  Name

  Organisation

  Position

  Chris Humphries CBE

  British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), London Tel. 0207 565 2042

  Director General Chairman of Skill Task Force

  Llew Aviss

  Llew Aviss Associates Tel. 01792 208 558

  Managing Director

  Rita Britton

  Pollyanna (Barnsley) Ltd. Tel 01226 291 665

  Director

  Tony Dubbins

  Graphical, Paper & Media Union, Bedford Tel. 01234 351 521

  General Secretary

  Eric Drewery

  ABB Ltd., London Tel. 0207 753 2024

  Chief Executive Officer

  John Edmonds

  GM B, London Tel. 0208 947 3131

  General Secretary

  Denise Hall

  BT plc, London Tel. 0207 469 2601

  Head of Government Health and Education Services

  Sir Ken Jackson

  AEEU, Kent Tel. 0208 315 8224

  General Secretary

  Dr. DeAnne Julius

  Bank of England, London Tel. 0207 601 3788

  Member Monetary Policy Committee

  Eddie Maclntyre CBE

  Birmingham College of Food, Tourism and Creative Studies Tel. 0121 604 1000 (ext. 234)

  Principal

  Ashwin Mistry OBE

  Brett & Randall Insurance Brokers, Leicester Tel. 0116 222 8222

  Managing Director Board Member Leicestershire TEC

  Terry Morgan

  British Aerospace Centre, Hampshire Tel: 01252 373 232

  Director of Personnel

  John V. Palmer

  Works from home Tel. 01785 841 664

  Chairman—Steel Industry's NTO Chair of Steel Training Ltd.

  Peter Rainbird CBE

  Rainbird Group, Essex Tel. 0127 721 5325

  Chairman/Chief Executive Chairman, Essex TEC

  lain Roxburgh

  Coventry City Council Tel. 02476 831 076

  Chief Executive and Town Clerk

  Sharon studer

  3 COM Europe Ltd., Hemel Hempstead Tel. 01442 438 017

  Vice President

  Julia Tinsley

  Pitman Training Centre, Sheffield Tel. 0114 272 8392

  Director

  252W
  extent and nature of skills shortages and skills gaps and assist him on the development of a national skills agenda.

  The Skills Task Force operated from April 1998 to June 2000 under the chairmanship of Chris Humphries, currently Director-General of City and Guilds, and represented the private sector, trade unions, FE and HE, local authorities, and National Training Organisations. A list of members follows.

  As an Executive NDPB, Task Force members were not paid a salary, only reimbursed for their travelling costs to attend monthly meetings.

  On 27 June 2000, the Task Force's fourth and final report, "Skills for all: proposals for a National Skills Agenda", was published. The report set out their recommendations drawn from their work programme over the last two years.

  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment provided a final response to the work of the Skills Task Force in the pamphlet, "Opportunity and Skills in the Knowledge-Driven Economy", launched alongside the "Opportunity for All in a World of Change" White Paper on 13 February 2001.

  Following these reports, much work has been taken forward that will be reflected in the Government's Skills Strategy which will be published in June 2003. This will be a major cross government strategy drawing together policies for meeting the skill needs of the economy and showing how this will raise productivity.
  253W

  Skills Task Force members

  Name

  Organisation

  Position

  Adair Turner

  Confederation of British Industry, London Tel. 0207 867 3203

  Director-General

  Prof. Leslie Wagner CBE

  Leeds Metropolitan University Tel. 0113 283 3100

  Vice Chancellor

  Anne Weinstock CBE

  Rathbone CI, Manchester (on secondment to DfEE, Millennium Volunteers Unit, Sheffield) Tel. 0114 259 3595

  Chief Executive

  On-line Learning
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to monitor standards of on-line learning programmes; and if he will make a statement. [91064]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department's provision of on-line learning is covered by the same quality assurance and inspection arrangements as conventional provision such as schools, colleges and adult and community provision, The Ofsted and adult learning inspection framework and others, are developing to cover the increasingly wide range of provision and variety of providers. Work is also well advanced in establishing standards for the creation of on-line learning resources, covering both technical and pedagogical aspects.

  Thames Gateway
  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the extra resources required to support the growth and development of new communities in the Thames Gateway area; what discussions he has had with other Government Departments in relation to supporting the growth and development of new communities in the Thames Gateway; and what resources he has allocated to support the growth and development of new communities in the Thames Gateway. [90427]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My noble Friend Lord Rooker chairs the Thames Gateway Strategic Partnership, whose membership comprises ministers from five Government Departments (ODPM, DfT, DFES, DTI and DoH) three Regional Development Agencies, three Regional Assemblies and three sub-regional partnerships (East London, North Kent and South Essex).

  The Partnership is now looking at new means of accelerating the regeneration and development of the Gateway. Thames Gateway development and regeneration is being supported by investment from various Government funding streams (for example housing and transport) and through regional public agencies (for example the RDAs).

  We are working with the Partnership to determine the additional demands on primary and secondary education arising through housing and economic growth in the Gateway. The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education, Margaret Hodge. chairs a Thames Gateway Further and Higher Education working group which is working with
  254W
  universities, colleges, the Learning & Skills Councils and Higher Education Funding Council for England to scope the likely pattern of future demand for post-compulsory education and training.

  Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many 16 to 18-year-olds were in employment and receiving(a) employer funded training and (b) employer funded training for apprenticeships not funded by the Learning and Skills Council in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [90923]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The number and percentage of 16 to 18-year-olds in Employer Funded Training (EFT) at end 2000 and end 2001 are set out in the table. The figures for end 2001 are provisional. The percentages are taken from the annual statistical first release, "Participation in Education, Training and Employment by 16–18-Year-Olds in England".

  End 2000

  End 2001

  Number (in thousands)

  97

  99

  16–18 year old population (percentage)

  5

  5

  16–18 year olds in employment (percentage)

  9

  9

  (b) No further breakdown is available for employer funded training.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many 16 to 18-year-olds were in employment but not receiving(a) training provided by their employer and (b) training provided by their employer linked to a qualification in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [90924]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The number and percentage of 16 to 18-year-olds in employment (including both full-time and part-time), but not in employer funded training (EFT) at end 2000 and end 2001 are set out in the table. These could be in full-time education, Government supported training (GST) or in other education and training, though not employer funded. A breakdown is shown. It is important to note that many of these young people will be in part-time, rather than full-time, employment.

  The figures for end 2001 are provisional. They are taken from the annual statistical first release, "Participation in Education, Training and Employment by 16-18-Year-Olds in England".
  255W

  Number (in thousands)

  Percentage of population

  Percentage those in employment

  End 2000

  In employment and not in EFT

  951

  52

  91

  In employment

  1,047

  58

  100

  EFT

  97

  5

  9

  Full-time education

  475

  26

  45

  GST

  157

  9

  15

  Other education and training

  44

  2

  4

  Not in any education or training

  275

  15

  26

  End 2001

  In employment and not in EFT

  954

  51

  91

  In employment

  1,053

  57

  100

  EFT

  99

  5

  9

  Full-time education

  471

  25

  45

  GST

  145

  8

  14

  Other education and training

  57

  3

  5

  Not in any education or training

  282

  15

  27

  Detailed information on employer funded training, such as whether the training is linked to a qualification is not available on a consistent basis.

  Youth Development
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the latest estimate is of the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training. [90926]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The provisional figure for end 2001 was 173 thousand 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, training or employment. This is 9 per cent. of the cohort population.

  The latest estimate of the number and percentage of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, training or employment (NEET) was published in the annual statistical first release, "SFR 16/2002: Participation in Education, Training and Employment by 16–18 Year Olds in England: 2000 and 2001".

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Paper Supplies
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the President of the Council who the suppliers are of his Department's(a) paper and (b) paper products. [91910]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The vast majority of the paper and paper products used in my department is supplied by Banner Business Supplies Limited. My department follows Government guidance on the use of recycled paper, in the interest of fostering sustainable development.

CABINET OFFICE

  Delivery Unit
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office from which vote the delivery unit will be funded. [91167]
  256W
  Mr. Alexander
  Funding for the delivery unit is included in the Cabinet Office Estimates.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the running costs of(a) the Department and (b) each of its sponsored agencies were in (i) 1997 and (ii) the most recent year for which figures are available. [90717]

  Mr. Alexander
  Detailed information on administration costs for Cabinet Office, and its agencies the Centre for Management and Policy Studies and the Government Car and Despatch Agency, going back to 1998–99 and with projections to 2003–04, is set out in Table 5 on page 94 of the 2002 departmental report (Cm 5429). Data for years before 1998–99 are not available on the same basis. Provisional outturn for gross and net administration costs limits were published in Public Expenditure 2001–02 Provisional Outturn (Cm 5574), Tables 4 and 5. Updated information, with plans to 2005–06, will be published in the 2003 departmental report in the spring.

  Value for Money
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what level of output would constitute a failure to achieve the value for money target as defined in the technical note to the 2002 Spending Review Public Service Agreement on value for money; and if he will make a statement. [91960]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Public Service Agreement value for money target commits the Cabinet Office to deliver a 2.5 per cent saving year-on- year, on administrative resource, over the 2002 Spending Review period.

  It also requires the Cabinet Office to find the 2.5 per cent efficiency saving without any reduction in it's published outputs or outcomes.

  The Cabinet Office's aim is to achieve all of its published targets within its agreed expenditure limits. Therefore no specific level of output has been set as the determinant of failure.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Firearms
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Home Secretary about extending to Northern Ireland the new penalties proposed for illegal possession of firearms in England and Wales. [91304]

  Jane Kennedy
  I am aware of the Home Secretary's proposal for a mandatory 5-year sentence for the illegal possession or distribution of firearms. Northern Ireland's firearms legislation is undergoing a major review and a Proposal for a Draft Firearms Order is currently the subject of consultation. I will consider the question of mandatory minimum sentences as part of that review.

  Former RUC Officers (Employment)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many former RUC officers who retired on severance pay have re-entered employment. [89439]

  Jane Kennedy
  To date, 252 have secured full time employment.

  Housing Benefit
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on proposals to link antisocial behaviour to housing benefit penalties in Northern Ireland. [91302]

  Mr. Browne
  There are at present no proposals in Northern Ireland to link antisocial behaviour to housing benefit penalties. The proposed Housing (NI) Order contains a range of other measures to deal with antisocial behaviour in social housing.

  Pensioner Poverty
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the extent of pensioner poverty in Northern Ireland. [91301]

  Mr. Browne
  There is no single measure of pensioner poverty. Poverty is a complex issue with various elements which affect many aspects of people's lives, including their income, living standards, health, housing and quality of environment.

  A report was commissioned by Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) as part of the research and evaluation strategy for the Government's New Targeting Social Need (New TSN) initiative. This report was published in May 2002. The primary aim of the report was to assess the potential of establishing a baseline of poverty. The report utilised data from the Continuous Household Survey and estimated that there were 81,000 individual pensioners living in households in the bottom 30 per cent. of gross household incomes.

  Ensuring that pensioners have a decent income is a key measure in combating pensioner poverty. At present, no pensioner has to live on less than £98.15 a week under the minimum income guarantee (£149.80 for couples). From April 2003 these rates will increase to £102.10 for single pensioners and £155.80 for couples.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pension Tax Credit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of pensioners in the Twickenham constituency will benefit from the introduction of the pension tax credit in October; and if he will make a statement. [91669]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave him on 9 January 2003,Official Report, column 333W.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will publish in the Official Report the notes accompanying the combined pension forecast on page 45 of the pensions Green Paper (Cm. 5677). [89647]

  Mr. McCartney
  The explanatory notes that accompany the example of a combined pension forecast are as follows:

  Flexiplan-Explanatory Notes

  Plan Pay
  Plan pay is your total pay-including any overtime and bonus.

  Your investment over the year
  You choose how much to invest from 2 per cent to 15 per cent of plan pay in 1 per cent steps. Emap matches your investment for up to 5 per cent of plan pay (7 per cent for members with 10 or more years' service).

  Balance at 6 October 2002
  The balance shown is not guaranteed and may fluctuate up or down. The balance excludes funds fron earlier periods of flexiplan membership.

  Protected Rights
  If you joined flexi plan before 1 January 1997, part of your flexiplan account (called 'protected rights') replaces some of the state earnings-Related Pension and must be taken as a pension which cannot start to be paid before age 60. The protected rights balance is shown separately as well as being included in the total balance on your statement.

  Illustration Assumptions
  The pension illustration overleaf is based on certain assumptions, which are that Contributions to Flexiplan continue at the current rate;
  the pension bought is guaranteed for five years, has an attaching 50 per cent partner's pension and increases in line with price inflation up to 5 per cent a year (up to 3 per cent a year on any protected rights):
  the average annual rate of inflation over the period to retirement is 3 per cent, investment returns over the same period will exceed your salary increases by2.5 per cent a year, and the cost of the pension at retirement is calculatedassuming future investments yields 3 per cent ahead of inflation; and
  for members who are a long way from retirement, the cost of the pension iscalculated using the assumptions described above and for members who areclose to retirement, the cost is in line with current market prices.

  Future Events
  The assumptions used relate to the future. As this is uncertain, your actual Flexiplan benefits could differ significantly from this illustration. For example, you may leave Emap before reaching retirement, in which case your contributions would stop, oryou may simply alter the level of contributions to Flexiplan. The financial assumptions about the future (see note five) all have "a significant effect on the level of the pension illustration. The investment return achieved by your account before retirement is very important, particularly for younger

  259W
  members. For example an average return of just 1 per cent per annum ahead or behind the illustration assumption could increase or decrease the resulting pension percentage by as muchas a quarter. It is important for older members nearing retirement, where volatility of returns becomes an important issue. This is when your account is switched graduallyinto special "retirement units" to provide more certainty of pension level.

  Lump Sum Death Benefit
  The person to whom the lump sum death benefit is payable is at discretion of the Trustees so that inheritance tax does not have to be paid. It is therefore important that you complete a nomination form to let the trustees know to whom you would like the benefit to be paid. If you have not completed a form or would like to make a change, please contact the Benefits helpdesk.

  Inland Revenue Maximum Benefits
  Flexiplan is approved by the Inland Revenue which means that all contributions and investment income are free to tax. This also means that the benefits provided underFlexiplan and contributions paid into your account are subject to Inland Revenue limits. Where practicable these limits have been taken into account in preparing thisstatement. However, if you have benefits retained in a pension arrangement of aprevious employer, it may be necessary to restrict the amount quoted.

  Updates
  Regular updates of the projections are important, so an illustration of your Flexiplan benefits will be prepared for you at least once a year, even if you leave Emap. If you would like any further details please contact the Benefits Helpdesk.

  Data Protection
  Empa plc and the trustees hold this and other information about you in order that your benefits can be administered correctly. this information is also used to identify you when you make enquiries. This information is disclosed to the Trustee's advisers and administrators as necessary. Emap plc and the Trustees are required to keep information about you as up-to-date as possible. If the information about you given in this statement is incorrect or incomplete, please contact the Benefits Helpdesk on 01733 311399. You may also contact the Benefits Helpdesk if you would like more information about this or a copy of the information held about you (there is a fee payable for this service).

  Every effort has been made to ensure that accuracy of this statement. Nevertheless, it is not binding on the Trustees if an error or omission is subsequently discovered.

  Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much producing his Department's latest Annual Report cost; how many copies were printed; how many copies of it were sold at its cover price; to whom copies of the report have been provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge. [90892]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department for Work and Pensions published its first Departmental Report in May 2002. The cost of production incurred by the Department was £94,940. The costs of printing and publishing are met by the publisher, The Stationery Office Limited, and do not fall to government.

  2,450 copies of the report were produced of which 2,010 were for the Department's use. Distribution details are set out in the following table..
  260W
  The production and sale of remaining copies of the report are matters for the publisher.

  Distribution of the Department for Work and Pensions

  Departmental Report

  Recipients

  Number of copies distributed free of charge

  Social Security Advisory Committee

  15

  Work and Pensions Select Committee

  16

  Chair of the Treasury Select Committee

  1

  Opposition spokesmen

  6

  Departmental managers

  1,745

  Laying in the House and House Libraries

  27

  House of Lords

  50

  Vote Office

  150

  Total

  2,010

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Steve Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many respondents have opted for payment(a) by credit transfer into an existing bank or building society account, (b) by credit transfer into a new basic bank account and (c) by means of a Post Office Card Account, broken down by social security benefit for which letters have been sent to recipients asking them to specify how they wish to receive payments following the switch to ACT; and if he will make a statement. [92185]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As at 10 January 103,023 customers have responded and opted for payment into a bank or building society account.

  This is made up of 72,458 Child Benefit customers and 30,565 Veterans Agency customers.

  We do not distinguish between existing or basic bank accounts.

  The total number of customers requesting Post Office card accounts is 26,297. This is made up of 8,854 Child Benefit customers and 17,443 Veterans Agency customers.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many CSA cases from the Wansbeck constituency are being dealt with by the Child Support Agency and how many new cases were received in each of the last five years. [88153]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mike Isaac to Mr. Dennis Murphy, dated January 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. He is unavailable at this time so I am replying on his behalf.
  You ask how many cases from your constituency are being dealt with by the Child Support Agency; and how many new cases were received in each of the last five years.
  I'm afraid I do not have precise numbers.

  261W
  We have however estimated that around 4,800 cases are currently being dealt with where the applicant resides in the Wansbeck Constituency. In each of the years 31st March 1998 to 1999 we received around 500 cases, each of the years 31'' March 2000 to 2001 we received around 200 cases and in the year to 31s' March 2002 we received less than 100 cases.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total cost to his Department was of the use of external consultants in 2002. [90514]

  Mr. McCartney
  The total cost to DWP of the use of external consultants in the 2001–02 financial year was £169.494 million.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in his Department. [90858].

  Mr. McCartney
  Nine people are currently employed in this department on a 'formal' job share basis as at 30 November 2002. However, over 30,000 people work part-time, including some who are employed on an Informal' job share basis.

  Our Equal Opportunities statement actively promotes and supports the use of flexible working patterns to enable those working for us to balance home and work responsibilities. Jobsharing is just one of the alternative and flexible working patterns that employees are welcome to take up. The flexibility of the jobshare is decided in conjunction with local management to suit an individuals need and the needs of their work. The Department operates Flexible Working Hours (FWH) Schemes wherever practicable. The framework gives managers discretion and freedom to develop FWH schemes to suit their individual business and staff needs.

  All vacancies are open to people with different working patterns, unless real operational needs preclude it.

  Components of mean gross income of pensioner units, excluding those with earnings, by quintile of the net income distribution, 1994–05

  and 2000–01

  Results based upon data from the FRS

  Incomes in £Per week 2001–2013;01 prices

  Quintiles of the income distribution

  Bottom fifth

  Next fifth

  Middle fifth

  Next fifth

  Top fifth

  Overall mean

  1994–95 Means Pensioner couples

  Gross income Of which:

  143

  183

  227

  307

  552

  264

  Benefit income

  125

  145

  155

  154

  139

  143

  Occupational pension

  11

  27

  56

  122

  283

  87

  Investment income

  7

  11

  15

  31

  126

  33

  Earnings

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Other income

  *

  1

  *

  *

  5

  1

  Single pensioners

  Gross income Of which:

  80

  104

  123

  151

  275

  144

  Benefit income

  72

  87

  105

  111

  115

  97

  Occupational pension

  3

  11

  13

  30

  105

  31

  Investment income

  5

  6

  5

  10

  52

  15

  Earnings

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Other income

  *

  *

  *

  1

  4

  1

  Pension Credit
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact of the pension credit on the mean benefit income of single pensioners and couples in(a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06, by quintile. [90372]

  Mr. McCartney
  The table provides our current assessment of the impact of pension credit in 2004–05 on the mean weekly benefit income of single adults of state pension age or over, and couples where the man is aged 65 or over. This chart includes pension credit direct effects only, and excludes any related increases in housing benefit or council tax benefit. Cases have been placed in overall population quintiles. Due to the uncertainties inherent in the predictions the results have been rounded to the nearest 50p.

  £

  Quintile

  Bottom

  Second

  Third

  Fourth

  Top

  Average

  Average weekly pension credit gain

  6.50

  7.00

  3.50

  1.50

  0.50

  4.50

  The distributional impact of our policies is assessed by the Department, when it is appropriate and robust to do so, by using simulation modelling based on the family resources survey. At present the simulations are based on the 2000–01 survey sample and the departmental analysts do not regard projected distributional results for 2005–06 to be robust, nor results for 2004–05 analysed by family type. All projections of distributional consequences for 2004–05 are subject to a variety of assumptions and should be treated with caution.

  Pensioners' Incomes Series
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will recalculate table 14 of the Pensioners' Incomes Series excluding all those with earnings. [90824]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is in the table.
  263W

  Components of mean gross income of pensioner units, excluding those with earnings, by quintile of the net income distribution, 1994–05

  and 2000–01

  Results based upon data from the FRS

  Incomes in £ per week, 2000–01 prices

  Quintiles of the income distribution

  Bottom fifth

  Next fifth

  Middle fifth

  Next fifth

  Top fifth

  Overall mean

  2001–02 Means Pensioner couples

  Gross income Of which:

  157

  211

  267

  360

  634

  302

  Benefit income

  134

  161

  173

  168

  156

  158

  Occupational pension

  15

  36

  73

  154

  334

  106

  Investment income

  8

  14

  19

  37

  141

  37

  Earnings

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Other income

  *

  *

  1

  1

  3

  1

  Single pensioners

  Gross income Of which:

  88

  124

  148

  188

  318

  169

  Benefit income

  80

  103

  118

  128

  141

  113

  Occupational pension

  4

  15

  22

  45

  119

  39

  Investment income

  4

  5

  6

  13

  55

  16

  Earnings

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Other income

  *

  1

  1

  2

  3

  1

  Notes:

  1. These figures show very little difference in the first four quintiles to those published in the Pensioners' Incomes Series, which include pensioner units with earnings. Gross and investment income for pensioners without earnings in quintile five and the overall mean are slightly lower than for those with earnings, and these pensioners also contribute a higher proportion of their gross income to benefits.

  2. The estimates are from the Family Resources Survey 1994–05 and 2000–01, which is the latest year for which results are available. The survey covers Great Britain and does not include people living in residential care or nursing homes.

  3. As with data from any survey, these estimates should not be treated as exact as they are subject to sampling error. In particular, great care should be taken when comparing groups with similar incomes, or looking at changes in income over a short time period, since random sampling fluctuations mean that estimates should be regarded as a broad indication of trends only.

  4. Incomes are in £ per week and are at 2000–01 prices.

  5. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest £1. Estimates of less than £0.50 are labelled '*'.

  6. The distribution of income is based on net unequivalised income (unequivalised income refers to the actual cash amount directly received by pensioner units), and has been calculated separately for singles and couples, i.e. estimates for pensioner couples show income for each quintile of the pensioner couples' income distribution.

  7. Single pensioners are defined as single (non-cohabiting) people over state pension age (65 and over for men, 60 and over for women). Pensioner couples are defined as couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is over state pension age.

  Pensions
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what would be the weekly savings required to provide the retirement incomes shown in Figure 3.1 of the pensions Green Paper (Cm 5677) if the rate of return on savings exceeded earnings growth by 1.5 per cent. and 2.5 per cent. respectively. [89645]

  Mr. McCartney
  Figure 3.1 of the Green Paper Simplicity, security and choice: working and saving for retirement (Cm 5677) is reproduced in the following two tables under the alternative assumptions about the rate of return on saving. Each of the two tables shows the required level of weekly saving in order to generate a given target income in retirement. The level of saving is in net terms, i.e. before the addition of tax relief at the basic rate, while the target income is in gross terms, i.e. before the deduction of any tax liability. Apart from the revisions to the assumption about the rate of return all other relevant assumptions are as set out in Annex 5 of the Green Paper.
  264W

  Table 1: Rate of return above earnings growth of 1.5 per cent

  Age Start Saving (£)

  Target weekly income (£)

  20 years

  30 years

  40 years

  50

  10

  15

  25

  100

  25

  35

  45

  200

  50

  65

  95

  300

  75

  100

  140

  Table 2: Rate of return above earnings growth of 2.5 per cent.

  Age Start Saving (£)

  Target weekly income (£)

  20 years

  30 years

  40 years

  50

  10

  15

  20

  100

  20

  25

  40

  200

  40

  55

  80

  300

  60

  80

  120

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost of(a) an increase of £5 in the rate of the basic state pension and (b) the introduction of age additions of (i) £5 for pensioners aged 75 to 79 and (ii) £10 for pensioners aged 80 years or over, on the basis that the age additions for

  265W
  those aged 75 to 79 or 80 years and over are paid in full, regardless of contribution record; and if he will make a statement. [90172]

  Mr. McCartney
  We estimate that it would cost around £2.6 billion in 2003–04 to increase the maximum rate payable of the basic State pension by £5 per week and all other payments proportionately.

  If weekly age additions of £5 were introduced for pensioners aged 75–79 and £10 for pensioners aged 80 years and over, we estimate that this would cost around £1.8 billion in 2003–04.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are in cash terms for Great Britain and are rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  2. Costs are gross, i.e. no account has been taken of offsetting savings in income related benefits.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 9 January 2003, ref 88793, on pensions, if a UK citizen moves from a country where UK pensions are not uprated back to the UK and thence to another EU member state, whether they will be entitled to an annually uprated basic pension, and if this payment will be at the same rate as if they lived in the UK. [91299]

  Mr. McCartney
  If a UK citizen who is entitled to receive a UK State Pension moves back to the UK from a country where UK pensions are not uprated and then moves to another EU member state, they will be entitled to an annually uprated State Pension in the EU member state that is paid at the same rate as if they lived in the UK.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the estimated retirement income from the state in 2050 is, as a percentage of their earnings, for employees at the income levels shown in Figure 1.7 of the pensions Green Paper (Cm 5677), assuming that the state second pension remains earnings-related and that they are not contracted out; and what would be the corresponding figures if the basic state pension were increased in line with average earnings in 2004 and subsequent years. [89644]

  Mr. McCartney
  The figures in Table 1 show the projected replacement rate provided by the state for individuals retiring in 2050. These figures correspond directly with those behind Figure 2.7 in the Green Paper Simplicity, security and choice: working and saving for retirement (Cm 5677).

  Retirement income from the state includes the basic state pension, state second pension and pension credit. The hypothetical individuals are assumed to be contracted in to state second pension in all years. A full list of modelling assumptions is set out in Annex 5 of the Green Paper.
  266W

  Table 1: Retirement income from the State for those retiring in

  2050, expressed as a percentage of earnings before retirement,

  assuming that the policy regime remains unchanged

  Weekly earnings (£)

  Replacement rates (per cent.)

  100

  139

  200

  69

  300

  48

  400

  37

  500

  30

  600

  25

  Note:

  All figures rounded to nearest 1 per cent.

  Source:

  Department for Work and Pensions calculations.

  The projections in Table 2 have been made on exactly the same basis as those in Table 1 but for the uprating of the basic state pension by earnings as opposed to prices.

  Table 2: Retirement income from the state for those retiring in

  2050 as a percentage of earnings before retirement, assuming that

  the basic state pension is increased with earnings from 2004

  Weekly earnings (£)

  Replacement rates (per cent.)

  100

  142

  200

  71

  300

  49

  400

  38

  500

  31

  600

  26

  Note:

  All figures rounded to nearest 1 per cent.

  Source:

  Department for Work and Pensions calculations.

  In both sets of projections the start point of the savings credit element of pension credit is set at the value of the full basic state pension. For the projections in Table 2 this start point is of higher value because the basic state pension has been assumed to increase in line with earnings and not prices.

  All figures are rounded to the nearest 1 per cent.; this degree of accuracy has been used in this question to indicate that the projections in Table 2 are slightly higher than those in Table 1 for all hypothetical individuals.

  Pensions Green Paper
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the basis was for the calculation made on page 102 of the Green Paper "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement", that a £20,000 lump sum could be taken instead of a state pension. [90818]

  Mr. McCartney
  The figure of £20,000 is in broad terms the amount of State pension that a hypothetical person with a State pension entitlement of £100 per week would forgo due to deferring for a five-year period, net of income tax applied at the standard rate of 22 per cent.

  The example was for illustrative purposes only, and should not be regarded as a statement of policy. The detail of policy on the calculation and tax treatment of the lump sum will be decided following the consultation.
  267W
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will set out the assumptions made for the estimate, given in the Green Paper "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement", that UK state spending on pensions will continue broadly at its current level of around five per cent. [90822]

  Mr. McCartney
  The assumptions can be found on page 148 of the green paper 'Simplicity Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement.' (Cm 5677)

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of those with liquid financial assets of more than £10,000 are members of an occupational or private pension scheme. [90821]

  Mr. McCartney
  In 2001–02, there were around 6.4 million people of working age in Great Britain in a benefit unit with total capital assets of more than 10,000. Of these, around 3.8m were also contributing to some form of private pension.

  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Family Resources Survey (FRS). 2001–02 is the latest year for which data is available.

  2. No provision has been made for any debts that might be simultaneously held by individuals.

  3. Some people with capital assets of more than 10,000 will be members of, but not contributing to, a private pension. These might be people who are retired, who are in between jobs or whose circumstances may have recently changed. These people are not included in the 3.8 million estimate given above.

  4. The estimates are based on sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors that control for tenure, Council Tax Band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response.

  5. Questions on assets are a sensitive part of the FRS questionnaire and have relatively low level of response. Evidence suggests some under reporting of. capital by respondents.

  Ringwood Jobcentre
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what consultations have been carried out on the proposal to withdraw Social Fund services from the Ringwood Jobcentre; and what alternative arrangements are proposed for those living in Three Legged Cross and Kenwood. [90721]

  (2) what enhanced services will be provided at Ringwood Jobcentre when Jobcentre Plus is introduced. [90754]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are progressively extending the new integrated Jobcentre Plus office network across the country over the next four years. These offices are delivering a single, integrated service to people of working age claiming benefits, with a clear focus on work. They provide an active and responsive service to help people find jobs, and give advice on the full range of help and support available to them.

  Full details of the services available in these new offices are described in the Jobcentre Plus Business Plan 2002–03, a copy of which is available in the Library.
  268W
  Plans are currently being drawn up to roll out the new integrated Jobcentre Plus service in Hampshire District, which includes Ringwood Jobcentre. The future provision of Social Fund services in the District forms part of the plans. Partners and stakeholders were consulted about these plans in June and September 2002. Their comments are being taken into consideration in reaching final decisions, which will be announced in due course.

  Wholetime Equivalent Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the distribution of his Department's wholetime equivalent staff was, including the staff in agencies and other bodies reporting to him, in each Government office region and nation of the UK(a) in 1996 and (b) at the most recent available period. [90469]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 15 January 2003,Official Report, column 609W.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Cheverton Down
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he asked for an Environmental Impact Assessment to be provided for the application for a wind energy development at Cheverton Down, Isle of Wight, which was referred to him for call in; and if he will make a statement. [90989]

  Mr. McNulty
  Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was not required for the wind energy development at Cheverton Down. Responsibility for determining the planning application, and therefore for deciding whether EIA would be required, rested with the local planning authority, the Isle of Wight council. The council originally granted planning permission in 1995, and in 2002, determined an application to vary one of the conditions attached to the permission. A request by local residents that my right. hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister should call in that application for his own determination was declined.

  Fire Officers (Herefordshire)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many fire officers are employed in Herefordshire. [91747]

  Mr. Leslie
  On 31 March 2002, the number of fire officers employed in Herefordshire was 352 whole-time, 355 retained and 25 fire control.

  Greenfield Sites
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he intends to take to ensure that the guidance in PPG3 is complied with following the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Rowlinson v. Warrington borough council. [92328]

  Mr. McNulty
  It is normally for local planning authorities to determine planning applications made to them. In doing so they are required to take account of all considerations which may be material, including
  269W
  the guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: `Housing'. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will continue to monitor their performance.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he intends to take to protect greenfield sites in areas where a council's committed land supply meets or exceeds regional planning guidance requirements, following the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Rowlinson v. Warrington Borough Council. [92329]

  Mr. McNulty
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 3, "Housing", introduced a series of tough new measures designed to meet the country's future housing needs in the most sustainable way possible, including a sequential approach which gives priority to re-using brownfield sites in urban areas in preference to developing greenfield sites. Local planning authorities should revise their plans to take account of the guidance in PPG3 and Regional Planning Guidance, and they should seek to do so as quickly as possible.

  In considering planning applications for housing development in the interim, before development plans can be reviewed, local authorities should have regard to the policy contained in PPG3 as material considerations which may supersede the policies in their plan.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not convinced that it is necessary to issue further advice in the light of the decision in Rowlinson v. Warrington Borough Council, which was determined on the facts of the case.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he intends to take to protect greenfield sites in North Warrington, following the recent decision in the case of Rowlinson v. Warrington Borough Council. [92331]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects the local authority concerned to implement Planning Policy Guidance Note 3, "Housing".

  Housing Corporation
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much funding has been allocated to the Housing Corporation for the current financial year for new dwellings; how much will be given for the next financial year; and what figure the Corporation has stated it needs to meet requests made by registered social housing landlords for new dwellings. [91140]

  Mr. McNulty
  In 2002–03, the Housing Corporation have allocated £820 million to new-build schemes through their approved development programme (ADP).

  The amount for new-build schemes for the 2003–04 ADP has not yet been determined.

  The ADP is run on the basis of competitive bids, and commonly attracts bids from registered social landlords amounting to three times the available funds from the Housing Corporation.

  Housing Transfers
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what the total value of payments made to local 270W
  authorities was in each year since 1997 regarding overhanging debt payments for authorities transferring housing stock; [90986]

  (2) what total payment has been made to date to local authorities to pay off debt left after housing transfers. [90985]

  Mr. McNulty
  Payments are made directly to the Public Works Loans Commissioners to repay local authority "overhanging debt" after housing transfer. Since the arrangements to repay overhanging debt were put in place in 1999, payments totalling £132.68 million have been made in 2000, payments totalling £143.49 million in 2001 and payments totalling £256.733 million in 2002; a total of £532.9 million.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average cash reserves were for shire county councils in each of the last 10 years. [92065]

  Mr. Leslie
  The average cash reserves for shire county councils were as shown in the table.

  Average cash reserves1 for shire county councils2 at the beginning

  of the financial year

  £ million

  1992–93

  20.8

  1993–94

  32.6

  1994–95

  45.9

  1995–96

  47.0

  1996–97

  38.9

  1997–98

  37.7

  1998–99

  30.5

  1999–2000

  32.0

  2000–01

  34.7

  2001–023

  39.8

  1Cash reserves include schools' reserves, other earmarked reserves and unallocated reserves.

  2County councils underwent reorganisations between 1995–96 and 1997–98, resulting in the creation of Unitary authorities. Both the number of county councils and the average geographical area for which remaining county councils were responsible therefore reduced during this period.

  3Provisional.

  Source:

  RS forms 1992–93 to 2000–01.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cash reserves of(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council and (b) Shropshire county council were in each of the last 10 years. [92066]

  Mr. Leslie
  The cash reserves of Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council and Shropshire county council were as shown in the following table:

  Cash reserves1 in Shrewsbury and Atcham and Shropshire at the

  beginning of the financial year

  £000

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Shropshire

  1992–93

  6,288

  9,911

  1993–94

  4,323

  12,357

  1994–95

  4,131

  22,078

  1995–96

  5,255

  14,812

  1996–97

  5,787

  10,198

  1997–98

  5,969

  8,852

  1998–99

  6,516

  4,745

  271W

  Cash reserves1 in Shrewsbury and Atcham and Shropshire at the

  beginning of the financial year

  £000

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Shropshire

  1999–2000

  6,936

  7,944

  2000–01

  6,367

  8,490

  2001–02

  5,042

  4,562

  1Cash reserves include schools' reserves, other earmarked reserves and unallocated reserves.

  Source:

  RS forms 1992–93 to 2001–02

  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from North Tyneside council regarding the level of the council's financial settlement for 2003–04. [91857]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister received one representation from the Tyneside council regarding the provisional local government finance settlement 2003–04. The representation by email was received after the deadline for the close of consultation.

  Public Amenities (Charitable Trusts)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what advice he gives local authorities in respect of handing

  Table 1: Urban regeneration outturn and plans

  £ million

  Outturn

  Plans

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Cash

  1,195

  1,420

  1,215

  1,039

  1,154

  1,239

  1,223

  1,182

  1,333

  -

  -

  Resource

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1,452

  1,658

  At constant 2001–02 prices

  955

  1,162

  1,008

  887

  1,016

  1,125

  1,140

  1,129

  1,302

  1,452

  1,658

  Table 2: Neighbourhood renewal outturn and plans by English region

  £ thousand

  Region

  1998–99 cash outturn

  1999–2000 cash outturn

  2000–01 cash outturn

  2001–02 resource outturn

  2002–03 resource plans

  North East

  14

  756

  3,128

  14,242

  74,080

  North West

  39

  932

  5,852

  13,527

  122,880

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  63

  774

  2,871

  14,047

  78,330

  East Midlands

  11

  460

  1,532

  7,855

  39,950

  West Midlands

  65

  640

  6,632

  10,244

  63,920

  Eastern

  24

  173

  695

  3,435

  21,270

  South East

  18

  370

  1,723

  6,171

  18,480

  South West

  10

  204

  1,091

  3,001

  19,420

  London

  17

  246

  10,771

  26,108

  118,170

  Totals

  261

  4,555

  34,295

  98,631

  556,500

  At constant 2001–02 prices

  243

  4,350

  33,502

  98,631

  556,500

  Sefton Council
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much funding Sefton Council has received from the Community Empowerment Fund; what organisations manage the fund; what projects have been developed; and which communities benefit. [89486]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Community Empowerment Fund for Sefton totals £435,432.00 for the three-year period up to 2004.
  272W
  over control of public amenities to charitable trusts which have exemptions for tax and business rates; and if he will make a statement. [91146]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not provided any advice to local authorities on the transfer of public amenities to charitable trusts.

  Regeneration Funding
  Adam Price
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much regeneration funding was received by each of the English regions in each year between 1974–75 and 2001–02; and what the estimated figures are for(a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04, (c) 2004–05; and (d) 2005–06, (i) in cash terms and (ii) at constant 2001–02 prices. [89823]

  Mr. McNulty
  Expenditure by English region for urban regeneration is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Table 1 shows total cash outturn expenditure from 1992–93 to 2000–01. Comparative figures are not available before 1992–93. Expenditure on neighbourhood renewal programmes by English region is given in Table 2.

  Following the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting systems, outturn figures from 2001–02, and plans, are compiled on a resource basis. Resource plans for 2003–04 to 2005–06 will be published shortly.

  The fund is managed by the Sefton Community Empowerment Fund Steering Group on behalf of the Sefton Council for Voluntary Service (CVS) who are the lead organisation and accountable body.

  The Community Empowerment Fund is being used to develop the initiatives and mechanisms needed to support the Sefton Voluntary and Community Sector Network which supports the full engagement of communities in local decision making and service planning. These include the creation of a Network Development Team; support for the North Sefton Community Development Project; the mapping of the particular needs of groups who have historically been

  273W
  marginalised including black and racial minorities, lesbian, gay and bisexual, faith communities and the disabled community.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment the Social Exclusion Unit has made of the impact of debt on poor families. [91421]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Social Exclusion Unit has not made any specific assessment of the impact of debt on poor families. It has, however in previous reports, highlighted the effects debt can have on particular disadvantaged groups. In a recent report, "Reducing Re-offending by Ex-prisoners", the SEU assessed the impact of debt on a prisoner's chances of re-offending.

  Also, "Access to Financial Services", a report of Policy Action Team 14, published in November 1999, found that many people in low income households and on tight budgets can ill afford the burden of servicing loans, and that there is a need for practical alternatives to expensive credit.

  Urban Regeneration
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the implications for urban regeneration in the north-west of the recent decision in the case of Rowlinson v. Warrington Borough Council. [92330]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to make a statement in this regard. The judgment in Rowlinson v. Warrington was made in the light of the facts in that case; The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not convinced that they are of wider or general application.

HEALTH

  Bursary Scheme
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the introduction of the bursary scheme for students taking the Diploma in Social Work. [90576]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]: The bursary for social work students commences in September 2003 and will be payable to new and existing students who ordinarily reside in England, who are undertaking the new degree in social work or the diploma in social work and who are not funded through training by their employer.

  The bursary is non means-tested and is being introduced to encourage more students to enter training. It will be paid at the rate of £3,400 for students residing in London during their studies, £3,000 for those living outside London or £2,600 for those who continue to reside in the parental home. This includes £500 per year towards travelling costs incurred during practice placements. The student's assessed liability for tuition fees will also be met.
  274W
  Students are still entitled to apply for a student loan and if they have special needs may also be entitled to allowances from the local education authority (LEA). A means tested bursary scheme already exists for social work students who hold a first degree who are not entitled to student loans and LEA allowances. The General Social Care Council administers this.

  Alzheimer's Awareness Week
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to support Alzheimer's Awareness Week in July. [91151]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: The Alzheimer's Society has achieved great success over the years in raising awareness of Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia.

  This has been very important in helping people with dementia and their carers receive the care and support that they need. Raising awareness is important for delivering on the standard set out for mental health in the older people's national service framework.

  While currently the Department has no particular plans around this year's awareness week, we fully support its overall aim.

  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of children had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in each year since 1997. [92063]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on numbers of children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is not collected centrally.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received on the member failures of care homes to pass on 'free' nursing care contributions to residents from(a) Members of Parliament by party group and (b) members of the public. [82965]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: Of the in excess of 20,073 letters received by the Department from hon. Members and the in excess of 31,278 received from the public in the last 12 months; 332 and 301 covered issues relating to free nursing care, including fee levels, the process of assessment, banding levels for registered nursing care contributions, policy justification, the mechanisms of payment and the costs of equipment, broken down by party group as follows:

  Labour—165

  Conservatives—126

  Liberal Democrats—36

  Cruse Bereavement Care
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial support his Department has provided for Cruse Bereavement Care; and what assessment he has made of their contribution to the alleviation of mental ill health. [92043]
  275W
  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has provided Cruse Bereavement Care with funding over a number of years under the Section 64 General Scheme of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. Details of current projects and funding are:

  Projects

  Funding

  Quality care in bereavement

  £180,000 over 3 years from 199911

  Bereavement care—improving access

  £176,000 over 3 years from 2000

  Promoting bereavement awareness

  £90,000 over 3 years from 2001

  Service delivery plan to meet client need

  £150,000 over 3 years from 2002

  1Project completion now 2003

  The Government recognise that to deliver a modern, dependable health and social care service, the voluntary sector has a crucial role to play in helping service users cope with their mental health problems. We appreciate and value the very good work being done by voluntary organisations such as Cruse.

  Drug and Alcohol Treatment Programmes
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department has provided to support research into(a) drug treatment programmes and (b) alcohol harm reduction programmes in each of the last five years. [90633]

  Ms Blears
  Details of the amount spent by the Department on research into drug treatment over the last five years are shown in the table.

  Year

  Amount (£)

  1998

  176,502

  1999

  201,333

  2000

  527,803

  2001

  866,982

  2002

  1379,065

  1Estimate

  Details of the amount spent on research on average, into alcohol harm reduction in each of the last five years are shown in the table.

  Year

  Amount (£)

  1998–99

  Nil

  1999–2000

  40,000

  2000–01

  68,000

  2001–02

  71,410

  2002–03

  73,770

  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department has provided to support(a) alcohol abuse treatment programmes and (b) drug treatment programmes in each of the last five years. [90634]

  Ms Blears
  All funding for alcohol treatment services and all funding for drug treatment services until 2001–02 was drawn from the mainstream budgets of the national health service and local authorities. The amounts spent on treatment services from these budgets was substantial, although the method of funding means that it is not possible to give figures on expenditure.
  276W
  In 2001–02, in addition to the funding from NHS and local authority mainstream budgets, the Government put into place a pooled drug treatment budget which meant resources were specifically made available for drug treatment. In 2001–02, the pooled drug treatment budget was 143.85 million and in 2002–03, the budget was 195.7 million.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Department of Work and Pensions to ensure that ex-heroin misusers can re-enter their employment following treatment. [88965]

  Ms Blears
  The national treatment agency, which was set up by Government in April 2001 to increase the quality and availability of drug treatment services, has recently published the models of care (MOC) guidance, which is in effect a national service framework for drug treatment services. The MOC proposes a whole-systems approach, which includes a role for education, training, employment and housing as key elements of care.

  As the target audience includes employers discussions took place between officials from the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the guidance contained in the MOC is in line with guidance issued by the other government departments.

  Funding has also been specifically allocated for the re-integration of substance misusers into employment. The Department for Work and Pensions allocated £40 million in 2001, spread over three years, to help drug users find employment in 31 pathfinder areas in England and Wales. In practice most drug treatment programmes should include help and advice on re-entering employment, where appropriate.

  Food Supplements Directive
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will lay before Parliament the Statutory Instrument to implement the provisions of the Foods Supplements Directive. [91070]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency expects The Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 to be laid before Parliament in June 2003.

  Free Nursing Care
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government will ensure the criteria for free nursing care apply to all patients suffering from dementia and Alzheimers; and if he will make a statement. [91552]

  Jacqui Smith
  People with dementia who are assessed as needing care in a care home that provides nursing care, will receive an appropriate level of national health service funding to their care consistent with the level of nursing input, on the same basis as residents with other conditions.

  Draft supplementary guidance on NHS funded nursing care was issued for consultation on 20 December 2002. This makes specific reference to the importance of NHS nurses considering the mental health needs of patients as well as their physical health needs.

  Healthy Start Scheme
  Dr. Ian Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of mothers on income support are projected to(a) breastfeed and (b) bottlefeed in each of the next five years. [91075]

  Jacqui Smith
  We do not collect information by this specific category of mother. The five-yearly national infant feeding survey provides historic data on the incidence of breastfeeding among women from social class V and those mothers without a partner. The latest survey shows a significant increase in the incidence of breastfeeding in mothers from social class V in England and Wales from 50 per cent, in 1995 to 59 per cent. in 2000.

  The Department has set a national health service priorities and planning framework target to increase the initiation of breastfeeding by two percentage points per year over the next three years, particularly focussing on disadvantaged groups.

  Health Protection Agency
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is his policy to proceed with the transfer of envisaged functions to the HPA on 1 April. [90065]

  Ms Blears
  Yes. We expect to lay statutory instruments before Parliament shortly to establish a special health authority from 1 April 2003.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he has taken to address Point 4 in the summary of the report to the steering group of the HPA in relation to the potential impact of a deliberate release of biological materials over the next few months; [90069]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the risks associated with the transfer of (a) the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, (b) the CIRS, (c) the Central Public Health Laboratory, and (d) the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre to the new Health Protection Agency; and how these risks are to be minimised; [90081]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the level of acceptable risk as outlined in the statements made in point 4 in the summary of the report to the Steering Group of the HPA; [90071]

  (4) what actions he has taken following the submission of the report to the HPA Steering Group on HPA Business Continuity Risk Assessment; [90084]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the risks associated with the establishment of regional field services in the new Health Protection Agency; and how these risks are to be minimised; [90082]

  (6) what steps he has taken to reduce the impact on decision-making within the various organisations being amalgamated into the HPA prior to 1 April highlighted in the Report to the Steering Group. [90122]

  Ms Blears
  One of the steering group's key roles is to provide a forum for the various organisations forming the Health Protection Agency (HPA) to raise and resolve issues which may impact on decision making in the interim period. This will continue.
  278W
  As part of its normal business, the group reviewed a report on business continuity risks in relation to the proposed establishment of the HPA. This report included input from the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, the Chemical Incidents Response Service and other chemical providers, the Central Public Health Laboratory, the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre and from a number of regions in relation to the establishment of field services.

  Having reviewed the papers, the steering group endorsed a number of actions. The key decision was the appointment of interim directors to provide leadership and business continuity in key service delivery functions. These interim arrangements have since been announced. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 20 January.

  As regards the deliberate release of biological materials, the Department, in conjunction with other agencies, is developing plans, which take account of the planned establishment of the HPA from 1 April.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will bring forward legislation to create the Health Protection Agency as an executive non-departmental public body. [90088]

  Ms Blears
  We aim to establish the Health Protection Agency as a non-Departmental public body, when Parliamentary time allows.

  Infant Deafness
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many units operating a newborn screening unit for deafness at birth(a) there are now and (b) are planned to open in 2003; where they are located; and if he will make a statement. [91667]

  Jacqui Smith
  Twenty-three sites are currently providing newborn hearing screening. We expect to bring on a further 16 sites by the end of May 2003, with approximately 30 additional sites during the remainder of the financial year 2003–04.

  First and second phase sites, by health authority (HA) area, are as follows.

  First Phase

  Avon HA

  Barnsley HA

  Bath HA

  Bradford HA

  Calderdale and Huddersfield HA

  Camden and Islington HA

  Dewsbury HA

  Tower Hamlets HA

  East Sussex HA

  Manchester HA

  Milton Keynes HA

  North Cheshire HA

  North Derbyshire HA

  North Staffordshire HA

  279W

  Northumberland HA

  Nottingham HA

  Oxfordshire HA

  Sheffield HA

  Shropshire HA

  Southampton and Winchester HA

  Stockport HA

  Swindon HA

  Waltham Forest HA

  Second Phase

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey HA

  Bedfordshire HA

  Bury, Rochdale and Oldham HA

  Cambridgeshire HA

  Croydon HA

  Doncaster and Bassetlaw HA

  Dudley HA

  Gloucestershire HA

  North Hants HA

  Redbridge HA

  Salford HA

  Trafford HA

  South Wiltshire HA

  Bolton HA

  East Riding and Hull HA

  Portsmouth and Isle of Wight HA

  Sites are listed by former Health Authority areas, as these were the boundaries in existence when the selection process started.

  Cancer Care

  Coronary Care

  Orthopaedics

  King Edward VII, Midhurst

  King Edward VII, Midhurst

  Esperance Hospital, Eastbourne

  Prospect Hospice, Swindon

  Winterbourne Hospital, Dorchester

  Horder Centre Crowborough

  Winterbourne Hospital, Dorchester

  Harbour Hospital, Poole

  BUPA Hastings

  Nuffield (Derwent Suite) Bournemouth

  King Edward VII, Midhurst

  New Hall Hospital, Salisbury

  Nuffield Hospital, Ashdown

  BUPA, Southampton

  Nuffield Hospital, Chichester

  Wessex Nuffield Hospital, Eastleigh

  BUPA Gatwick

  Sarum Road Hospital, Winchester

  BMI, Goring Hall

  CAPIO, North Downs

  BMI, Runnymede

  Woking, Nuffield

  Nuffield, Guildford

  Ridgeway Hospital, Swindon

  Harbour Hospital, Poole

  Nuffield Hospital, Bournemouth

  Winterbourne Hospital, Dorchester

  BUPA, Portsmouth

  Sarum Road Hospital, Winchester

  The Hampshire Clinic, Basingstoke

  The Orchard Hospital, Isle of Wight

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what channels of co-ordination will remain between the PHLS laboratories that will transfer to the NHS. [90075]

  Mental Health
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mixed sex acute mental health wards there are in(a) Lancashire, (b) the North of England and (c) England. [90963]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available in this format, as compliance is measured on a trust by trust basis and not at individual ward level.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the impact on the Government's policy on those suffering from(a) dementia and (b) Alzheimers of the Health Service Ombudsman's ruling on the Malcolm Pointon case and the Squires case. [91553]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Health Service Ombudsman's report of this case has not yet been published. We will comment on the report once it is published by the Ombudsman's office.

  Non-NHS Hospitals
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the non-NHS hospitals in(a) the Isle of Wight, (b) Sussex, (c) Hampshire, (d) Dorset and (e) Wiltshire which are accredited to provide (a) cancer services, (b) coronary care services and (c) orthopaedic services to NHS patients. [90682]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not have a list of accredited private and non-National Health Service hospitals. Contracts for these private sector services are negotiated locally and as such the information requested is not collected centrally.

  Information has been provided by the relevant Strategic Health Authorities and is shown in the table.

  Ms Blears
  The transferring laboratories are expected to become part of existing or developing national health service pathology laboratory networks and to have access to appropriate channels of co-ordination, both with NHS laboratories and with those in the proposed Health Protection Agency.
  281W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the change in cost to the NHS of procurement for former PHLS laboratories of microbiology equipment and consumables following the end of central procurement on 1 April. [90076]

  Ms Blears
  In order to maintain the current benefits and economies of scale that have been achieved through national Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) contracts, these contracts will be continued during 2003–04.

  During the next few months, the PHLS will be working closely with the National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency, in consultation with NHS trusts, to review these contracts and produce recommendations to the Department of Health on future supply options.

  This will ensure that the savings achieved by the PHLS central procurement are not lost as a result of the transfer of public health laboratories to the NHS.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the risk that the achievements of the modernisation and reform programme within the PHLS laboratory network will be affected following their transfer to local NHS trusts; and what action has been taken to minimise these risks. [90097]

  Ms Blears
  The transfer of Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) laboratories to national health service trusts is intended to contribute to raising the standards of microbiology in the NHS as a whole and to build on the standards they have reached. PHLS staff and management have been closely involved at each stage of the process to ensure that any risks inherent in the transfers are identified and managed.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his policy to privatise the residual PHLS organisation after 1 April. [90137]

  Ms Blears
  The Public Health Service Laboratory Service Board is an executive non-departmental public body, created by primary legislation. Until changes are made to primary legislation, it will continue in being with responsibility for production of media for microbiology laboratories.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the risk that the IT systems supporting the work of those public health laboratories transferring to NHS trusts will collapse; and what action has been taken to minimise these risks; [90096]

  (2) what steps he is taking to unbundle the IT networks that link the PHLS laboratories that will be transferred to the NHS. [90074]

  Ms Blears
  All the existing information technology systems will remain in place for the time being and no networks will be unbundled unless the regional public health microbiologist and the national health service trust(s) are satisfied that this is in the interests of both the NHS and of public health. NHS trusts will only introduce alternative systems after the risks have been assessed
  282W
  Many of these networks also connect these laboratories with the central and regional laboratories that are intended to be transferred to the Health Protection Agency and they will need to be retained in order to support continuing public health functions.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the risk that those public health laboratories transferring to NHS trusts will reduce their commitment to public health work for CCDCs, local authorities and the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre; and what action has been taken to minimise these risks. [90092]

  Ms Blears
  The transferring laboratories will maintain the current level of commitment to reporting and other public health work. The following actions are being taken to support the commitment to public health.

  The laboratories are being transferred with the same level of funding, which will be maintained for at least the first two years and it is expected that these developments will strengthen the public health microbiology outputs of the national health service.

  Each laboratory that transfers to a NHS trust will have a public health microbiologist, who will work with consultants in communicable disease control, local authorities, the communicable disease surveillance centre and other public health agencies. Service level agreements are being prepared to maintain this work.

  In due course the inspector of microbiology will ensure that standards of microbiological practice are maintained throughout laboratories in the NHS and the Health Protection Agency, including appropriate attention to public health activities.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the risk that those public health laboratories transferring to NHS trusts will lose the surge capacity necessary to deal with outbreaks; and what action has been taken to minimise these risks. [90094]

  Ms Blears
  We do not anticipate any of the laboratories losing their surge capacity, as the appropriate level of funding and staffing will be transferred with the laboratories.

  The new role of regional public health microbiologist will enhance the capacity to co-ordinate surge capacity within public health regions, and interim appointments are now being made to these posts.

  The chief executive of the national health service has written to the chief executives of the receiving NHS trusts emphasising the need for the transfer process to be as smooth and efficient as possible. Maintenance of the existing functional arrangements such as the provision of surge capacity is clearly an important part of the transfer process.

  Primary Care Trust Chairmen
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what salary is paid to each Primary Care Trust chairman in England. [91551]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will introduce the public education programme about prostate cancer announced in the NHS Prostate Cancer Programme in September 2000. [91777]

  Ms Blears
  The national health service prostate cancer programme stated that an education programme for the public, patients and professionals on the risks associated with individual testing for prostate cancer will be introduced. This has been achieved through the prostate cancer risk management programme, which sent out evidence-based primary care resource packs to all general practitioners in England from 23 September 2002 to aid them in counselling men who are worried about prostate cancer.

  This ensures that men make an informed choice about whether or not to have a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test, based on an information leaflet developed specifically for men about the advantages and disadvantages of having a PSA test.

  The Department is funding a Section 64 grant to the prostate cancer charity to increase further information about prostate cancer. This is supporting the creation, review, provision and dissemination of a range of awareness material, supported by £135,000 over three years.

  Recruitment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 2 December 2002,Official Report, column 608W, on recruitment, how many nursing agencies have been removed from the list of approved agencies which have failed to comply with the code of practice in the recruitment of overseas nurses since it was established; and if he will list them. [86807]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 14 January 2003, Official Report, column 535W.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Data Protection
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what guidance is given to Government Departments in dealing with information on individual files that has been accepted as inaccurate under the Data Protection Act 1998. [92187]

  Yvette Cooper
  General guidance on compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 is issued by the Information Commissioner. The Commissioner's booklet, "The Data Protection Act: Legal Guidance", contains a section on complying with the requirement in the 1998 Act's fourth data protection principle that personal data must be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.

  Judicial Competence
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will make it his policy(a) to introduce rules relating to the conduct and competence of judges in the small claims court and (b) to introduce independent assessors (i) to monitor the observance of such rules and (ii) to permit assessment to inform future appointment by way of promotion or otherwise. [91393]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor has no plans to introduce either rules relating specifically to the conduct and competence of judges in small claims cases, or independent assessors to monitor the observance of such rules. The decisions of judges in those cases are, of course, subject to the possibility of appeal (as are the decisions of judges in other jurisdictions). Where there is no complaint about a judicial decision, but it is alleged that a judge has failed to meet the high standard of conduct expected of all judges, the Lord Chancellor, as head of the judiciary, is able to consider a complaint about the judge's conduct.

  Small claims cases are generally dealt with by full-time District judges or part-time Deputy District judges. The Lord Chancellor would usually expect candidates for appointment as District judges to have gained experience of sitting as a part-time Deputy. Deputy District judges are observed, and appraised, in their work by full-time judges, enabling both their performance, and suitability for promotion to full-time office, to be assessed.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much producing his Department's latest annual report cost; how many copies were printed; how many copies of it were sold at its cover price; to whom copies of the report have been provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge. [90884]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The last annual report for my Department was published on 13 June 2002 and was also made available on the Home Office Internet website in HTML format from September 2002. The cover price was £14.75. The cost to my Department of producing the report was as follows (all figures include VAT):

  Cost of producing report

  £

  Design and editing

  35,724.82

  Design for Internet version

  2,600.00

  Printing and purchase of 1,200 copies

  116,567.98

  Total cost

  54,892.80

  1This figure includes 20 per cent. discount on cover price of 1,100 copies and 60 per cent. discount on remaining 100 copies.

  Under the terms of their contract with my Department TSO Ltd. use their commercial judgment to decide the total size of the print-run and bear all the remaining cost of printing the copies over and above the number required by the Department for distribution.

  285W
  Information on the total number of copies printed and sold at cover price is not therefore available to the Department.

  The Department distributed 200 copies to Parliament members of the Home Affairs Select Committee, Members of the Cabinet and Leaders of the Opposition Parties. Some 400 copies were distributed across the Department to directors, heads of unit and frontline staff. About 400 copies have also been distributed to the press, other Government Departments, agencies, and non-governmental organisations and other bodies with an interest in the Department's work.

  Asylum Department
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed in the Asylum Department of the Home Office in each year since 1997; and what the rate of absenteeism was in each year. [90848]

  Beverley Hughes
  Records are available for the years from 2000. The number of full-time equivalent staff employed in Asylum Group was 422 in April 2000, 1,129 in April 2001 and 1,065 in April 2002.

  Data is not recorded in terms of absenteeism. Sickness absence for the Home Office is recorded and published by the Cabinet Office.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his performance against the target of 30,000 deportations a year of failed asylum applicants; and what plans he has to amend that target. [91246]

  Beverley Hughes
  The 2002–03 target of 30,000 removals per year was based on the public service agreement (PSA) to enforce the immigration laws more effectively by removing a greater proportion of failed asylum seekers. Latest information on performance against this target will be published in the "Asylum Statistics Q4 2001 United Kingdom" on 28 February.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has always made it clear that, the target for 30,000 removals set for 2002–03 was aspirational and hugely ambitious. In order to reach and exceed 30,000 removals per year, we needed to remove about 2,500 people per month. This target was not attainable.

  The PSA in 2003–04 remains the same, ie to enforce the immigration laws more effectively by removing a greater proportion of failed asylum seekers. The proportion is measured by comparing the total number of refused asylum seekers (including dependants) removed from the UK with the total number of refused asylum seekers (including dependants) who have either exhausted all appeal rights or not appealed within 15 working days of the despatch of the refusal decision or meet the criteria for non-suspensive appeals.

  Burglary Sentences
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many defendants have, pursuant to section 111 of the Powers of Criminal 286W
  Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, been given the mandatory sentence imposed by that section in relation to three separate occasions of offences of domestic burglary. [91011]

  Hilary Benn
  Information reported to the Home Office shows that six persons were sentenced under section 111 of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (previously section 4 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997) in England and Wales for a third offence of burglary by the end of 2001.

  An offender has to have committed an offence, been apprehended, prosecuted and convicted, on three separate occasions since 1 December 1999 to be subject to the mandatory sentence. Given that a custodial sentence for the first or second offence since December 1999 is likely in many cases it will take some time before significant numbers of offenders who qualify for the mandatory sentence appear before the courts.

  Information for 2002 is due for publication in the late autumn of 2003.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 11 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Miss H. Abdi. [92287]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 20 January 2003.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 4 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Ali Mohamad Oshmand. [92288]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 15 January 2003.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2002,Official Report, column 232W, if he will ask his noble Friend the Lord Falconer of Thoroton to raise at his next weekly meeting with the chief executive of the Criminal Records Bureau the cases of constituents from Colchester who have been waiting months for their applications to be processed; and if he will make a statement on the operational performance of the Criminal Records Bureau measured against targets. [88908]

  Hilary Benn
  I will ask my noble friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton to raise with the chief executive of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), the issue of cases of constituents from Colchester.

  The CRB has a set of published customer service standards in relation to its response times for disclosure applications:
  Timeliness of service 90 per cent. of enhanced disclosures issued within three weeks;
  95 per cent. of standard disclosures issued within one week.
  287W
  The CRB has so far been unable to meet these service standards.

  However, the Bureau's Service Improvement Plan is steadily delivering improved results. Over the last six full weeks before Christmas the CRB has been averaging around 45,000 disclosures per week, which is over double the weekly output issued by the police under the previous arrangements and compares to a weekly average of 24,000 in August and an average intake of 40,000 applications per week.

  The average turnaround time for disclosure applications is now about five weeks but it is recognised that there are a significant number of older outstanding applications which have taken much longer than this to process.

  A factor that is contributing to the bureau's inability to meet its service standards is that a small number of police forces have been unable to keep pace with the increase in the volume of applications. As some 90 per cent. of applications received by the bureau are for enhanced disclosures requiring a local police check, the capacity of the police to carry out their local searches

  Stage

  (a) Planned time

  (b) Actual time

  Implementation of Registration Service (manual)

  March 2001

  May 2001

  Implementation of Registration Service (automated)

  March 2001

  July 2001

  Implementation of High Level Disclosure Service—System available for Service Testing

  April 2001

  November 2001

  Implementation of High Level Disclosure Service—Service Commencement

  August 2001

  March 2002

  Part of the reason for the delay in the service commencement was the decision to insert a two month model office and pre-go live pilot phase.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Criminal Records Bureau is taking to review the Disclosure Application Form(a) to simplify it and (b) to make it easier to read and complete. [90113]

  Hilary Benn
  The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) reviews its services continuously and uses market research and analysis of errors and complaints to shape its services.

  The guidance notes that accompany the Disclosure Application Form have just been reviewed and some fundamental changes have been made to simplify the process of completion. The notes are now in a graphical format and rely less on text; this has shortened the notes from 25 pages to six. It is envisaged that the improved guidance notes will make the Disclosure Application Form easier to complete. The new guidance notes will be issued in February.

  We have also recently taken a decision to no longer ask applicants to complete all sections of the Disclosure Application form. The relevant sections are E and F, which include details of applicants' bank account numbers, marital status. The Registered Bodies are being kept fully informed of the changes being made, and the CRB is providing ongoing guidance and advice to them to ensure they fully understand their role of ensuring that Disclosure Applications Forms are correctly completed before onward transmission to the CRB.
  288W
  has a significant impact on the overall process. To deal with this situation the police are recruiting and training additional staff. While this is well advanced the problem will persist for a while.

  The CRB is working with the police to address the situation. Pending the recruitment and training by the police of new permanent staff, the CRB has offered to provide staff to assist those small numbers of forces that have the greater need to improve capacity, and this assistance has been taken up in some cases. These additional local checks are not needed for standard disclosures whose processing times are therefore steadily falling.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) planned and (b) actual time taken was for each stage in commissioning the Criminal Records Bureau. [89988]

  Hilary Benn
  The table reflects the planned and actual time taken to complete each of the various stages in the implementation of the Registration and the High Level Disclosure Services by the Criminal Records Bureau. (CRB).

  An independent team, led by Patrick Carter, have taken a fundamental look at the strategy and operations of the CRB and its private-sector partner, Capita, and recently submitted their conclusions and recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Depending on decisions taken on these recommendations changes made in application processes and related business processes may affect the Disclosure Application Form. However, there is no project under way at present in relation to the layout of the form pending the outcome of these deliberations.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he would set out for each month since the Criminal Records Bureau commenced operating, how many(a) standard and (b) enhanced disclosures were (i) requested and (ii) supplied. [90116]

  Hilary Benn
  The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) cannot provide information about the number of standard and enhanced disclosures requested because this decision rests with the registered body, depending upon the position applied for.

  The following is a breakdown of the number of standard and enhanced disclosures that have been supplied, since the CRB commenced operating:

  Total applications received

  Standard disclosures issued

  Enhanced disclosures issued

  Total disclosures issued

  B/F

  9

  7

  14

  21

  March

  2,765

  15

  6

  21

  April

  39,713

  409

  2,389

  2,798

  May

  87,865

  2,070

  17,376

  19,446

  June

  90,204

  4,315

  30,585

  34,900

  July

  159,393

  12,828

  76,258

  89,086

  289W

  Total applications received

  Standard disclosures issued

  Enhanced disclosures issued

  Total disclosures issued

  August

  144,030

  14,116

  96,295

  110,411

  September

  204,868

  16,497

  116,238

  132,735

  October

  227,340

  22,620

  159,226

  181,846

  November

  187,463

  23,257

  159,200

  182.457

  December

  151,784

  22,347

  148,706

  171,053

  Total

  1,295,434

  118,481

  806,293

  924,774

  Many of the outstanding applications at any time will be the subject of requests to applicants for registered bodies for future information—for example, out of the number shown for end of December, 98,960 were back with customers for this reason. Others will have been recently received—for example, within the December total, 59,960 had been in the CRB less than three weeks and were hence not overdue.

  Unfortunately, it has not been possible to provide a breakdown between the different levels of disclosure because there are no IT procedures at present to extract this data from the CRB database. It is expected that this functionality will become available in subsequent

  Stage

  Implementation date

  Purpose of stage

  Implementation of Registration Service (manual)

  May 2001

  To commence the registration of organisations using a manual process in preparation for the implementation of the Disclosure Service

  Implementation of Registration Service (automated)

  July 2001

  To continue registering organisation using an automated process

  Implementation of High Level Disclosure Service—System available for Service Testing

  November 2001

  System and service testing to ensure that the Disclosure Service was robust before live operation

  Implementation of High Level Disclosure Service—Service Commencement

  March 2002

  Disclosure Service 'go live'. Commenced issuing Standard and Enhanced Disclosures

  There have been numerous minor releases to deliver enhanced performance since March 2002. Information regarding future system releases cannot be given at present because the CRB is now considering the recommendations of the Home Office independent review before planning the timing of possible future system releases.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for disclosures by the Criminal Records Bureau were

  Total disclosures issued

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Standards

  409

  2,070

  4,315

  12,828

  14,116

  16,497

  22,620

  23,257

  22,347

  Enhanced

  2,389

  17,376

  30,585

  76,258

  96,295

  116,238

  159,226

  159,200

  148,706

  Total

  2,798

  19,446

  34,900

  89,086

  110,411

  132,735

  181,846

  182,457

  171,053

  Analysis of numbers cleared in three to six weeks

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Standards

  %cleared in three weeks

  65.1

  40.9

  12.4

  90.4

  69.4

  61.9

  90.2

  82.4

  86.0

  Number cleared

  266

  847

  535

  11,597

  9,865

  10,163

  20,405

  19,164

  19,218

  %cleared in six weeks

  99.7

  96.3

  75.0

  93.4

  95.6

  90.7

  96.0

  93.5

  92.5

  Number cleared

  408

  1,993

  3,236

  11,981

  13,589

  14,891

  21,717

  21,745

  20,671

  290W
  system releases. As a general rule of thumb, 13 per cent. of all applications received are standard.

  The Criminal Records Bureau has neither received nor processed List 99 applications. There was a process initiated during summer 2002 where a manual off-line check was conducted on persons who were applying to work within the education sector. The CRB examined its systems and issued letters to employers in advance of the issue of disclosures to individuals. This exercise was conducted to assist education authorities with their recruitment and it was completed at the end of July. There were no service standards involved and therefore no question of these checks being outstanding at any time.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) date and (b) purpose of each (i) past and (ii) planned system released from the Criminal Records Bureau's computer system. [90275]

  Hilary Benn
  The table reflects the time taken to complete each of the various stages in the implementation of the Registration and the High Level Disclosure Services by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and the purpose of each computer system release. cleared by(a) three weeks and (b) six weeks in each month since April 2002. [90276]

  Hilary Benn
  The following is a breakdown of the number of Disclosures cleared by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) in three weeks and six weeks for each month, since April 2002, up to the end of December 2002:
  291W

  Analysis of numbers cleared in three to six weeks

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Enhanced

  %cleared in three weeks

  62.3

  34.5

  22.6

  74.0

  46.8

  40.9

  52.3

  49.2

  56.2

  Number cleared

  1,488

  5,995

  6,912

  56,431

  52,044

  54,041

  95,107

  89,769

  96,132

  %cleared in six weeks

  99.8

  94.7

  76.9

  89.1

  87.3

  76.2

  79.2

  74.8

  72.5

  Number cleared

  2,384

  16,455

  23,520

  67,946

  97,082

  100,682

  144,024

  136,478

  124,013

  Total

  Number cleared three weeks

  1,754

  6,842

  7,447

  68,028

  61,909

  64,204

  115,512

  108,933

  115,350

  Number cleared six weeks

  2,792

  18,448

  26,756

  79,927

  110,671

  115,573

  165.741

  158,223

  144,684

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims have been made to the Criminal Records Bureau for loss of earnings caused by delays in processing disclosure applications; how many have been agreed; what is(a) the highest and (b) the lowest compensation paid; what is the total compensation paid to date; and if he will make a statement. [90364]

  Hilary Benn
  212 disclosure applicants claim to have lost earnings because the bureau delayed sending disclosures to them. These claims also involved elements of delay, inconvenience, and embarrassment. Of these claims, 166 are resolved and 46 await assessment. The highest sum paid out is £2,400.00 and the lowest is £15.00. The total sum paid out by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) for these claims is £28,900.

  Criminal Records Bureau (Capita Contract)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has(a) made and (b) commissioned of the (i) viability and (ii) adaptability of the computer system provided under contract by Capita to support the current and future work of the Criminal Records Bureau; and if he will place a copy of the assessment in the Library. [90117]

  Hilary Benn
  In August 2002 French Thornton Partnership Ltd. were commissioned to conduct an independent review of the Criminal Records Bureau core systems. The review focused on the following three areas:integrity of the architecture and quality of build;
  capacity planning and sizing models; and
  future proofing and suitability of the system.

  A report was produced on 16 September 2002, and action is being taken or has been taken on the recommendations. A copy of this cannot be placed in the Library as the content is classified Commercial In Confidence.

  Criminal Records Checks
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been waiting for their Criminal Records Bureau applications to be processed for(a) three and (b) six weeks. [91177]

  Hilary Benn
  The number of applications outstanding that are over three weeks old is 191,448 and the number of applications outstanding over six weeks is 155,413.

  In order to process a disclosure application the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) requires a correctly completed application form. The bureau has identified
  292W
  81,440 disclosure applications, of those outstanding over six weeks, where either the registered body and/or applicant has either incorrectly completed the application or not filled in the mandatory parts of the form. Until the CRB receives this information, it cannot complete the disclosure process.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding(a) standard and (b) enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (i) disclosure and (ii) list 99 applications there were in each of the last nine months. [91201]

  Hilary Benn
  The following table represents the total number of disclosure applications that have been recorded as being outstanding work in progress at the end of each month over the last nine months:

  Month

  Number of outstanding disclosures

  April

  40,223

  May

  94,873

  June

  148,310

  July

  179,347

  August

  192,443

  September

  236,433

  October

  258,376

  November

  277,462

  December

  251,334

  Many of the outstanding applications at any time will be the subject of requests to applicants for registered bodies for future information—for example, out of the number shown for end of December, 98,960 were back with customers for this reason. Others will have been recently received—for example, within the December total, 59,960 had been in the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) less than three weeks and were hence not overdue.

  Unfortunately, it has not been possible to provide a breakdown between the different levels of Disclosure because there are no IT procedures at present to extract this data from the CRB database. It is expected that this functionality will become available in subsequent system releases. As a general rule of thumb, 13 per cent. of all applications received are Standard.

  The Criminal Records Bureau has neither received nor processed List 99 applications. There was a process initiated during summer 2002 where a manual off-line check was conducted on persons who were applying to work within the education sector. The CRB examined its systems and issued letters to employers in advance of the issue of Disclosures to individuals. This exercise was conducted to assist education authorities with their recruitment and it was completed at the end of July.

  293W
  There were no service standards involved and therefore no question of these checks being outstanding at any time.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the service level agreements that have been agreed regarding the speed of processing between his Department and Capita in respect of the Criminal Records Bureau. [91204]

  Table 4A: Registration Services Elapsed Time Service Levels

  Service Element

  Service Measure

  Service Level

  (Ala) Registration routine enquiry (including postal correspondence)

  percentage of instances performed within three days elapsed time

  99.0

  (Alb) Registration routine enquiry (internet)

  percentage of instances performed within 1 day elapsed time

  99.0

  (A2) New registration

  percentage of instances performed within five days elapsed time

  95.0

  (A3) Registration changes (including additional or replacement counter-

  percentage of instances performed within three days elapsed time signatory)

  98.0

  Table 4B: Certificate Services Elapsed Time Service Levels

  Service Element

  Service Measure

  Service Level

  (B1) Invalid application for CCC or HLC.

  Percentage of instances performed within two days elapsed time

  98.0

  (B2) Valid application for CCC: up to despatch of certificate.

  Percentage of instances performed within three days elapsed time

  98.0

  (B3) Telephone Application for HLC: up to issue of application form for signature and counter-signature.

  Percentage of instances performed within one day elapsed time

  99.0

  (B4) Valid application for CRC: up to despatch of certificate.

  Percentage of instances Performed within three days elapsed time

  98.0

  (B5) Valid application for ECRC: up to despatch of Certificate.

  Percentage of instances performed within four days elapsed time

  98.0

  (B6a) Certificate enquiries: postal; fax

  Percentage of instances performed within three days elapsed time

  99.0

  (B6b) Certificate enquiries: internet

  Percentage of instances performed within one day elapsed time

  99.0

  (B7) Certificate services complaints

  Percentage of instances performed within two days elapsed time

  99.0

  (B8) Certificate disputes

  Percentage of instances performed within one day elapsed time

  100.0

  (B9) Replacement Certificates

  Percentage of instances performed within three days elapsed time

  99.0

  Definitions
  Elapsed time—The aggregate of the elapsed times of the Activities (or Business Processes) (for which responsibility is assigned, in Schedule 2 or otherwise, to the Contractor) performed in the provision of a Service Element, such elapsed times (a) being measured from the Service Start Point to the Service end Point and recorded on a 24 hours clock, seven days a week. Elapsed time measures expressed as a number of days shall be construed as meaning that number of days multiplied by 24 hours. For the avoidance of doubt, Elapsed time shall exclude the duration of cheque clearance processing.
  Criminal Record Certificates (CRC)—Standard Disclosure
  Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate (ECRC)—Enhanced Disclosure.
  Higher Level Certificate (HLC)—Standard and Enhanced Disclosures.

  Disclosure Applications (Proof of Identity)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment(a) his Department and (b) the Criminal Records Bureau made of the adequacy of advice about what proofs of identity can be used in disclosure applications. [90115]

  Hilary Benn
  Decisions about the arrangements for checking the identity of disclosure applicants are a matter for the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). In formulating their policy, the Bureau took account of the experience of a number of other organisations, most notably the United Kingdom Passport Service, (UKPS)
  294W
  Hilary Benn
  The following appropriate extracts from the Contract between Capita and the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), inclusive of necessary definitions of processing Service Levels are listed. The times allowed are for the Capita part of the process—the overall CRB service elements of the process leading to the overall published CRB service standards.

  who have a long and notable record of achievement in this area. The CRB also wished, in line with the Modernising Government agenda, to place less reliance on paper documentation and greater reliance on electronic access to private and public sector databases. It has also sought to depend on face-to-face identity checks by registered bodies wherever possible.

  Drug Abstinence Orders
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug abstinence orders have been made by the courts under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. [91015]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Drug abstinence orders (DAO) and drug abstinence requirements (DAR) were made available to the courts covering the three pilot sites, Nottingham, Staffordshire and Hackney on 5 November 2001. As at 28 February 2002, seven drug abstinence orders and 85 drug abstinence requirements have been issued. The pilot programme was extended to a further six sites, Bedford, Blackpool, Doncaster, Torquay, Wirral, and Wrexham and Mold in the summer of 2002. Further outcomes from the pilot sites will be available in the interim evaluation report due in the spring of 2003.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department's officials last met the Scottish Executive to discuss emergency planning. [90405]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.
  295W
  Officials from the Civil Contingencies Secretariat and the Scottish Executive meet regularly to discuss contingency planning. Information relating to internal advice and discussion is not disclosed under Exemption 2 and 7(b) of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information".

  External Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost to his Department was of the use of external consultants in 2002. [90512]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The total cost to the Home Department of using external consultants for the financial year 2001–02 was £21,147,058. The cost in this year includes the cost of establishing the National Probation Directorate and various consultancies on IT business change.

  Firearms
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of illegal firearms in circulation in(a) Lancashire. (b) the North West of England, (c) Wales and (d) the UK, in the last period for which figures are available. [90976]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The requested information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been killed in each of the last six years by firearms during the commissioning of a crime. [91550]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 20 January 2003.]: The numbers of persons killed by firearms during the act of a crime are not collected centrally. Available published data on the number of recorded homicide offences by shooting in England and Wales are given in the table.

  Number of homicide offences by shooting1

  1997

  58

  1997–98

  52

  1998–99

  46

  1999–2000

  61

  2000–01

  73

  2001–02

  96

  1Homicide figures include shooting by crossbows, and take into account the results of police and court decisions. Therefore, they may not necessarily match the number of firearm homicides initially recorded. Data are as at 8 October 2002; figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts, or as further information becomes available.

  These homicide offences were recorded on a calendar year basis up to 1997, and on a financial year basis thereafter.

  Gun Control
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he is taking to control the increase in the use of guns; and if he will make a statement; [91561
  296W
  (2) what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation in controlling the illegal use of firearms. [91560]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We have announced our intention to introduce a minimum five-year sentence for those convicted, on indictment, of possessing or distributing prohibited weapons. We will also be proposing additional powers to deal with certain types of gunwhich are vulnerable to conversion to fire live ammunition.

  We will also bring in legislation to prevent anyone from carrying a replica or an air weapon in a public place without a reasonable excuse. We intend to raise the age limit at which young people can acquire and use air weapons unsupervised from 14 to 17.

  The Government is constantly assessing and reviewing the effectiveness of firearms legislation, and will continue to do so.

  Gun Crime
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) injured and (b) killed by guns in Wales in (i) 2002 and (ii) each of the previous five years. [90740]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Available published data on the number of recorded homicide offences in which firearms were reported to have been used in Wales, are given in the table:

  Number of homicide offences involving firearms

  1996

  1

  1997

  2

  1997–98

  1

  1998–99

  0

  1999–2000

  0

  2000–01

  1

  These firearms offences were recorded on a calendar year basis up to 1997, and on a financial year basis thereafter. Figures for injuries are not available.

  Immigration
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional copies of correspondence he has asked hon. Members to provide in the last 12 months relating to(a) immigration and nationality issues and (b) other issues. [90993]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the amount of additional copies of correspondence sought is not kept. Thorough and effective procedures are in place to ensure that correspondence is tracked to avoid the necessity of requesting duplicate copies. The volume of correspondence received by the Home Office is large and, regrettably, on occasions individual letters may become detached from the files. However, this is not a common occurrence, and when it happens we recognise that it causes inconvenience and delay and reflects
  297W
  poorly on the high standard of service that we normally provide. We will shortly be introducing an electronic correspondence tracking system that will prevent the need for correspondence to be handled physically, and which will mean that access to all letters is immediate and complete.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he takes to trace failed asylum seekers who have disappeared. [91248]

  Beverley Hughes
  Where a person has left a control area without permission, escaped from detention or failed to comply with the terms of their reporting conditions, their details will be noted and posted internally within the Immigration Service and with the police. If there is reason to believe that a person is at their last known address, or if fresh intelligence comes to light, immigration officers will undertake a visit. In cases where he person concerned is considered a threat to UK national security, then the appropriate agencies will be involved.

  In addition, as part of the improvements in contact management as detailed in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, entitlement to the National Asylum Support Service support will be conditional on asylum seekers reporting as required. The Immigration Service will seek to identify and locate those who have lost contact with the Home Office.

  Lunar House
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were queuing at the public caller unit of Lunar House at 8 am on(a) 6 January, (b) 7 January and (c) 8 January; and how many people were turned away on each day without having their applications dealt with. [90718]

  Driving licence endorsements and disqualifications imposed at the

  magistrates courts and the Crown Court by offences subject to obligatory disqualification orders

  England and Wales 2000

  Number of offences

  Magistrates courts

  Offence type

  Total sentenced

  Endorsements without disqualification1

  Total disqualifications imposed

  Results not reported on2

  Causing death or bodily harm:

  Causing death by dangerous driving

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Causing death by careless driving under influence of drink or drugs

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking

  3

  0

  3

  0

  Dangerous driving

  3,108

  150

  2,847

  111

  Driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs:

  Unfit to drive through drink or drugs (impairment)

  1,729

  148

  1,535

  46

  Driving with alcohol in the blood above the prescribed limit

  70,619

  1,047

  68,923

  649

  Unauthorised taking or theft of vehicle:

  Aggravated vehicle taking:

  6,527

  429

  5,336

  762

  Driving dangerously, causing injury or damage

  Total

  81,986

  1,774

  78,644

  1,568

  298W
  Beverley Hughes
  There are two public offices at Croydon, the first being that of the Public Enquiry Office (PEO), which enters through the main entrance at the front of Lunar House.

  There are no records kept of the numbers of those who are initially queuing for the PEO when it opens at 8 am but the covered waiting area can hold between 500 and 600 people at any one time. However, between 6 and 8 January 2003 respectively there were 1,146, 1,153 and 827 people who attended PEO, of which 63, 80 and 72 people on each respective day could not have their cases dealt with immediately.

  The other queue is that of the Asylum Screening Unit (ASU), which currently enters through a temporary entrance at the rear of the building. According to figures initially compiled for ASU management, at 8 am on 6 and 7 January there were respectively 120 and 300 people waiting in the ASU queue. On 8 January, the date of the introduction of new asylum support arrangements, 80 applicants were waiting in the queue at 8 am. Around 75 applicants (most with addresses) were asked to return the following day.

  Motoring Offences
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the past 12 months magistrates courts and crown courts have not imposed automatic driving bans on motorists guilty of offences which individually or collectively qualify for a disqualification; and if he will make a statement. [90365]

  Hilary Benn
  The available information concerning individual offences which qualify for an automatic driving ban, is shown in the table. Data for 2001 will be available in February.

  The Home Office Court Proceedings Database does not include information on cases where the motorist could have been disqualified under the penalty points system but was not.
  299W

  England and Wales 2000

  Number of offences

  Crown courts

  Offence type

  Total sentenced

  Endorsements without disqualification1

  Total disqualifications imposed

  Results not reported on2

  Causing death or bodily harm:

  Causing death by dangerous driving

  210

  26

  180

  4

  Causing death by careless driving under influence of drink or drugs

  57

  5

  50

  2

  Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking

  18

  3

  13

  2

  Dangerous driving

  2,142

  267

  1,805

  70

  Driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs:

  Unfit to drive through drink or drugs (impairment)

  74

  29

  35

  10

  Driving with alcohol in the blood above the prescribed limit

  628

  186

  341

  101

  Unauthorised taking or theft of vehicle:

  Aggravated vehicle taking:

  Driving dangerously, causing injury or damage

  1,614

  212

  1,260

  142

  Total

  4,743

  738

  3,684

  331

  England and Wales 2000

  Number of offences

  All courts

  Offence type

  Total sentenced

  Endorsements without disqualification1

  Total disqualifications imposed

  Results not reported on2

  Causing death or bodily harm:

  Causing death by dangerous driving

  210

  26

  180

  4

  Causing death by careless driving under influence of drink or drugs

  57

  5

  50

  2

  Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking

  21

  3

  16

  2

  Dangerous driving

  5,250

  417

  4,652

  181

  Driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs:

  Unfit to drive through drink or drugs (impairment)

  1,803

  177

  1,570

  56

  Driving with alcohol in the blood above the prescribed limit

  71,247

  1,233

  69,264

  750

  Unauthorised taking or theft of vehicle:

  Aggravated vehicle taking:

  Driving dangerously, causing injury or damage

  8,141

  641

  6,596

  904

  Total

  86,729

  2,502

  82,328

  1,899

  1Concurrent endorsements.

  2Information not reported. Includes cases where neither disqualification or endorsement given for 'special reasons' and cases where a disqualification or endorsement was given but not recorded.

  Prison Statistics
  Claire Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the annual prison statistics. [91414]

  Hilary Benn
  Prison Statistics England and Wales 2001 is currently planned for publication in February 2003. A copy will he placed in the Library when it is published.

  Prison Statistics England and Wales 2002 is planned for publication in late 2003.

  Prisoner Demographics
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison in England and Wales in each year since 1992; how many were(a) below 18 years of age and (b) women; of the women in prison, how many were pregnant when they were convicted; how many mothers are in prison with their children; and which prisons have mother and child facilities. [89544]
  300W
  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: The table provides information on the prison population, the number of females, and the number of juveniles held in England and Wales on the 30 June since 1992.

  Year

  Prison population

  Female prison population

  Juvenile prison population

  1992

  46,832

  1,555

  1,328

  1993

  44,246

  1,580

  1,304

  1994

  48,929

  1,804

  1,526

  1995

  51,086

  1,998

  1,675

  1996

  55,256

  2,305

  2,093

  1997

  61,467

  2,672

  2,479

  1998

  65,727

  3,120

  2,466

  1999

  64,529

  3,207

  2,422

  2000

  65,194

  3,355

  2,434

  2001

  66,403

  3,713

  2,563

  2002

  71,218

  4,394

  2,615

  The number of women that were pregnant when convicted is not known.
  301W
  At the week beginning 6 January 2003, there were 54 mothers and 50 babies/children held in Mother and Baby Units (MBUs).

  There are currently four prisons with MBUs. These are Holloway, New Hall, Styal and Askham Grange. There are also plans to build further units at Askham Grange and Eastwood Park.

  Proceeds of Crime Act
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the proposed commencement date is for the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. [91014]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Commencement dates for the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are as follows:

  The cash recovery provisions in Part 5 of the Act came into force on 30 December 2002. Part I of the Act, which formally establishes the Assets Recovery Agency, came into force on 13 January.

  The provisions of the Act relating to civil recovery, taxation of the proceeds of crime, money laundering, financial investigation powers and information gateways (the rest of Part 5 and Parts 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the Act) will come into force in February. The Agency will then become operational.

  We plan that the new powers of criminal confiscation (Parts 2, 3, 4 and 9) will come into force in March, along with the provisions on enforcement in different parts of the United Kingdom in Part 11. This will leave the provisions relating to international co-operation in Part 11, which we hope to commence in May.

  Protection from Harassment Act
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women are imprisoned under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; and how many of those are parents seeking contact with children. [90994]

  Hilary Benn
  The population of men and women in prison sentenced under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 England and Wales, is not available.

  Table 1: Total proceedings at magistrates' courts by offence type

  England and Wales 1995 to 2000

  Number of offences

  Offence type

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Causing death by dangerous driving

  305

  333

  376

  335

  329

  359

  Causing death by careless driving under influence of drink or drugs

  51

  63

  78

  80

  63

  72

  Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking

  13

  27

  28

  35

  25

  34

  Total

  369

  423

  482

  450

  417

  465

  Table 2—Road fatalities in accidents involving at least one car

  England and Wales

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Number of casualties

  2,630

  2,674

  2,666

  2,492

  2,552

  2,458

  2,484

  Source:

  Department for Transport
  302W
  The number of persons sentenced to immediate custody in 2001 under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 England and Wales, was 632 men and 29 women.

  Information on how many of those are parents seeking contact with children is not available.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish his autumn departmental reports on public service agreement targets; and if he will make a statement. 191005]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I expect the Autumn Performance Report for the Home Department to be published by the end of January or shortly thereafter.

  Mr Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Public Service Agreement targets the Home Office has. [91512]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Home Office has 10 targets in its Public Service Agreement.
  More detail on these targets can be found on the Treasury website www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Spending_Review/spend_sr02/psa/spend_sr02_psahome.cfm

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been killed in each of the last six years by motorists who have subsequently been charged with a motoring offence. [91549]

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  [holding answer 20 January 20031: Information on the persons charged is not collected centrally. Available information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database on total number of proceedings for offences where a motorist caused death is shown in table 1. Figures for the number of people killed in these cases are not collected. Data for 2001 will be available in February.

  The numbers of fatalities in road accidents in England and Wales for 1998 to 2001 are given in table 2.

  Female Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women were jailed for failing to pay fines in(a) 2002 and (b) 1997. [91092]

  Hilary Benn
  The number of female fine defaulters received into prisons in England and Wales in 2001 (the latest complete year for which data is available) was 73, and in 1997 was 372.

  Youth Crime
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to estimate, for each Young Offenders Institution in England and Wales,(a) the number of Youth Offending Teams that each Youth Offenders Institution links with and (b) the average distance in miles from the youth offenders institution of each of the Youth Offending Teams with which it has links. [90487]

  Hilary Benn
  We understand from the Youth Justice Board(a) that Young Offender Institutions have links with an average of 27 Youth Offending Teams and (b) that the average distance between them is 44 miles.

TREASURY

  Inheritance Tax
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  In proceedings in Finance Bill Standing Committee on 25 June we announced that work was in hand to allow inheritance tax to be paid out of an estate before probate is granted. We have now reached agreement in principle with the British Bankers Association and the Building Societies Association on a direct payment scheme for inheritance tax. Broadly, where the deceased person has sufficient funds to their credit, participating institutions will be ready to transfer funds direct to the Inland Revenue to pay the inheritance tax due. We are now working with the associations to finalise the detail of the processes concerned, and help their members prepare for the launch. The Government hope to see the maximum possible take-up of this welcome scheme, which will start later this year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Innovation Fund
  The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson)
  We have published today the interim evaluation of the regional innovation fund which was carried out by DTZ Pieda Consulting on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Broadly, the report examines processes, efficiency of funding and initial outputs to inform consideration of value for money and the regional development agency single pot spending strategy.

  DTI is to meet with the regional development agencies over the next few months to discuss the findings of the evaluation and its impact on programme delivery within the single pot funding regime. Copies of the evaluation report have been placed in the libraries of both Houses.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Water Price Limits
  the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  I have today issued initial guidance to the Director General of Water Services setting out the Government's water policies in England for Ofwat's 2004 periodic review of water price limits. The review will produce price limits, set by Ofwat, for the years 2005–2010. The Government will assist the review with policy guidance at key stages.
  6WS
  This first instalment of guidance specifies all the policy areas that the Government expect to affect water and sewerage companies' obligations in the years 2005–2010. In particular, it sets out a number of potential improvements that companies may be expected to make in their water resources policies, on drinking water quality and to help environmental water quality.

  The guidance is about ensuring regulators and water companies take account of future policies affecting the water and sewerage industries, be they environmental, social or economic. Previous periodic reviews have produced ambitious and successful programmes of improvement in water and environmental quality. The Government will expect these gains to be maintained and, where possible, further improvements to be made.

  In deciding how far and how fast to take improvement programmes the Government will also take account of the effects on customers. The guidance identifies some of the themes that will be of increased importance in this review. First, there will be greater attention paid to the existing water and sewerage system, including issues of asset maintenance, leakage and sewer flooding. Second, the Government wish to see some further improvements in the water environment, based on sound information. Thirdly, policy choices must give due weight to the economic and social effects of water policies, especially on those who are most vulnerable.

  The water companies and regulators should next work together to design and cost the measures that would be necessary to deliver the possible range of policies set out in the guidance. This work should include consideration of the cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of measures.

  Many of these policies will arise from European or other statutory obligations, but there are still many policy choices to be made. In the light of further advice from the regulators in the second half of 2003 on the benefits of policies and their potential impacts on customers' water bills, I will take decisions on what policies should proceed. I will then issue my principal guidance on this early in 2004.

  Ultimately, the people who matter most in this review process are the customers and it is their interests which most forcefully inform the policies contained in the guidance. Customers are concerned with more than simply paying their water bills, but also in being able to enjoy the benefits of clean water through the tap and in the environment, and it is important that our policies strike the right balance in their interests.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud (Rotherham)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Rotherham metropolitan borough council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.
  7WS
  The BFI undertook a first inspection of Rotherham metropolitan borough council in October 1999, and the report was extremely critical of the council's housing benefits service.

  This follow-up report finds that the council has failed to implement the majority of the BFI main recommendations from the first inspection. The council has not implemented a prosecution policy and no sanctions have been applied. There is still no management-checking regime and the council has failed to introduce the verification framework despite having plans to do so after our first inspection.

  While there are some improvements in overpayment work, the lack of management information meant that BFI could not report in any detail on this area.

  The council has developed an action plan for improvement. It has also completed a performance standards self-assessment of all areas and drafted a prosecution policy, which has been approved by Members. However, the council's track record raises doubts as to whether improvement will be achieved within a reasonable timescale.

  In 2001–02, Rotherham metropolitan borough council administered approximately £56.5 million in housing benefits. This is approximately 13 per cent of its total gross revenue expenditure.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address the remaining weaknesses and to further improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  14–19 Next Steps
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke)
  We are today publishing our response to the consultation on the Green Paper, "14–19;extending opportunities, raising standards", which we published in February 2002.

  The response document, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House today, sets out our proposals for reform of this critical phase of young people's education. We have three key objectives:
  Our immediate task is to give assurance to students and the wider community that the existing system is stable and effectively managed—this remains our short term priority.
  In the medium term, we will make practical changes to introduce more flexibility and choice so that students' programmes can be better tailored to their needs and aptitudes.
  For the longer term, we need to discuss and implement reform that will put in place a system that is fit for 21st Century needs.
  8WS
  THE SHORT TERM

  Mike Tomlinson's two reports following his independent inquiry into last summer's A-level problems provide a sound basis for restoring confidence in the A-level system. In his final report, he offered an assurance, which we accepted, that the actions he has recommended would secure the standards and integrity of the 2003 examinations. The QCA and the relevant awarding bodies are urgently taking forward those recommendations to secure the effective delivery of this year's examinations and to ensure that the problems of last summer cannot be repeated.

  NEXT STEPS FOR THE MEDIUM TERM

  We will make changes to the curriculum, which will give students greater freedom to choose programmes of study that better meet their needs and strengths. We will reduce the number of compulsory subjects in key stage 4 to English, mathematics, science and ICT, with an entitlement to study another language, design and technology, an arts and a humanities subject. We announced our broader conclusions on modern foreign languages in our language strategy in December. All 14–16 year-olds will learn about work and enterprise, and will also continue to be taught citizenship, religious education, sex education, careers education and physical education. Students will be entitled to study literacy, numeracy and ICT up to age 19 until they have achieved a level 2 award (equivalent to a good GCSE). But we have decided not to proceed for the present with our proposal to introduce a new A "with distinction" grade at A-level, preferring rather to support advanced extension awards.

  We will further improve the choices open to young people by developing "hybrid" GCSEs that combine traditional general subjects with their vocational applications. We will discard the unhelpful distinction between "vocational" and "academic" GCSEs and A-levels. We intend to improve and expand modern apprenticeships so that by 2004 28 per cent. of young people will be able to enter them.

  We will develop a consistent approach to teaching and learning across the whole 11–19 age range in schools and colleges. We will pilot a range of measures, building on the proposals set out in "Schools: achieving success and Success for All", drawing on existing best practice and the opportunities presented by e-learning.

  These reforms will be delivered through local innovation and partnership, bringing together different learning institutions and employers. The Green Paper proposed a programme of 14–19 pathfinders to test local delivery in a range of settings. We have announced the first 25 year one pathfinders across all regions in a variety of local circumstances to expand collaboration in innovative ways, building on the increasingly distinctive specialisms of local schools, colleges and training providers. We expect all of them to be in place by the end of January 2003. We will shortly be inviting expressions of interest for a second round of pathfinders to begin in September 2003. We will introduce a range of measures to support local delivery of the 14–19 agenda, including practical changes in inspection and performance management arrangement and funding flexibilities.
  9WS
  REFORM FOR THE LONGER TERM

  These measures will help to improve participation and achievement while avoiding further major upheaval in a system that has undergone substantial recent change. We are clear that, in the longer term, further changes must address:
  the need for a much stronger vocational offer;
  the requirement for more manageable assessment, which recognises all of a young person's achievements;
  the aim of broadening choice and stretching students, with a unified framework of qualifications designed to provide opportunities for young people of all abilities.

  We will appoint a working group for 14–19 reform, under the chairmanship of Mike Tomlinson and with its membership drawn from those with direct experience of 14–19 education, higher education and industry, to consider and make recommendations on these longer term issues. We have asked Mike Tomlinson to report the group's interim conclusions within one year, with a view to finalising its work within 18 months.

  Together these immediate and longer term reforms will help us realise our vision of a 14–19 phase of flexible, yet structured provision, delivered by schools, colleges and others working innovatively together to meet the needs of all learners and of the economy.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Reduction and Drugs Misuse
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I am making a total of £144 million available for crime reduction spending and combating drugs, in the light of local needs. In addition, following my statement on 3 December on the updated drug strategy, we will be spending £46.2 million on expanding services to refer people into treatment through the criminal justice system.

  I am announcing the allocation of £94 million on local crime and drugs spend for 03–04 on building safer communities. The co-ordination between the current funding streams (the safer communities initiative, communities against drugs and partnership development fund, along with the drug action team (DAT) development fund) will be enhanced, and I am consulting whether they should be merged into a single pot. This would help devolve resources and responsibility to the local level; further the Government's policy under the review of area based initiatives of reducing the number of funding streams, to enable local partnerships to focus on reducing crime rather than on paperwork. I hope to make a further announcement about this very shortly. These funds will include money specifically earmarked to strengthen partnerships "and drugs teams" capacity to deliver,
  10WS
  through training and other support, to ensure those fighting crime and drugs are as well equipped as possible in their efforts. They recognise the integration of DAT's and crime and disorder reduction partnerships (CDRPs) and the need to streamline their working practices.

  Enhanced co-ordination will encourage partnerships to look at both aspects of the problem, and the misery it causes communities, as one issue to be tackled holistically. The money can be used in a huge variety of ways.

  Partnerships are showing that they can use our programme funding to deliver a wide range of interventions. They are using it to reduce gun crime; to disrupt drugs markets through direct police work; running activities designed to divert children from getting involved in crime and drugs; paying for more CCTV cameras or targeted campaigns on particular crimes or drugs hotspots, or for warden schemes. These are just examples and the views of the community are key for informing local decisions.

  Partnerships can spend less time dealing with the paperwork, separate reports for each funding stream etc, and more on driving down crime and delivering safer communities.

  Today's announcement also includes the details of what each basic command unit (BCD) will receive from the £50 million BCD Fund, with shares ranging from £590,000 to £30,000. This annual fund is designed to help police meet the individual crime reduction needs of their local area and tackle the priorities set out in the national policing plan—which includes combating gun crime. The fund can be spent on crime prevention work such as targeted police operations, youth diversionary schemes, or security advice campaigns for the public.

  Seventy three million pounds of the money is going direct to Partnerships with a further £21.7 million available locally for capacity and training purposes for them and drug action teams. The £50 million BCD fund should be used to complement this expenditure to tackle the priorities set out in the national policing plan and in local crime reduction strategies.

  I said on 3 December that we would be introducing a comprehensive end-to-end approach to refer people into treatment via the criminal justice system in the highest crime areas with the worst drug problems. These areas will be those containing the 30 basic command units with the highest rates of acquisitive crime. A total of £46.2 million will be spent in these areas to deliver a range of services I outlined in my previous statement.

  I have placed a copy of the allocations and a note summarising the proposed interventions and a list of the 30 BCUs and the relevant DAT areas in the Library and the Minister for Policing and Crime Reduction is writing to hon. Members with further information about the allocations.

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

Sentencing
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the year 2002, in relation to those offences for which life imprisonment is the maximum sentence, how many applications were made by Her Majesty's Attorney-General to the Court of Appeal to review the sentences as being unduly lenient, and with what results, particularising the offences and the length of the sentence imposed by the trial judge.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, in the year 2002 in England and Wales, in relation to those offences for which life imprisonment is the maximum, the Law Officers made applications to the Court of Appeal to review sentences in respect of 97 offenders. Of these, 44 applications are yet to be heard. Of the 53 heard, the Court of Appeal has agreed that the sentence was unduly lenient in 49; and the court has increased the sentence of 38 offenders. The offences involved include murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, robbery, rape, arson and kidnap and others. The further information that the noble and learned Lord seeks would be too detailed to go into today, but I am happy to write to him if he would still like it.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I have two questions, which are based on two assumptions. The first assumption is that the noble and learned Lord will accept that he has a statutory duty under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal. The second is that the noble and learned Lord is aware of decisions in which the determinate sentence has been changed by the Court of Appeal to life sentence. If he wishes to know them, I can give him the two references. My two questions are as follows. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that, if the Attorney-General is complying with his statutory duty as we understand and expect he would, the courts, bearing in mind the vast number of cases dealt with, are carrying out their duties responsibly? Secondly, does he agree that the Home Secretary, having lost any right to play any part in dealing with murder cases, is acting irresponsibly in threatening to bring in by statute what he considers to be the appropriate sentence for murder, category by category?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I do not understand myself to have a duty to refer unduly lenient sentences in every case. The Court of Appeal has a discretion, and so do I. So I am not sure that it is possible to
552
deduce from the figures I have given that, in all other cases, I, or others, would agree with the sentences passed.
In response to the noble and learned Lord's second question, I do not agree that the Home Secretary is acting irresponsibly. As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer made plain in the debate on sentencing in this House on 15th January, the basic principle must be that a judge acts independently on the facts of an individual case to set the appropriate sentence. But it has been found extremely useful, if not essential, for the courts to have guidance from the Court of Appeal, now with the assistance of the sentencing advisory panel, and the guidance of the sentencing guidelines council proposed in the Criminal Justice Bill. Murder has always played a special role in our criminal justice system. For parliaments to play a role in the setting of sentences—the guidelines for sentences, in those cases—does not appear to be the slightest bit irresponsible.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord make clear his approach to applications? Does he consider a sentence to be unduly lenient if it is in line with current sentencing as set out by the judges; or does he make applications when he feels it is time to up the level of sentences in a particular category of case?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, since this power was introduced in 1988, it has been used largely to refer to Court of Appeal sentences which the Law Officers, in their independent quasi-judicial judgment, believe to be out of line with existing tariffs and sentencing guidelines. There are also occasions where the Law Officers will think it appropriate to ask the Court of Appeal senior judges to consider whether any adjustment to the guidelines is appropriate. That would be for the guidance of all sentencing judges and to increase public confidence in the system.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that it would be far better to continue with the system whereby the individual sentence is a matter for the court, assisted by judicial guidance, as he said, rather than move to mandatory minimum sentences, which apparently the Government now propose?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, as I indicated in answer to an earlier question, it is obviously right that in the individual case, the judge should be able to exercise his or her judgment on the facts of the case. But there are guidelines from judges, with the assistance of the sentencing advisory panel, which some judges at the time thought a bad move. I have heard them say now that they think it has been a success, and I entirely agree. The sentencing guidelines council will build on that. So there is room both for the individual judgment and the assistance of others in setting the guidelines.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is it not clear that judges sit in their positions of authority in order to defend the people of this country? Is it not therefore perfectly right, when

553
the people of this country wish to send a message through Parliament or through the Home Secretary, that the Home Secretary acts to do that? He is fully within his rights and is behaving absolutely responsibly when he intimates to the judges the feelings of the people of this country, which he frequently gets just about right.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, as my earlier answers indicated, the Government believe it appropriate that there should be input into judicial views on sentencing from the sentencing advisory panel and from other sources. In the case of murder, which has a special role in the criminal justice system, it is thought appropriate to take account of the views of Parliament while still leaving discretion to judges in individual cases within those guidelines. To that extent I agree with the noble Lord.

Equitable Life
2.44 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so I declare my interest as an annuitant of the Equitable Life Assurance Society.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect the findings of the Penrose inquiry into the conduct of the Equitable Life Assurance Society to be completed and whether they intend to make those findings public.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Lord Penrose's inquiry is independent of the Treasury. It is for the inquiry to set its own timetable. Lord Penrose has said that he hopes to be able to report to the Treasury this summer. It remains our intention to publish Lord Penrose's report in full if at all possible. The only possible constraint on publication in full will be the need to respect legal and commercial confidentiality restrictions.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Given the dire state of Equitable Life at the moment, it seems likely that there was regulatory failure. A lot of the policy holders and annuitants such as me would like to know whether, if the Penrose inquiry finds that there was regulatory failure, the Government will feel it their duty to compensate policy holders and annuitants for that failure.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not want to join the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, in anticipating what conclusions Lord Penrose may come to. Those conclusions are entirely a matter for him. His terms of reference are very wide, going back, potentially, over a period of 50 years. If he were to
554
recommend that there should be compensation for Equitable Life policy holders, the Government would have to take that seriously.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I declare an interest in Equitable Life. Many Equitable Life pensioners believe it is obvious that the Government, as regulator, have failed to protect their interests. As the Penrose inquiry was set up by the Treasury, with terms of reference decided by the Treasury and to report to the Treasury and the inquiry now seems to have disappeared from sight, can the Minister say at least that when the Parliamentary Ombudsman's report is made available, the Government will respond to it without delay, if necessary before the publication of the Penrose report?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has joined the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, in anticipating the outcome of the Penrose inquiry, saying that it is bound to show regulatory failure. I do not know that and I cannot say that. That is a matter for Lord Penrose to conclude. It is not true that the Government restricted the terms of the Penrose inquiry. The terms of reference are very wide, as I have said. They were accepted by Lord Penrose and there has never been any suggestion that there was any undue restriction on them. Neither is it true that the inquiry has been lost to sight. The inquiry started to interview individual witnesses only yesterday.

Foreign Language Learning
2.47 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to encourage continued foreign language learning beyond the age of 14.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, our languages strategy outlines ways in which we will encourage lifelong learning in languages through more diverse provision in secondary schools, including work-related learning and enhanced outreach roles for specialist language colleges, through increasing numbers of specialist non-teachers, through increasing numbers of language students in further and higher education and through our work with regional languages networks to promote languages for business. Our recognition system will also help to broaden participation for all ages.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that degree of reassurance and I am glad that she has mentioned the large and growing number of schools which are specifically funded to teach foreign languages. Given the widespread dismay at the prospect of reduced language learning in secondary schools generally, do the Government expect that

555
specialist language colleges should teach all their pupils at least one foreign language to at least GCSE level?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, about dismay. Many people recognise that the spreading of our language learning across through the primary years is a better solution than a concentration in a small number of years, at a time in their career when some of our pupils do not see it as a way of enhancing their opportunities. Specialist language colleges will be teaching languages. Within our proposals it is for any school to decide that it wishes to retain compulsion on modern foreign languages. That is the school's right. The specialist language colleges offer more than two languages to their pupils. Their opportunities will be spread not only to neighbouring schools, but also to primary schools.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, given the importance of welcoming visitors to this country in their own language, will my noble friend assure us that the proposed new vocational courses for tourism, which I warmly welcome, will have a modern languages component?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we certainly expect that that vocational course will provide the opportunity for students to study modern foreign languages, for precisely the reasons that my noble friend gave.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister consider it likely that the numbers of young people over the age of 14 learning foreign languages will increase or decrease? If the latter is the case, given the shortage of foreign language teachers, are we not kick-starting a downward spiral? There will be fewer teachers because there are fewer pupils and then, again, fewer teachers because there are fewer pupils, and so on.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is interesting to contemplate kick-starting a downward spiral, but I take the noble Lord's point.
On the specific question about whether the numbers will go up or down, I expect that the number of students taking modern foreign languages will drop initially, because students are already being disapplied for modern foreign languages. Some students, given the breadth of the 14 to 19 curriculum that we are offering, will opt not to take modern foreign languages at that stage. The noble Lord knows and supports the fact that we are developing a languages strategy from early years through life-long learning. We want to ensure that the young person who might drop languages at that stage in favour of other subjects has the opportunity to pick up the languages again.
The vacancy rate of teachers of modern foreign languages has dropped from 1.5 per cent to 1.2 per cent. There are 190 modern foreign languages vacancies in maintained secondary schools. Our
556
ambition is to ensure that we have fewer vacancies and that teachers come in through the traditional graduate route, the assistant programme and in other ways to support language learning.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I will not bore the Minister by making continental analogies, but why are Her Majesty's Government depriving children on vocational courses of language teaching, when vocational and sandwich courses in Germany and France include languages?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is not our intention to deprive children of language learning and vocational courses. Indeed, we want to ensure that through the new accreditation system there is an ability to take language grades, analogous to music grades. That will enable young people to continue with language learning, perhaps not through a GCSE route, if that is more appropriate. As I have said many times, they may pick up that language learning later.
Our colleagues in Europe take views based on their experiences and the need to study languages in different ways. We are in constant contact and discussion with them about how best to ensure that our languages strategy is appropriate for our role in Europe.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although the learning of foreign languages in this country is important, the most important thing is to continue the trend of speaking English all over the world, which is of much greater advantage to us?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I would simply point out that 60 per cent of British trade is with non-English speaking countries. I believe that that answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her encouraging words. Do they apply to Latin?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, Latin is not a modern foreign language as I understand it. However, speaking as the mother of a child who has chosen to study Latin, I recognise that for some children the opportunities to study Latin and ancient Greek are important. They are not specifically covered in a modern foreign languages strategy, but I recognise their relevance.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I should perhaps declare an interest as a former teacher of modern foreign languages, including Latin. Will the Minister expand on what she said about the teaching of modern foreign languages in primary schools? If we get that right, things will necessarily follow positively. Will she also tell us how, in practice, primary schools will receive help for teachers who teach modern foreign languages to children?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I could spend a great deal of time discussing this, but I shall be brief and

557
refer my noble friend to the languages document. Our ambition is that at key stage 2 there will be an opportunity for every child to learn a modern foreign language and to study a language outside the European Union languages, if that is possible. We shall be enhancing the opportunities for those who are qualified as bilingual or trilingual speakers to be able to take a qualification and support teachers in primary schools.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, how on earth are the Government going to achieve their language strategy when the cohort of young people competent in languages is bound to decrease? As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, there will no longer be a requirement to learn a foreign language in our secondary schools as a result of a policy announced only today—outside Parliament, not to Parliament.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point. It is critical to understand that the group of children who may decide not to pursue modern foreign languages are the group who, I would estimate, are pretty unlikely to consider taking them beyond GCSE to A-level. We have little evidence that points in another direction.
It is important—and here I believe the noble Baroness and I would agree—to ensure that young people have the opportunity and motivation to learn languages at an earlier age and for them to have a spread of languages available to learn and to be able to continue with or return to those languages at a later date. In enhancing the opportunities in primary schools, one of our aspirations—and I believe that it is an ambition that we will fulfil—is to increase the number who have opportunities to be primary teachers who are specialists in language. That has not been open to them before.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister accept that making announcements of policy outside Parliament means that the opinions of parliamentarians in either House are not reported in the press? Does she regret that the announcement was so made?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the specific issue relating to modern foreign languages was referred to in the languages document that we published in December. The 14 to 19 strategy was published today, and I shall pass on the noble Lord's views to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, what provisions will the Government make to attract highly qualified graduate teachers into the classroom, where they are paid a relatively low amount, if there are excessive top-up fees of £3,000 per year per person?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we will of course wait with anticipation for the higher education Statement dealing with those matters. Measures are already in place to recruit people into shortage subjects
558
that include supporting them over the payments that they have to make for their university education. As noble Lords know, there are golden hellos, for example. Teachers of modern foreign languages are included in that, including those in further education, and they will also be included if they go into primary education.

Smoking in Public Places
2.57 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to ban or to restrict smoking in public places in the United Kingdom in line with such legislation in the United States.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government have no plans to introduce legislation, but we have worked closely with the hospitality trade to develop a public places charter, designed to provide customers with clear information on the type of smoking policy operating in a particular establishment and to allow them to make an informed choice.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does the Minister accept the figures put out by the Department of Health today that smoking causes more than 120,000 deaths a year in this country and that many more thousands of people suffer from grave illness caused by active and passive smoking? Surely, it is time for the Government to take vigorous action to dissuade active smokers and protect passive smokers, and in particular to ban smoking in workplaces and enclosed public places.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with the question that I signed yesterday, in relation to statistics, about how many people are killed through smoking in the UK every year. It is a serious problem and the Government take it seriously. That is why we have targets to reduce smoking and why we have expanded our smoking cessation services. However, I do not believe that compulsion is the route down which we should go. I set great store by health promotion programmes and by encouraging industry and the hospitality sector to provide as many alternative smoking and non-smoking facilities as possible. But I do not think that compulsion is the answer.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the department's failure to introduce the approved code of practice to ban smoking in workplaces and in other public places indicates its lack of influence on other government departments or simply the fact that it is extremely half-hearted in making the arguments?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the answers to the questions are no and no. Like the rest of the

559
Government, the Department of Health is committed to a very proactive programme to combat smoking. As for the approved code of practice, we are considering not only the Health and Safety Commission's proposals, but the implications of those proposals on the hospitality sector and small businesses generally. As I said, I believe that the best way forward is a combative programme of public education combined with a partnership approach, particularly with the hospitality sector.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Cigar and Tobacco Smoking Club in both Houses of Parliament. I should like to ask the Minister whether the instances of lung cancer have diminished in the USA since some states took such draconian measures to ban smoking. Is he aware that the Sunday Telegraph has cited the earliest recorded case of a man giving up smoking? The report states that it occurred on 5th April 1679,
"when Johan Katsu, Sheriff of Turku, Finland, wrote in his diary, 'I quit smoking tobacco'. He died one month later".
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well, my Lords, that is certainly a stark warning that we should be very careful when making claims about the impact of health-promoting campaigns. I do not have the figures on the US experience, but I know that smoking causes 84 per cent of lung cancer deaths. That clearly reinforces the importance of a strong programme to reduce smoking in this country.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I declare a perhaps equal and opposite interest as chairman of Cancer Research UK. Is my noble friend aware of the study carried out across Europe last year which showed that, among non-smokers, there was an increase of between 20 and 30 per cent in the cancer incidence among those exposed to passive smoking? In the light of that evidence and ample other evidence of the dangers of passive smoking, can he say when consideration of the Health and Safety Commission's recommendations will be completed? The department has had more than two years to look at the very clear recommendations on the approved code of practice, and some of us are getting very impatient.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend is impatient. We are still considering the matter, and I cannot give her a definitive date when we shall come to a conclusion. As for the statistics to which she referred, it is absolutely right that, in its 1998 report, the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health concluded that exposure to what is described as "environmental tobacco smoke" is a cause of lung cancer and that the increased risk for those with long-term exposure is in the order of 20 to 30 per cent. That reinforces the point that I made earlier, that we are working actively with industry and particularly with the
560
hospitality trade to develop the public places charter—which I believe provides a very sensible way forward in this area.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, in the interests of the unborn child, will the Minister make a concerted effort to stop pregnant mothers smoking? Babies cannot make an informed choice.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course we want to see a reduction in the percentage of women who smoke during pregnancy. The 1995 figure is 23 per cent. We have set targets to reduce that to 18 per cent by 2005 and to 15 per cent by 2010. If we reach that target, it would mean that approximately 55,000 fewer women in England smoke during pregnancy.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords—
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—
Lord Acton: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I hardly dare ask this question after the formidable question from the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. However, does the Minister believe that, perhaps, given all the circumstances, your Lordships' House might set a better example?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as ever, this is a matter not for the Department of Health but for the House authorities, who no doubt will take very careful note of the noble Lord's remarks.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, after the big vote on the Adoption and Children Bill, I saw—at least I think I saw—a very eminent Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health in the Guest Room Bar smoking a very, very large cigar and blowing smoke in my general direction? Did the Minister note anything in his diary that night, or should I get new spectacles?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord has me banged to rights on that one. But it was a very occasional incident.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I note that my noble friend said he believes that compulsion is not the road to go down. Is he suggesting that compulsion on airplanes, trains and London Underground has not been successful?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think that decisions taken by operators to prohibit smoking have proved very popular with the customers of those services. However, those decisions were taken by the public sector and private sector operators themselves. I think it much better that those decisions are taken by individual

561
companies and individual public authorities than by us passing an Act of Parliament to make it happen compulsorily.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, will the Minister briefly explain how the Government intend to cope with the social disadvantage of those in lower socio-economic groups who—given that 1.3 million workers are exposed for more than 75 per cent of the time in the workplace—run the greatest risk of exposure?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to draw attention to that issue. The NHS Cancer Plan which we published in September 2000 set the additional target that smoking rates among manual groups will be reduced from 32 per cent, in 1998, to 26 per cent, in 2010. As part of our smoking cessation services and campaigns, we are particularly mindful of the point that the noble Baroness has raised.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House whether smoking goes on in the Cabinet? Does he consider it a workplace?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Alas, my Lords, I have not yet been invited to a Cabinet meeting. I am reliably informed by my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House that smoking does not take place there.

NHS Beds
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the definition of a "bed" in the National Health Service has been modified.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the definition of a "bed" is published in the NHS Information Authority data dictionary. The definition is used to aid statistical returns. No recent change has been made in the definition.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he confirm that, in NHS-speak, a "bed" can be a trolley or even a chair? On 20th November 2002, he said that,
"last year saw the first increase for many years in the numbers of general and acute beds".—[Official Report, 20/11/02; col. 377.]
Was he referring to extra beds or to trolleys and chairs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the definition of a bed is the same today as it was when the previous government published it in 1992, when the NHS data dictionary was developed. As for the broad definition, to be a bed, the main purpose must be to allow patients to lie down for rest or recovery. Beds, trolleys, couches and chairs used for treatments are not counted as beds. The noble Baroness was also quite wrong on actual
562
bed numbers. For the first time in many years, we have seen an increase in the number of general and acute beds. They are beds; they are not trolleys.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister explain the statement in the newspaper this week that hospitals will no longer be allowed to rename corridors as wards? Is there a general renaming process going on or being resisted within the department?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, not at all. For statistical purposes and for the purposes of accurate returns regarding our accountability to Parliament, it is important that NHS organisations have a consistent approach in reporting their statistics. We clarified the point that the noble Baroness raises in order to ensure clarity and consistency of reporting. Our aim was to stop hospitals calling patients to say that they were admitted if they were not admitted to what could be described as a ward area. It was a case of tightening up the reporting criteria.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, accepting the definition of a bed which the noble Lord has given, can he explain why it is that three hospitals recently built under the private finance initiative, Cumberland Infirmary, Carlisle, the University Hospital of North Durham and Bishop Auckland General Hospital, have many fewer beds than the hospitals they replaced?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, overall the number of beds in general and acute categories is increasing. The number of beds in individual hospitals is decided before it is decided under which route they should be financed. Therefore, it would be wrong for my noble friend to draw a conclusion that PFI hospital schemes are by themselves leading to a reduction in bed numbers. We aim to increase the number of beds. We are doing that. In the past two years we have seen the first increase in the number of general and acute beds for many, many years. We are also increasing the number of day care beds. We are expanding the NHS, not contracting it.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the issue of beds and their definition arose in the context of whether or not the Government have achieved their targets on the elimination of mixed sex-wards. Have the Government eliminated those wards? Have they achieved the targets that they have set out on many occasions and which have slipped over the past few years?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, 95 per cent of NHS trusts meet the additional criteria set for mental health facilities; 98 per cent of NHS trusts provide single-sex sleeping accommodation for planned admissions; 93 per cent of NHS trusts provide properly segregated bathroom and toilet facilities for men and women; and

563
over 98 per cent of NHS wards meet our guidelines. The remainder will comply once current building projects are completed.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the increase in the number of beds. Can he say what the increase has been in the occupancy rate?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the latest occupancy rate that I have for general and acute beds is 86 per cent in the year 2000–01. Some believe that the rate should come down. In guidance on emergency care the figure of 82 per cent is indicated as a reasonable figure. Clearly, we shall keep that under review.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether a bed has to have four feet flat on the floor or whether it can have wheels?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, beds can have wheels as that makes them easier to move. I am tempted to react to noble Lords the definition of a bed in the NHS data dictionary. However, I am conscious that some noble Lords wish to speak on other matters this afternoon. Therefore, I shall desist.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is it not the case that a trolley need not in some circumstances be a trolley in an accident and emergency department and that a trolley can, indeed, be a bed in a day care unit? Is it not true that a trolley can in fact mean anything that the NHS decides that it means?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Earl is being a little unfair to the National Health Service. The whole point of having a bed definition is to achieve clarity and consistency of reporting. Beds in day units are counted separately from beds in the general and acute categories. Clearly, in a day unit a patient may have pre-assessment, treatment, and post-operative recovery in the same bed. That is why such beds are categorised separately. I make it clear that trolleys in A&E departments are not defined as beds and nor are trolleys in treatment rooms and wards.

Business
3.15 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, before my noble friend Lady Amos repeats the Statement made in another place on the UN: Terrorism and Iraq, I wish to say a few words about the debate on Lords reform. I emphasise that I am only too well aware that it is not a timed debate. I simply report the arithmetic to the House. I hope that that is helpful.
There are 99 speakers on the speakers' list for the two-day debate. The tireless staff in the Whips' Office have worked out the arithmetic. If speeches, apart from those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and of those who will wind-up the debate, were to last about 10 minutes, today's debate
564
should finish at 1 a.m. tomorrow morning and tomorrow's debate should finish at 11.30 p.m. That is purely advice. It is way beyond my remit to go any further. But, speaking from my experience of life as well as from my experience in this House, we are universal in our belief that we love short, succinct speeches by others.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Chief Whip tell us what would be the effect on the arithmetic if noble Lords' speeches averaged eight rather than 10 minutes?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am glad that I was asked that question. If speeches were restricted to eight minutes, the House would rise at 11.15 p.m. this evening and 10 p.m. tomorrow. I shall answer further questions on the arithmetic if any noble Lord wishes to ask them.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, does the estimate of rising at 1 a.m. take the Statement into account?
Lord Grocott: Yes, my Lords, it does.

UN: Terrorism and Iraq
3.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement on yesterday's ministerial meeting of the UN Security Council which had been called to discuss the international community's response to global terrorism. I have placed a copy of my speech to the Security Council in the Library of the House. After the formal meeting Security Council members discussed Iraq and North Korea in informal session.
"The focus of the Council's meeting was the work of its Counter-Terrorism Committee, established by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. This resolution was passed in the wake of the 11th September atrocity and for the first time imposed a legal obligation on all countries to end safe havens for terrorists and to stop terrorist financing. The committee has been chaired by our own Ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who yesterday received many tributes for his work. I know that the House will want to endorse those tributes which were fully deserved.
"Under the committee's programme, each country's progress in countering terrorism is actively being scrutinised. Where necessary, the committee is helping countries to improve their capacity to deal with terrorism.
"As we heard yesterday in New York, the vast majority of governments—about 180—are complying with the new obligations on them. But two—Liberia

565
and, for very separate reasons, East Timor—have failed to respond at all and 13 are months behind. A deadline of 31st March has been set for compliance.
"Yesterday's meeting then discussed and unanimously agreed a new resolution on terrorism. The key elements include: the adoption of new measures to improve and reinforce the work of the counter-terrorism committee; a recognition that the fight against terrorism has to be linked to international action against the proliferation of conventional arms and weapons of mass destruction; and agreement that our struggle against terrorism is not biased against any religion, including Islam. People of all faiths and cultures have been the innocent victims of terrorist attacks, and people of every faith have a common interest in countering the global threat.
"In adopting the resolution, the Security Council recognised the dangerous connection between the terrorists who respect no rules, and rogue states who know no rules either. It is the leaders of such rogue states who set a deadly example and, through their illegal programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, provide a tempting arsenal for terrorists.
"Eight years ago, the world woke up to the nexus between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction when a sarin gas attack inflicted thousands of casualties in Tokyo. Since then, there has been abundant evidence that Al'Qaeda is a terrorist organisation trying to acquire and develop substances just as lethal, if not more so. There can be no doubt that Al'Qaeda would use them if it could.
"There are some who argue that the issue of proliferation is an unwelcome distraction from the campaign against terrorism. That view is profoundly misplaced. The global trade in technology related to weapons of mass destruction has never been more dangerous. North Korean missile exports undermine security in the Middle East. Illegal Iraqi imports of weapons-related technology flout UN sanctions, and are rearming a regime which has previously shown no restraint in using mustard gas and nerve agent to murder thousands of its own. It would be wildly irresponsible to assume that we can turn a blind eye to that trade on the presumption that lethal materials will not ultimately fall into the hands of terrorists. In today's climate, no responsible government could take such a risk with their citizens' lives.
"The two greatest threats facing Britain and its citizens in the next decade are terrorists and rogue states with weapons of mass destruction. The most dangerous terrorist organisation is Al'Qaeda. The most aggressive rogue state is Iraq.
"Since the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 in November, the choice for the Iraqi regime has been clear: resolve the 12-year stand-off with the United Nations peacefully through full co-operation with weapons inspectors; or face disarmament by force.
566
"Typically, Saddam Hussein's response so far has been characterised much more by deceit and delay than any interest in a peaceful outcome. The initial Iraqi declaration of WMD holdings, submitted to the United Nations on 7th December, contained stark omissions. Not least was its failure to explain what had happened to the large quantities of chemical and biological weapons material unaccounted for by UN inspectors in 1998, as set out in a report to the United Nations of more than 200 pages by UNSCOM in February 1999.
"Last week, United Nations inspectors discovered 12 chemical warheads, and a large quantity of hidden documents relating to a possible nuclear weapons programme, found within the area of a private house. Neither of those finds had been declared. Dr Hans Blix and Dr Mohammed El Baradei used their visit to Baghdad last weekend to set out their concerns about the lack of Iraqi co-operation, and to remind the regime of the 'serious consequences' of failure to abide by the terms of Security Council Resolution 1441.
"Next Monday, Dr Blix and Dr El Baradei will submit their progress report on the inspection process to the Security Council. I plainly cannot anticipate that report, but two things are clear. First, the international community must maintain the pressure on Saddam Hussein to end his games of hide and seek. Secondly, Iraq must provide fully active and positive compliance with all its international obligations. As my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary reminded the House yesterday in announcing further troop deployments to the Gulf, the lesson of the past four months is that diplomatic pressure will have no effect without the visible and credible threat of force.
"The terrorist threat to Britain and our citizens is real. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is co-ordinating the most comprehensive security response our country has seen for many years.
"Our country can never become an island of security in the face of the global dangers of terrorism and rogue states. Just as we should redouble our efforts to enforce the law at home, so our interests demand that we are at the forefront of enforcing the law overseas.
"For too long, Iraq has flouted international legal obligations to disarm and has laughed in the face of the United Nations. Saddam still has a choice to comply. I hope very much that he does. But if he does not, those who are serious about a commitment to a global community based on the rule of law and the UN cannot afford to shrink from the challenge posed by Iraq".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will be grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's Statement. Let me say straightaway that we welcome the new resolution on terrorism, and endorse all that has been said about the excellent work of Sir Jeremy Greenstock at the United Nations. I gladly reiterate our support for a credible and visible

567
threat of military force. That means a threat that is indeed credible and demonstrates our up-to-the-minute preparedness to wage war if it should come to be necessary.
I am afraid that I have much less support to offer the Government when it comes to their and the Prime Minister's efforts to convince the public of the rightness of their cause. The opinion polls confirm that they are obviously not doing very well in those efforts, although we should never be guided by those and should seek to shape opinion. All along the Opposition have argued that, in presenting the case for force, if necessary, there was first an imperative need to identify clearly the British direct interests in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Secondly, there was a need to convince people that attacking Iraq would make the world a safer place. Thirdly, it needs to be shown that Iraq and global terrorism are linked and feed off each other, and that Saddam Hussein is a lead contractor of terror. Fourthly, there is a need to show that the Iraq issue, far from distracting us from Palestine and other matters as some noble Lords understandably fear, opens the way for a Palestine settlement.
I happen to believe in the validity of all those propositions, but my belief does not derive from the words of Her Majesty's Government or the utterances made by the Prime Minister and others. On the contrary, until recently the Government repeatedly assured us that Iraq had nothing to do with global terrorism or the Al'Qaeda organisation. Actually, it is not an organisation at all; it is a movement, to which any fanatic in Kilburn or elsewhere can sign up.
What will the Government do to present a much more convincing case? We have heard many generalities about rogue states and terrorism, but they are frankly not enough. Are some killer facts about to be discovered by Mr Blix and his inspector colleagues, presumably with the guidance and help of the intelligence agencies? Is that the news to come? Is it judged that Saddam is already in material breach of paragraph 4 of Resolution 1441, with his unfortunate forgetfulness over chemical warhead containers?
What do the Government have to say about our EU partners such as France, whose Foreign Minister was reported this morning as saying:
"Nothing justifies encouraging military action"?
I also refer to the even more outspoken view from Germany, which wants nothing to do with the threat of force and will not support any second resolution that is called for.
We are at a critical moment. If action is about to begin, we must know not only the full justification for war—that is essential—but also what is planned thereafter. Our American allies are being increasingly explicit about their plans to rid us of Saddam. They want regime change and to build a liberated Iraq in a transformed Middle East. While reiterating our support for the strategy, we are entitled at this stage at least to ask: what is the British contribution to this thinking, and is that our objective as well? We really are entitled to know.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for the Statement, I begin by pointing out that the Foreign Secretary's speech was not in the Library of this House when I asked for it 10 minutes before the Statement was delivered. I am grateful to the Library for finding me a copy on the Internet and for finding copies of other speeches made in the Security Council.
From these Benches, I express our acute disappointment at the Statement and the Foreign Secretary's speech in the Security Council—parts of it were illogical and ill founded. This meeting involved a review of the counter-terrorism committee, and did not deal with Iraq. As the Foreign Secretary has admitted several times, no evidence is yet available of a link between the Iraqi regime and Al'Qaeda. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether some has arrived in the past few minutes. So far as we know, nothing has yet been discovered.
The Statement referred to the group that used sarin gas in Tokyo. That group had no connections with any sponsoring state. Terrorism is a wider phenomenon that is fed by ideological anti-modernism, political and religious fundamentalism and fears and anxieties that are projected on to outside powers. Counter-terrorism therefore requires a wide strategy that deals with the roots of those fears and anxieties, and does not feed them by action against states that is not fully justified by the legal approval of the international community.
In relation to rogue states, we should consider the fact that there are other states that perhaps appear to have a larger role in sponsoring intervention and interference in the affairs of other states; I refer to Libya, for example, and the apparent activities that it is sponsoring across west Africa. That is a much clearer case than either Iraq or North Korea.
I was rather shocked by the extent to which the Foreign Secretary used the term "rogue state" in his speech. I remind the Minister that the concept of a rogue state was invented by Colin Powell when he was chief of the American general staff as a justification in 1990–91 for maintaining a high level of conventional military spending and forces in the United States by identifying Iraq, Libya, Iran and Korea as threats that could be matched by conventional means. I also remind the Minister and Members of this House that weapons of mass destruction are not dependent on sponsoring states for their proliferation. As we have recently discovered in this country, it is possible to begin to make biological weapons of mass destruction in backstairs kitchens in London using instructions that one can get off the Internet.
On Iraq, the reference in the Foreign Secretary's speech to the failure of diplomatic means and to our patience running out would have been better made by President Bush than by our own Foreign Secretary; it is President Bush's patience that is running out. Diplomatic means have not yet failed In Iraq and they are being used, so far as we can see, relatively successfully in North Korea. There must be time for the inspectors to do their work. There are two aspects

569
of compliance in Iraq: one is to make sure that the Iraqis comply with Resolution 1441 and the second is that our Government and others should give the inspectors full support in their work and not push them through.
I have read other speeches from yesterday's Security Council debate. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I found a good deal of sense in what the German Foreign Minister and the French Foreign Minister said. Joschka Fischer said:
"we … fear possible negative repercussions [of intervention in Iraq] for the joint fight against … murderous terrorism".
So do I. His French counterpart added that:
"We should not take the risk to fuel terrorism".
I hope that the Minister accepts that there is a risk that action in Iraq, if not very carefully justified, may fuel terrorism. There is a danger that Iraq is not only a distraction but might provoke, in the case of intervention, a surge of anti-Americanism and anti-westernism across the developing Muslim world, which would endanger Britain in its turn.
3.35 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that it is important that we work to shape public opinion; that is exactly what the Government have been doing. I do not agree with him that we have not made the case. There is a serious debate going on in this country and our citizens have expressed some concerns. That debate must continue and the Government will play their part in that.
The noble Lord referred to the importance of dealing with the issues in the Middle East peace process. Again, the Government have been actively involved in those discussions. As the noble Lord will know, there was a recent conference, chaired by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, looking at the issue of Palestinian reform. We will continue to remain engaged.
It is important to clarify the position with respect to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about the link between Iraq and terrorism. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made it absolutely clear that we have no evidence to link Iraq with Al'Qaeda in the run-up to 11th September. However, there are clear links between Iraq and terrorism—there are many examples of that. It is important for that distinction to be well understood. On the emergence of any "killer facts" from Hans Blix and his team, we should await the outcome of the report of the inspectors to the Security Council, which will happen on Monday.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked whether we thought that Iraq was already in material breach. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 contains two elements, the first of which is failure in terms of disclosure. We already have some evidence that Iraq has failed in that regard. The second element is failure to comply with the obligations of the resolution. It remains to be seen whether Iraq has failed with respect to the second element.
570
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, also asked about our EU partners and referred to Germany and France in particular. France is a member of the Security Council and is fully supportive of the UN resolution.
On the humanitarian situation, noble Lords will know that we have given a considerable amount to Iraq in terms of humanitarian assistance. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had discussions with the UN Secretary-General yesterday about humanitarian assistance; such discussions will continue. I again make it absolutely clear to the House that our policy priority is disarmament with respect to weapons of mass destruction.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raised the importance of giving the inspectors time to do their work. We have made it absolutely clear that the report that we will receive on Monday is part of a process. That report will be made to the Security Council and the Security Council will assess it and make a decision about the next steps. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that dealing with Iraq is a distraction. That country has consistently flouted UN Security Council resolutions. It must be dealt with if the will of the UN is to prevail.
3.40 p.m
Lord Carrington: My Lords, if nothing more incriminating is discovered by the inspectors by 27th January, which, I understand, is the important date, will the Government wish the inspectors to continue or not?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have made it absolutely clear that Monday's report is part of the process in which the inspectors are engaged. The inspectors have only recently reached full strength. It will be for the Security Council to discuss the content of the report and to make decisions on next steps.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred to the theory widely aired in the United States that an attack against Iraq would in some way ease the Palestinian problem. Does the Minister share that view? If so, can she explain why logically that might be the result? Secondly, can she tell us the view of the other participants in the recent London conference?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there has been no decision to take military action in Iraq. That has been said a number of times in this House and in the other place. Therefore, the question being raised is entirely hypothetical.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is possible that the public have heard the Government's case very clearly but are not convinced? Therefore, if the Government and the United States are to win over public opinion, they need to put forward a far more substantial and evidenced argument. Does she accept that there is a widespread anxiety which may be misplaced but which needs to be addressed—that is, with all the troop movements

571
taking place at present, people have a sense that we are being drawn inexorably into conflict? They do not believe that, unlike the Grand Old Duke of York, we shall quite so easily be able to march the troops up the hill and then turn them back again. Those anxieties are in the public mind.
Does she further accept that, with the level of power that the United States manifestly exercises in the international scene, people wonder why it is necessary to be drawn into military conflict in relation to issues such as this?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I repeat what I said earlier in answer to questions from the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Wallace of Saltaire. The Government feel it is very important that we take the British public with us and we are engaged in a debate and a discussion on these issues. I believe that the polls show clearly that there is significant support for going down the UN route. Following that route remains the cornerstone of this Government's policy. But it is important that we remember that we would not have inspectors in Iraq if there had not been a visible and credible threat of force, which took us to the position of obtaining the UN resolution. It is most important that we remember that.
There are anxieties. No one wants us to go to war but, as my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary made clear in his Statement yesterday, no decision has been taken with regard to military action. However, we are well aware that our work in going down the diplomatic route must be matched by a visible and credible threat of force. That is the only thing that is moving us forward.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, with regard to Al'Qaeda and Iraq, does the noble Baroness recall that in a statement that he made to the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, Mr Richard Butler, the former head of UNSCOM who left Iraq in 1998 or 1999, said that members of Al'Qaeda had attended a terrorist training school in Iraq at a place called Salman Pak? If the Government agree with that statement, why have they never made more of it?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, again, I believe that our position has been made absolutely clear. We have certainly seen no evidence of a link between the Iraqi regime and Al'Qaeda. However, there is clear evidence of a link between the Iraqi regime and other forms of terrorism and other terrorist organisations. That is the Government's position and it is one that we have repeated on a number of occasions.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, can the Minister say which countries provide the main source of finance for the terrorist movement and also for the strategic military ambitions of Iraq and North Korea? Are any efforts being made to curtail those sources of finance and, if so, with what success?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that in the wake of the 11th September atrocities the United Nations as a whole and the British Government as
572
a member of the UN put in place far stronger legislation with respect to terrorist financing. I am happy to write to the noble Lord about the outcome of that process. It is part of the review in which the Counter-Terrorism Committee of the UN was engaged.
With regard to the other element of the noble Lord's question, I am not able to give that information. Some of it comes from intelligence sources which I cannot reveal. But the sources and the endgame of some of these rogue states are not always clear.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, is it not the case that the Prime Minister correctly diagnosed the situation that we are in as being a battle for hearts and minds? With regard to the state of public opinion in both this country and Europe, is it not fair to say that the majority of that public believes that "weapons of mass destruction" could be represented by the air force of the United States and by our own RAF if they were to proceed to an aerial bombardment of Iraq? That would have devastating humanitarian consequences and, in terms of the battle for hearts and minds, could have devastating consequences for the spread of the very terrorism which it is our avowed intent to combat. Consequent upon that, does the noble Baroness accept that any support by this country for a physical assault on Iraq which does not have the support of a second resolution of the United Nations cannot but be against our interests and against the war against terrorism?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, again, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made the Government's position clear. We have worked very hard in going down the UN route. We must ensure that the British public understand the arguments that we are making, the serious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction and the possible proliferation of those weapons. That would particularly be the case if those weapons were to get into the hands of terrorists and especially into the hands of Al'Qaeda.
These are arguments we have to make. It is clear that the British public support us going down the UN route. We shall continue to do that. We have worked extremely hard at that through diplomatic channels. We shall continue to give a great deal of priority to working in that way.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to address the nation and, if so, when?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister addressed these issues in another place this morning in speaking to the Liaison Committee. I am sure that if he thought it appropriate, he would at that point make a statement to the nation.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, having been involved in the resolution more than 10 years ago which Saddam Hussein has continued to flout ever since, I strongly support the argument she put? Unless there is credible

573
military force, there is not the slightest prospect of successful action in dealing with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
If we are to maintain a credible military force, the other need is for strong public opinion in support of the action the Government are taking and of the United Nations. In that respect, is the noble Baroness aware that, in dealing with terrorism, it is important, first, to get right the balance between encouraging proper vigilance by the public and an undue sense of alarm? I am very concerned indeed at the suggestion made today, and which has also come from intelligence agencies, that there is a certainty of attack by Al'Qaeda. There is not such a certainty. We have substantial defences against such occurrences. I hope that people will recognise that. There is a need and a call for vigilance—not a call for panic—in this country at this time.
If this Statement is the Government's start on improving their presentation to the public, it is not sufficient for Iraq to win at hide-and-seek with the UN inspectors until 27th January. The inspectors have to report that they are genuinely satisfied that there has been total compliance by Saddam Hussein and a totally honest and palpably open presentation of Iraq's capabilities in that respect.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord King. The threat of visible and credible force has been an important element backing up our diplomatic efforts. I also agree that we need strong public opinion. I am encouraged by the fact that public opinion is supportive of action through the UN route. I also agree with the noble Lord about getting right the balance between proper vigilance and creating an undue sense of alarm.
This is where I disagree with the noble Lord. The Statement is clear, as I repeat, that the terrorist threat to Britain and our citizens is real. There is no reference to that threat coming from one particular group. The reference is to the fact that Britain cannot become an island of security in the face of the global dangers of terrorism and rogue states. That is a fact to which we must alert our public. I agree with the noble Lord that at the same time we have to ensure that there is not an undue sense of alarm. As someone who has been dealing, for example, with travel advice to the public, I am well aware of that.
Lord Richard: My Lords, do the Government still believe in the theory of strategic deterrence? It served us pretty well in Europe for 50 years. Does it not apply at all in the Middle East?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there have been questions over our position on Israel and Palestine linked to our position on Iraq. I make clear that our prime aim with respect to Iraq is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction. As regards what is happening in the wider Middle East, again the Government's position is clear. Lasting security can be achieved only through a
574
negotiated settlement. We want to see a state of Israel free from terror and a viable Palestinian state. Those are the planks of our policy and shall remain so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, at the weekend the Foreign Secretary stated that his patience was running out. That was an unfortunate statement unless there was a terrible and imminent threat to this country. Is there such a terrible and imminent threat? If not, are not negotiation and patience far better than going to war in which many thousands of innocent people will be killed? Surely, we should heed the Churchill dictum that, "Jaw jaw is better than war war".
Baroness Amos: My Lords, negotiation and patience are critical. The UN has been negotiating and patient with Saddam Hussein for over 12 years. As noble Lords know, we are going down the route of negotiating with North Korea in the wake of disclosures from there. However, noble Lords should recall that the inspectors last had to leave Iraq because they were unable to carry out their functions effectively. We were able to secure their return to Iraq only because diplomatic efforts were backed up by the threat of force. Iraq is the one country which has consistently and repeatedly flouted many UN Security Council resolutions. Clearly, that is an issue which we must address.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, Resolution 1441 refers to serious consequences for Iraq for failure to comply with the terms of the resolution. Those serious consequences are now being defined by the noble Baroness as disarmament by force. Will we not be in some difficulty if the inspectors give Iraq a clean bill of health on 27th January and pronounce that they have not discovered any traces of weapons of mass destruction?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am not sure why the noble Lord thinks I said that the serious consequences would be disarmament by force. I said that we would not have got to where we are if our diplomatic efforts had not been backed up by a visible and credible threat of force. Our priority remains to go through the UN. The inspectors will make a report on Monday. The Security Council will assess that report and decide what next it wants to do.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am not sure whether my noble friend has fully answered the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Phillips, that an attack on Iraq is likely to inflame and increase the danger of international terrorism rather than the reverse. It is likely to play into the hands of the terrorists, particularly if a just solution towards the Palestinian problem is not fully addressed. The conference in London last week was a paper exercise. Israel prevented the people who hold the power and influence in Palestine from attending.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend that last week's conference was a paper exercise. It was extremely worthwhile and decisions were taken about a next meeting.

575
Perhaps I have not made myself clear, but no decision has been taken regarding military action in Iraq. My noble friend says that an attack on Iraq will exacerbate problems and will make terrorism more problematic for us. I repeat: no decision has been taken to attack Iraq.

House of Lords Reform
4 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon Lord Howe of Aberavon rose to move, That this House takes note of the first report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform (HL Paper 17).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I undertake this rather daunting task with some diffidence as I recognise that we are at an important stage of a historic debate; a debate that is almost as long as history, in truth. I shall try to explain where we are in the light of the first report of the Joint Committee and I hope that I shall be forgiven if from time to time I stray into expressing some of my own opinions.
The report marks the end of the first stage of the Joint Committee's work. It sets out the seven options on which both Houses will be invited to express their opinions on 4th February. The interval between these debates and that date is intended to provide a time for mutual reflection by both Houses on the views expressed in each House.
Some noble Lords have asked why so many options are set out in the report. The answer is that we were required to do that by our terms of reference. We were required to consider an all-elected and an all-nominated House and options in-between. The options effectively chose themselves.
When both Houses have expressed their views, the Joint Committee will reassemble to consider the extent to which,
"the expressed views of the two Houses…might be brought closer to each other, if not actually reconciled".
That is a quote from paragraph 6 of our special report of 16th July. The difficulty of that task was highlighted a couple of weeks ago by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when speaking on the "Today" programme. He said that opinions were "polarising" between two of the seven alternatives—the all-elected and the all-appointed. He rather sweepingly referred to the other five options as,
"what many voices call the nonsense of a hybrid House".
Nevertheless, the Joint Committee was required to evaluate all those varieties of nonsensical hybridity.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor looks to us rather flatteringly for genius in responding to his challenge. I cannot promise that. However, I can promise the House at least a glimpse of hope, because in paragraph 2 of our first report the committee expresses and identifies an historic opportunity to enable this House,
"to continue to play an important and complementary role to the Commons, with its future at last secure".
576
We shall see. At least one can regard that opinion as being what one might expect from a committee that was notably free of rancour or partisanship and which had a genuine sense of common purpose. For those features I think the House would wish me to express our thanks, not just to all our colleagues from both Houses who comprised the committee and to the Clerks of the committee, but most notably to the chairman of the committee, the right honourable Jack Cunningham. I had the privilege of working with him—now many years ago—when I was the Leader of another place and he was my shadow.
We need as much help as we can get from both Houses, after consideration of each other's debates, in order to make further progress. For that reason, when voting on these issues on 4th February, candidates—if I may state the matter in this way—are required to answer all the questions. We would like candidates in both Houses to give their views on each one of the seven options.
Your Lordships will be glad to know that there are many questions that are not before the House today, which have been sensibly postponed to a later stage. For example—and they are all important—the future of the Law Lords, the future of our right reverend colleagues and the pattern of elections, if any, and their timing, method and so on. So, too, the financial implications of the alternatives, very important for institutions as well as for individuals, remain to be considered.
A second group of questions—with one outstanding—was considered by the Joint Committee, perhaps in a little less detail than might have been expected. We were required by our terms of references to consider,
"the implications of a House composed of more than one 'category' of member"—
the hybrid House referred to by the noble and learned Lord. In truth, we go no further in our report than to point out that this House has been a mixture of appointed and hereditary peers for almost half a century, certainly since the Life Peerages Act 1958. We expressed the rather tentative opinion that we do not share the view that that is necessarily undesirable. So that key question is left open by our report rather than disposed of one way or the other.
I add my own comments to that proposition; that this House has never included an elected element in its mixture. There is that significant change, which is why I must confess that our answer to the question falls short of complete clarity.
The second point, which has not been considered in full yet, is that if there were to be a mixed House, in my judgment it would be essential that all members should be "financed"—and I use a neutral word—in the same way.
There is a third group of questions, to which, I am glad to be able to say, the answers we give are largely—if not entirely—agreed. First, there is the key question in Part 2 of our report that the existing role, functions, powers and conventions regulating this House in relation to the other House should in all essential respects be

577
maintained. We make certain comments for modification and clarification, but conclude that the essential structure should be maintained.
Secondly, in paragraph 51 of our report, there is the proposition that, if there are to be any nominated members, they should be appointed by a statutory, independent, commission, which is empowered to scrutinise effectively all nominations.
Thirdly, we state, in paragraph 46, that the size of the House after reform should be about 600 and perhaps larger when it is in transition.
Fourthly, and noble Lords will be interested in the exact words of this proposal. Paragraph 55 says that,
"we are not attracted by the idea of compulsory retirement for existing life peers".
Fifthly, paragraph 34 asserts that,
"no one political party should be able to dominate the second chamber".
All five of those agreed propositions are effectively as proposed by the Royal Commission, which was presided over by my noble friend Lord Wakeham, whose detailed work on almost every issue continues to deserve very close consideration.
One turns to the central question: whether any Members should be elected, and, if so, how many. So far as another place is concerned, there has never—in our day at least—been any doubt about the importance of it being an entirely elected chamber. It is the function of that House, which expresses the will of the people, to choose the Government and to empower that government to deliver their programme. But the role of this House, the second Chamber, is—and we must never forget this—to respect the right of the Commons to decide and to recognise the strong advisory nature of our role to require another place to think again about matters, but in the last resort the power to decide issues rests with another place.
The difference between those two roles involves very different considerations. In Part 3 of our report we identify four qualities that need to be considered alongside the central proposition that no party should dominate in this House. They are, first, representativeness; secondly, independence; thirdly, expertise; and, fourthly, "legitimacy".
On representativeness, sex and ethnicity we are far from perfect, but very similar to another place. On age, no one can challenge the proposition that we are somewhat older than our colleagues in another place, but one wonders whether that is such a fatal conclusion for a body that reformers wish to describe as a senate—if we remember the derivation of the word senate, wisdom that comes with age. On regionalism, at paragraph 33, we conclude that there is a disproportionate number of Members from the south-east of England and too few from the English regions but, for the rest, regionalism is not too badly represented. We acknowledge that that could be remedied by either method, in one way or another, but at paragraph 64 we state:
"An appointed House could more easily be made representative…of society…and of the regions".
The second quality is independence. Our judgments on that are clear. Paragraph 40 states:
"We consider this independence an important element in any reconstituted House",
but that it,
"would be significantly reduced in any substantially elected House".
Paragraph 35 states that,
"any new system…needs to ensure that independence, whether arising from non-party affiliation or from less attention to the requests of the Whips, is not jeopardised or diminished".
In the present House, that independence rests on two propositions: that we enjoy membership for life; and that we have no fear of deselection nor need to submit ourselves to reselection. Curiously, that is why all the alternatives suggested to the present system of bringing people into the House, all the electoral alternatives, in many ways strive to imitate those features—length of tenure and no need for re-election—to create pseudo life Peers in place of life Peers.
The third quality that I mentioned is our expertise—of course, we all use that word with some diffidence. At paragraph 42, the Joint Committee states:
"We consider the expertise evident in the existing House to be something of considerable importance which we would wish to see preserved in the new House".
There is indeed a formidable diversity of expertise in this place. It is not sufficient to judge the numbers of us who are on parade on any one day; it is important to take account of the different specialised platoons—large numbers of part-timers—who are mobilised for this, that or the other issue.
In the course of our deliberations, I considered one striking example: the debate that took place on the Second Reading of the Human Reproductive Cloning Bill on 26th November 2001. There were 20 speakers during three hours and 20 minutes of debate, speaking for 10 minutes each. They included the following 15 speakers. There were the heads or former heads of two Cambridge colleges—the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, who chaired the committee that inquired into the relevant matters, and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill of Bengarve, who was a member of the Human Genetics Advisory Committee. There were two former presidents of the Royal College of Physicians, the noble Lords, Lord Walton of Detchant and Lord Turnberg, each with other formidable international as well as national qualifications; two practitioners, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley; and two consultants especially engaged in the field, the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Patel.
There were two others not without relevant experience, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, from Mencap and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, vice-president of Life; two other specialists in different fields, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, former chairman of the Bar Council and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, former chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission; two right reverend Prelates, the Bishop of Oxford and the Bishop of St Albans; and, last but by no means least, the Minister responsible for the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
There are few legislatures in the world that could begin to command that range of expertise on a topic of that nature. Although they are all courageous spirits, how many of them would ever run for election in any system that one could design? The Commons is always free to accept or reject the advice given by experts of that kind, but its availability is invaluable and cannot be matched in any other way.
I turn to legitimacy, the last listed factor, which is often, understandably, equated with election, so as to exclude any alternative candidate for legitimacy. That is close to being the key question. However, when one considers legitimacy, one must not forget effectiveness. Does the institution work? What are the identifiable faults of the present system? What mischief is complained of? How much of that reeks from the past, not the present? If there is such a mischief, how far will it be remedied by the introduction of an elected element?
Legitimacy and effectiveness are, to some extent, two sides of the same coin. One asks oneself: where does this flavour of illegitimacy come from? The 92 noble Lords who qualify under this heading will forgive me for putting it like this, but heredity is regarded, very perversely, as conferring illegitimacy. Rightly or not, it is common ground that our hereditary noble friends are unlikely to be here after reform takes place—when and if it does.
"Cronyism" is a word that has become increasingly popular because of its rhyming capacity with Tony—"Tony's cronies" is a convenient phrase that tends to embrace a large but unidentified army. I do not pretend that the Prime Minister's predecessors have not from time to time appointed those who might be so described, but if one looks around the Chamber, of the 984 life Peers appointed under the Life Peerages Act 1958, not many can be fairly identified as cronies. In so far as that charge survives. the future legitimacy—if that is the right word—of those appointed will be assured and guaranteed, so far as one can do so in this world, by the appointment of a statutory, independent appointments commission, with all the features attributed to it by the Royal Commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham.
Finally, I return to the effectiveness of the present House. The 1998 White Paper, which we tend to forget, considered and evaluated the effectiveness of the present House. I have not brought the relevant passage with me, but it is laden with superlatives. If I may be mildly impertinent, even the document published by Conservative Central Office, of which my noble friend Lord Strathclyde was one of the two authors—I hope that he will forgive me if I do not place its authority any higher than that—pays tribute to,
"the splendid performance of the old House".
Here we are: the old House. That is just one tribute.
Rather more convincingly, the report of the Public Administration Committee in another place made no significant proposals for improvement, or even for change, in the role or powers of the second Chamber. On the contrary, it stressed its,
"considerable virtues, which should be preserved".
580
For example, the less partisan debating style; the widely acknowledged quality of Lords' committees, their distinctive role and considerable expertise; and the Lords' increasingly vital role in scrutinising legislation,
"with a quality lacking in the other Chamber".
In its conclusion, the committee rejected any significant change in our powers for those reasons and described its task as,
"Building on the strength of the present Chamber".
That is surely an important proposition, and means that it is important not to undermine that strength.
Another test of the effectiveness of this House is given by another example. Noble Lords will well remember our proceedings on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The Commons spent about three days considering the Bill; in this Chamber, we spent eight days considering it—a total of 53 hours. As a result, some crucial changes were made. An appeal mechanism against deportation was provided; any additional police powers provided for were confined to anti-terrorism and national security matters; the offence of inciting religious hatred was struck out; and many of the Bill's provisions were subjected to a sunset clause. That was a notable achievement, which depended on the special quality of this House and its tenacity in exploiting its powers at that time. It provoked an observation that I have quoted to your Lordships before:
"something important is being said about democracy when the only legislative Chamber to perform the functions people expect—deliberation, revision, improvement—contains not a single elected politician".
That quotation was from an article written by someone who is not a notable fan of your Lordships—Hugo Young—in the Guardian on 18th December, 2001.
I close by offering a slightly more impertinent personal view and posing a last, even more fundamental question, also posed and, to some extent, answered by the Public Administration Committee. The committee identified the existence in our country of,
"widespread public disillusionment with our political system", something that was also identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, when she spoke in our debate in January last year. The committee asked what the reason for it was. The answer that it gives is,
"the establishment of virtually untrammelled control of the House of Commons by the executive".
The committee goes on to offer a route towards a solution and says that we must,
"ensure that the dominance over parliament of the executive, including the political party machines, is reduced… not increased".
The late Lord Hailsham christened that phenomenon the "elective dictatorship". The operative word in that description is "elective". How far can we be sure that it would make sense for the most fundamental change proposed for this Chamber—the introduction of elected Members—to be the one most likely to pave the way to the kind of partisanship that makes today's House of Commons a key instrument of dominance by the

581
executive? I apologise if that seems, in any way, to overstate the importance of the issues that confront us. I believe that it does not. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the first report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform (HL Paper 17).—(Lord Howe of Aberavon.)
4.22 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it was a privilege to serve on the Joint Committee under the excellent chairmanship and vice-chairmanship of Dr Jack Cunningham and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. The committee worked well together and has produced a report that sets out clearly the considerations to be borne in mind when deciding on the composition of a reformed House. My view has always been that composition is a second-order problem, so I was pleased when the Joint Committee decided to consider in some depth the role, powers and functions of a reformed House of Lords, with the supposition that composition should flow from role, powers and functions and not the other way round.
Four propositions must be reconciled in deciding on the right composition of a reformed House: first, the primacy or pre-eminence of the House of Commons; secondly, the demand for a more powerful and effective second Chamber; thirdly, the fact that, under virtually all the proposed reforms, the government of the day will always be in a minority; and, fourthly, the undoubted right—not often mentioned—of the elected government to deliver their programme of legislation. I shall deal with each of those propositions in turn.
The primacy or pre-eminence of the Commons is always stated as a first principle, but with no definition of what primacy means in practice. The possibility of gridlock involving a reformed House of Lords and the Commons has not, so far as I am aware, been examined in any depth. In its report, the Commons Public Administration Committee airily dismissed the possibility of gridlock and, in almost the same breath, said that concern to maintain the pre-eminence of the Commons was "grossly overdone". I respectfully suggest that unverified assertion is no substitute for proper analysis and argument.
Many of those who argue for an element of election in the second Chamber ignore—or are, perhaps, unaware of—the fact that, when handling legislation, the House of Lords is more powerful and effective than the House of Commons in its ability to amend or delay legislation. The powers of the House of Lords, when handling legislation, derive from its rules and, above all, from its conventions. We have no Speaker, and the House regulates itself. That means that the House can operate only if all its Members observe those conventions. I shall not take up the time of the House to spell out the conventions, but they are central to our operation.
I can give a simple illustration of the difference between a regulated and a self-regulating Chamber and of the importance of conventions in the House of
582
Lords. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons take 164 A4 pages. There are 163 Standing Orders and 27 pages of resolutions. The Standing Orders of the Lords take 42 pages in a small format document. There are 87 Standing Orders. It is sometimes argued that the rules and conventions of the House should be codified in statute. Apart from the difficulty of turning convention into law, such a process could result in the ultimate irony of having the powers of a reformed House of Lords and an elected House of Commons decided by unelected judges.
The two most powerful conventions under which we operate are that the elected government are entitled to have their business considered and that the elected Chamber should finally have its way. Your Lordships must decide which option for composition would best ensure that those powerful conventions continued to be observed in a reformed House.
Secondly, there is the demand for a more powerful, effective and legitimate second Chamber. That demand, made by some Members of the House of Commons, has always puzzled me. I was assured many times—in the long years of opposition and after forming the Government in 1997—by experienced parliamentarians in another place that the House of Commons would never agree to set up a second Chamber that would challenge and, perhaps, reduce the powers of the Commons. Now, we have that demand.
How much more powerful and effective is the reformed House of Lords to be? It hurts me, as a former Government Chief Whip, to remind the House that the Government were defeated in the Lords 56 times in the past Session alone. Should we have been defeated 112 times, instead of 56, to show that the House was more powerful and more legitimate? If the House is so powerless, why does every Bill that comes before it have a detailed "Lords Handling Strategy" attached? We introduced that change halfway through the previous Parliament. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, said, this House gave eight days to consideration of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, while the House of Commons gave three. I am proud to have had some part in organising that business.
Do the proponents of an elected House of Lords remember the Wilson Government of 1964, who had a majority of three, or the Wilson and Callaghan Governments of 1974 to 1979, who had no majority at all? It is a curious feature of our constitution that, once a government have a working majority in the Commons, the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature is more evident in the Lords. The admitted inability of the Commons to call the executive to account may explain the demand for a more powerful second Chamber, without any definition of "more powerful". Again, your Lordships must weigh up which option for composition will produce the right balance of power between the two Chambers of Parliament and between a reformed House of Lords and the elected government.
The third proposition is that the government of the day should always be in a minority in the House of Lords. As far as I am aware, no attempt has been made

583
to think through the implications of having a minority government in the Lords, alongside the primacy of the House of Commons and the right of the elected government to deliver their programme. There is one escapable result—I must handle the point with care—of having a government in a minority in the Lords: it inevitably places substantial power in the hands of the third party in the Lords. In a reformed House, the Cross Benches might be more powerful, but, as always, that would depend on their level of attendance and involvement. I wonder sometimes whether Labour colleagues in the Commons appreciate the considerable power of the third party in a substantially elected House. I wonder whether they would welcome such an outcome. I have referred, with some care, to the "third party": it might not always be the Liberal Democrats.
The fourth point, which is rarely spelt out, is the undoubted right of the elected government to obtain their programme of legislation. Despite the figures that I give for defeats, the Government have got their programme through since 1997, albeit with substantial concessions on some Bills. I think I am correct in saying that, in the five Sessions since 1997, only one Bill—the Trial by Jury Bill—has been dropped. The Parliament Act has been used only once on a whipped Bill. That was the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, which was a very special case.
To put it bluntly, the delivery of the Government's programme in a House where the Government are substantially in the minority will always depend on two essential factors; namely, the co-operation of the Opposition parties and the observance of the rules and, above all, the conventions of the House by all its Members.
If we are to consider elections to the Lords, we must take into account the possibility of a very low turnout in such elections. The British citizen can currently vote, if he has the inclination, for his parish, his district, his county or his unitary authority councils, his Westminster MP, his European MEP, his member of the devolved institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and, perhaps in some areas soon, his member of the regional assembly. The British citizen is not exactly under-represented; nor do I detect a mass demand for more elections.
To conclude, I would take a lot of convincing that any element of election in a reformed House could satisfactorily reconcile the four central propositions that I shall describe. They are: the primacy of the Commons; the demand for a more powerful Chamber; the fact that the Government of the day will always be in the minority; and the right of the elected Government to deliver their programme of legislation.
I understand and support the arguments of those who say that a proper system of independent appointment, backed by statute, would produce a House with the right balance of politics, regional representation, gender, ethnicity and occupation. Such a House would, by definition, have a secondary mandate which would not threaten the primacy of the Commons and would have the right balance of power which is central to our constitution.
4.31 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may first pay my respects to both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who have been very distinguished members of the Joint Committee. The whole House owes a great deal for the tremendous amount of work they have put into proposing what is embodied in the first report we are discussing today. I believe that it exemplifies the ability of this House to think seriously across party divides and about the ways in which we might reform this House to the benefit of our citizens.
I want to start briefly with a story which has echoed with me throughout my life. Many years ago was travelling in Romania at a time when it was still under communist rule. I remember going to a remote hotel in the Carpathians. When I handed over my passport which, in those days, stated as occupation, "Member of Parliament", the man sitting behind the hotel reception desk said, "Mater liberorum"—"M other of the free".
I have never forgotten that, but we often forget that the role and, indeed, the history of both Houses of the British Parliament, in standing up for the individual liberties of citizens is one of the proudest heritages we have and, I believe, one of the major obligations of this House as well as of another place. Two other obligations should be added to that. The first is to hold the executive—the Government of the day, regardless of politics—accountable to the people and to Parliament. The second is, of course, to scrutinise legislation, to amend it, and to make it as good as it can possibly be. I mention those three roles because if we forget them we may forget what reform is all about.
The primary job in all three respects rests with the House of Commons. I find one of the oddest arguments in this whole debate the strange suggest ion that, in some way, the pre-eminence of the House of Commons would be put at risk by a further reform of this House. The Commons alone has power over supply—the crucial element that goes right back to the English Civil War. There is no right of supply in the House of Lords. The Parliament Act underpins the primacy of the House of Commons. The public recognise, as do the media, the primacy of the House of Commons. There will be far fewer people in these galleries than in another place for this debate today.
I find strange the suggestion that in some way we might wish to threaten the primacy of the House of Commons. I say in very precise terms that the primacy of the House of Commons rests with the House of Commons. It is how it behaves, how it deals with its business and how it deals with the issues before it that will determine the public respect in which it is held, or otherwise, and not, frankly, anything that this House might do.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about the third party—I accept his argument—failed to recognise that no third party in this House can have any influence at all unless it can persuade other parties to support it and, frankly, unless it has a large measure

585
of public opinion behind the position that it and another party take. I think all of us recognise that to be true.
I turn now to the effects of the reform and modernisation of another place. I believe it to be crucial in our own argument here. There has been an increasing concentration on policy as a result of Commons modernisation. That means more and more emphasis, rightly so, on the work of Select Committees. There has also been the—I believe welcome—innovation of debates in Westminster Hall. We would be foolish not to recognise this but those two changes, together with the growing and constant demands of constituencies, virtually means that another place cannot undertake fully the tedious, boring and absolutely essential job of scrutinising legislation.
Noble Lords in all quarters of the House will know how much legislation reaches us today which has been inadequately and sometimes not at all debated, and where there has been nothing like a proper scrutiny of legislation. That remains our first and abiding duty.
It is also the case that the timetable changes make it yet more difficult for that job to be done by another place. We make no complaint. We believe that the role of Select Committees, which are departmental in large part, is extremely important. But we recognise that this means that the job to be done in this House, assisted by such improved working practices as pre-legislative scrutiny, is a job that we cannot and should not escape.
I shall now say a word—it is a crucial word—to underpin the need for reform taking both Houses together. We on these Benches and, with respect, I believe the Leader of the Conservative Party too, strongly believe that we must look at the way in which the two Chambers work together and not try to split them one against the other. We have a common duty. As regards legitimacy, we must recognise that position no longer attracts the deference it once did. Being a Lord, being a Privy Counsellor or being a bishop no longer automatically attracts respect. It must be proven on the basis of practice and example. That is one reason why the legitimacy of this House, in the view of our Benches, depends upon there being an elected element. Election today is almost the only way in which people acquire respect for their authority because it is recognised as a kind of secular anointing of individuals.
It means that there is a third choice. I have great respect for the high intelligence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, so I hope he will forgive my belief that in saying there were only two choices—a wholly elected or a wholly appointed House—he was making a typical legal judgment, but not a typical political judgment. The essence of politics is compromise. We all know that is the only way to make politics work. It is not the essence of a proper philosophy of a judge or a senior lawyer. I would suggest that it simply is not the case that there are only two choices because the choice of a so-called hybrid House—why do we use that term?—remains open to us all.
586
We have been a hybrid House ever since life Peers were appointed. We got on perfectly well with our companions and colleagues from the hereditary establishment, and we still do. I believe that those of our colleagues who were elected by their confreres to become their representatives in this House would agree that they work extremely closely with those of us who are appointed Peers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, was right when he said that we have to recognise there is a great deal of distrust in a system particularly of political appointments. Whether one uses the phrase, "Tony's Cronies" or, may I suggest, "Thatcher's Matchers", it does not make much difference. The public are deeply distrustful of a House composed entirely or largely of political appointments.
I come to the penultimate part of what I want to say. The Commons Select Committee on Public Administration stated in its brilliant sixth report that it believes that two-thirds of the two Houses believe in an elected, or largely elected, Chamber. It stated that,
"this cross-party agreement represents the views of the vast majority in the House of Commons".
The Joint Committee has taken us further. It has worked very well and it has brought with it an amount of real encouragement for reform. I quote from its words:
"The aim of maintaining the effectiveness and increasing the legitimacy of the second chamber has become common ground".
It was once argued that there was no common ground. I believe that to be a crucial principle.
Now reform has stalled. It has stalled, and I do not know why. An article by Martin Kettle in today's Guardian states that,
"there are dark forces at work in this argument".
Mr Kettle may know what they are, I do not. However, I am concerned by the fact that in today's Times there is reference to the probability of a statement to be made by the Prime Minister to declare his opposition to a hybrid House.
In the current edition of Parliament, its distinguished editors, Mr Blackburn and Mr Kennon, and Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth as an adviser, state:
"Both the initiative and the veto [for Parliamentary reform] lie with the government commanding a majority in the House".
That is true, but what a tragedy it would be if the Houses of Parliament cannot themselves initiate and take further the concept of reform.
The work of the Joint Constitutional Commission, back in 1996–97, and subsequently that of the Commons Select Committee on Public Administration, and now the work of the Joint Committee, could all be at risk. I conclude with three quotations. The first is from the sixth report of the Commons Select Committee:
"The Government has an impressive record of constitutional reform to its credit. However, not to continue the reform of the Second Chamber, in the way that we have shown to be possible, would be a missed opportunity of historic proportions".
I quote finally from today's article by Mr Kettle in the Guardian:
"For Labour not to reform the Lords when it has such a large majority in the Commons would be a truly epic national failure".

587
We owe it to the citizens of this country to reform this House to make of it the best scrutinising Chamber that is possible and, between our two Chambers, to recover for the future the glory that the House of Commons and the House of Lords together once had when my Romanian friend spoke of mater liberorum.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the Joint Committee's report covers the ground well so far as the first part of its terms of reference require. But what stand out starkly from its report are the number of issues that must be resolved before the committee is able, in its own words,
"to develop a full set of proposals to take the reform forward".
Key issues abound, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. They include maintaining the existing conventions between the two Houses, conventions that were introduced because of a perceived lack of legitimacy and a massive Tory majority. Reform is supposed to ensure that there is far greater legitimacy and no domination by any one party. It is not self-evident to me that a very reformed House has to be bound by current conventions, desirable as that might be for the party in power.
Conventions and their observance are more subtle than Standing Orders. They are passed down between members from Session to Session and from one Parliament to the next. A large new intake might not be minded to be so disciplined. Indeed, would self-regulation continue to work and would the conventions be observed without a Speaker? I share the view that self-discipline would still be the best approach for the new Chamber, but the warning given by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, of the risk of gridlock is timely. I do not think that Commons' primacy is a full answer to gridlock.
The issues of the judiciary—
"worthy of an inquiry of its own",
says the Joint Committee—and of religious membership are complex. They, too, will need special attention.
The methods and periods of election if one of the elected options were to be favoured, the period of tenure, the remuneration, the size, make-up and responsibilities of a statutory appointments commission or the size of a new House and how to reach it from where we are today, all need to be settled.
The list continues to grow. I agree that it is essential that some detailed work should be carried out on costing options. Even House reform must have some upper limit in its cost to the taxpayer. Despite the depth of work that was undertaken by the Royal Commission, I do not think that the way ahead on many of these issues is yet clear.
Experience of achieving change in this House, and throughout Parliament, is that it will not be rushed. Realism is that a new constitutional settlement will not be achieved quickly. Realism, not aspiration, about the pace and achievement of change is necessary.
What more telling example of a lack of realism has there been than the need to move to the (expletive deleted) by-election process for hereditary Peers?
588
There was great confidence—was there not?—in government quarters that this scheme would never be put into use?
It is understandable that many parliamentarians and the Joint Committee's terms of reference concentrate on the issue of democratic election and, by inference, legitimacy. However, I was struck by the Joint Committee's view that there are other routes to legitimacy, as it discusses in its report:
"It is also a matter that will need further careful attention in future".
An election for an element of the House that fails to attract a reasonable turn-out of the electorate would not be able to claim much in legitimacy. Again, realism and not aspiration should guide the choice.
I welcome the Joint Committee's acceptance that a reformed House must be a large one—around 600 plus. Size matters and it has not been given the same degree of consideration as the elected, or the percentage elected, issue has been.
Today there are around 700 Members and over 350 committee-member places listed in Who does what in The Lords, (the grey book). Not all the current membership is able to allot the time and effort that Select Committee work entails. The vast majority of committee members rotate off after a three or four-year period.
Thus there is slim chance that a House significantly smaller than the present one would be able to discharge the workload of the existing House, even if there were an elected, and therefore more full-time, membership. Unless the roles and powers of a reformed House are to be greatly changed and curtailed from the present one, a large 600-Member House seems essential.
The present Cross-Bench group comprises individuals drawn from a wide variety of careers in which they have made their mark before they were granted or inherited their peerage. The House is enriched by this past experience and knowledge, a unique and valued feature unmatched in any other legislature in the world. For the future, special thought must be given to the incentives that will ensure that the House remains attractive to those who can contribute their experience and expertise as present and past Cross-Bench Members have done.
It will take more than a statutory label to devise an appointments system that must retain credibility over a long period of time—over years—and, albeit after a first flush, nominate only a very few independents in any one year for preferment, perhaps six or eight a year. This might even be less if some of the independent places are to continue to be filled, as I hope they will be, by recommendations direct from the Prime Minister of the day to the Monarch.
I hope without presumption to take as common ground that the involvement and valued contribution of Cross-Benchers should continue. If that is to be one of the building blocks of further reform, then the impact on the options for the proportions of elected Members—even of a large, 600-plus Chamber—is that the full or majority elected options are incompatible

589
with an independent membership of around 120 (one-fifth or 20 per cent of a 600-size House), which will not be found by any election process. I leave it to other noble Lords on these Benches to enlarge on this paradox.
It is generally agreed, both by the Joint Committee report and more widely, that the present House of Lords, following on from the 1999 Act, has continued to work well in all its roles, functions and powers identified in the report. I believe that any of the options that I have identified for further study should also be compared with the way in which the present House is working before arriving at a final judgment.
One of the features of the present House that is surely widely recognised is the great level of commitment and responsibility for the smooth running of the House provided by the hereditary Peers who remain. Office holders, such as the Lord Chairman of Committees, a dozen Deputy Speakers, the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, and many other hereditary Peers on all sides, contribute greatly to the House's activity and reputation. They do so because of their commitment to Parliament and duty to the House, not because of their titles.
As Convenor, I am extremely dependent on—indeed, I could not function without—the willing and totally voluntary assistance of a number of Cross-Bench hereditary Peers in discharging my responsibilities, including keeping the obligatory detailed accounts for our Cranborne money. Departure of all the remaining hereditaries in one go would leave a very, very considerable gap indeed—a gap that could affect for some time the ability of the new House to perform as well as does the present one. It would be perverse if stage two were to end in a debasement of the present capability of the House to carry out its roles and functions.
I am attracted to some arrangement—and this would fit best with a decision to adopt the fully appointed option, Option 1—that would allow the reformed House to continue to draw on the experience, knowledge and remarkable sense of duty to Parliament and the country that hereditary Peers on all sides of the House bring to its work. If they were to continue as Members for life, as has been suggested for existing life Peers, with no provision for their replacement on death because the by-election standing order was repealed, there could be a much smoother transition to a new, all-appointed House—a House that continued to function well in all its roles.
After careful thought that is the option that I favour. I describe this alternative—that is, a non-elected House that retains today's hereditary Peers as Members for life, without their replacement by by-election—to myself as Option 1A. Option 1 is a fully appointed House.
I hope that other noble Lords who speak in the debate and who also favour Option 1A will say so in the course of their speeches so that it is possible to ascertain whether the idea has support in the House. I commend it most strongly.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the Joint Committee, to its chairman, the right honourable Jack Cunningham, and especially to my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Clearly as they have grappled with the issues they have shown a remarkable degree of objectivity and understanding. My conclusion from reading their report is that they still have a very difficult task, but not an impossible one, to devise a solution that ought to be acceptable to the vast majority of the Members of both Houses.
In my view, any solution must have two essential elements. First, a significant element of compromise; and, secondly, a lengthy transitional period.
I stand full square by the report of the Royal Commission that I chaired. It was designed to please no one completely—and in that respect it was a total success—but it was a carefully crafted compromise that everyone got something but no one got all that they wanted. I believe that that second objective is more clearly understood as these matters have been thought about in more detail.
One small point. Paragraph 22 of the Joint Committee's report states that I may have changed my mind about secondary legislation. That is not quite correct. I am still in favour of a reformed House of Lords having a three-month delaying power. Where I have doubts is whether the method we proposed in the Royal Commission report would in practice work. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, slightly unnerved me on this in the earlier debate. My objective remains the same, but the method may have to change.
If I am calling for flexibility, how would I show it myself? First, the exact numbers or proportion of so-called elected Members, especially if they do not come all at once, is not my first priority. Around 20 per cent would still be my preferred number, but I could be moved on this. The terms upon which they are elected are paramount. My priorities are: they should be elected only once, and no chance of re-election; they should have the same opportunity of being appointed for subsequent terms as appointed Members; they should serve for the same term as appointed Members, but I think that 12 years is too short and would prefer 15; there should be severe restrictions on the ability of ex-Members of a reformed House going to the Commons; and the support services available for all Members, whether elected or appointed, should be the same, including any attendance allowances. In my view, those issues are more important than the exact number of so-called elected Members.
The Joint Committee set out five qualities desirable in the make-up of a reformed Chamber with which I agree— legitimacy, representativeness, no domination by any one party, independence, expertise. I believe that, by common consent, the existing House meets these qualities fairly well, except that it falls short on representation.
Two points arise from this. The quality of the existing Chamber, which it is essential should be continued in a reformed Chamber, is almost certainly best maintained by

591
a substantially appointed element—appointed, as we said in our report and as my noble and learned friend Lord Howe said, by a wholly independent appointments commission.
That said, better representation could be achieved by a significant proportion of Members coming from the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. These could be elected or, as I prefer to look at it, appointed by the people. They would not come as Members representing a constituency but as Members prepared to play a full part in the work of the House, with a background of knowledge and expertise gained from their particular parts of the United Kingdom.
This House has always been hybrid and, in my view, it can continue to be so successfully if care is taken in the way new Members are brought in as the old Members fade away. This has to be done over an adequate period of time.
We said in our Royal Commission report that an opportunity for long-term reform of this House is an essential part of the constitutional changes taking place in the United Kingdom. We will have failed our country if we do not grasp that opportunity.
5 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rea has asked me to convey his apologies for being unable to take part in the debate, and to state that he is in favour of a majority elected House.
This is an important subject. The fundamental question is whether we believe that, in a system dominated by the executive, Parliament as a whole should be strengthened by means of increasing the legitimacy of this House, or whether we do not. At the outset, I state my belief that the easiest, simplest, most accessible and recognised method of increasing the legitimacy of this House would be some form of direct election.
In answering the question whether this House should be strengthened, we have been helped enormously—perhaps surprisingly—by our colleagues in another place. Indeed, we may be helped further by the debate that is presently taking place there and by the votes that will follow. Members of Parliament have recently overturned the received and accepted wisdom about their House.
Since 1969, it had been assumed that MPs would never vote for a reformed House. We do not know yet what the Commons will vote for, but we have some indications. Over 300 Members of Parliament signed an Early-Day Motion tabled by my honourable friend Fiona Mactaggart and other Labour colleagues calling for a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber. Since Ministers do not sign Early-Day Motions, that represented over half of the House.
Nor was this an isolated case. In the previous Parliament, a cross-party Early-Day Motion led by Mark Fisher and Andrew Tyrie drew wide support; and in what I believe to be the most significant development, the all-party Commons Public Administration Committee, chaired by Dr Tony Wright, unanimously reported last
592
year in favour of a 60 per cent elected House. Importantly, that report showed that consensus could be achieved from divergent starting-points.
In doing that, Members of Parliament have sent a very important signal to this House; namely, that the certainties of the past have slipped. The assumption that there is a zero-sum game between the two Houses—that strengthening this House would necessarily weaken the House of Commons and be seen by MPs as a threat—is simply no longer the case.
Many of the objections raised in this House in the past—and likely, one suspects, to be raised again over the next two days—are based on those assumptions and fears. Yet if the Commons vote for more democracy in this Chamber, those fears would be shown up for what they are—illusory and insubstantial. Once MPs—if they do—have cast those fears and assumptions aside, for Peers to cling to them would be deeply ironic and damaging. It would be a sad reversal of the position in 1969 when this House voted for reform—a piece of moral high ground that it has held ever since.
The fact is that the game has changed, as the report tacitly recognises. The old truisms are no longer true, because they are no longer believed.
This Government have shown that they can embrace plural politics—they have enabled these free votes to take place. But we do have a stronger executive in this country than exists in almost any comparable country. Neither its interests, nor those of the governed, are best served by seeking to preserve such a one-sided system.
The reality is that if we get the composition, role and powers of the Upper House right, we can have a largely democratic second Chamber without challenging the supremacy of the House of Commons.
We should recognise one other important component in the change that has occurred. In terms of the proportion of election, the debate has moved on since the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, reported. On that defining issue, in my view the commission was too cautious: the percentage peaked at 35 per cent elected members.
But, none the less, the Wakeham commission reported in favour of allowing some elections to the second Chamber. That crucial finding has led to the Joint Committee's options and to today's debate. It also produced one other important conclusion; namely, that a mixed House would work—a very important finding for those of us who favour a largely, but not wholly, elected House.
In answer to some of the questions raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the proposals put forward by those of us who believe in a partly elected House would mean the preservation of the Cross Benches. No one is arguing that Cross-Benchers should disappear. No one is suggesting that the list of eminent people read out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, should cease to be Members of this House. On the contrary, if my views were by some miracle to be accepted by the Government, the political side of the House would be dealt with by

593
election and the nominated side of the House would continue to be staffed by eminent people of the calibre of those who are here at present.
In a democratic Parliament, the House of Lords/ second Chamber is, or should be, the next most important democratic institution in the country after the House of Commons.
Given that Parliament is, or should be, a counterbalance to the executive, the objective of reform, and the test for its validity, is surely that it should strengthen the second Chamber to the point where it has the legitimacy vis-à-vis the House of Commons to perform its functions without threatening the position of the Commons. If the second Chamber does not have that legitimacy, the constitution becomes unbalanced and has to be remedied.
I turn briefly to the various options contained in the report. A wholly appointed House would ensure continuity and a range of expert opinion; but its basis would remain patronage. I do not think that patronage any longer commands the respect that it once did. It could amount to swapping one form of elite rule for another, and even run the risk of creating members who saw themselves as delegates from their interest group or policy community.
The same objections would apply to a House that was only 20 per cent elected. That option should perhaps be regarded as having expired: the Government had to drop it, not because it produced a mixed House, but because it was not democratic enough. It retained a House based essentially on appointment and patronage. Forty per cent elected is nearing the first point of legitimacy, but begs the question: what is so wrong with elections that you cannot have more than that?
Only a House with a majority of elected Members would have the legitimacy to give this country a truly democratic system. It would strengthen this Chamber to the point where it would have sufficient legitimacy to carry out its functions, but not too much. It would make the Members accountable—as any parliamentarians who are given the power to ask a government to think again should be.
But a wholly elected House would have three drawbacks: first, the superiority of the Commons might be challenged; secondly, there would be no independent element—a key component of this House would be missing; and, thirdly, one party could achieve a majority in this House.
A partly elected, partly appointed House meets those three objections. First, its composition would be less legitimate than that of the House of Commons, so it could not challenge it in the way some believe could happen. Secondly, it would retain the benefit of Cross-Bench expertise; and, arithmetically, it would be almost impossible for one party to control a majority, especially if the electoral system were proportional.
A House of that kind would be in line with Liberal Democrat policy, with some parts of Conservative policy—I shall be very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, tomorrow, expounding, perhaps as a
594
sole and solitary voice in this debate, what is supposed to be Conservative policy on the reform of the House of Lords.
My proposals are in line with the reports of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and Lord Home, and with the Labour Party in the recent past. Our manifesto in 1992 promised reforms leading to,
"a newly elected Second Chamber".
In 1993, the committee of my noble friend Lord Plant rejected nomination in favour of a fully elected second Chamber. In giving the John Smith memorial lecture in 1996, no less a personage than the Prime Minister said:
"We have always favoured an elected Second Chamber".
I draw veils over the manifestos on which we fought the elections in 1997 and 2001.
And what of the electorate? The results were published today of a poll by a reputable polling organisation produced for Charter 88. The favoured options for reform of the House of Lords were as follows: "don't know": 10 per cent; wholly appointed House: 3 per cent; largely appointed: 5 per cent; 50–50 elected-appointed: 28 per cent; largely elected: 22 per cent; wholly elected: 33 per cent. If my arithmetic is right, according to this poll, 83 per cent of the population favour a House in which there is at least a 50–50 division between elected and appointed elements.
This is a historic occasion—"historic" is an overworked word; but, in a sense, it applies. We will not have another chance to reform the second Chamber for a very long time. I hope that, as a result of deliberations here and in another place, the opportunity will not be missed yet again.
5.11 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I know from conversations with many colleagues on these Benches that we share the widespread gratitude to the members of the Joint Committee for this report. It is clear, concise and balanced. The House owes deep gratitude to the Members of this House and of another place for producing it.
In Monopoly terms, it feels as if the report and the Joint Committee have got us out of gaol and back to "Go". We have not yet been able to collect £200, and, unless we address the board game a little differently, we face the prospect of ending up in gaol yet again on this subject. That will happen if we consider the problem as being narrowly about this House. The issue is the construction of the second Chamber. Our challenge concerns the quality of our parliamentary democracy and institutions. Surely, the opportunity of the Joint Committee in bringing two Houses together to look at the matter is for them to work together, not for one House to instruct the other about how it should construct its life. The task is to find agreement.

595
I remember the words of the late and sadly missed Lord Jenkins of Hillhead on 10th January last year, when we debated the White Paper on the subject. Of the White Paper, he said:
"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".
He quoted from a letter to The Times by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, saying:
"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"'.
Lord Jenkins continued:
"That leads me to a further difficulty about constructing an acceptable new shape for an elected Chamber at present. There is a widespread view—
noble Lords will remember these words,
"which, on balance, I share, that such a second Chamber should not be a rival to the House of Commons … 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" —[Official Report, 10/1/02; cols. 700–01]
I remember those words sinking in during the debate.
Unless we can answer the question, "what is this House for?" we shall never get its construct right. The report does not envisage—and, I am sure, rightly—any change in the conventions of the power of this House within the parliamentary system. So the future House broadly continues the traditions as we have received them.
The things we do well are scrutinising and revising legislation. I sat here, as did others on these Benches, for the debate on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, which was not one of the most marvellous pieces of legislation Her Majesty's Government have brought into Parliament. We are here to broaden political debate; to assist in guarding the constitution; to share the task of calling the executive to account—that is urgently needed, given the powers of government today—and, dare l say from these Benches, to bring the spiritual and moral aspects of our public life to the fore.
In considering how we can bring a greater legitimacy to this House by reforming its construct, we need to ask what sort of people need to be here to do those tasks. We have a choice between what I call the "old" politics and the emerging "new" politics. The old politics would answer the question, "who do we need here?" by proposing another 600 professional and party-selected politicians to be added to the 650 already in another place. Alternatively, they would propose 300 of the same, or even a significant proportion, who would be elected on a one-party ticket by 30 per cent—let us be generous: 30 to 40 per cent—of those going to the polls, or nominated by bodies elected by those proportions. Will that lead to this House doing its work better? And will it lead to the public having confidence in the work done on their behalf?
596
The new politics looks at what representation might mean and how it might meet today's needs. It seeks to answer the vital question: how are people to be encouraged to bring their voice to bear more directly on our public and political life? Direct elections are fundamental to democracy. That is why we need to consider both Houses in the frame together. But people are asking how direct elections in the modern political world can be complemented and enriched. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, has spoken eloquently on these themes in the past. I am sorry that we shall not hear his wisdom in this debate.
This debate could be quite sterile: on the one hand, elections; on the other, appointment. The first option fails to capture people's imagination today; the second looks like we are saying we do not want much change. The debate must get beyond that level if it is to capture the imagination.
I shall share some stark facts about how we are represented. I do not intend to cause offence. The total number of members of the party supporting the Government, the party supporting the Official Opposition, and the minority parties in Parliament is lower than the number attending Church of England churches last Sunday.
The people have themselves represented in a variety of ways. We all struggle about how to get people to commit themselves to inherited traditional institutions. For those reasons, people are trying new styles of politics and forming partnerships. The south-east of England regional assembly contains a significant element of people representing voluntary agencies and includes two members representing faith communities who work alongside local government representatives and those representing the community in other ways. There is growing recognition that many people in a multitude of roles represent the community and need to be brought inside our political life.
The crunch question facing us, and in many international contexts, is how to give a voice to the people through the many faces of their common life. Is it not odd, therefore, that at a moment in history when these challenges are bubbling up all over the place, we are thinking of reducing Parliament—the people's Parliament—to a narrow place for politicians alone? I am glad that the report identifies the issue and that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, set his face against it in introducing the debate.
By a quirk of history, we are still here. Every endeavour to reform this House has not succeeded. However, I accept the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Richard; this gives us the opportunity to see whether, in the parliamentary process, there is another way of representing the people in a complementary way alongside the House of Commons. What an irony it will be if we miss that opportunity.
This is not the time to dwell on the complex issues to do with the presence of bishops as Lords Spiritual. When the moment comes and we want to get on with this business on these Benches, we shall look for inclusivity and creative ideas. There shall be no defensiveness here about our position.

597
Earlier this afternoon, we were discussing the threat of war in the Middle East. Complex issues of religious belief, which has such a deep impact on what matters to people, are at play. The Middle East is the cradle of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Since yesterday we have watched the Finsbury Park mosque on the news and the issues that it raises. No one has a chance of tackling these confusing and complex problems without recognising the power of religious belief for good or ill. In our country and in this House, people have been on these Benches to bring faith to bear for good on our political life and on the practice of government. Surely this is not the time to narrow the life of Parliament to the realm of professional politics; it is certainly not the time further to secularise our national institutions and debate.
5.23 p.m.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, we are looking at the wrong topic from the wrong starting point. The true issue is not House of Lords reform but parliamentary reform. An unreformed House of Commons ensures that there must be a second Chamber. It must perform much the same functions as it performs now and be equipped to perform those functions. Nor is the correct starting point the composition of the House of Lords. Function and size must come first. Composition must be related to function and size must not be excessive. When we come to composition, we do not start with an empty sheet. There are, of course, a substantial number of appointed life Peers.
Within these constraints, what should be the basis for new creations? Should all new Peers be elected? If not, should some be? If so, by reference to what principle, if any, does one determine the proportion?
We all believe in elections and representative government. That means essentially two things. First, the representative House of Parliament—the House of Commons—must be, as it is, entirely elected. Secondly, that wholly elected House must be supreme, as essentially it is. Its supremacy must not be diluted. The second Chamber must then complement, not duplicate or threaten, the first Chamber.
The second Chamber does not need to be elected. The need for election is met by the House of Commons. Those offering themselves for election have access to the House of Commons, the European Parliament, local authorities and, under the present Government, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Greater London Authority. There is no evidence of which I am aware that the public believe that there is a substantial pool of unused or under-utilised talent upon which to draw for further elections.
Not only is the need for election and representation well met by other bodies, to which regional assemblies may soon be added, but the House of Commons and, indeed, other wholly elected public bodies demonstrate what happens when one has a wholly elected body. The upside is obvious, but there are also downsides. First, the House of Commons tends increasingly to consist of full
598
timers. However, those who can contribute only part of their time have a vital role to play, as this House strongly demonstrates. Secondly, a Member who is independent of any party is a rare event in the House of Commons. By contrast, one of the undoubted strengths of this House is the Cross-Benchers. Some of the best people here, Cross-Benchers and those who take party Whips, would not have stood for election. Election, party political support and finance are effectively inseparable.
In terms of public attitude, it all depends on what question we ask. It is by no means self-evident that people would give a resounding yes to such questions as: do you want the standard of debate in the House of Lords to be assimilated to that of the House of Commons? Do you want the thoroughness of legislative scrutiny in the House of Commons to be reproduced in the House of Lords? Do you want the House of Lords to be as polarised, partisan and party-dominated as the House of Commons? Do you want the House of Lords to be much more expensive? There is no doubt that an entirely elected House would be massively expensive and exclude most suitable candidates. I suggest that an entirely elected House would not be a sensible option. It would greatly reduce the existing strengths of this House, with little benefit in return. Reform should concentrate, rather, on the methods of appointment.
A hybrid House is surely the worst of all worlds. A Chamber consisting partly of those elected and paid and partly of those appointed and not paid is surely a nonsense. It simply represents a failure to decide between appointment and election.
In truth, no one bothered about appointment, even appointments made exclusively by the Prime Minister of the day, when it was the only legitimate element in a House otherwise dominated by hereditaries. The Government's welcome abolition of the hereditary element in two stages is no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water.
We should keep the existing appointed Peers and add to them, but with appropriate provisions in relation to appointment. Total or part election is not the answer and would do much more harm than good. It would be a populist response that would ultimately, I believe, prove deeply unpopular in the long term.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I want to deal today with one fashionable false argument. We have just heard it repeated in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie. It rests on the simple slogan "no hybrid House". Its proponents, from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor down, imply that they are indifferent to whether we have a wholly elected or a wholly appointed House, but reject as "nonsensical hybridity", as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, put it, any outcome between the two extremes. What short memories they have. Did not the Government's own White Paper propose a hybrid House with 20 per cent of Members elected and 80 per cent appointed?
What is so wrong, anyway, with a hybrid House? The word "hybrid" can sound vaguely disreputable, smacking perhaps of Bills that have to be sent back or

599
strange hybrid forms of plant life. However, the thesaurus simply says that hybrid means "mixture", "compound" or "combination". It actually comes from the Latin, meaning the offspring of a Roman father and a foreign mother. I would have thought that that was a stimulating and vigorous combination.
Every day we use thousands of hybrid words, such as jollification, television, disbelieve, bureaucracy, speedometer, genocide and microwave. Hybridity makes the language that we are speaking here today one of the richest and most effective in the world—and so it can be in the reform of this House.
As my noble friend Lady Williams pointed out, and as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, made clear in his very constructive contribution, this House is hybrid already in the way in which the Members are chosen and contribute to its work. The arrival of life Peers since the 1950s and reduction of the number of hereditaries in 1999 are the most striking signs of change. An independent commission to make appointments independently of the Prime Minister could produce a significant change in the long run. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I who arrived in this place in 2000 were partly elected in that we fought a primary election within the party before our leader picked us. Who knows what the modernising tendency in the Conservative Party will lead its selection process to in future?
The first report of the Joint Committee puts the no-hybrid House nonsense argument firmly back in its box. It states:
"Some of the options we set out below involve a mixed House of appointed and elected members, on the basis that neither arrangement on its own would produce the right blend of members. Some commentators have feared difficulties with a 'mixed' House on account of certain members appearing to have greater 'legitimacy' than others, but the House has for a considerable time been a mixture of appointed and hereditary peers".
The House faces a stark choice when we vote on the seven options on 4th February. If we support those options with a substantial elected element, we will be seen to be seeking common ground rather than confrontation with the House of Commons. We will be sending the Joint Committee into the final phase of our work with a realistic target and a real chance of a successful united outcome. If, on the other hand, this House rejects all the options for a substantial elected element, and votes just for an appointed second Chamber or the 20 per cent elected option that sank with the Government's late unlamented White Paper, reform will run into the sand. A wide gap between the votes of the Commons and Lords will almost certainly lead to a split Joint Committee, producing majority and minority reports and no reform in this Parliament.
The danger is that the Government would then announce that reform by agreement had failed and include whatever they fancied as their own plan in their next general election manifesto, which they might force through this House using the Parliament Act. Is that really what we want? If not, let us read the writing on the NA/all and vote for options that will let the Joint Committee bring forward a plan made in Parliament, not in 10 Downing Street. We should think back to the labels used in the great battles over the powers of this
600
House 90 years ago. I ask the "ditchers" to think again and remember how much the "hedgers" managed to preserve by choosing compromise in 1911.
If there is any significant appointed element in a reformed House, the overriding priority for the new independent statutory appointments commission proposed by the Joint Committee must be to appoint more women to this place. How else can it possibly ensure a "quality of representativeness" as the report says? There are 549 life Peers, 109 of whom are women, which is just under 20 per cent. In this House there are 143 hereditary Peers, bishops and Law Lords, of whom four are women. In total, therefore, there are only 113 women Members, which is under one-sixth of the House. I notice that 14 are down to speak in this debate, which is 14 per cent.
The new statutory commission can prow that it really means business by starting its work with at least half its Members women and chaired by a woman who will be a regular attender in this House. The Higgs review, published yesterday, describes non-executive directors of leading British companies as,
"mainly white men close to retirement age".
The House of' Lords, with its average age of 68, is mainly white men past retirement age. If we are to be truly representative of Britain, we must change as well.
5.35 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, it was a great privilege to be a member of the Joint Committee. I reassure your Lordships that although I am a hereditary Peer and therefore, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, a bastard, I do not intend to follow our Convenor in suggesting that hereditaries should be allowed to stand. Instead, as the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and I were the only two independents among a membership of 24 on the Joint Committee. I want to speak about the position of independent non-political Members in any reformed second Chamber.
By "Independents" with a capital "I", I mean those who sit in this House without any political allegiance and who are free of Whip and party pressure. In labelling those people independent, I do not in any way overlook or underrate the fact that there is a considerable degree of independence displayed by many noble Lords who sit on the political Benches. I shall return to the value of that independence and the need to ensure that it continues.
All previous reports on the future of the House have recognised the importance and value of the independent element in the House and recommended procedures to create a separate quota of places for independents appointed by a commission. By the time the Select Committee of the House of Commons reported, it was able to identify the principle that,
"Approximately 20 per cent of the members of the second chamber should be independent of any party",
as a fundamental question on which there was general agreement on all fronts. That seems to have been reflected by the contributions so far in this debate.

601
Everyone would accept, as the Royal Commission said and the House of Commons Select Committee recognised, that appointment as opposed to election provides the only sure way in which to secure a reasonable proportion of independent members. Even in the House of Commons, the election of an Independent is a rarity occurring only in special circumstances. With larger and less personal constituencies such as are envisaged for elections in this House, the chances of an election for an Independent are even more remote. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said, most of the individuals who would be suitable to be Independent Members are unlikely to be willing to stand for election, nor would they have the resources to do so. It therefore follows that a vote for a wholly elected House is an unequivocal statement by the voter that he rejects the unanimous views of all who have reported so far and sees no useful value in an independent presence in the new House. For that reason alone, although there are many other reasons, I hope that noble Lords will completely reject the all-elected option.
I also sound a warning note against Option 4, which is 20 per cent appointed and 80 per cent elected. At first blush, that might seem to accommodate the need for an independent presence taking up the 20 per cent appointed places and leaving all the politicians to be elected. Quite apart from the point that any 80/20 or 20/80 split would smack of tokenism, a 20 per cent appointed element would not sufficiently provide for adequate independent representation.
It is accepted that the Prime Minister, and perhaps Opposition leaders, must have the power to make occasional Front Bench appointments. Then there are the special appointments, such as ex-Speakers and others, and the Law Lords and religious representatives of whatever kind. If there was a 20 per cent limit on appointments, all those would eat into the independent representation and render Independents an endangered species. Unless noble Lords reject the need for a proper independent element, one cannot accept any option that does not provide for 40 per cent, at the very least, of the reformed House to be appointed.
I emphasise that all appointments—I emphasise "all"—must be in the hands of a sound and strong commission, independent of party influence and with a real knowledge of the workings of the House, established by a statute containing clear parameters for appointments. It is vital that the appointments system is not, and is not seen as, political patronage.
I turn to some general comments of my own on the other issues presented by the report. My first observation, which I make with some diffidence, is that, whereas most of your Lordships have given deep and wise thought to the issues involved, the approach of many others to this matter is simplistic and is determined without any real understanding of the complexities involved. Many people simply rely on the mantra, "Election good, appointment bad". They do not appear to have applied their mind, first, to the question of who would want to stand for regular election to the second Chamber. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, listed the experts taking part in the debate and
602
rhetorically asked whether they would run for election. I would ask whether senior politicians—such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, himself—after a long career in another place involving numerous elections and constant constituency obligations, would be prepared to commit themselves to a further series of periodic elections in order to obtain and retain a seat in the second Chamber. With equal confidence, I believe that the answer to that question is a resounding, "No". I see the noble and learned Lord—and indeed some of his colleagues—nodding. In that case, are the candidates for election to this House to be mainly those who cannot secure a nomination for candidature for the House of Commons? If so, that hardly strikes one as a recipe for an ideal or even a very legitimate House.
Nor, perhaps more importantly, have devotees of election taken on board the substantial consequences of having a wholly elected House. To me, it seems almost inevitable that one of those consequences would be that there would cease to be any reason why the second Chamber should in the last resort defer to the wishes of the elected House. Many of our colleagues from another place seem to think that the present situation and the relationship of ultimate deference is enshrined in constitutional law and can be altered only by legislation—a view which, surprisingly, seems to be shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. However, the reality of the position was set out with complete clarity in a paper written by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, which was undoubtedly the most valuable single contribution to the deliberations of the committee and which has largely been repeated in his excellent speech today. He has explained how the relationship between the Houses rests very largely on conventions voluntarily adopted by this House, from which this House could at any time depart if it felt that, in the new order of things, the rationale underlying the convention had gone.
The basis of the Salisbury convention was the fact that the Commons is elected and that we are not, and that this House was in those days politically extremely unbalanced. If this House becomes a wholly elected body, that rationale is gone and surely the convention goes with it. As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said in the debate before Christmas on the British constitution, there is a great risk that Members in another place will vote for an elected or largely elected element and yet insist that the status quo as regards power remain the same. If they do that, he said, they will simply set the scene for a bitter struggle between the Houses.
The natural conclusion of much of this is in favour of a wholly appointed House. However, it may be necessary to temper that ideal with realism. We do not yet know what another place will say, particularly if, as the newspapers tell us, the Prime Minister comes out in favour of a wholly appointed House. However, I believe that it is vitally important that the reform of this House proceeds on a consensual basis and that, to this end, it may be necessary for us to be willing to compromise and make it plain that we would accept a hybrid House that was partly elected and partly

603
appointed—perhaps 40 per cent elected, or perhaps, ultimately, 50/50. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, in his reasons for that proposition.
It is vitally important that the only questions left outstanding—tenure, re-election and reappointment, remuneration, religious representation, the appointments commission and the whole issue of transition—are worked out to reach satisfactory solutions with a consensual approach. That will not be achieved if the Government decide that consensus is impossible and seek by diktat to impose a solution of their own devising, although I recognise that that may not be a likely scenario if, as it appears, members of the Government are themselves divided on the best solution.
Finally, I should like to make one point that I think has not been made so far. We have talked a great deal about whether we are to have election or appointment. I would venture to suggest that perhaps more important is the question of tenure and whether there are to be re-elections or reappointment. Members who are here for life have no fear of deselection or electoral rejection and thus are very free—as the Whips will have noticed—of the discipline of their party Whips. If, in contrast, we had a new House which had regularly to be reselected and re-elected or reappointed, the powers of the party mechanism would be very greatly increased and the present robust independence would be greatly diminished and probably almost extinguished. Therefore, when we come to it, in my view, it is going to be very important that we ensure that Members come here, whether by election or appointment, for one, single long term with no prospect of reappointment. That will be necessary to ensure that this House retains its independence.
5.46 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it would be a dull old person who did not express a wry smile at seeing this subject being discussed yet again. It is rather like how, as a child, one watched the carousel go round at a fair. One saw the horses come round and round. Although the same ones came round again and again, that did not stop one watching them. I feel bound to congratulate the members of the Joint Committee on being prepared to try to tackle this Herculean problem, but I find it impossible to congratulate them on the result. I say that standing next to my noble and learned friend Lord Howe; perhaps I ought to stand a pace to the rear.
The first quality which the Joint Committee says it is necessary for a second Chamber to have is the word with which my noble and learned friend found such discomfort—legitimacy. He went on to say that he thought that hereditary Peers equated with illegitimacy. I must say that I thought that that was putting it a bit far. However, I was glad that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, said that if all hereditary Peers were to go at one fell swoop, it would leave an awful hole. I think that he is quite right. I do not say that out of any sense of self-preservation, because I will frizzle into anonymity either at the
604
behest of Parliament or at the behest of the Almighty, but it actually is a fact that if all hereditary Peers go, there will be a great hole.
Legitimacy is an appallingly hackneyed word. It appears in this report over and over again, and it appeared in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, over and over again. It is a buzzword in House of Lords reform; but what does it mean? The Oxford English Dictionary says that it means,
"Conforming to rule and principle. Lawfulness".
There is nothing unlawful or lacking in legitimacy in the House of Lords as it is, or indeed as it was. It conforms with the law. Hereditary Peers were here by law. The House was perfectly legitimate. Now that the hereditary Peers have been discharged, the present House is equally legitimate. It is here by law. So I do hope that we will stop using this wholly inappropriate and offensive word when what we really mean is "acceptable"; and that is, of course, a personal judgment.
I am bound to say that we really are witnessing, if I may be so bold as to say so, the most absurd farce over House of Lords reform. The Government were determined to get rid of hereditary Peers, which is a perfectly understandable point of view if one happens to think that way. So, four years ago, they introduced the House of Lords Bill, which said, "Out they all go". Then, halfway through the passage of the Bill. they said that they wanted 100 back, and so back they came. Now, they say that they want them all to go again. It is hardly the most elegant or intellectual way of reforming the constitution or, indeed, of reforming Parliament.
The Government then said, "We must now have stage two but we do not know what to do". So they set up a Royal Commission. The Royal Commission said, "We do not know what to do either but here are three options". None of those was acceptable, so the Government then set up an all-party committee which said, "We do not know what to do either but here are seven options". If anyone does not think that that is an inappropriate and obtuse way to try to reform Parliament, I can only say that they take a different view from me.
But the absurdity does not end there. We can choose any option provided by the committee between an all-elected Chamber on the one hand and an all-appointed one on the other and, as it were, all stations in between. The one thing that we cannot do, though, is to vote to retain the House which we already have. Yet that is the one which Parliament voted for four years ago. Four years ago we spent hours debating the nuances of reform in the House of Lords Bill. That Bill eventually is what we got and that is what appears in law. Now the all-party committee says, "You cannot keep that. You must not even be asked if you want to keep it. It was all wrong. Do not touch it with the end of a barge-pole". It really makes one wonder what on earth we were doing and why we all wasted so much time four years ago.
Then we are told that we are going to vote on all seven options and that we can each vote on all of them. Another place will do the same. Of course, we have to

605
do it on the same day in case there is some kind of collusion between the two Houses which will make us all go like sheep in one direction. But how will the results of both Houses be co-ordinated? Will the votes of each House on each option be added together so, like a Miss World contest, the one who gets the most votes from both Houses wins? And what counts? Is it the highest number of votes scored or the biggest majority? If one Motion results in 200 votes being in favour and 199 against, presumably those in favour win, albeit with a majority of one. But what if a Motion receives not 200 but only 100 in favour and only three against? The majority is much higher, 97, but the total in favour is much less. Which wins there?
It would seem that between, and including, the two extremes of a totally elected and a totally appointed House, it is hoped that some kind of phoenix will rise up out of the ashes and we can all, like the reaction of footballers to a goal being scored, jump up and down and hug it and say, "Hoorah. Well done. That is the answer". I find it hard to believe that that is the right way to reform Parliament.
Four years ago the Government knew what they wanted and they propelled their view through Parliament. Now the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—there he is smiling as usual and I am glad to see that—who is in charge of House of Lords reform says, "The Government have arrived at no view as yet but we shall be listening to the debate"—I am glad as that did not happen on the previous occasion—"and looking at the votes. Some 'genius'—a lovely word—"will have to make sense of the votes. I am pleased to say that that genius is the Joint Committee". Well, you cannot get much more of a volte-face than that, can you?
I am perfectly clear as to what I think should be done, and that is that it would be wrong for this House to be elected. There is one elected Chamber and that is the House of Commons. That is where the power lies and where it should lie. This House should not seek to vie with the House of Commons or to usurp its authority. If it is elected, it will do both. The present Members of another place may say that they want an elected second Chamber—I cannot understand why—but their successors will hate it.
My noble and learned friend Lord Howe reminded us of the astonishing expertise that was made available on the human cloning Bill. He asked the telling question to which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, referred: how many of the people involved with that Bill would have wanted to stand for election? Like my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, my guess is not many. They would not have the time or the inclination to do so. But they were highly valuable.
A partly elected and partly appointed House would be an impossible compromise, whatever the mix. The elected ones would always consider themselves to be the top dogs and the appointed ones to be their inferiors. The elected ones would always jump up and down at Question Time—heaven forbid, it would be worse than it is at the moment—to try to appear in the media. If a constituent wrote to a Member of
606
Parliament about something over which he was aggrieved and he received no satisfaction, he would then write to his elected Peer. If he received satisfaction from the elected Peer—which he did not receive from the Member of Parliament—one can just imagine the kind of relations which would exist between the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
If there were to be, say, 600 Members of the House of Lords, of which 20 per cent were elected, there would be 120 elected Peers. But they would have five times as many constituents as have the 660 Members of the House of Commons. Most MPs have about three helpers: research assistants, secretaries and so on. With five times as many constituents, would elected Peers need five times the amount of help as an MP has? Perhaps not, but they would need a great deal more than they have at present. If elected Peers were to be paid—and they would have to be—unelected ones would also have to be paid. Then the House of Lords, together with its new army of research assistants and secretaries, would vote for another Portcullis House just like the House of Commons has, and up would go the cost. Another place costs £380,000 per Member. The House of Lords costs £85,000 per Member. That modest figure would change radically.
This is all done in order to try to find some intellectual fulcrum which does not exist upon which to build a new House. With all its drawbacks, an appointed House would be infinitely better than an elected one. But why does one need to have a revamped appointments commission? For goodness sake, the appointments commission was appointed only four years ago. Some £100,000 was spent on head-hunters to try to find the most appropriate people to put on it, and now it is said that it must be revamped. Who will the new people be? From where and how will they be found? What is wrong with the present commission? What makes anyone think that the new one will be any better than the existing one? In my view, the more we stir this water, the more the mud comes to the surface and the deeper into it we get.
I am not surprised that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, together with his right honourable friend the Prime Minister, are reputed to be sick and tired of the whole thing and wish that it was all over. The whole point of any reform should be that a new House will be better than the one which we already have. I offer again to the Government and to your Lordships the advice given many years ago by someone who was not then a Member of this House—I refer to Lord Attlee—"It works rather well. Leave it alone".
5.57 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I welcome the report of the Joint Committee as the basis for debating the future of your Lordships' House.
The report of the Joint Committee embodies a fundamental premise; that is, that the second Chamber should be complementary to the elected first Chamber. In this, the Joint Committee is not alone. The same premise underpinned the report of the Bryce Commission in 1917, the conference of 1948 and the proposals of the Labour

607
government in 1968. It is a premise that I accept for the reasons that I shall give. It determines how I shall vote on the seven options identified by the committee.
I shall vote for the option of an all-appointed Chamber. I shall do so because an appointed Chamber alone can, and does, add value to the political process in a way that the alternatives on offer cannot.
There are two fundamental benefits to having an appointed second Chamber. First, it ensures that the accountability of the political system is maintained. Accountability is at the heart of a democratic system. Under a system of representative democracy the people have to be able to elect, and to call to account, those who determine public policy. In the United Kingdom there is one body—the party in government, elected through the House of Commons— which is responsible for public policy. A party is returned to office on the basis of a manifesto placed before the electorate. If the government make mistakes or fail to fulfil their promises, electors. can sweep them from office. Election day is, in the words of the late Sir Karl Popper, "judgment day". An appointed second Chamber is not in a position to challenge the political supremacy of the elected first Chamber. Ultimately, the House of Commons can get its way. That may be after due consideration, and in its wisdom it may take on board proposals from this House, but ultimately it can prevail. As such, accountability to electors is maintained.
Secondly, an appointed Chamber can fulfil functions that the elected Chamber has neither the political will nor the time to carry out. This House fulfils a vital function of legislative revision. That function was clearly identified by the Bryce Commission and has been fulfilled to great effect. That point is generally conceded, and was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in his excellent speech. Legislative revision can be identified as an essential and distinctive function.
The House also fulfils functions that are desirable although not exclusive to it. Those were identified by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, and include scrutiny and debate. The House scrutinises not only Ministers and domestic policy, but notably European legislation. In so doing, it dovetails neatly with the scrutiny carried out in another place. The House of Commons goes for breadth and the House of Lords goes for depth. This House debates issues that frequently fall outside the party conflict of another place and which are important to different groups in society. It has the capacity to bring new issues on to the parliamentary agenda.
The House is able to fulfil those functions because it has a membership that is different from that of another place. I make no comment on quality. The fundamental point is that the Members of this House are drawn from backgrounds that are not the same as those of Members of another place. This is pre-eminently a House of experience and expertise. I stress experience; it is not only a question of expertise. I have previously characterised it as a full-time House of part-time Members, Members able to come in as appropriate to offer the benefit of their knowledge and experience. As such, this House adds value: it complements the work of another place.
608
It is those two fundamental benefits that, taken together, make a compelling case for an appointed Chamber. A predominantly or wholly elected Chamber has the capacity to rid the political system of the first benefit. If Members of the second Chamber are elected, they will sooner or later demand powers commensurate with the fact of election. Why should they not do otherwise? It would be difficult to resist the claim. Once they have those powers, the fundamental accountability of the system is lost. If clashes between the Chambers result in policies not acceptable to citizens, whom do citizens hold to account? If the two Chambers start making deals independent of the wishes of electors, what can voters do about it? Having two elected Chambers is a recipe for buck-passing and policy outcomes that may bear no relation to what electors actually want.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, seems to think that the existence of the Parliament Acts will be able to constrain an elected second Chamber. The reason we have those Acts is that the other Chamber is elected and this House is not. Once we have an elected second Chamber, we destroy the basis on which those Acts were passed.
A part-elected House has the capacity to undermine the second benefit. Having some elected Members will not add value to the tasks fulfilled by the present House. If anything, they will be value-detracting. They will, in terms of the argument advanced for them by proponents, be pointless. A number of elected Members will not confer electoral legitimacy on the House as a whole. The argument for a part-elected House is based on the acceptance of having some Members who are not elected, and who therefore must have some legitimacy deriving from features other than election. That legitimacy will not be bolstered by the election of some other Members. They are, in essence, separate legitimacies. The argument advanced for a part-elected House thus strikes me as a logical nonsense. No one has yet managed to square the circle and explain how the electoral legitimacy of some Members will transfer and embrace the membership as a whole.
The election of some Members will inject an element of instability while delivering no obvious benefits. As some noble Lords have touched on, why will electors bother to vote if it is a small number to be elected? For what will they be voting? Who will bother to stand, and what will they be able to bring to the second Chamber that is of greater benefit than the attributes of those appointed Members that they will, in effect, be displacing? There is no clear benefit to be derived from the injection of elected Members; they will, if anything, be value-detracting.
The case for an appointed Chamber is thus, I contend, compelling. To support the all-appointed option is not necessarily to be against change. To criticise the present method of appointment is not to make the case for election. It is to make the case for a different method of appointment. A point made quite powerfully earlier this afternoon in another place by the chairman of the Joint Committee was that reform of the appointments process can ensure that Members are drawn from a wider range of backgrounds. An

609
independent and proactive appointments commission can ensure that people of ability are recognised and brought in. We can draw already on expertise in a wide range of areas, but there are some gaps in our knowledge. An appointments commission can ensure that those gaps are filled.
To be in favour of an appointed Chamber is not to be against radical parliamentary reform. I am in favour of overhaul of the legislative process, including in this House, but the most significant change required is not here but in another place.
Those who blithely claim that an elected second Chamber is necessary in what they call a "modern democracy" seem incapable of thinking beyond the slogan. The accountability that is the core of a representative democracy is best served by retaining a single elected, and hence politically supreme, Chamber. A second Chamber is worth while so long as it complements the first, fulfilling distinctive and worthwhile functions. That is what we have, and it is worth fighting for. On 4th February I shall vote for the all-appointed option and against all the others.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow a speech such as the one that we have just heard, and indeed to participate in this historic debate. In preparation for it, I reminded myself of the debates in this House on what became the Reform Act 1832, especially the great speeches of the Duke of Wellington. Noble Lords will remember that he excoriated the then Bill as "mere democracy".
It behoves those of us who are at least sceptical of mass election to this place to ask how our words and arguments today will resound in 200 years from now. Will we seem absurd creatures, as the Duke of Wellington now does, or will things be very different? Will future generations marvel at the hyper-democracy that is the fashion of our age, in which all other previously recognised qualifications for legitimacy, such as experience, intelligence, impartiality and expertise, count as nothing?
Elections in Britain are in crisis, with turnout slumping and new elections failing everywhere to attract the attention of the electorate. One need only look at the turnout for some of the referendums on elected mayors. Therefore, will people wonder that the preference of the Commons was to invent yet another unwanted election in which people will abstain? Will they understand the argument used by those in favour of election—that it will increase legitimacy—when the likely turnout in any election is around 30, 25 or 20 per cent and when most such elections will happen under the closed list system that seems to be preferred, in which people vote simply for a party list?
Many valid arguments have been made against election in this debate, but I want to add one of my own that might be slightly different. I very much agree with the Joint Committee that the system whereby the Members of this House are chosen depends wholly on its function. I am in favour of two functions that have
610
been mentioned widely in the debate, which are our function of revising legislation, and what I like to call the "think again" function, where we say to another place, "Are you sure you are not rushing this? We want you to think again". Everything that needs to be said on those topics was said by Mr Peter Riddell in The Times today.
Another function, which is much less remarked on, may be more important; it is that in this House we have a corpus of people with a broad interest in public life but who are not wholly dominated by party. That is why, when the Government set up a committee of inquiry, they very often choose a Member of this House to chair it. The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, chaired the inquiry into audit and the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, went up to Burnley to study the race riots there. Neither of those noble Lords is in his place. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who is in his place, chaired the Royal Commission on this place.
We are sent here with a duty to attend to public affairs, to act as a repository of public expertise and knowledge and to contribute to broad national debates from our relatively detached position. Elected Members, wherever they are, hold a different function. They hold a different duty to those who elected them and perhaps even more so—judging by practice—to the party that selected them. That means that an elected House simply could not perform the function of providing that corpus of broadly dispassionate but informed opinion, which is the chief glory of this House.
The whole point of having two Houses of Parliament is that they should be different. Choosing Ministers, holding governments to account and, if necessary, even bringing them down are the functions of the Commons, and for those tasks there is no substitute for election. But what is the point of having two competing Chambers doing precisely the same thing? That is like a man who has a large Rolls-Royce in the garage who thinks, "I will have a second car. I shall go and buy a Bentley". That is mad. What he needs is a Mini to do the other job of running round town collecting the shopping.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I am glad to be the source of such innocent amusement.
I turn to my final point. Many noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is in his place—are conservatives, with a small "c"; I am sure that they would endorse that description of themselves. They are against change. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who resisted the first reform of the House, is now resisting the second; and if there are third, fourth and fifth reforms, we can be sure that the noble Earl will be in his place resisting them, too. I entirely respect the conservative views and I understand where they are coming from.
However, neither I nor quite a lot of my noble friends, who take the view that too much election is not a good thing for this place, are conservatives; some of

611
us—I place myself in this camp—are radical about this place. I do not believe that we are as effective an institution as we should be. I believe that we create enemies by too much flummery and mumbo-jumbo; in particular, the phrase "the upper House" is a red rag to the bull down in the Commons.
Despite the good changes that have been introduced, our procedures still creak. In my view, the role of the Whips in this place has increased, is increasing and should be diminished. The appointments system, even as revised, is not working. Noble Lords will not be surprised, in view of my earlier remarks, to learn that although I admire and will in due course miss many of my hereditary colleagues, I do not believe that it is acceptable to sit in this place by birthright.
So, I am a radical about this place; that places me in a minority, but I am used to that. I am a root-and-branch reformer. However, I reject one reform: that of substantial election, which would be a change for the worse, not for the better. When we come to vote on 4th February, I expect to find myself in the Lobby with some unfamiliar confrères. However, I am happy to unite with them to resist a fashionable nostrum that would do nothing to repair our existing faults and which would simply add some worse ones on top of them.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, there is an anecdotal story of a former Speaker of the House of Commons who, faced with a difficult point of order, leaned forward and whispered to the learned Clerk in front of him, "What do I do next?". The Clerk leant back and gave him some wise advice, which was, "Sir, I should be very cautious". It is in that spirit that I approach the debate this afternoon.
I must confess that when I first joined the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform I had a slight inclination to support the Wakeham commission report, which was then supported by the subsequent government White Paper. However, the more that the committee probed the pros and cons of having elected Members of your Lordships' House, the more I came to the conclusion that the threats to the supremacy of the Commons were not only unacceptable but unnecessary. Despite previous votes in another place, many of my old friends down there now realise that there is a considerable threat to them if there were an elected element in your Lordships' House.
I do not know how many noble Lords have noted Early-Day Motion 529 on today's Commons Order Paper, which calls for the abolition of your Lordships' House. It notes that,
"much of the impetus for House of Lords reform stems from concerns about the effectiveness of the House of Commons; and would support proposals for a unicameral solution coupled with reform of the House of Commons".
In view of the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford about the views of Lord Jenkins on this matter, I agree with that; the House of Commons probably needs more reform than your Lordships' House.
612
I shall not repeat the arguments that have already been made in favour of an appointed House. I wholly support the admirable analysis and conclusions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe or Aberavon, and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who is, as noble Lords know, chairman of the Constitution Committee.
I also support the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, about the importance of a Cross-Bench element in your Lordships' House. In a fully elected House there would be no place for Cross-Benchers; that is not an option that I support. The Joint Committee option of a partially elected House is also, in my view, suspect.
I was, until I handed over to a much younger man the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—president of the scouts in Kent. I regularly visited constituencies in Kent, notably in the north of the county, where there were complaints that Members of the European Parliament interfered in affairs in constituencies. Members of the European Parliament are not, of course, always around; they should be, and frequently are, in Brussels or Strasbourg. An elected Member of your Lordships' House would have every right to go to those constituencies. There is no way in which those elected Members would not go to constituencies and preach their political gospels in the constituencies of Labour and Conservative Members.
Furthermore, to add yet another tier of government to the regions would create even greater apathy among the electorate, encouraging that quip of the much-lamented Lord Whitelaw about stirring up apathy. Is not one of the reasons that there is such apathy among the electorate that there are too many elections? We do not need any more.
By general acceptance, the present House is working well and performing its duty of scrutinising legislation, holding the Government to account and occasionally asking the Government to think again. I believe that we need to mark the lessons of history. When the people of the United States set about framing their constitution, it was envisaged that Congress would be, like another place, the dominant Chamber and that the Senate, like your Lordships' House, would be advisory and a longstop. Over the centuries those roles have been, to a large extent, reversed. Today, the Senate of the United States, elected by the states—or the regions—is more influential than Congress.
No former Speaker of the House of Commons would wish to see that as the legacy of his vote next week. Therefore, my vote will be for an appointed House. Despite what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, I support the suggestion of our Convenor to adopt what I believe he calls Option 1A, if only to preserve the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who would continue to entertain us with his speeches. Amusing though it was, his speech today contained some very cogent and important thoughts which I commend to your Lordships.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, that the key question is whether there is any overriding objection to a hybrid or mixed House. If there is, then we are left with the simple choice between a fully elected or a fully appointed Chamber. My view is that there is no such objection. It is said that elected Members would always regard themselves—to use the noble Earl's phrase—as the "top dogs" in any such House or as being in some way more legitimate than the non-elected Members and that that might lead to friction. I do not believe for one moment that that will happen. There never was any such friction between the life Peers and the hereditary Peers in the old House until perhaps right at the end, and I see no reason why it should be any different in a reformed House.
Therefore, I agree with the Royal Commission view that a hybrid House is not only workable but also highly desirable. A proportion of elected Members would give the reformed House that legitimacy—I know that that is a word that the noble Earl does not like but for the moment I cannot think of another—which it undoubtedly needs, especially if the elected Members are elected to represent the regions, which seems to me to be important. The balance of appointed Peers would give the House the independence and expertise which is also needed and which is often regarded as one of the great glories of the existing House. For those reasons, I agree very much with the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and also with that of the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
As for the ratio of elected to appointed Members, I would rule out Options 3 and 4 for the same reason as I would rule out Options 1 and 2. That leaves Options 5, 6 and 7. I shall vote for all three of those options but with a marked preference for Option 7—the 50/50 split. In many ways, that seems to give us the best of all worlds. If I have read the Royal Commission report correctly, Option 7 corresponds with Model C, which had the support of at least some members of the Royal Commission. However, in a House of 600 Members, I believe that we should have 300 rather than 195 elected Members, as proposed by the Royal Commission.
An argument in favour of having 300 elected Members is that it would go a long way to securing something which I believe in the theatre world is referred to as "bottoms on seats". I think back to my time on the Review Body on Top Salaries in the early days under the chairmanship of Lord Boyle. I remember the great importance which he always attached to the concept of having a sufficient number of bottoms on seats. It is no good having Ministers addressing an empty House, as so often seems to happen in another place.
Three hundred elected Members would secure a sufficient number of Members to be present and carry out the work of the House but there would not be so many as to challenge the democratic supremacy of the
614
other House. In any event, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard: the supremacy argument seems to be very much overworked. If there is any threat to the other House by a hybrid House here, the Members there do not seem to see it that way. Therefore, I hope that the relationship between the two Houses would continue exactly as it has done in the past, save that, with a hybrid House of the kind that I favour, this House would have greater legitimacy—I am sorry to use the word again—in the country.
The non-elected Members should be appointed by the new statutory appointments commission, as suggested by the Royal Commission. Since they should, in my view, be non-salaried and, for the most part, independent, except possibly for some loose party affiliations, they would be likely to attend less frequently than the elected Members. But they would obviously take part, as they do now, in debates when their expertise was relevant.
Contrary to the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, I see no difficulty at all in having part of the House—the elected Members—paid a salary and part paid allowances, as they are now. If there is a difficulty, I have not seen it spelt out and I hope that, before the debate finishes, we shall know what that difficulty is.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I interrupt the noble and learned Lord in order to understand his position. In which part of the House would he expect to be—the salaried or the unsalaried?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I certainly hope to be in the unsalaried part, as I am at present. I see nothing wrong with that.
How would the 300 appointed Members be made up? Again, the answer is simply to be found by looking around the House as it is now. We would have representatives from the services, diplomacy, medicine and so on. One need not go through the list. I believe that it would be sensible for the appointments commission to be given some kind of guidelines as to how the appointed Members should be made up. Again, I see no difficulty there.
That leaves three other areas for special consideration. In my view, the House would be a poorer place without the bishops. If Parliament is to be the great council of the nation, their presence seems to me to be essential. Happily, the bishops of the Church of England would not need to be appointed. They choose themselves by seniority. However, I would reduce their number from 24 to 18 in order to give room for representatives of other faiths.
Then there must be room for the senior statesmen. They should not—I repeat, not—be appointed by the Prime Minister but by the appointments commission after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leaders of the Opposition parties.
Finally, there are the lawyers. As the function of Parliament is to make the law, it seems inconceivable that we should not have a good supply of lawyers. Furthermore, in my view they should be drawn from

615
the profession as a whole—it is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, smile. All round me I see them. However, one then has to ask: what about the Law Lords? In my view it would be a mistake—I am serious—not to include the Law Lords who in any event, apart from anything else, like the bishops choose themselves.
I am glad to see that the Royal Commission and the Joint Committee both say that the Law Lords should be included in a new Chamber, irrespective of whether they go off at some remote time in the future to form a separate supreme court. In passing, I am totally opposed to that, but that is for another day.
I accept that the serving Law Lords do not have much time to take part in proceedings on the Floor of the House. However, they do good work in committees and after their retirement they can make a useful contribution between the ages of 70 and 75. They have all had five or 10 years in the hurly-burly of the Court of Appeal before reaching the deep peace of the House of Lords. That provides them with a special insight into how legislation works in practice. I would keep the bishops and the Law Lords. This House would have been a poorer place without a Wilberforce and a Scarman.
It is sometimes said that for the Law Lords to sit in the Upper House is contrary to the theory of the separation of powers. I regard that as a nonsense argument. It could possibly be said to apply to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as a member of the executive, but it does not apply to the Law Lords. My reasons for saying, "Why a separation of powers?", which have nothing to do with whether the Law Lords should sit in the legislature, will have to wait until another day.
6.32 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wish to set my contribution in context because I believe that constitutional change should never be considered in isolation. The debate on the future of this House should have been considered within the context of Parliament as a whole, but unfortunately we are where we are.
In the past five years the Government have introduced into Parliament and secured much ill-thought-through constitutional change. What is regrettable about that is the Government's constant refusal to accept voting thresholds that would have to be reached to support constitutional change both in Parliament and in public referenda. Such constitutional changes include the breaking up of the United Kingdom Parliament by devolving powers to a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and a government for London; the introduction of proportional representation using a closed list system for electing Members to the European Parliament; the creation of town mayors; piecemeal reform of the House of Lords and now proposals to create regional government.
Barely 25 per cent of the Welsh people voted for devolution in the referendum. There was a majority of approximately 6,000 votes for the whole of Wales, while 75 per cent of the people either voted against
616
devolution or abstained. That can hardly be deemed the settled will of the people or a sound basis upon which to make constitutional change.
In Scotland, although there was greater support for change, it is interesting to witness the "turf wars" that have broken out between Westminster MPs, Members of the Scottish Parliament who were elected directly by a defined constituency, Members of the Scottish Parliament who were appointed from the party lists system, Members of the European Parliament and local councillors. To add yet another tier of elected Members to this same turf would be ludicrous.
There are those who feel that elected Members of this House could come from the devolved institutions. That would exacerbate to an even greater extent the number of people who can have a say in English affairs while English Members are denied a say in their affairs.
In London the statistics were even worse. A mere 24 per cent of people voted for London government. Only 13 per cent of the electorate voted for the present Mayor, rising to only 15 per cent when one takes second preferences into account. The turnout and support for town mayors also calls into question the basis of support for such changes. As if to cock a snook, the people of Hartlepool elected a man in a monkey suit, and in Bedford, barely 12 per cent of the electorate voted in a referendum for a mayor of Bedford. In the election for mayor the successful candidate was supported by only 12 per cent of the electorate.
As a result of proportional representation through a closed party list system in European elections, the relationship between people and their Members of Parliament is dislocated. For Members of the European Parliament to be successful in future elections they need to be placed high on their party list of candidates, which means that it is the party aparatchiks who need to be impressed by them and not the electorate. When it comes to voting by region, the more densely populated urban areas will hold sway over the rural areas.
Regional government will further divide and rule the people of our country. For regional government to be established, relatively small percentages of the more densely populated urban conurbations will be able to overwhelm the vote of those who live in rural areas. It is already evident that county councils will become extremely vulnerable and, needless to say, the rural communities will find that they are more isolated from their local authorities.
Here in the United Kingdom Parliament, Ministers refuse daily to answer our questions about matters concerning London, Wales and Scotland, and no doubt the consequences of regional government will exclude even more areas from our scrutiny. Meanwhile the Prime Minister and the executive show utter contempt for Parliament. Only today in my area of interest the Secretary of State for Education has chosen not to come to Parliament but to give, using the DfES press notice expression, an "off-camera

617
briefing" to outline plans to launch an education strategy for 14 to 19 year-olds. Needless to say, reporters and photographers were invited.
Cronyism in public appointments is rife and the cost of political advisers, public relations and consultancy services has surpassed all previous records. In a sentence, Parliament has weakened, the executive has strengthened and the axis for decision making is moving to Brussels. Parliament as a whole should be strengthened.
The reason I particularly want to set my comments in context is because I believe that a strong Parliament with a largely independent second Chamber is crucial. Thinking through all of the consequences of constitutional change is also essential before making final decisions.
If an organisation or company, private, commercial, voluntary or public service, was in need of reform the first stage would be to revisit the aims and objectives. Once they were determined one would analyse the organisation's strengths and weaknesses. Then it would be necessary to decide what organisational and structural changes were necessary to achieve the aims and objectives. Only then would one deal with the composition of staffing and personnel issues. But in the case of the House of Lords reform, Parliament as a whole has been ignored and the role, powers and functions of each House have not been defined or agreed ahead of considering composition.
Whether or not at the end of such an exercise it would have been right to have replaced hereditary Peers is open to debate. However, it is sadly the case that the House of Lords Act 1999 had little to do with the role and functions of Parliament or the creation of a stronger Parliament better able to hold the executive to account. It was an act of political malice, and the manner of dismissing our hereditary friends was graceless and unforgivable.
However, we are bound to deal with the propositions before us, which deal exclusively with the composition of this House when all the evidence is that the House of Commons is more in need of reform than this Chamber.
It is not surprising that those, including the Joint Committee of both Houses, who have looked at reform of this House have found it a good deal more complex than expected. An all-elected Chamber, which I do not support, on the face of it looks and sounds the most democratic option. An all-elected Chamber would inevitably challenge the power of the House of Commons and would demand greater authority. Therefore, substantially more powers would need to be ceded to an all-elected second Chamber. The political parties would predominate and the result would be two highly politicised, highly volatile, party-Whip-controlled Chambers and, almost certainly, Titan-like struggles for supremacy between the two Houses would be commonplace. I do not believe that that would, over time, serve the people of this country well.
We have before us five options suggesting various percentages, which range from 20 per cent to 80 per cent, of elected members. It is my personal view that
618
that would prove to be the worst of all possible worlds. This is a House of Peers. When we walk through the Division Lobby we have equal worth. Elected Members of this House would—and I believe rightly—require more powers. They would demand better support, probably salaries and, frankly, over time and as night follows day, they would come to resent non-elected Members, particularly if the non-elected Members were in the majority.
It will come as no surprise that I shall support a wholly appointed second Chamber with little or no change in the balance of powers between the Houses. The Government of the day, through the elected Chamber, should enjoy supremacy and should have ultimate power; and the second Chamber should continue to influence and call government to account through scrutiny, revision, dialogue and, where necessary, by delaying, but not determining, parliamentary business.
Should an all-appointed House be agreed to, there will inevitably be a need to consider the composition of its membership and the method of appointment. However, that is a debate for another day.
Meanwhile, although I regret the passing of the House of Lords Reform Act 1999, this House, with its combination of Peers from all parties, Cross-Benchers, Bishops and Law Lords, has acquitted itself extremely well. We outperform Members of another place in every way. Indeed, it is common to receive Bills from another place with large parts that have had little or no detailed consideration. We strive, often successfully, to put flesh on the bones of an increasing number of skeletal Bills, where the Government rely upon the excessive use of Henry VIII powers, which in turn spawn endless secondary legislation. We sit for more hours, days and weeks than the Commons. We are more conscientious by far in the diligence with which we carry out the detailed scrutiny of legislation.
Courtesy and self-regulation are the hallmarks of this House, and the mix of expertise and informed opinion we bring to our work is admired well beyond these shores.
If I thought that it would secure support, my preferred option would be to leave well alone; to give more time for the earlier reforms to work; to create a truly independent appointments commission, which is underpinned by statute, to deal with the additional members; to encourage Members of another place to be more courageous in holding the executive to account; and, to leave Parliament to get on with considering those matters which affect the everyday lives of the people in our country.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Joint Committee's first report on the reform of the House of Lords. It raises a number of important questions. I want to address three of them.
My first question relates to whether your Lordships' House should be elected, appointed or both, and, if both, in what proportions. There is something to be said for both election and appointment. In any

619
democratic society, public opinion is the only basis and test of legitimacy. In Britain it has remained invariably hostile to an exclusively or predominantly appointed House.
An appointed House has other dangers. No system of appointment can be entirely foolproof and will always remain subject to suspicion and criticism. A wholly or substantially appointed House of Lords will therefore never enjoy full legitimacy. That does not mean that appointment has no merits. It redresses the obvious deficiencies of election because not many talented individuals want to offer themselves for election. An election would not by itself guarantee adequate representation of women, ethnic minorities or regions.
We therefore need both election and appointment. I cannot see how it can be otherwise. The only question is the relative proportions. We should have both in broadly equal proportions. Election guarantees representative legitimacy; appointment ensures expertise as well as a different kind of representative legitimacy. Therefore, both election and appointment have equal claims on our attention.
I have often heard the objection raised against election that it would detract from the pre-eminence of another place. I am not persuaded by that argument, for at least two important reasons. First, it assumes that another place must always remain pre-eminent. I see no reason to share that view. If one carried that assumption to its logical conclusion, we would have to argue that this House should be a mere appendage to the House of Common—a relative constitutional cipher. No one here or in another place shares that view.
Secondly, election can take several forms. Another place is based on geographical representation. We could be based on other systems of election and other forms of representation, such as regional and functional. If that were so there would be no clash of legitimacy or interest between the two Houses. We could identify important professions through their professional bodies, such as the General Medical Council, the Bar Council, the Trades Union Congress, the Association of University Teachers, or the National Union of Teachers, and invite them to elect one or more of their members to your Lordships' House. That would give voice to important but otherwise marginalised groups. It would also add both expertise and representative legitimacy to our deliberations.
Whether Members of your Lordships' House are appointed or elected, it is important that there should be some limit on their tenure. The Joint Committee's report recommends 12 years, which seems about right. A 12-year period is long enough to build up familiarity with the place and short enough to prevent Members from getting stale or taking your Lordships' House for granted.
I also support the Joint Committee's proposal that Members of your Lordships' House should be free to resign when they think they have achieved what they wanted to achieve or that they will never achieve it, or
620
when they feel that it is time to give way to someone better or who has more time. A Member of your Lordships' House with no freedom to resign or retire would normally be defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as in a state of virtual bondage, and could hardly be called a Lord.
I wish to float an idea, which I hope is not too eccentric. In my opinion, Britain is the most internationally minded country. I say that as an academic who has taught in Canada, the United States and elsewhere. Thanks to our imperial history, centuries-old migration and our close ties of trade with other countries, there is hardly a part of the world where British people are not to be found, or to which they are not related by familial, economic and other ties.
As an expression of our internationalism, I suggest that your Lordships' House could provide for four or five what I may call honorary Members. I have in mind people such as Nelson Mandela, Bill Clinton, a past or present president of the European Commission, a past or present Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, a distinguished Nobel laureate with something to contribute to our deliberations or an economist or the status of JK Galbraith. Those men and women could periodically participate in our debates but not enjoy the right to vote. They would be Members of your Lordships' House for a time-bound period.
There are several advantages to that proposal, but I shall describe only three. First, it would reflect and reinforce our internationalism and show that we welcome talent and wisdom from all parts of the world and are not obsessed with narrowly nationalistic notions of sovereignty. Secondly, it would give us the benefit of the presence and views of internationally renowned figures and enrich discussion. Thirdly, it would give Britain's voice in the world what is sadly needed: a unique moral authority and make us what the Prime Minister wants us to be: a beacon for the world. Who knows, such a proposal may even inspire other countries to follow our lead and open up novel forms of international co-operation.
My proposal is not as unusual or eccentric as it may seem on the face of it. After all, we confer knighthood on those who are not citizens of our country. We invite some visiting heads of state to address both Houses of Parliament. The principle involved in my proposal is broadly the same.
For lack of time and expertise I have not gone into the detail of how we might go about appointing or collectively electing such distinguished men and women. That requires more attention than I can give it, but I hope that the idea, or at least the spirit behind it, will engage the sympathy of your Lordships' House.
6.52 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, as a member of the Joint Committee, I could not help noting that we had entered the debate in its 90th year. Admittedly, the pace of the debate warmed up enormously during the past six or seven years—with legislation that we all remember. Nevertheless, it was perhaps fortunate that

621
the Joint Committee could draw on a wide corpus of work from the Royal Commission of my noble friend Lord Wakeham, from White Papers, from the Government's failed attempts to persuade their own party and from other parties engaged in the debate over a long period. It followed that the Joint Committee had an enormous amount of papers and advice on which to draw, from which it was clear that our focus could revolve around the contentious issues.
There was no serious dispute that we needed a second Chamber; and that we cannot determine the composition of that second Chamber until we have agreed on its roles and functions and whether new powers are needed. There was consensus from existing reports and deliberations that no further powers were likely to be granted, even if asked for, and should not be needed. It was clear that there was consensus that this House should continue to fulfil—as it had with varying success over the years—a complementary role to another place. That is an important principle that has not been contradicted so far in the debate. It seems to be common territory.
I find that slightly surprising. If one goes on to say that Parliament needs reforming, that it is not performing effectively and that the executive is getting away with more than it should and needs to be held accountable, one should at least ask a question. Are we satisfied that we do not need to make this House more assertive? Are we satisfied that we should happily reconcile ourselves to having Members, whether elected or appointed, who must recognise that they will be overriden inevitably—and sometimes at an early stage—by another place?
Nevertheless, that has been the consensus and it is only wise to accept that that is common territory. That is not to say that there is agreement that no reform is needed in the way that this House operates. By changing the composition, we shall get reforms. If we think about it, this House has been reforming itself by an evolutionary process at a remarkably rapid pace. We assume that we have always been a revising Chamber. That is not the case but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, reminded us, we now consider that to be our main responsibility.
If we consider the future composition of the House and recognise that, on the whole, we want to keep the roles, functions, powers and even conventions as they are at present, we should analyse the House's strengths and find out what people criticise about it. There is a danger of complacency when Members of this House repeat the litany of its strengths, although I do not see why we should apologise for them.
We recognise that we have a breadth of expertise that it is unusual, to say the least, to find in other legislative Chambers. That comes from our being a part-time Chamber with people of experience who are prepared to perform much detailed work in committees well out of the public gaze, with little acknowledgement or expectation that their work will be recognised. Nevertheless, that work is, on the whole, performed
622
successfully. Those who have seriously examined our scrutiny of legislation—whether European or national—will recognise that it is a job well done.
Before we change the composition, when we recognise that as a strength, it might be just as well to ensure that what is put in its place can perform equally effectively. Of course, if we go for a smaller, fully or largely elected Chamber, it will not be part time and it will be more political. It may be able to perform that scrutiny, but I am not sure that the evidence from another place makes one automatically assume that. I issue a caution. I have spent an awful lot of time in committees during my membership of this House. I should be hesitant to throw out that expertise too rapidly—or, anyway, not to value it highly.
As my noble friend Lord Ferrers reminded us, the weaknesses or criticisms of the House revolve around two concepts. The first is its representativeness—that is a fair criticism, because an awful lot of us are male, over 60, from the South East—and, one can add in my case, a farmer, a landowner. So I accept that we are not very representative. I am certain that whether by appointment or election we could achieve a much wider representation. As my noble and learned friend Lord Howe pointed out, if we want to ensure that we achieve a mix of ages, ethnicity, gender and regions, we shall go for appointment, because we can then achieve precisely the modelling required.
The other weasel word is "legitimacy", to which my noble friend Lord Ferrers took great exception, although I think that he was prepared to use the word "acceptability". To whom are we trying to be acceptable? What are the criteria of acceptability? Those people who stand for election think that to be elected is self-evidently a way to assume acceptability. Does the evidence show that that is always the case? People also say that they are rather suspicious of the encroaching powers of political parties. They do not want the Members of this second Chamber to become creatures of the Whip. They want some independents, with a small "i", or Cross-Benchers. That will clearly be difficult to achieve in a largely elected Chamber.
I accept that, to some people, acceptability will be achieved by a greater degree of election, but I suggest, as did my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, that another arbiter would be identification with Members and respect for their contribution—in other words, their effectiveness. That is not too difficult a concept to get across. When we talk about legitimacy or acceptability, that must be brought into the equation.
So there are two fundamental propositions on which we must decide when we come to vote. Are we really certain that we do not want to be more assertive? If we do want that, we will probably favour a larger elected element. I am a bit cautious about that and favour a large element—perhaps a majority—of appointed Members.
However, I make one strong qualification. I accept that from outside the appointment procedures introduced for the Cross Benches and the previous arrangements for life Peers appear not to meet the criteria of acceptability and identification. That

623
immediately returns us to the question of what on earth will be the brief of the new appointments commission. Who will be on the commission? Its composition is, in a sense, even more critical than the composition of the House itself. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford led us into an interesting discussion on that. Like me, he would also, I think, accept that election is not always the way to get the desired cross-representation. If we want communities to identify with appointments to a second Chamber, we must take a different approach from that taken historically. It cannot be left to the Prime Minister or to a rather remote appointments commission, however many market researchers it employs.
I am not denying that we should have people who come from the community in a very real sense. and with whom people can identify. Although they may lack the "legitimacy" of election, they would, nevertheless, command people's respect, admiration and following. However, I believe that that will be achieved if the appointments commission can be seen to engage in a debate that has never happened before. I hope that, when we vote on the options, we will go for a largely appointed element. However, we must make it clear in this debate that the new appointments commission must be very different from that to which we are accustomed.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, the Cunningham committee has done a thorough job of nailing down the major issues in a deceptively simple report. That was admirably demonstrated by the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. Moreover, the committee picked up the exposition by my noble friend Lord Carter of the conventions of the House. In congratulating the committee, I draw the House's attention to the degree of consensus in the report, although, paradoxically, it has been said that there was polarisation. I hope to throw a little light on that paradox.
Parliamentary democracy and representative democracy in general—in a trade union or in a chamber of commerce—can accommodate different solutions to the issue of selection or election for different functions or chambers. It must be acknowledged that two facets of democracy are entailed. First, chronologically, there is the internal process of selection within the party. I shall call that "leg 1". Secondly, there is the ratio of Members from the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and other parties. I shall call that "leg 2". Regional balance and the fact that we do not have enough people from the North are distinct factors that can and, perhaps, should be accommodated, but that tail cannot be allowed to wag the whole dog. I shall give my reasons for saying that later.
The democratic ratio between the parties in the second Chamber can be ensured in several ways, as the Royal Commission pointed out. Certainly, it does not require us to pull up the whole tree by its roots. That, too, is now a point of consensus, but it is worth underlining because it is not so often spelt out. Moreover, the second Chamber is generally agreed to
624
be different from the first in another respect: I have heard no supporters for a "first past the post" system for the second Chamber.
The selection/election issue is often presented as polar opposites, but internal party democracy for the selection of candidates means that the two approaches have more in common than most protagonists care to admit. We can visualise the sequence: the constituency or multi-constituency party selects the candidate. The electorate then votes, in effect, for the party—not the other way round. Ninety per cent of the reason why most of us are here, why a particular person with a particular political label is a Member of this House or the elected House, is internal party decision.
It is about lists, in this case. The open list system sounds democratic, but, again, questions arise about the criteria for choosing candidate A or candidate B. Why would not all the usual hustings requirements of personal media profile skew perceptions of candidate A, who happens to be the local mayor, and candidate B, who is the leading expert in the House of Lords on reforming the drafting of statutory instruments—an area, incidentally, in which it is hard to get a quorum on the House of Commons side? The answer must be, "Horses for courses". Although many might say, "Hear, hear" to that, it is not always thought through.
What is the conclusion? Whereas the multi-constituency selection principle is vital for the local credibility of MPs, who must deal with local issues, it cannot be so vital or appropriate if someone is not dealing with a significant postbag of constituency issues. On 19th June, 2002, Robin Cook announced the Joint Committee, and his words are reported at column 344 of House of Commons Hansard for that day. He said that "no specific constituency role" was visualised. That is significant.
The House of Commons is based on constituencies, a fact that requires local relationships with the constituency management committee. In setting up the Joint Committee, Robin Cook said that constituencies were ruled out. That removes the case for what one might call the Lords local selection conference. The fact that we are not directly intimate with the problems specific to Burton-on-Trent does not mean that we are not intimate with issues that directly affect the people of Burton-on-Trent. As a former trade union official, I can give examples: security at work, pensions and pay issues. We deal with such issues here every other day, as well as the Communications Bill, the Licensing Bill and the Courts Bill, not to mention all the international issues. We have what we might call a national constituency, a workers' constituency, a health constituency or a university constituency.
Having considered that point, one might ask what is wrong with just saying "Good-bye" to the hereditaries but otherwise staying with the status quo. One thing wrong with that—although it should not be got out of proportion—is that there are, prima facie, too many people here from the South, as opposed to the North, in the broadest sense. Incidentally, we need some statistics on that, such as where people live at weekends, their birthplaces and so on. That would be

625
useful. Perhaps, the Information Office can work that out. The Cunningham report already asks it to do that, and there is an important recommendation in that respect in paragraph 18. There is certainly scope for experimenting more systematically with what one might describe as the different hinterlands.
The Joint Committee must now address as one of its priorities the question of striking a balance between allowing party leaders a degree of control and giving an appointments commission a degree of control. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, just identified that point. The general principle of appointment, which, basically, I support, should not be confused with the status quo. Who can make the best assessment of someone's capacity and experience, relative to the exercise?
The conclusion is that, apart from some indirectly elected regional Members—I am coming to that point—there should be a national appointments system for the relevant party quotas, topped up in the way suggested by the Royal Commission. Not only would that give us the answer to leg 1, but it would also give us the answer to leg 2, if it were generally agreed that the composition of the second Chamber should not swing with the violence that often characterises the composition of the House of Commons. In other words, those who take that view are not persuaded of the merits of one of the biggest changes implied by direct election—the selection of candidates by local activists. It is understandable that many local activists should be keen that they should be the key people in the selection process, but it is a narrowly conceived basis for selecting Members of this House, and the logic does not stack up, for the reasons that I suggested. "Cloning" the House of Commons would not be a reasonable conclusion to reach from that analysis.
If we are not going down that road of election via constituencies, it should be pointed out that the list system has additional downsides as well. If we went down that road, the likelihood would be of those voters who were still awake wondering why we bothered.
On the regional question, the case for a modest number of regional champions can be made and there is a variety of ways of appointing them. As we move towards regional assemblies in several parts of the country, for those areas there is a strong case for an experiment of indirect democracy analogous to the German system. It is interesting that this dimension was specifically noted by Robin Cook in his Statement on 19th June. It would not be right to have endless speeches just about the regional dimension of X, Y or Z. There is a need to learn experimentally from a degree of experience implied here. Dare one suggest that stage two will need to be followed in 10 years by stage three?.
This must be put into the perspective of many other roles played here. With the advent of regional assemblies, it may be the case that 20 per cent elected not necessarily used in the connotation of 20 per cent in the voting exercise on 4th February—would reflect that the regional Members experience for themselves
626
that it would be counter-productive to put a regional angle on all, or even most, issues. One may ask: what is the position of East Anglia on the reconstruction of the Balkans?
In conclusion, I see no reason why the people involved in the regional experiment could not operate quite easily on the same system of travel and subsistence allowances as the rest of us. Everyone seems to be saying the opposite. I do not understand why. They would not be working longer hours than most active Members here today.
Finally, I have been trying to get my brain around the rather arresting metaphor of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that election is necessary as a type of anointing. There is certainly no shortage of anointment. Perhaps I may ask: are all full-time politicians always in touch in a way they would like the term to be understood? I give a recent example. Last summer, the House of Commons made a decision radically to improve its pension arrangements with a benefit formula that changed fiftieths to fortieths, consequently moving from 25 years to 20 years to achieve a half-salary index-linked pension. That may sound fine, but this is at a time when much of the industry is moving the other way and moving from fiftieths to sixtieths. In other words, retirement is being postponed from 25 to 30 years when members can have half pension, and to 40 years for a two-thirds pension, which is not index-linked.
The fact is that we should all keep in touch with our various hinterlands in different ways. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the rather different feedback of the different hinterlands of the two Houses adds to the total value of Parliament as a sounding board and representation of the whole of society.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate the Joint Committee on its report which has been admirably put together. Secondly, in view of my later remarks, I should like to say now that I have the highest possible regard for another place and the Members of Parliament who serve in it. Thirdly, in view of the opening speech of my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby, it is probably necessary to say that these Benches are not united. The last attempt to gather where we stood on the issue of election or otherwise was organised by my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf three years ago, when the split was in the region of 60 in favour of more election and 40 in favour of less or no election.
I believe, as does the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that the badge of democracy is elections. For us to support broadly the status quo can look like special pleading. None the less, I run both those risks for the reasons that I shall briefly enunciate. Many of the five qualities or attributes which the Joint Committee put forward—namely, legitimacy, representativeness, non-dominance by a single party, independence and expertise—are conflicting. However, as regards independence, it is clear that more election will mean less independence.

627
I should like to turn to the issue of the type of people who would enter this House by election and the manner of that election. It is fruitless for those who support election to pretend that those elected Members would be less dependent on party patronage than their brethren in another place. In fact, they would be more dependent on party patronage because the list system at elections effectively places the elective process into the hands of a tiny clique of party activists. I say that with great regret, but I believe that elections by closed party lists are a gross sham of democracy.
The second reality is the type of people who will come to this place with its inferior powers. All my noble friends emphasise that these inferior powers really do not matter, but who will want to come to a House of inferior powers if he or she is of first-class ability? This will be their second choice, and I do not much like that.
In addition, who will want to be in a hybrid House with a lack of experience and expertise? The nature of modern politics is that people can get into politics only by what one might call a professional political route. Day by day, elected Members will be exposed to the appointees in the House who are here precisely because of their pre-eminence in the real world. The final issue that concerns me is that there is a risk that the elective process will yield a majority in this place the same as the majority in another place. Then, where is democracy?
I turn now to the issue of holding the executive to power, which is the principle role of the House of Commons and, to a lesser extent, this place. I ask: how is the Commons doing? What is the best demonstration of effective holding to power of a Government? Most people would say that it is the ability of the Opposition in the House of Commons to vote down measures by the Government which they think are bad or misconceived. Perhaps we may look at the statistics. In the five Sessions of Parliament since the present Government came to power in 1997, there have been 1,640 Divisions in the House of Commons. On how many occasions were the Government defeated in a whipped vote? The answer is not one.
I put it to the House that for all the grand talk about legitimacy, the reason that there is a decline in democratic allegiance in this country is that the House of Commons is no longer able to hold the executive to account at all.
In the same period, in this place, we had 639 whipped votes. The Government won 475; they were defeated in 164 Divisions. Therefore, in one in four Divisions throughout the five-year period, the Government in this place have been defeated, whereas in another place, on not one single occasion have they been defeated in a whipped Division. In the past year, the number of defeats has risen from one in four to one in three. The Divisions are not the end of the matter because on the back of defeats governments tend to be much more pliant towards opposition amendments. If one were to add up the number of forced amendments, it would be seen to be
628
a huge number; more than at the other end of the corridor. In looking to legitimacy, it is reasonable to look at those statistics.
I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and my noble friend and colleague Lord Oakeshott, what would have been the position during the past five years if in this place we had had a wholly-elected or a part-elected Chamber? Would we then have defied the Government effectively in those 164 Divisions, so as to give some bracing to the democratic process? If we had, I suspect that the issue of legitimacy would have been in play. How could an elected Chamber here defeat the Government 164 times and the primary elected Chamber not defeat them once without the issue of legitimacy being inescapably to the fore? It is Alice in Wonderland to pretend that legitimacy is about where powers rest. It is from how the public perceive the exercise of power that legitimacy and authority follow.
If, on the other hand, we in this place had gone the way of all flesh and not defeated the Government a single time, we would have let down the traditions of this House and the country. I cannot see any in-between position.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, quoted from a poll on the question of legitimacy. I tried to gather local opinion in my home town in Suffolk at the time of the last debate and held a public meeting on a wet Friday night in November. To my surprise, 85 local citizens tipped up. They went at it with a will. The idea that the public are not interested in this place or its reform is nonsense.
The calibre of debate, the wisdom of contributions and the awareness of the real issues were quite stirring. The only issue that I put to them— I did not speak, I merely chaired the occasion—was whether, at the end of their two hours, they would favour a more elected or a more appointed House. The result was that four out of five favoured a more appointed House.
I hazard a guess that if there were a serious debate throughout the country about the reforms that we are contemplating, that would be the general response. It concerns me just a little that we carry on these great deliberations in a hermetically sealed Chamber. There is a world out there. It is their Parliament. They have a right to express a view and what are we doing about it?
I am not deeply enamoured of referenda, but if we here were to come to a radically different conclusion from our brethren in another place, why not contemplate a referendum of the British people so that they could decide what should happen to their second Chamber?
I conclude by agreeing with the points of view expressed most notably by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. The complementary nature of this place, vis-à-vis another, is not only desirable, but essential, particularly since another place has become more and more a Chamber of professional politicians for reasons that I think we all understand.
I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for deciding that with the removal of the bulk of the hereditary Peers, he would not pack this place, but would leave the balance

629
of life Peers roughly proportionate to the votes that each of the three main parties received in the previous election. That has made this place a House with no built-in majority. I do not know whether your Lordships, like me, find the need to persuade people to one's point of view entirely desirable, but that is a function that could survive the reforms that we are contemplating—in particular, a higher position and profile for the appointments commission.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I have only two points to make and I will do so very briefly.
First, I would like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, in congratulating the Joint Committee on its admirable report. That means, I fear, that I have to depart from the hugely enjoyable speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. That he covered all the ground, one cannot but agree, but why he had to be so beastly to his noble friend, I am not so sure. Without the Joint Committee, we would not have reached the present stage where the point of a fully appointed House could be debated.
I disagree with very few of the conclusions of the Joint Committee or its views, all of which were expressed with great clarity. The disparity of opinions held in each House, and the requirement of the two components of the Joint Committee to settle the fate of only one House, speaks very highly of the skill of the chairman.
Secondly, I feel the need to express penitence for part of my remarks made during the debate on the Government's White Paper one year ago. After being extremely unpleasant about that document (as were the majority of your Lordships), in an endeavour to be constructive, I came forward with the 50/50 option of appointed and elected. In the year that has elapsed, I have come to believe that a hybrid House will never work. My noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who has moved from his seat to avoid being stabbed in the back, goes for the proposal that I made a year ago. If any noble Lord who is a member of a political party believes that we Cross-Benchers agree with each other, he is totally mistaken. Amazingly, we spend as much time disagreeing with each other as with the parties and it is a miracle that we get so much done.
No matter what the proportions, the elected Members will inevitably feel themselves to be superior beings to the rest. The remarkable effectiveness of the House over the centuries and continuing to this day will no longer be there.
I am in favour of a 100 per cent appointed House and I deeply hope that that will be the decision on 4th February. I wholeheartedly agree with every word that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, in an impeccable speech.
The difficult task that lies ahead for the Joint Committee is to conceive a composition of the body which will do the appointing. One can only wish it well.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, when a couple in the Highlands who were totally lost stopped in a little village and asked one of the local worthies for directions, he looked at them, scratched his head and said, "Well, frankly, I wouldn't start from here". That is a problem that we have at the moment. We have to start from where we are now.
My second point is that I do not believe that there is such a thing as a perfect constitution. Nowhere in the world is there a perfect constitution. People will always find flaws in it. The one thing that we need, when we finally come to a conclusion on future reform, is stability. It is no use having a second bash at it, in the knowledge that there will be further controversy, and then another bash and so on. That would not do the country or the Government much good.
The problem is that the genie of reform is out of its bottle. I am not sure that we can put it back when we think that we have had enough reform. We are seeing an inexorabale dynamic over which we have no control and nobody knows where it will finish.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, made much of the fact that since the Life Peerages Act we have had a hybrid House which has seemed to work very well. It begs the question: why did we start reform? Why did we abolish the majority of the hereditary Peers with the promise that the rest would follow after a short period of time?
It is not hybridity which is the secret; it is what sort of hybridity one can achieve. Despite the hilarity caused to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, earlier, my view is that there is no in-between. The House is either wholly appointed or wholly elected. The author of that is myself and nobody else. I shall try to explain why.
The powers of this place, which have been under discussion for a long time, drive us to two different perspectives. One is in the present case, where there is a strong feeling that there should be a stronger House of Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has said that. These views arise from the impotence of opposition in the House of Commons. The other proposal—that the House of Lords should be weakened—comes from a government who are very strong in the House of Commons but fear that the House of Lords will frustrate their objectives.
There will always be intense scrutiny on this House. We are not having an academic, theoretical discussion between the two Houses. The new House of Lords, whatever form it takes, will be under intense media scrutiny. Have we forgotten—I certainly have not—that the Labour Party used to say when it was defeated in the House of Lords that it was the hereditaries who were at fault. It did its sums and if the majority against a proposition consisted of hereditaries, it was all the hereditaries' fault.
In a hybrid House, the first time a popular—perhaps I should say populist—measure is defeated in the House of Lords, the sums will be done. If the life Peers stop this populist measure proceeding through the transitional House, I can see the red top headlines now—"It was the lifers what did it". Then, when the

631
lifers eventually disappear and there is a new appointed body, it will be the nominated upper Members of Parliament who will be responsible for stopping the popular will of the elected Members of the House of Lords. Their actions will be reduced to derogatory comments such as, "It was Numptys what did it". That will happen.
In my opinion, there is an inexorable drive towards a fully elected House of Lords. That is inescapable. The challenge between the two Houses will come when the House of Lords tackles a government with a very narrow majority. It will not come when there is a huge majority one way or the other—as there was during the Thatcher years and as there is at present—but when there is a close balance in the House of Commons. The challenge will come from here and the House will be driven to assert its authority. No elected Members will be able to rest on the proposition that he or she has no power to challenge the House of Commons.
It has been said that it would be very easy to carry on the way we are; that the conventions should remain in place. But conventions exist only as long as there is the will to allow them to exist. Elected Members are certain to feel that they are not bound by convention; that they have a legitimacy. We use the word "legitimacy" as a mantra, as if it is nothing but a simple phrase. But it is very serious. Once you are elected and have legitimacy, you must stand up for that legitimacy.
If we are to go down the road of striking a balance between the rules that govern the House of Commons and the House of Lords and their powers, we must have a written constitution. A noble Lord said earlier that government of the country cannot be settled by unelected judges. I do not wish to cast aspersions on their capacity—I have no malicious motive towards the judges—but they will have to decide on the basis of the merits as they see them. So instead of an unelected House of 600 plus Members, you will have an unelected government of perhaps a dozen judges. It does not make sense. So, quite clearly in my view, there will have to be a written constitution—and most people shy from going down the road of a written constitution.
It is said that elected Members will not have any constituency matters to deal with. An example of how that does not work can be found in the Scottish Parliament. For those who do not know, the Scottish Parliament consists of a number of directly elected Members, with top-up Members from each region so that there is a balance throughout the country. It was initially suggested that the top-up Members should not be paid so much because they would not have a constituency responsibility and would not need the same amount of research money—I am not arguing on the grounds of cost—but the fact is that before they got their feet under the table they were receiving the same salary and the same amount of research money.
Although they are not supposed to have any constituency responsibilities, what happens is that if a constituent is dissatisfied with the work done by his Member of the Scottish Parliament, he will go to the top-up Member, who has been elected indirectly. That
632
is bad enough, but top-up members have to justify their positions on the list to their own party members—a list system is used for top-up members—and so they go looking for trouble. They will sit down, look at the papers for a popular issue where they believe the elected Members are not doing a proper job, and they dive in, boots and all. I do not know—perhaps the noble Earl opposite who is a Member of the Scottish Parliament can tell the House, at a later stage, not in the middle of my remarks—how many times the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament has had to rebuke top-up Members for interfering and going beyond their remit. Quite often, I believe. So the idea that people can operate in a kind of vacuum in this place and not interfere with the work of elected Members does not stand up.
I began by saying that we needed stability. If we are to have that stability we have to bite the bullet and decide whether to go down the road of a wholly appointed House and agree that that will be the end of the matter. I suspect that it will not be. Once the genie is out of the bottle and we start to speak about elections, we will not be able to put it back. We cannot have stability as long as we have the argument every three or four years of "We have got to have more elections"; "We have got to have more elected Members"; "The House of Lords is not legitimate".
On balance, I believe that we have got to bite the bullet and go down the road of a fully elected second Chamber. I accept that that will pose more questions than it answers. It poses the question of how the House of Lords should be elected. Do we accept the fact that in a wholly elected Chamber there would be no Cross-Benchers and no representatives of the Church of England or any other faith? Fortunately there will still be room for atheists like me, although I would go as well under a wholly elected system. I would find that difficult. I have not gone native, but I do like this place.
We are in grave danger of arriving at the wrong solution at the wrong time. I do not advocate delay for delay's sake—that would be the worst of all worlds and make us impotent—and so I shall conclude as I began. We have started the process and we cannot hold it back. We have to make a choice—and a hybrid Chamber is the worst possible answer of all.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I add my thanks to those of many other noble Lords to the Joint Committee of both Houses for the work it has done in putting together the report guiding our debate today.
When listening to my noble and learned Lord friend Lord Howe and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who both served on the committee, opening the debate, I was fascinated that they both quoted, as an example of this House at its best, the anti-terrorism Act 2002. I had some hand in the passage of the Bill through this House in the few short weeks that it was here. I agree completely that it was an example of this House working at its best, but as an example of this House working within the conventions of Parliament under the existing remit it had no status at all. The Bill was debated entirely outside the

633
normal conventions of the relationship between the two Houses. The Government said that they wanted the Bill as an emergency Bill. That gave this House enormous power which it would not otherwise have had. The Government could not resort to the Parliament Act and they wanted the Bill in a hurry. I say no more.
Historically, the reform of this House has always been difficult. The other place has had difficulty over the idea that its legitimacy and authority—most importantly, its primacy—might be reduced if the authority of this House were increased.
That right to primacy is based on the evolution of Parliament over centuries and on the sovereignty of the people—derived nowadays through elections. That was appropriate and valid. But time has moved on. I cannot see how electing Members to this Chamber would in any way endanger the primacy of the people—they would be choosing Members of this House. It is the primacy of the people that matters, not the primacy of the other Chamber. There is a clear distinction.
The Government have ensured—as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said—the departure of the old truisms. The 1999 Act removed the ancient problem of the hereditary Peers. I could have wished for that Act to be passed more graciously and pleasantly. Sadly, it was not so. But with the removal of that obstacle to reform, it is now much easier for the process to move forward.
In any event, Parliament itself is continuing to evolve. One has only to look at developments in another place to see great change. Today, after half a century of continuing development, we see the executive arm in the other place completely dominating it—to the point where our system of government might be described, in the phrase of the late Lord Hailsham, as an "elective dictatorship".
Given that situation—and given that if you are in such a position of authority it is extremely attractive to want to continue to enjoy it—I find it sad but understandable that we see an increasing tendency for the press to report— presumably for high authoritative sources within the Government—that a minimalist approach to the reform of this place is appropriate.
The structure and function of Parliament and the relationship between the two Houses should not be determined for the convenience of the executive. It should be determined in the best interests of the people of this country. Again, there is a clear distinction.
Given that background, the issue is not whether one is in favour of an appointed House or an elected House. One can say with certainty that an elected House, or a House with a proportion of elected Members, will be in the greater interests of the British people. I have no hesitation in putting forward that general proposition. Indeed, people at large might feel in the end, whatever happened, that they were benefiting as a result.
When the committee goes back to work, after the votes have taken place, it will have, if not guidance, a knowledge of the way in which the two Houses have voted on the options before them. I hope that the committee will look again at the question of the conventions between the two Houses.
634
As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, the parliamentary landscape has changed. We are looking at pre-legislative scrutiny as a matter of routine. We are looking at carry-over as a matter of routine. If we have carry-over, why do we need the Parliament Act?
Scrutiny of legislation is based on a historical perception that Bills must pass in a single Session. I have been in this House for nine years, and I take the simple view that there is one Bill alone which has to be passed on an annual basis. I refer to the Finance Bill. Every other Bill could reasonably wait until it had achieved the agreement of both Houses. I hope that this issue will be thoroughly studied. I hope that we may see a slightly more progressive approach to the conventions between the two Houses.
If this were to result in a lowering of the frenetic pace of legislation passing through the House, I suggest that that might be beneficial. All too often in recent years, as my noble friend Lady Blatch on the Front Bench will recognise, we have started on a successor education Bill before its predecessor has been implemented. I do not wonder that those in the profession are demoralised. It is not surprising. They can hardly know whether they are standing on solid ground or on quicksand. Other government services suffer from the same problem. I am not referring merely to primary legislation. Regulations, guidance and targets pour out of Whitehall in a steady stream and detract from concentration on the basic services that the people of this country are trying to provide.
People are concerned that we should not create a mirror image of the other House. Several years ago, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern indicated the method by which that need not be done. He said that if this House were fully elected, or if a proportion of Members were elected, the number of elected Members should be divisible by three, with no right of re-election and having membership for three Parliaments. That would mean a membership of 12 to 14 years on average. That would create a House, if elected by thirds, that would have the political swings of general elections damped, and it would be very different in character from another place.
I do not think that that would cause problems, even if there were occasionally greater tensions between the two Houses. In the end, the interests of both Houses and of all elected members are identical—the best interests of the people of this country.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I begin with a few brief comments on the issue of elected or appointed members. I wish to add little to the points made by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth in a most distinguished speech.
It is almost six years since I came to this House, in the face of the removal of the hereditary Peers. The comment was often made that this House would become more and more like the House of Commons. It has done, marginally. I do not think that it is any the worse for that. But it is my strong belief that if we had

635
an elected House—whether all elected or largely elected—it would quickly become a clone of the House of Commons.
Your Lordships' House has a function totally different from that of the House of Commons. It would be a huge mistake to turn it into a clone of another place. If elections are held, the parties will get hold of, and organise, them. If that happens, the Whips will get a much greater hold on this House. So, my inclination is to vote 'yes" to an all-appointed House and "no" to everything else.
I wish to draw attention to the position of the government in your Lordships' House. I have spoken about the influence of parties and party politics. We are involved in a democracy in which party politics play a strong part. We cannot expect this House to be sterilised from the party political process. In the report of the Joint Committee, which I applaud, there is a black hole, which few have recognised. I have been in the Chamber for most. of the afternoon, and the matter has been referred to very little. People outside your Lordships' House are astonished when told that, according to the figures in the report, the Government have only 27.6 per cent of the total vote in the House of Lords, while, between them, the two principal opposition parties have 41.5 per cent of the vote.
That is difficult to justify. It is unfair that the Government should have only 27.6 per cent of the vote. We have in the House of Lords a Labour government nearer the centre of the British political scene than we have seen for a long time. This Government's policies have not been as contentious as those of previous Labour governments. But, even so, we are told that the Government have been losing one vote in four in the past five Sessions.
What would happen if we were to have a government, Left-wing or Right-wing, whose stance and electoral platform was much more extreme than what we see today? If a government were elected to pursue much more contentious policies, they would be much more hotly contested on many issues by both the main opposition parties in this House. Would it be fair for a government elected by the will of the people to have only around 30 per cent of the votes in your Lordships' House? I go further: what would happen if in the United Kingdom there were an election result, like those in other countries over the years, whereby a party comes from nowhere a year or two before an election to become the government? In my time, in the 1980s, we saw the rise of the Social Democrat Party, which gave the Labour Party an enormous fright. It reached high levels in the public opinion polls. It would not have been too fanciful to suppose, if events had been different, that the Social Democrat Party, or another like it, could win an election.
What would happen if a party with virtually no members in this House were elected? That is the black hole I refer to. With a party in government with minimal representation, one of two things would have to happen. Either the government of the day would have to appoint many new peers using the Prime Minister's prerogative or Parliament would have to change the rules to enable government to have a guaranteed number of supporters.
636
Surely, if we want to avoid going through the wearisome process of Lords reform again, we should bite the bullet now and ensure that, however the electorate decide in the future, the government of the day will always have a fair chance of having their way endorsed in this House.
I have spoken about the matter before. The only way to do that is for the government of the day, after each election, speedily to be guaranteed an agreed percentage of the vote in your Lordships' House, with the opposition parties together having the same percentage. I have suggested before that the government of the day and the opposition parties might have 40 per cent each, with the Cross-Benchers having the remaining 20 per cent. I would not argue against the government and opposition parties each having only 35 per cent and the Cross-Benchers having 30 per cent. That would be for discussion.
The approach has certain advantages. It gives the government of the day a fair chance. If they suffered a long series of defeats in your Lordships' House, it would stop them from doing what I fear might be happening now: the government shrugging their shoulders and regarding the Lords increasingly as a mere nuisance to be routinely rolled over by the Commons. That would be bad. The other advantage is that it would inherently respect the ideal that no single party should be dominant in this House.
The disadvantages would be, first, that new life Peers would no longer have the right to sit in the House of Lords for life. Secondly, it would guarantee new life Peers a seat for only one parliamentary term. They would be told that, if the party remains in government, they might have a seat for further parliamentary terms. The problem would be deciding who will stay on after each election. In recent years, the hereditary Peers decided exactly that. Looking at some of my noble colleagues elected to stay on, one could hardly call them Whips' narks.
Such an approach would also deal with the problems of age limits and non-attendance, because it would be much easier to drop Peers off. I know that some of these ideas are unattractive to some, but we need to create a House that is better prepared for an election result reflecting an unusual will of the people. The House must be able quickly to readjust its membership to reflect the will of the people. Therefore, conclusion (xix) on page 28 of the Joint Committee's report, which states that 10 or 12 years is about right, would not work. If, because a government have minimal representation, a top-up is required to give them a reasonable working number of supporters in this House, the membership of the House would go through the roof quickly. We ought to make sure that we address the problem now so that we do not have to return to it in a panic in years to come.
8 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I stand before you as a humble Member who has come here through an appointment's commission. I had no gong to my name and was no professional politician. I decided to fill out the demanding forms, motivated by

637
the words of my dead father. He always told me that if I wanted to change things in the world for the better, I must get to the top and not lose my principles on the way. That has motivated me throughout my career. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said, this Parliament has fought for the rights and freedoms of the population. I will try to do my best in that tradition—to use my experience and knowledge to argue for the vulnerable and for what I sincerely believe is right. Because I continue to work clinically and in the university, the precious patients and the bright young students keep my feet firmly on the ground.
I should like to pick up briefly on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, concerning any election. In Wales in 1999, only 40 per cent of the electorate turned out to vote in the Assembly election, despite the publicity and the obvious importance to their future. Healthcare and education are delegated powers; there is a long-standing tradition of concern about both topics among the population of Wales.
Each constituency is well covered by those "elected" by this minority of the population. I shall give two typical examples. Preseli in Pembrokeshire is rural. It is covered by an MP, one constituency and four regional Assembly Members, one MEP and additionally, at local level, 60 county councillors. Wrexham in north Wales is similar. It has one MP, one constituency and four regional Assembly Members, one MEP and additionally, at local level, 52 county borough councillors and 34 community councillors. One way or another, up to 15 people can claim to represent one householder.
I, for one, would never have the resources to run an election campaign. In any case, how would independents be picked to stand? Even local political parties have not always had perfect reputations in the way in which candidates have been selected. Some selection committee would need to be held for those wishing to stand as independents. I remind your Lordships that apparently just over 3,600 applications were submitted for the 15 places that were available when I was appointed. If even half of those people had stood for election, mayhem could have ensued, and at what cost? How would the system be fairly organised? Would the electorate be asked to rubber-stamp some out of the selection committee's final shortlist?
I support the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, that a statutory independent appointments commission is established. Such a commission must examine all the nominations. Everyone to be considered should complete the forms and be considered. They could be from any political party or be non-party independent. They could be senior religious figures or even the occasional current hereditary, whose great expertise has much to offer a reformed Chamber, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, eloquently advocated. There should be no patronage and no party donation to influence the process. They must be open, transparent and subject to scrutiny.
638
The commission must be charged with ensuring that there is representation across the socio-economic, ethnic and expert strata of society. I know people who would contribute a great deal but could never get elected. Let me give an example. Long-term unemployed through disability, this highly intelligent and widely read man's lame leg restricts mobility, his deafness makes campaigning without help and resources difficult and his marked facial palsy would not make a pretty picture on an election pamphlet. But his formidable intelligence and experience of poverty, loneliness and social exclusion through deformity might well inform debate.
As part of the reform, could the wives of Peers have the same non-status as do husbands? I am quite happy that my husband has no title but, I might add, my children are truly honourable.
There is another issue of powers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, highlighted, the checks and balances that this House exerts over English legislation are not similarly in place for Scotland, nor for secondary legislation affecting Wales. Perhaps there are major issues lurking here. When will major incompatibilities in legislation emerge?
The expertise here is formidable. I should like to see more women and greater representation of different ethnic and social groups in society being openly appointed, with a commitment to work hard for this country and to remain up to date in their area of expertise, contributing where they should for the good of this great nation.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, along with other noble Lords, I know that a great deal that is said in this debate will be repeated. There is no doubt that I shall touch on an argument that has previously been expressed. But I make no apology for this, as I believe that the historical development that we are embarking on needs to be addressed by all those who feel passionately about the issue.
Before us we have a range of options spanning a wide spectrum, from a totally appointed House to a fully elected House. At the outset, I immediately confess my unequivocal support for a wholly appointed House. I know that there will be those who will say of me, as an appointed Peer, "He would say that, wouldn't he?" However, such a superficial view is not of great value because, as I understand it, we life Peers are protected whatever formula is finally determined for this place.
In my arguments I hope to show that a fully appointed upper House is not anti-democratic but is in the best interests of the nation. Of the range of options before us, it is my view that the only principled alternatives are a fully appointed or a fully elected House. Although I am against the introduction of a wholly elected House, I appreciate that those who support it do so from a standpoint of principle. However, the range of options expressing the introduction of a part-appointed and part-elected House reflects a total absence of principle and only mirrors a compromise attempting to satisfy the varying shades of opinion.

639
Although I saw no justification for hereditary Peers remaining in this House, and said so at the time, there was a greater consistency between hereditary and life Peers than there will be between appointed and elected Peers. Hereditary and life Peers were appointed, one group by a system of heritage and. the other by the Prime Minister. Those are different forms of appointment, but appointment nevertheless. Far more complex difficulties will arise from the presence of elected Peers in this House.
An overwhelming majority of life Peers in this House have considerable experience in one or more areas of our national life—in industry, culture, the arts, media, the judiciary, medicine, the armed services, education, the diplomatic service and so on. That is what enables the House to make a unique contribution to the country's democratic system, and it should be reinforced and underpinned rather than destroyed or removed. With the introduction of elected Peers, I fear that the fruitful paradigm that we now display will be lost for ever.
If the experience of the introduction of the European Parliament is anything to go by, there is no doubt that many standing for election to this House will see it as a stepping stone to another place. Whether elected Peers are directly or indirectly elected, they will be more accountable because of their election than will appointed Peers. Even if that accountability is difficult to define, they will legitimately be entitled to claim it.
That will throw up further problems. For instance, elected Peers could claim that they are superior to appointed Peers and therefore entitled to all the Front Bench positions. They will feel, and claim, that their election entitles them to be more a part of government or opposition than appointed Peers. However, the much greater problem, on which I shall elaborate when I come to my opposition to a fully elected House, is that elected Peers could not possibly accept the limitations of this House, which have evolved in the interests of the country's democratic process. I hope to show that, contrary to being undemocratic, a wholly appointed House of Lords bolsters democracy, as do many other unelected institutions in this country.
Having relatively recently removed the trappings of a hybrid House with the removal of hereditary Peers, only further confusion will result from the introduction of another hybrid House through the provision of part-elected and part-appointed Peers. That is worse than jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire, if that is possible.
It is a gross oversimplification to state automatically, as I have heard so often, that election equates to democracy. The pre-eminent House in our democracy is the House of Commons. Members of the Commons fight the general elections, form the government, determine the legislation and face the electorate. They are accountable to the people of this country and responsible for the stewardship of the country's affairs, both nationally and internationally. That is as it should be, and I fully support that position, which fully satisfies the fundamental democratic position that we in this House work to underpin. Many institutions that underpin our democratic structure, such as the Civil Service, the
640
judiciary, the Armed Services and the police, are not involved in any form of election. That is not always the case around the world.
This House has very limited legislative responsibility—and I emphasise the phrase "very limited". We scrutinise and sometimes propose revision of legislation and can delay but not prevent the passage of legislation. We debate matters of widespread importance. We more often helpfully complement the Commons than obstructively challenge it. That is our unequalled contribution to the democratic process. We dot "i"s and cross "t"s.
To some that may seem boring, and I fear that that would be the case for elected Peers. I can understand that. However, for appointed life Peers who have made their mark before coming here—bringing a wealth of experience, knowledge and expertise that enables them to draw attention to the practical difficulties which can often arise from the principled legislation that is proposed—the only motivation is to serve.
The whole approach would be different with a wholly elected House. Elected Peers would not see their work and responsibilities as we see them. They would not accept the limitations which we accept in fulfilling our part in the democratic process. In such circumstances, I fear that, sooner or later, there would be an unavoidable head-on collision between the two elected Houses which, after a lengthy period of chaos that will do nothing for the well-being of this nation, could very well lead to abolition of the House of Lords. I believe without any doubt whatever that this House best serves the people, the country and the country's democratic structure by being a wholly appointed House.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, until recently, I thought that if we had to have a new House of Lords, we should do best to have one that was directly elected on a system different from that applying to another place. I have come to realise, however, that it is our current diversity of interest that makes this such a useful and interesting Chamber. The presence of a large Cross-Bench element is desirable. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed out, that probably would not occur if this were a wholly elected House. I think that we should go to very great trouble indeed to ensure that something like that which we currently have is preserved or at least improved.
Like many other noble Lords, I believe that we should aim at a system in which election and nomination are combined. However, both the method of nomination and the method of election should be considered originally and imaginatively. Let us suppose that we had a House of 600, half nominated, half elected, and let us consider first the nominated element. I have some suggestions. To maintain what might be called the religious reality of the country, we could, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, suggested, cut the number of Anglican bishops to perhaps 18—as was indeed suggested, in the 1960s, in the Crossman reforms—and fill their places with some Catholic

641
bishops as well as with, say, the Chief Rabbi, some Islamic representation and leaders of other Churches for their time in office.
The Speakers of the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland and the Welsh Assemblies might also be appointed as ex officio Members, as the current incumbents suggested in a letter printed at the back of the committee's report. If the ceremonial side of Parliament is to be preserved and maintained, as is certainly desirable, surely there is a case for thinking that the noble Lords, the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, also should remain in this House as ex officio Members. I think that, in the long run, British civilisation—or English civilisation; however one wishes to describe it—will be remembered for our poets more than for our parliamentarians. So I suggest that the Poet Laureate is another candidate for ex officio nomination.
It could also be agreed that several other office holders should always be nominated to this House. I cite the Secretary-General of the TUC, the Chief of the Defence Staff, the heads of the Foreign Office and the Treasury, the Cabinet Secretary, and perhaps the Permanent Secretaries of one or two other departments of state along with some ambassadors, such as those to the European Union and the United Nations. They might normally expect to join this House on their retirement. Such nominations happen very often now, but it might be good to have the convention formally and even legally agreed. Currently, ex-members of the Cabinet customarily join this House, as do European Commissioners after they leave Brussels. Those conventions should continue, and they might be enshrined in a parliamentary convention, if not in law. I hope, too, that Law Lords will remain Members of this House at least for some years after their retirement.
Noble Lords will see that I am making several different proposals: one for ex officio membership along the lines of what now obtains with bishops; one for ex officio membership for Law Lords; and one for membership—probably, but not certainly, for life—for some others on the ground that their experience should enable them to make a good contribution to this House.
It has always been the case that the Prime Minister has named persons to this House because he or she wants them to be Ministers. The commission's reports specifically envisaged that practice continuing. It would be desirable, if the House goes on doing more or less what it is doing now. That is all I have to say for the moment in respect of nominated members.
I turn to the matter of election. I have here another complicated series of suggestions for your Lordships' interest. Half the elected members might, indeed, be chosen by direct election based on some system different from that which pertains in the elections to another place. Perhaps it could be comparable to the proportional representation which obtains in the elections for the European Parliament, and even be carried through at the same time and in the same constituencies.
642
We could assume that the vast majority of those new members would be politicians, and the Front Benches on all sides of this House might be expected to come from those persons. That would account for a quarter of the new House—say, 150 members. As to the other half of the elected members—another 150—I suggest some arrangement whereby professional associations elect members. My noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd thought that it was not necessary to specify who should be elected in such a way, but I think that there is a case for specifying. To take an obvious example, two or three vice-chancellors could be elected members of this House by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I refer also to schoolmasters and university teachers; solicitors, barristers, doctors, surgeons and vets; authors, including historians; trade unionists, of course; newspaper, television, magazine and media workers and proprietors; people who work in the social and health services; those who work in City companies or in manufacturing industry; members of the Armed Services and the police; nurses and firemen, and so on. All could hold elections too through the professional body which most of those professions have, although if necessary such things could be specially devised for the occasion of the election.
Electors might be able to choose whether they wanted to vote for members by proportional representation in the way that I suggested a moment or two ago, or in the elections within those professional groups. Some will think that this idea smacks of corporatism, as was said when something similar was proposed in the 1970s by the late Lord Hailsham. But we should not be afraid of words if they can serve us. Others will argue that what I have suggested is far too complicated. However, the way in which a Doge was elected in Venice was extremely complicated but, as your Lordships will be aware, the institution lasted 1,000 years.
I make no claim that the proportions I have suggested—150 here, 150 there, a third there and so on—are exactly right; but I do think that if we were to adopt something like these plans, we would have an upper Chamber which would preserve, even expand, the diversity of what we have now but establish it on a better moral basis.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Wolfson: My Lords, we have heard a number of powerful opening speeches and others that have followed, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, a brilliant historian. They have made a significant contribution to the discussion in hand.
Clearly, there is a variety of views still to be expressed in this important debate, culminating in a vote next week on seven options. I support a programme for the ongoing evolution of your Lordships' House, part of a process that began with the Parliament Act of 1911—an interesting example of the inevitability of gradualness.
Briefly, I should like to envisage at this stage a House part-appointed including hereditary Peers, and part-elected on the lines of the US Senate, with representatives

643
from each geographical region or county of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. The overall membership might be in the order of 500. Each elected Peer or senator—I am attracted to that historic appellation—would serve for up to four years, with reelection available thereafter.
I realise that another place would be unlikely to agree, but any democratically elected element of the upper House should have similar voting powers to the Commons, with reasonable use of Whipping to secure the maximum possible freedom of decision-making.
Consideration should also be given for a select committee of the Privy Council or a senior advisory board on present lines to recommend appointed Members. Present and new Members engaged in a variety of key national areas would be involved, particularly all those engaged in enhancing the quality of education in science, technology, healthcare and a comprehensive range of the arts and humanities. Expertise would continue to be maximised in other priority sectors by the regular addition of further senior figures, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for the many areas of public and religious life represented in the House. The remarkable record in this country and the Commonwealth of inventive and literary genius, as evidenced by the number of Nobel Prize winners, should be reflected by a larger representation of them in this House.
The appointed Members should have the same voting rights as at present, for they would continue to make a notable contribution to discussion, with expert advice for elected Members.
As a retired businessman, I feel that there is a positive role in this Chamber for active and independent leaders of commerce and industry. Their organisational skills could help parliamentary committees to improve the value obtained in public capital investment, commensurate with the high quality standards required.
In this age of live parliamentary debate, perhaps a limited form of carefully monitored electronic voting might be contemplated.
Finally, while allowing life membership for nationally renowned figures, there should normally be an age of retirement for legislators. In order not to be controversial, may I suggest my own!
8.28 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I do not pretend to be able to match the intellectual and detailed approach of the two noble Lords who have just spoken.
I became slightly worried when my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon began telling us that this discussion has been going on as long as history. I felt slightly more at home when my noble friend Lord Selborne said that it had been going on for 90 years. That ties in with a letter that I have at home written by my grandfather to my father, saying that the reform of the House of Lords was due and that it had gone on in the previous generation's day—that of my great grandfather.
644
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in winding up the debate in this House on 18th December, hoped that the Government would receive the approval of history for their record of constitutional reform. There has certainly been plenty of such reform but, as we contemplate the further reform of this House, it might be worth reminding ourselves of the sentiments of Edmund Burke in 1790 in the midst of the most fundamental changes in the British constitution or "commonwealth" that we have ever known. He said that,
"by this unprincipled facility of changing the state as often, and as much, and in as many ways as there are floating fancies and fashions, the whole chain and continuity of the commonwealth would be broken. No one generation could link with another. Men would become little better than flies of a summer".
So it is more important than ever that whatever we do, we get it right.
I realise that there are those in various walks of life who think that our past and traditions as represented in this House were somehow misguided and a terrible mistake: a catalogue of exploitation and misery that should be swept into the dustbin of history. However, that does not appear to be the overall mood of the country. I like to think that a different view was in evidence recently at the time of the Queen's Golden Jubilee. Millions place great value in our customs and traditions, our religious persuasions and our links with our origins, however tenuous they may be.
At the level of practical experience, as a farmer, I have been able to see the marks in the countryside of the struggles over hundreds of years of previous generations with the land and nature. The structures and shapes of the past are things from which each succeeding generation has learned and benefited. I like to think that the same can be said of your Lordships' House and the concepts that have underpinned it. Of course, we have come a long way from the feudal concepts that established this place. As I see it, because of their property, the nobles in the early centuries were representatives of their areas, but also in those areas they were the ultimate authority in local government, in Church appointments, in the local courts of justice and in collecting the finance to support those functions. In those days what we now call "the local enterprise company" and the wealth of their area depended on their actions and initiatives. Along with that, they were encouraged to bring a sense of history and civic duty. So there was a reason, other than just their rank, for having them involved in the legislative process.
However, the general experience over the years, both then and now, has led us to conclude that, when individual men are given so much power, it can corrupt their judgment and self-interest can lead them to make their own interests paramount. That was the accusation that was most often levelled at hereditary Peers such as me—and sometimes, one has to say, that was done with reason. Those who come to occupy this place in years to come will have to show that they can overcome that accusation. In the event, successive governments have taken away most of that power and the structures of the country are now very different.

645
The Joint Committee demanded that the quality of representatives should be one of the major features of a new House. I would like to think that in fulfilling representativeness, any revised Chamber should be constructed in such a way as to give a voice to those different strands of our national life, whether it is of institution, geography or community.
That leads me to favour—as do the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, to mention but two—the first option listed in the committee's report. However, in doing so we must recognise that much will have to be done to convince the general public of its authority and that that is a sensible and modern thing to do.
As was perhaps illustrated by the convictions of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, we must face the fact that our representatives have gone to the ends of the world telling everyone that governments must have elections without pointing out that this country has gained by having within its structure an element of appointment. Not least in that regard have been the present Government, who have been able to appoint a large selection of very able Ministers to sit on the Front Benches in your Lordships' House. I have the temerity to suggest, rather like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that it would have been extremely difficult for some of them to be enlisted on any other basis.
If asked whether any other proposals were thought to have merit, I should not be totally opposed to having a small elected element, but certainly not one that represented a democratic mandate to challenge another place. I should see it mainly as a way of ensuring regional representation and in particular for letting the public comprehend that this House does contain a regional voice, whose authority comes from the people who live in the area.
The committee's present proposal which comes nearest to that is that 20 per cent of Members should be elected. But, following the mathematics of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, that must mean in the region of 120 or perhaps even 140 elected Members. I should have thought that a perfectly reasonable representation could be made by half that number—say, 87—based on the old European electoral constituencies. Compared with some of the others, such an arrangement might offer a little less confusion for the voters and less demand on the returning officers. If it were, as suggested in a submission to the committee, a matter of including the speakers of the various regional assemblies, then they would be among those subject to appointment.
The committee is right to emphasise the five qualities that it lists in Part 3 of the report. I believe we should have confidence that those can be met and that a reformed House will be able to attract a membership with a sense of history and of the civic duty which is required in the modern world.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, among the tasks of the House of Lords is that of correcting some of the deficiencies of the House of Commons. I used to argue the case for
646
correcting those deficiencies before changing anything in the House of Lords. Now, I believe that those deficiencies have become much worse, largely due to the domination by the executive of the House of Commons. Perhaps I may give some examples of that.
What did the executive-dominated House of Commons do? It made two great errors: the poll tax and the privatisation of British Rail. Those measures were strongly opposed throughout the whole of Parliament, yet they were carried through by the strong will of the executive. Robert Adley, whom I remember with great affection, called rail privatisation the "poll tax on wheels". That is what it was. We do not need to duplicate in the House of Lords the same political representation that is found in the House of Commons. That would result in the same kind of domination by the executive here, which is not the case at present.
There are 659 Members of the House of Commons and there is little benefit in tackling the problems and the questions in the same way. But there is an advantage in having a House of Lords which, with the experience and expertise of its Members, looks at decisions made by the Commons and, in the light of the comments made, calls for further examination of the issues. That is the real gain in constitutional terms.
I played a part in the Parliament (No. 2) Bill in 1968. In my view, since those days in 1967 and 1968, the House of Commons has moved even further from what I would want it to be. As a consequence of the reduction in the hereditary element, the House of Lords has become rather more relevant. Today, the House of Commons is too dominated by the executive and there has been little separation of powers between the executive and the legislature.
Of course, as we know, that separation of powers has always been limited, but the limited independence of the legislature has weakened over the past 50 years. The power of the House of Commons has declined as more MPs have become full-time Members, subject more and more to the pressures of the executive. People who made a contribution to life outside the House of Commons with their experience and independence nowadays rather more rarely come to the House of Commons. Therefore, the House of Commons continues to be increasingly dominated by the executive.
The very limited separation of powers that we had in the House of Commons has been diminishing, partly because of the narrower recruitment taking place from outside and partly because of the improved pay, which makes a parliamentary career less of a financial sacrifice for some would-be MPs than it used to be. For some, that financial sacrifice was more acceptable in a world where the Member of Parliament could more readily play an important role in national and international affairs. That does not happen in quite the same way today.
Those who came from outside into Parliament were captains of industry and leaders of one kind or another. We had the trade union leaders, Frank Cousins and John Horner of the Fire Brigades Union; we had d'Avigdor Goldsmith, a bullion dealer and a great

647
character; and Harold Lever. Plenty of people came from outside but we are not seeing that today. Those people had background, experience and a contribution to make. They had made it outside Parliament and could make it within Parliament.
Today, on any subject, the House of Lords can field Members with experience and expertise who, even if one disagrees with them, need to be listened to with some attention. The proportion of those with that experience and expertise has increased considerably since the reduction in the number of hereditary Peers. That has changed the whole context of this House. Nowadays, the quality of debate here differs fundamentally from that in the House of Commons. Government do not have a majority here and ultimate power does not reside in this House, so crude party political points are more rarely made and argument is a more persuasive way of convincing Members.
Let us consider status and performance since the departure of the hereditary Peers. As I said, that has been enhanced. There have been more votes against the Government; their legislation has become more justifiable and has been revised well. Even Eric Forth, the shadow Leader of the House, pointed out in the House of Commons on 19th June at col. 370 of Commons Hansard that the House of Lords examined parts of Bills better than the House of Commons. There is no guillotine here; we can continue the argument. We do not leave whole patches of Bills unexamined. To introduce into the House of Lords a greater degree of party politicisation could seriously affect the progress of business. The ultimate catastrophe for the proper examination of legislation could be the necessity to introduce the guillotine into our procedures. That could well be a consequence of party political opposition in this House.
Let us consider what would be the relationship of elected and unelected Peers in the same House. It is not likely that the elected Peers would give way in debate and in Questions to unelected Peers. Even with fewer numbers they will assert themselves, indeed, as being more representative with a popular mandate, as we have heard in a number of contributions. Added to that, party politics will be more conviction based, with less compromise. The Joint Committee saw the independence of the House of Lords as important in holding the executive to account, and it is important. However, elected Peers will echo much of the confrontation that we see in the House of Commons. That danger of conflict between the two Houses would be likely to become worse.
There would be greater electoral legitimacy. Even if there were the same dates for elections in another place and here, by-elections could claim a legitimacy which would lead to greater conflict between the two Houses.
Members of Parliament would be aware that elected Peers could be an avenue of appeal against the efforts of Members of Parliament. My noble friend Lord Hughes made this point, and he is right. They could take up constituency cases. That could be invaluable. A Peer still has a certain status. It could be felt that if one failed to get a result from one's Member of Parliament, one could go
648
to the Peer. If he happened to be of the same pansy, he could well take up the case. But if they were from different parties, it would be even easier. On occasion, they could be more successful. It could be said, "If you don't succeed with a Member of Parliament, try the Peer". That is the kind of consequence we could see.
What does accountability mean when there is no reelection? If there is no re-election what, then, is the difference between appointment and election? It would be the electors who make the appointment rather than looking at objective realities and understanding of the kind of people concerned. The elected Peer could say, "Thank you for voting me in. There is nothing you can do about it now".
There is an important distinction to be made here between serving five years or 15 years as an elected Peer. For a five-year term we would be replicating the House of Commons. For a 15-year term without reelection we would be replicating the present life Peers without proper consideration of their experience and expertise. There is also a paradox in that the elected Peer, even without re-election, will still claim a greater legitimacy with secretaries, research assistants and offices, and would change the nature of the whole parliamentary process.
So, how do we make the selection? The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will have a part to play. What we would then see—and what this debate has shown—is that this argument is still to be continued. The various methods need to be discussed. The question of appointment is the key to maintaining the important standing of this House. I look forward to it continuing.
8.45 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, since reading the report of the Joint Committee, I am quite convinced that an all-appointed House is the only sensible option, which is contrary to what I said in debate a year ago. I am eating my words.
Some noble Lords have contended that this is already a hybrid House. I would argue that a mixture of hereditary and life Peers is not hybrid at all in the same way as a mixture of appointed and elected Peers. Hereditary Peers are merely second or third-hand, or whatever, appointed Peers—hand-me-downs, if you like. Life Peers are just new appointed Peers. We both sit very comfortably together, just as old and new furniture sits very comfortably in an agreeable sitting room. Therefore, I take issue with Peers who have said that this is already a hybrid House.
If you have a truly hybrid House, which is what a part appointed and part elected House would be, the elected Members will believe that they are much more important than the appointed Members, because they will say that they have more "legitimacy"—whatever that is supposed to mean. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has already mentioned this matter. It is total rubbish, because if you are an appointed Member of this House, as all my life-Peer friends are, under the law as it stood when you were appointed, you are every bit as legitimate as anyone who has been elected.

649
Any of your Lordships or any Members of another place who think otherwise, and particularly members of the Joint Committee, should consult the Oxford English Dictionary or Roget's Thesaurus. You may not be quite as democratic, but "democraticness" is not legality, but merely a matter of fashion and political correctness, which are transient. The Joint Committee was quite rightly not concerned with whether the House was democratic.
People who depend on an electorate to keep them in office are never totally independent. They are always looking over their shoulders to see what their electorate is thinking. I think some people call it "coming round Tattenham Corner". They are also obliged to spend a good deal of time on constituency business and so would have less time for the business of scrutinising legislation, which is the most important business of this House. And it really is the most important business, since more and more Bills which come to this House from another place have been guillotined and given scant scrutiny—far more than when I first sat in this House 23 years ago—and because, for better or for worse, and mostly it is worse, far more legislation is being presented to Parliament than ever before.
The work of this House has thus increased enormously in the last quarter of a century. Whatever we do to this House must not adversely affect that work. You may say that a figure of 20 per cent elected Peers will not seriously affect the ability of the House to do that work, but their outside commitments would detract from their ability to play their part in that work. Their appointed colleagues would not like that very much and there would be ill-feeling.
Then there will be the question of salaries. At present, the taxpayer gets amazing value from this House, compared with another place, and certainly with any other Second Chamber in the world.
But if you have elected Members, they will expect salaries. Imagine the ill-feeling if you have a hybrid House and elected Members get salaries and appointed Members do not. There will be over-worked appointees and over-paid electives. So are you going to pay the same salaries to everyone? The electives will then want allowances for their constituency offices, and so on, and we know that that will cause more ill-will. The Joint Committee has said that work will have to be done on costing options, and I hope that when it comes to do it, it will keep those problems in mind.
But far worse than that, if the powers of this House are to remain roughly the same as they are now, you will be asking people to stand for election to a House that has very limited powers indeed for what, unless the Audit Commission undergoes a sea-change, is likely to be only a mediocre salary. What calibre of candidates are you going to get standing for election? They will not be people with the sort of experience that you need and have now for the purpose of revising legislation; they will probably be failed candidates for election to another place and others who are incapable of doing any other job. I mean that.
650
I am convinced that if you want the best people to do any job, you must pay either nothing at all, as now, so that you get people who are basically volunteers, or you must pay tip-top salaries—and we all know perfectly well that the Audit Commission would never agree to that.
I firmly believe that we should have an appointed House. By what means it should be appointed so as to retain a large independent element and be representative of all areas of the country, I shall not embark on now—this is neither the time nor the place. I really believe that to have any proportion of the Members of this House elected would be disastrous. I shall vote for an all-appointed House, when we come to vote, and against all other options. I say to all noble Lords who want an appointed House that it will be just as important to vote against all other options as to vote for the first one.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, in making the points that I consider most important in this debate I am greatly helped by two earlier contributions: that of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, together with the first report of the Joint Committee, to which I shall refer in a moment; and that of my noble friend Lord Fowler in the debate on 18th December on the British constitution.
My noble friend Lord Fowler drew attention to the gulf of misunderstanding on the role of this House in another place. He said:
"The knowledge of the average Member of Parliament about what goes on next door is little better than zero … A popular view … is that there is nothing with the Lords that cannot be cured by elections".—[Official Report, 18/12/02; col. 672.]
He might well have added the phrase, "blind to the deficiencies" of another place, to which the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, referred.
I have spent almost 33 years in Parliament—17 in another place—and I can confirm that analysis and what my noble friend said about the conventions that limit the powers of the Lords. Like him, I should be much more militant in my demands if I were an elected Peer and would no doubt stand on the toes of MPs whose constituencies overlapped with mine—a point effectively made by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. The Joint Committee also places heavy emphasis on the existing conventions of a self-restraining nature, which impact profoundly on the relations between the Houses and need to be understood as a vital part of any future constitutional settlement.
I was also impressed by the possibility of gridlock as a result of conflict to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred in his effective speech.
I pick up another key point made by the Joint Committee: the importance of independence and expertise. I place experience alongside expertise, a point strongly made by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. On 18th December, my noble friend Lord Fowler said:
"My guess is that the public would support a House that exhibits, as this House does, some expertise and some experience".—[Official Report, 18/12/02; col. 673.]
How effectively those points were reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury.

651
The Joint Committee emphasised that the independence came not just from the Cross Benches but from among party members, for reasons that it set out, which were repeated by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon. It also drew attention to the extraordinary range of expertise in the House and said that it was,
"something of considerable importance which we would wish to see preserved in the new House".
My noble and learned friend referred in particular to the example of the Human Reproductive Cloning Bill. I shall cite two other examples. They are, perhaps, less dramatic, but they impressed me at the time. In the debate on the helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur almost completely changed the nature of the debate by speaking of his great experience as a helicopter pilot flying in almost identical conditions. Another example was the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff—I am glad to see that she is in her place—to the debate on asbestos. The noble Baroness completely altered the nature of that debate, sharing with us her expertise, based on her medical and academic knowledge.
There are several reasons why such expertise is even more important today than it has ever been. I will refer briefly to the valuable reports that we produce and to our scnitiny of, for example, European Union legislation. Peter Riddell is just plain wrong on the subject in his article in The Times today. He says:
"reports may be impressive, but so what?".
He also says that the reports have no more influence than the letters pages of broadsheet newspapers. In fact, they play a significant role in monitoring European Union activities, influencing the European Commission, as it prepares its plans, influencing the Government, in their reaction to those plans, and in implementing EU legislation in this country. However, I wish to dwell not on that aspect of our activities but on the legislative process.
The expertise of the House is more crucial than it has ever been, because of the changes that have taken place in another place over the 33 years since I was first elected to it. There is more legislation, and much of it is worse prepared. Time and time again, we see the Government table hundreds of amendments to Bills. There is far less expertise in the House of Commons—a point made effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon—than when I joined it. The professionals—lawyers, trade union leaders, people engaged in business, those who had served in the forces—who were there then are not there today. Their experience has been replaced by the far narrower experience of full-time politicians.
There are also the changes in working practices, which have meant that the scrutiny of legislation in another place is wholly inadequate. This House now performs a central and fundamental function in the legislative process. Expertise and experience are essential components of the manner in which we perform that function.
652
The Joint Committee bluntly states that, unfortunately,
"an elected House is also likely to have few if any independent members".
Our judgment of where we go should surely be influenced by the Joint Committee's comment that:
"The existing House of Lords meets several of the criteria—
which we have been considering—
"namely, lack of domination by one party, independence and expertise".
As someone who read history many years ago, I listened with proper awe and respect to the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton. But I am bound to say that as he drew to the end of his extremely complex set of proposals, I wondered just how different the House that would result from them would be from the House of today, and whether its experience would be any the greater.
In the situation that we now confront, when I see a House fulfilling its functions really rather well, I would be inclined to stay where we now are. I note that the Joint Committee stated that:
"It is generally accepted that the 92 hereditary Peers should cease to be Members".
I do not accept that. A large proportion of those hereditary Peers, now full Members of this House, play an invaluable part in our procedures. That contribution would be greatly missed. I hope that most hereditary Peers, if not all, would become life Peers in the House that succeeds this one.
I have a great deal of sympathy therefore with proposal 1(a) as suggested by the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. But if we cannot stand exactly where we are, where should we go? I hope that those who cast their votes on 4th February will be careful not to destroy something that works and replace it with something much worse, on a basis of ignorance or prejudice, or create the "super elective dictatorship" referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe.
I would add that it is regrettable, but perhaps understandable, that Members of another place should reach their conclusions on the basis of inadequate information—I put it as politely as I can. Some members of my party apparently base their support for a wholly elected House on the basis that it might embarrass the present Government. I do not believe that great constitutional issues should be decided on such shallow and shabby grounds. My fear is that if we have a wholly or substantially elected House, it will become a genetically modified House of Commons, with its independence and expertise greatly reduced. I am totally against that.
When the Government produced their original proposal for a 20 per cent elected House, I was tempted to support it on the grounds that it was the least bad option I was likely to get. But the Joint Committee produces a pretty effective argument against it—20 per cent would hardly stimulate the electorate to much interest. My noble friend Lord Wakeham, the great fixer, has again, with his usual persuasiveness, asked for "a bit more". But the trouble is that fixers usually

653
take the position at each end of the argument and settle in the middle. I can just see the genius conjured up by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who is to resolve this great debate, saying, "Well, the Lords support 30 per cent and the Commons want 100 per cent. We'll go for 65 per cent."
Like my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, I doubt the view that the legitimacy supposedly given to the elected Members would transfer to the others. I think that that sort of compromise in the middle would be a recipe for conflict and would mean less expertise, less experience and less independence. Therefore, I shall vote for a wholly appointed House and against the other options.
9.5 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, my purpose in putting my name on the speakers' list today is not because I have some original or important contribution to make. All the issues have been promoted and fully debated. I rise to speak because I wish to stand up and be counted on where I stand, so your Lordships will be pleased to know that I will not detain the House for long. I simply wish to highlight one or two of the main issues as I see them.
I shall never forget when I first entered your Lordships' House marvelling at the wise and brilliant contributions from all Benches on any and all of the subjects that were debated. I felt privileged and indeed fortunate to be in a position to take part in proceedings in this House. I have listened carefully to the arguments on all sides and I have been convinced that an appointed House is the only way to maintain that expertise and experience.
Eminent people would not stand for election and the House and indeed the country would be the loser. It is, I believe, essential that we preserve the difference between the two Houses and not end up with the Upper House being a House of Commons Mark 2. A second elected Chamber would be not only a very costly alternative but would definitely be a threat and a challenge to the other place. I believe most strongly in the pre-eminence of the elected House and wish to preserve its status.
Changes in the procedures in the other place now mean that Bills come to your Lordships' House with whole portions having had no scrutiny at all. If legislation is to reach the statute book in an acceptable manner and in a clear and understandable language, it is the role of this House to ensure by careful and detailed examination that this is accomplished. I believe it can be achieved only by prudent appointments to your Lordships' House.
Finally, I believe a hybrid House would be a real disaster, with some Peers being in a different position from others. Various questions would arise. Would they feel and be seen as more legitimate representatives than appointed Peers? How long would their term of office last? Would they be paid as Members of another place are paid? Would they have similar back-up and support? What would be the relationship with their counterparts in another place?
654
I could go on and on, but I will not. I know where I stand. I nail my colours to the mast and I hope that your Lordships are of a similar persuasion.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, as so much has already been said in the debate, I do not propose to go into detail. I want merely to emphasise some of the major points. I begin by emphasising the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, at the outset. The major issue is not composition: the first and major issue is what we are proposing to do in your Lordships' House. That is what we should be examining and then how we best proceed to do it.
First, in a revised House we should not be challenging the supremacy of another place. Everyone who has spoken so far agrees with that and it is a starting point. I was a Member of the House of Commons for nearly 20 years and I am sorry to find them so stupid as to imagine that 50 to 60 per cent of Members of this House can be elected without implications on what they are doing. It seems that Members of Parliament do not seem to know what they are talking about. That is what we should not be doing. One might say that to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who is in favour of 80 per cent of Members elected. That would be even worse. I once told him privately that I had not found another Member on his side who agreed with him—except one and that one was the Chief Whip.
What should we do in a revised House? We should do what, as many have said, we now do so well. Paragraph 10 of the report highlights what we do so well. I welcome the Joint Committee report in that respect, as I welcome its comments at paragraph 24: that at the next stage of its discussions it would hope to proceed on how to make your Lordships' House, as revised on an appointed basis, more effective than it is even today.
If one agrees with what should be done, then what kind of composition would best do it? What would best meet the objective of scrutinising government policies and forcing another place to rethink the policies it has implemented in legislation? Three choices have been put forward very clearly in the Joint Committee report and in the debate today. Essentially they are a wholly elected House of Lords or second Chamber; a wholly appointed second Chamber; and a partly elected second Chamber.
Let me take them in that order. A wholly elected second Chamber would certainly not meet the objectives that most of us want to see a second Chamber meet—that is, carrying out the kind of functions that we carry out so well now. A wholly elected House, I fear, could elect idiots as well as intelligent people like all of us here, and some elected houses do. I say nothing about another place, but that can happen.
The only objective a wholly elected second Chamber would meet and have in its favour is that it would be fully democratic. One has to accept that it would be a democratic House. But, more important, how would one ensure its independence from party control? No

655
one has yet explained to me how, in a democratically elected second Chamber, given the supremacy of another place, we can create the independence that we all want to see. No one has yet told me how that can be done and how we can avoid party control in such an elected second Chamber.
Perhaps the most serious argument against a wholly elected second Chamber—and this certainly has not been appreciated in another place or by some noble Lords who have spoken today—is that it would be quite impossible to continue the existing conventions. We would need to have a new constitution. There would be no other way of doing it. The idea that Parliament should go through the whole process of establishing a new constitution beggars belief. Frankly, we all know that that would not happen, and so I am perfectly happy that we will not have a wholly elected second Chamber.
What about a partly elected second Chamber, whatever the percentage; a hybrid House? My noble and learned friend the Leader of the House said to me on one occasion that we already have a hybrid House. I assume that he was joking, of course. The idea that a hybrid House of hereditary and life Peers could be the same as one consisting of some elected Peers and some appointed Peers and that there would be no difference, is, frankly, a nonsense. Given the intelligence of my noble and learned friend, I know that he did not mean it.
If we had a hybrid House we would have the worst of all worlds. We would have all the problems of a wholly elected House with knobs on. Even the pleasure of having the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in your Lordships' House—I would love to see him here; perhaps he can get himself appointed in some way—would not be a sufficient reason for me to agree to a hybrid House.
The difference between an elected and an appointed House has been spelt out very clearly by many noble Lords and I shall not go into it again. But, again, you could not have the present conventions. As with a wholly elected House, you would have, for example, to get rid of the Lord Chancellor. I know that many would be in favour of that—in my view, for the wrong reasons because there have been wholly unjustified and unfair attacks on my noble and learned friend. But, having said that, even under his idea of only 20 per cent elected Members, there would have to be a Speaker in your Lordships' House—someone to select who should speak. We certainly could not have the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees sitting there doing nothing. I am not suggesting that he should do anything because under our rules he cannot.
I turn now to the question of a wholly appointed House, which would meet all the objectives and benefits spelt out in paragraph 10 of the report. The only semi-serious argument that has been put before us relates to the question of legitimacy. It has been answered by many. I merely add that if we keep the existing conventions—and especially if we keep the supremacy of the House of Commons in front of us—
656
and the appointments were checked, as is suggested in paragraph 52 of the report, we should have a better appointed House even than we have today.
The question of legitimacy comes down to this: if a few Members of this House were to be elected on a list system, frankly, the constituencies would need to be so large as to be meaningless. They would be rather like Members of the European Parliament—no one knows who they are. Equally, if they were to be elected on a list system, we might as well appoint them. It would be a better way of doing it than having the leadership of the parties preparing the list and deciding who should be at the top of it. We all know that that is what goes on. A list system or a directly elected system would create a much worse House. The new legitimacy, as has been pointed out by the Joint Committee and many others, would come from the natural way in which an appointed House would operate—and, I believe, operate well.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is reported as having said—I do not know whether it is true because I read it in the newspaper—that the general feeling is between an all elected or all appointed House. He said that most think that a hybrid House is a nonsense. I agree with him. But what I found rather strange was that he still favours 20 per cent. No, he is shaking his head. I hope that it does not mean that he is in favour of more. I shall wait until tomorrow night. But he is no longer in favour of 20 per cent so he has to make a U-turn. I am delighted.
I have made a U-turn. I confess that I have changed my mind in the light of the evidence that has been placed before us by the Joint Committee. As I have said, the idea of a hybrid House remains a nonsense; but I have always favoured either a wholly elected or a wholly appointed House. I now recognise—a view strengthened by comments in the Joint Committee report—that an all elected House, although truly democratic, would create a nightmare scenario. We should then need a new constitutional Bill. Can one imagine introducing a constitutional Bill in both Houses of Parliament? I hope and believe that it would simply not happen. I believe that the way ahead should be to come down in favour of a wholly appointed House. I certainly shall, and I shall vote against everything else.
9.18 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I address the House with some caution as one of 26 turkeys who have yet to learn the date of Christmas! Nevertheless, I feel that I should like to comment because it is clear that enormous care, weight and analytical clarity have gone into the production of the report with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, has presented us. We owe it to the committee to be as critical as we wish, as a sign of our appreciation of its work.
I have listened to the debate with a declining sense of hope, and for this reason. What I think I hear is a commentary on the political life of this country disguised in statements supporting an appointed House of Lords.

657
It goes roughly like this: "Those people down the corridor lack both competence and good manners, and they present us with an awful lot of rubbish legislation that we have to put right. The political parties are dreadful things. They choose MPs, and would choose Members of this House if they were allowed to, in utterly undemocratic and oppressive ways. Parties dominate, and prevent any kind of intellectual quality of discussion. Anyone of any eminence would not dream of putting himself or herself up for election".
I could not possibly comment since I am not of any eminence. But I do not understand why it should be assumed that eminent people would not stand for election. What kind of commentary is that? Many such comments were made by noble Lords sitting on party Benches. I find that at least odd. It raises the question of how the work of the Joint Committee has been affected by its being presented with terms of reference that effectively deprive it of the opportunity to consider the political life of this country as a whole and to place any recommendations about this House in that context.
I wish to go to the other end of our political process—local government. I have never been an elected councillor but I am now an independent member and chairman of the standards and ethics committee of Worcestershire County Council. It has been a learning curve towards depression as I contemplate the steady undermining of the authority and strength of local government in this country, probably over three decades. If party politics are so grubby and electoral politics so oppressively dominated by parties, somebody must be to blame. It is time that this discussion were placed in the context of a vision of what it would be like to have a vital and interested political citizenry in this country. If we thought in those terms, we would want to connect this House with the base of our political life—local life. We would want to give a certificate of worthiness to local government by allowing it some say in who sat in this House.
One of my criticisms of the Joint Committee report is that it presents us with a choice between election and appointment without considering the possibility of indirect election. Indirect election has the great virtue of leaving unchallenged the directly elected Chamber as properly having superior power, with the right to choose the government, to regulate supply and to have the decisive word on legislation. It would also give more to local government, whose members—some sit in this Chamber—spend hours, days and weeks giving themselves to the concerns of local communities and getting burdened with increasing prescription from the centre, over which they have little control. I am surprised that the Joint Committee has not addressed the possibility of indirect election precisely as a way of revitalising the political engagement of local communities.
I would not rest if I had not said that it would be unsatisfactory to allow proposals to go through on the basis that electoral politics and political life in this country are such a grubby business, and have gone so
658
far downhill, that the only thing standing between us and chaos is the House of Lords, provided that as far as possible it remains the same. That would be a very depressing conclusion.
I hope that as a House we might insist that some political vision about the politics of our country should engage future decision-making on these proposals, even if the committee could not do so because of its terms of reference. In that way, we would not simply be tinkering with what goes on at the top of the tree but reconnecting ourselves with the base of our common political life. We would be doing some small bit to rehabilitate the politics of a country where electoral turn-outs and political party memberships have decreased. It is good for people to belong to, and to be active in, political parties. I thought that most people in this Chamber would think that.
We should not rest with making proposals on the basis that we are the only good thing left in British politics. That would be a terrible shame, but it is how we would be seen. I also think it unwise for us to accept from the Joint Committee a proposal that includes the likelihood of existing Members of this House not being asked to tender their resignation when a new House is constituted. If we believe in something but then say, "This will see me out", we shall rightly be dismissed as a cynical and self-serving group of people, and that is not what I think of the Joint Committee. So I hope that that issue will be reconsidered.
Despite all the work that will be necessary to clarify constitutions and electoral methods, I hope that new thought will be given to the reconnection of this House with the base of our democracy in a way that is clearly different from that which produces Members of the House of Commons but which nevertheless has credibility and will allow this House to draw on many of the people upon whose voluntary efforts our local communities depend.
Although the Joint Committee has not yet reached the question of what to do about those of us on these Benches, it would be poor if I did not say something about it. It is a bit demeaning to be one of a series of problems that will be dealt with in due course. The bishops are in this House for a rather different reason. However, we are not here to defend our position but to draw attention to the fact that it is possible to construct a Chamber of a legislature on the basis of a real attention to spiritual values and, indeed, to prayer and reflection, without necessarily resorting to ex officio membership of particular Churches.
The Scottish Parliament, which had to begin from scratch in this respect, shows that it is possible imaginatively to create a situation in which the dimensions of spirituality. reflection and faith are built into the House's proceedings on the basis of a clear recognition of the different faith communities which, I am delighted to say, constitute our society.
Apart from the detail of my remarks, which is no doubt highly contestable, I have said what I have because before we start choosing from among the seven options, which we think is the realistic thing to do, we need to be realistic about the political environment of our country

659
and its people. We should not forsake that reality to conduct discussions about an essentially private world of our own.
It is a fundamental religious conviction that where there is no vision, the people perish. Another biblical comment that looks pretty realistic in the light of much of this discussion is that political vision seems to have become rather rare in the land.
I believe that we have a unique opportunity, which we should not avoid, to reconsider the vision of a common society united with a political endeavour that we admire and honour. We have real examples of that. When the Roman Catholic bishops, who have no seats here, produced their account of the common good, it had an electrifying effect on the quality of the political discussion at the time. When, before he has taken his seat, His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury gives a Dimbleby lecture of important spiritual content, the response reveals just how hungry people are for politics that are genuinely spiritual. I hope that we shall attend to those dimensions as the proposals proceed.
9.29 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has made a refreshing and important speech. He has asked us to look at ourselves slightly more carefully than perhaps we have been doing during the debate so far.
I have scrapped most of my speech, as it has all been said, particularly by my noble friend Lord Norton and the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Phillips—and, more recently, by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell.
Given the facts, and the options that the Joint Committee has put before us, it seems to me—although I used to think otherwise—that the only kind of second Chamber able to counterbalance the present-day House of Commons would be a wholly appointed Chamber. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that there is a gap in the report, in that the question of indirect elections has not been considered. There are considerable problems with indirect elections, although many of us have thought about them for a long time. It may be that what the right reverend Prelate wants to happen could happen through a wholly appointed House. The wholly appointed House that I propose is not as far from the ideas of the right reverend Prelate as he might think.
What is needed is, as many noble Lords have said, a part-time, unsalaried House with Members of widely varied experience, most of it current experience outside Parliament. Members should be appointed roughly as proposed by the Joint Committee in its Option 1. The House's legitimacy would be based on its Members' expertise and the way in which they behave. Members would come from all parts of the United Kingdom; they could come from local government and the devolved Assemblies. The House should have the same broad answerability to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.
Having said that, what I would like to see is by no means the status quo. I agree with the Joint Committee about the role of the statutory appointments
660
commission, the size of an appointed House—some 600—and the single term of about 12 years. I also take the view, and have for some time, that Members of the second Chamber should be separated from the peerage. I do not believe that anyone has discussed that point. Peers could still be created as an honour" but the second Chamber should no longer consist only of Peers. That is an unsuitable arrangement now. It was once needed to keep a House of equal Peers, but there is no need for it in a new House.
Linked with that point, I suggest that a new appointed House might work best if the legislation providing it gave a clean break in membership. The new appointments should start from scratch. Continuity could be maintained by a number of existing Members being appointed, as doubtless many would—it would probably be very necessary. That clean break would solve several problems, including the fact that anyone suitable could be appointed, such as life Peers, hereditary Peers and people who were not Peers at all. I do not believe that noble Lords should continue in this place until we drop—and I very much include myself in that. It is absolutely wrong, and this is an opportunity to see to it without breaking the necessary continuity.
Before noble Lords hold up their hands in horror, I suggest that they read carefully the speech made by the right reverend Prelate, as he partly made my case for me. I also suggest a brief glance at the article by Peter Riddell on page 12 of today's Times, which was mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. I disagree with most of what he says, but there may be a grain of truth in his sketch of how we see ourselves in this House. I say no more.
I believe that there is at least something to be said for a clean break in appointing our new membership. When we come to vote on the seven options, I think that I shall vote for Option 1. I shall vote against the six other options.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I must declare very firmly that I feel, and have always felt, strongly in favour of an unelected second Chamber. Given the current situation in the House of Commons, where there are ever more professional politicians who have ever less experience of the working environment, I think that we need more expertise, not less, in the upper House. So I for one feel very strongly that an elected Chamber would give no advantage in the way in which it would actually work. It would simply give a merely external impression of "democracy".
This word "democracy" has been bandied around. It was bandied around by my noble friend Lord Richard—who is not in the Chamber, but to whom I owe a great debt. When I first came to the House just over seven years ago, in his great kindness, he stimulated me and made me feel very welcome on these Benches. However, in his speech—which I try to quote accurately—he said that an elected Chamber was needed if parliamentary democracy is not to become unbalanced. Is he suggesting that we have been unbalanced all these years? Is he saying that we will suddenly become more balanced by being "democratically elected"?

661
What is the gain of this veneer of being "democratic"? Why is it so essential? A huge number of British institutions, by their very nature, do a fine service in supporting this country, but they are essentially not democratic. The Law Lords are not democratic. The universities are not democratic. The monarchy is not democratic. The regulatory bodies, such as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Genetics Commission, are not democratically elected. The research councils are not democratic, but they need to be transparent in their working. Most important in terms of government, the Civil Service is not democratic either.
It does not seem to me that this notion of democracy is necessarily something that we should automatically accept as part of our parliamentary procedure. It seems to me that democracy lies very firmly in the primacy of the elected Chamber—which not only is elected, but also, I think, represents the various regions. That is why I do not think that we have to pay much attention to the notion of regional representation in this House. That comes simply by the very random nature of appointment.
I think that it would be only reasonable of me also to mention the Church. The Church is hardly democratic. Yet, in my view, the Church of England—I hope that I can spare the blushes of the right reverend Prelates on the Spiritual Bench—has lent a very important part to the workings of our democracy in its moderation, its liberality, its espousal of true human values and its notion of ethics. The presence of the Church here could never be democratic, but it is essential to the workings of this House in its guidance and in the way it sometimes challenges the Government and the Opposition. I would only add that it might be reasonable to consider some expansion of that representation. It would be good to see some Muslim, Catholic and perhaps Jewish representation on the Spiritual Bench. However, there is no question but that the Anglican Church, in the very work that it does, has lent a unique aspect to our British democracy. It seems to me that that work should continue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to the lack of respect for being a Lord. That is true. I am sure that all noble Lords know this but I should point out to others who read Hansard that being a Lord does not even get one a table in a good restaurant, as I discovered in my first week in the House of Lords. Far more respect is accorded to the fact that I am a university professor. But, of course, I was not elected a university professor. So the notion that being elected accords one respect is nonsense. I was an appointed professor in a personal chair at my university. That seems to me to be an adequate reason. It occurs after due process.
Nor do I think that there is any advantage in there being hybridity in this House. There has been a rumbling throughout the debate this afternoon and this evening that somehow the House has been hybrid and that therefore a hybrid House will work in the future—the notion that somehow hereditary Peers and
662
appointed Peers make up an appointed Chamber. But, of course, the truth is that hereditary Peers and appointed Peers are the same animal. Neither of them has democratic legitimacy. We must recognise that clearly. It is a completely different matter to structure a House that is part elected—whether it is 20, 50 or 80 per cent elected—and part appointed. For all the reasons that have been repeated in this debate, it seems to me that such a process would make the workings of this House very difficult.
One of the problems that we have concerns the failure of understanding of what goes on in this House. I think that now finally there is a glimmer of understanding in the House of Commons in that regard. I believe that there is a gradual realisation that what we do in this House is worthwhile. That is now realised in a way that has not been previously appreciated. But, certainly, the public at large are not generally aware of that. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, mentioned figures in regard to how many people would want a democratically elected Chamber. I take those figures with a very large grain of salt because it seems to me that most of those people have not seriously considered the working of this House.
Much has been said about the expertise of noble Lords. I recognise that I am extremely privileged to be here. Many other doctors could have taken my place. Many other much more eminent medical scientists than I could have been here in my place. There is always an element of luck in that regard. I need to remain here as a working Peer. I do not mean a working Peer in a political sense. It is advantageous to the House for me to be able to work in the university, the laboratory and also with patients. We have still not decided whether we want the House to be part-time or full-time and how professional we want it to be.
Last week we had what I considered to be a ludicrous debate about attendance during debates such as this. I believe that it is difficult to sustain the argument that I should sit here for two days throughout the debate in order to be able to take part in it. My university might reasonably hold different views as to how I might best use my time.
All kinds of conflicts arise, not just those concerned with work. For example, this evening as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, made his excellent speech, to which I listened with great interest—I congratulate him on his excellent summary of his committee's wonderful report—there was a meeting of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. If I wished to take part in this debate I was prohibited by the rules from attending the POST meeting. I chose, of course, to speak in this debate although the POST meeting was important. Such conflicts are always arising. We ought to consider making the rules of the House more flexible.
We cannot always make up our minds. One of the problems is that people like myself run the risk of losing our expertise in the community at large. For example, I note that when I am now in the Barry Room and the waiter asks me whether I want my sole off or on the bone, I say, "Frankly, you should do the dissection", because

663
I have lost my surgical expertise by being in this place. Hopefully there is still enough expertise to make it worthwhile to noble Lords.
An issue that we need to debate much more seriously is the notion of an arbitrary age of retirement, which seems unjustified. There is no question but that, over the next 50 to 100 years, our society is going to get considerably older but fitter. All the demographic projections show very clearly that, within the next century, something like 1 per cent of the population of the United Kingdom and the United States will be 100 years old or more. They will still be mentally fit. We need to reconsider our attitude towards age. A large number of Members of this House are totally alert, and to enforce arbitrarily an age of retirement seems quite unjustified.
Finally, a key issue is appointment to the House. One problem is that we clearly feel strongly about prime ministerial patronage. The notion of an electoral college is rather unsatisfactory. Perhaps the debate should be more about how we arrange a suitable appointments commission, so that we appoint those appointed Peers in a way that is truly transparent and more transparent, and better for the workings of this Parliament—and for Parliaments for many generations to come, which is what we should be legislating for in the next few months.
9.47 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, with 99 speakers over two days, noble Lords must expect me to be even more subliminal than usual, and so I shall be. The last advice Lord Longford gave me was, "You are here to speak; do so", so I am trying.
I have an interest to declare, being a hereditary Peer, but that is something I share with all noble Lords. We all share the privilege of being Peers, and we all share the human honour of being hereditary. Like all noble Lords, I am immensely proud of my parents and grandparents and, like those of us lucky enough to have them, of my children and grandchildren.
We are also proud of our British constitution, which is one of the splendid things that we have shared with the rest of the world, like our law, our democracy and our language. We are all, I think, agreed that we need two Houses of Parliament. On that point, perhaps the colours of the carpets are significant. The Sovereign's carpet is blue, representing the sky and the heavens above; the carpet in the Commons is green, representing growing things and the grass roots of our people; and the carpet of the Lords is red, not so that you cannot see blood spilt on it, but because it is the colour of our hearts and the life blood of our people.
Each House has its own part to play. If there were any element whatever of democratic election in our House, we would only end up fighting with the Commons as to who was the more democratic. As it is, our role is to sift through the legislation—it pours out like untreated sewage, though naturally we hope that the Commons will have worked at it a bit first—to apply a brake to the executive with a power of delay and, by our debates, to contribute much to the wisdom of government.
664
There only remains our composition. I believe that we are a very good mix at the moment. First, we were all hereditaries and bishops, then Law Lords were added, then life Peers and then women. I do not believe we should all be hereditaries and bishops, nor all Law Lords, nor all life Peers, nor indeed all women. We ladies much enjoy our male companionship. Nor do I believe that there should be any restriction on age. There is a difference of opinion as to when a Peer reaches his prime; some would say not before 80, although we are particularly proud of the wisdom and expertise—and charm—of the 90 year-olds in this House.
We are a splendid mix of the best of Britain. I sit surrounded by noble friends who are air marshals, generals—not so many admirals as there should be—heads of the Civil Service, distinguished doctors, nurses, professors, judges and Speakers of another place; and, of course, bishops, Archbishops, Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries and Peers with long roots, such as my noble friends Lord Strabolgi and Lady Mar, who take us right back to the dawn of our history. My ancestor, the first Lord Strange, was beheaded after the Battle of Worcester for supporting Charles I. His last words were:
"I die for God, the King and the Law, and for that I feel no shame of my life, nor fear of my death".
I can never live up to those words or to the achievements of so many noble Lords around me. But I try, in my own way, to do the best that I can. And I believe that we also have this in common: we all love each other, and we all love this House.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Strange. She always gives us an interesting talk on different issues. She wandered a little tonight from her horticulture to history, but her speech was equally interesting.
When one is number 40 on the speakers' list, all that really matters has already been said, by most other people but not by yourself. Perhaps noble Lords will excuse me if I do not follow my notes to the letter and reminisce a little on some of my experiences in the Commons and since I came here.
The case for an appointed Chamber has been well made in recent months by a large number of distinguished colleagues, ably led by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who again excelled himself today. Indeed, it is difficult to be original on this subject, such is the breadth of the arguments already deployed.
I welcome the first report of the Joint Committee, which was ably introduced by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon. Recently your Lordships debated the constitution. I did not speak in that debate but I read it from start to finish and found it quite fascinating. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell has already referred to the speech of my noble friend Lord Fowler and I, too, would like to refer to it. His reference to his attitude to the House of Lords while he was a Member of the House of Commons fits well with the views of most of us who were

665
in the Commons at that time. The truth is that we knew little or nothing about the House of Lords. For my part, I am ashamed to say that I made very little effort to find out.
It was not until I came to this House that I discovered just how thorough noble Lords were in their scrutiny of legislation and how dedicated many of them were—and still are—to their parliamentary responsibilities. I suspect that there may be Members in the present House of Commons who are as ill informed about this House as were my generation. I do not wish to imply for one moment that Members of the House of Commons neglect their legislative duties or do not do a splendid job; of course they do. They are as dedicated to what they do as we are to what we do. However, the nature of the two Houses is very different and the attitude of Members illustrates those differences.
When a Bill is guillotined in the Commons it is not uncommon for very large sections to go almost unexamined. Because this House is much less confrontational and has more time to deliberate, those sections are scrutinised very carefully here. I use that as only one example of the effectiveness of this House. That point is further confirmed by the fact that in the 1999–2000 Session, for example, the Lords secured more than 4,700 amendments to Bills. The overwhelming majority of those were accepted by the Government when the Bills were returned to the Commons.
In an average Session, something in excess of 70 per cent of Lords amendments are accepted by the government of the day. That speaks volumes for the quality of the detailed examination which takes place in this House. That is due, to no small extent, to the wide-ranging experience of the membership of your Lordships' House. All the professions are here, together with a host of business and academic experience. Indeed, one noble Lord who spoke earlier listed all the various categories represented in this House. That, in itself, is significant.
Relatively few of those people—I think particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who spoke a few moments ago—would stand for election and therefore we are very pleased to have them here. It would be a tragedy if we were to lose them. In any event, so far as concerns an elected Chamber, the public show little enthusiasm for elections. If assemblies were to be created throughout England, that enthusiasm would be likely to diminish rather than increase. In Scotland, the electorate is already over-burdened with elections. The figures given by my noble friend Lady Blatch earlier were most revealing.
Originally I had some sympathy for the idea that a proportion of the Members of the reformed House should be elected. However, the more I have discussed and thought about that, the more convinced I have become that appointed membership of this House is far and away the most satisfactory way forward. I hope that we shall not be tempted to have a mixture of appointed and elected Members. I believe that that would give us the worst of all worlds.
Being non-elected, the new House would be completely independent and could complement the work of the Commons. It would neither duplicate it
666
nor seek to challenge the political supremacy of that House. Indeed, it would freely accept that the Commons, being the elected Chamber, should have the last word. How different that would be from a wholly, or even largely, elected Chamber where the legitimacy of the upper House would be proclaimed on equal terms and where the supremacy of the Commons would in due course be questioned or even contested.
The House of Lords is sometimes accused of being undemocratic, but an elected second Chamber is much more likely to follow the European Parliament and demand powers commensurate with its political powers. Even the more recent Scottish Parliament has among its Members some who seek control of Treasury matters. In a new House of Lords which was wholly or partly elected, would that body happily leave Treasury matters only to the House of Commons? I doubt that very much.
In any event, the future of both Houses will continue to be revised—a revision much more easily agreed if the second Chamber were wholly appointed than if it were to be wholly elected.
10 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, time, like death, concentrates the mind wonderfully. Therefore, I shall concentrate my remarks simply on the question of elections and speak a little of my disappointment that many Peers who have spoken and who I respect greatly seem to be going down the track of asking for elections to this place or for a fully elected House of Lords.
I believe that if we go down that path we shall destroy the character, competency and independence of this place. The cost would be unbelievable. We are all realists here. We know that money does not fall out of the sky. If it is spent on this place, it will not be spent on hospitals, houses, roads or all of the other things which are so badly needed. There will be serious clashes with another place which will threaten our ability to govern ourselves.
Many times we debate issues here on which we feel strongly. We do our duty to scrutinise legislation and to seek to check what may have been unintentional flaws. We amend or sometimes even vote down a Bill. But when the Commons disagrees with our view, we always recognise, with no argument, that it has been elected and we have not, and we surrender. Does anyone seriously believe that if we are elected too, even partially, that tradition will be maintained? Of course not. "You have no such superiority and validity any more", we shall say, "for we are elected too. Democracy rules, OK!"
Another major concern for me is that we would lose the Cross-Benchers for whom I have a great regard. I believe that they form an essential element here. The report states that it is likely that we shall have few if any independent Members. That is not likely; it is inevitable. Voters always want to know where a candidate stands before they give their vote.
In over 40 years in active politics I can recall only two instances where an independent was elected to Parliament. Both were in very unusual circumstances.

667
The first was because of the situation at Tatton in 1997, which noble Lords will remember, and the second was at the last election when the question of the closure of a cottage hospital was such a burning issue that one particular doctor was elected. Those are the only two independents I remember being elected.
Everyone in this House who has ever stood for election knows that it is vital to have a political party's endorsement. It is the party that provides the money, the workers who address the envelopes and the people who go out canvassing and deliver leaflets. It does all the organising. It is the party that provides the office and the stature. Without that backing there is not a hope of being elected.
Is it possible to get round that by electing some and then appointing independents? The noble Lord, Lord Richard—I am sorry he is not in his place—advocated that. Yet he rather spoilt his argument by going on to say that the public has no respect for patronage or for those who are elected in that way. I am not sure which he wanted, but it seemed to me that that is simply not on.
Let us suppose that we go half and half. That would mean a fish-and-fowl House. Some people say that we have had a hybrid House already. However, I was never treated in any way differently from an hereditary Peer when I became a life Peer. If we had a fish-and-fowl, half-and-half House, we could not have some Peers being paid and not others. That is one hybrid too far. No one would stand for election to a busy and time-consuming job in the public eye with no pay. So, all Peers would have to be salaried, but those who were elected would have much more work than those who were not.
When a voter gives his vote, he expects a number of things in return. I refer to correspondence, for instance. When I was an MP I would have at least 30 to 40 letters every day. Every letter had to be answered and many other letters had to be written because of them, either to Ministers, local authorities, or whatever. That was a big job in itself. That is what the elected Peers would have to do; let us make no mistake. Not only does the voter want replies to letters, but he wants surgeries to be held so that he can put his case to his Member. He wants interviews, school, factory and hospital visits and a host of other services from his chosen and successful candidate. I foresee serious difficulties between elected Peers and elected MPs who represent the same area.
What is all this rubbish about the need for Peers from different areas? There is not a soul in this whole land of ours who does not have his own MP. Whatever area he lives in, he has one already. What are we arguing about? But if we have two sets of elected people, both representing the same area, there will be big trouble. If they differed politically or if one worked harder than the other, there would be trouble. The electors would go straight to the one who worked hard, whether he sat in this or another place. He would have to put in a lot of extra hours. So there would be trouble not only between this House and another place, but also between Peers who were elected and those who were not.
668
Finally, I must say that I have never heard a single peep from the electorate demanding the changes we are now debating. I have never had a single letter or conversation pressing for this constitutional upheaval that we are arguing about. People are interested in the National Health Service, transport systems, schooling, university fees, jobs, tax and housing. No one is jumping up and down screaming for this place to be reformed. I have not seen a single march. Has any other noble Lord? Has anyone seen placards? I have not. I really do not know what we are arguing about.
We have proved many times that we can do our job well. No one claims that the House of Lords does not operate effectively or work hard and well. For the life of me, I cannot understand why it should be destroyed. I shall vote for a totally appointed House and against everything else.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, first, I thank the Joint Committee and the noble Lord, Lord. Wakeham, and the Royal Commission for enabling this debate.
I do not think that the noble Baroness will be too surprised when I say to her that not for the first time shall we disagree, and I hope not for the last time either.
Let us look at the sort of House we are talking about. I do not see the House in as rosy a light as the noble Baroness has painted. I believe that it is a House that is long overdue for change, that is outdated and that is out of touch. Indeed, the change has been waiting—apart from the matter of the hereditaries— since 1911. If we cannot have another look at the issue and find a better alternative, then there is something wrong with us all.
I am rather surprised that the noble Baroness talks about an appointed House—as have other noble Lords on both sides—that does not have any democratic authority and does not have a base with any democratic authority in the country itself.
The House has an average age of 68. I know that there are some very nimble 68 year olds and above. But would it not be better to have a more even spread of ages? We would have the benefit of younger people sitting here and giving us their advice. That would be revolutionary to this House, but I think that that is what the country expects. The House is also male-dominated. I was rather surprised that the noble Baroness did not say that there ought to be more of her own gender in the Chamber. Certainly, there ought to be far more people from ethnic minorities sitting here than there are at the moment.
There is also the structure of the House. It represents many people from the South East and not many—again I must hiccup with many noble Lords—from the regions. We ought to have more cross-party representation and a wider spread of people than we have at present.
So there is a need for major reform in this House. If we do not achieve it now, it will happen sooner or later. I hope that we do not wait another hundred years. Many have

669
referred to the expertise that is brought in, but we cannot depend on the appointments commission to do our job for us.
The noble Baroness said that she has not had many letters and many others have said that there has been no pressure, but when there was talk of the people's Peers, I received letters from many able and worthy people who wanted their names to be put forward and wrote to me asking how to go about it. They were wasting their time, were they not? The people who were appointed were very able, with expertise as captains of industry, people from the diplomatic service, those who run the great charities. The one thing that they were not was people's Peers. I have had no letters since then. The only way that we will get over that is through elections to this Chamber—if we want people to take notice.
Many people have been saying that our Select Committees produce good reports and have a lot of expertise. Peter Riddell wrote in The Times today that, yes, that is all good, but he has never yet been stopped by a Minister, Secretary of State or leading civil servant who has said, "I am going to take note of what is being said by the House of Lords, with all its expertise". That is probably true. The truth of the matter is that people do not understand or take any notice of what happens in this House.
We cannot continue to run a second Chamber in that way in this century. We cannot carry on like that. There is no legitimacy about it. So we must look for a change. Rightly, the Joint Committee states that it will leave the question of the Law Lords and the right reverend Prelates—who must have gone to another place; they are certainly notable by their absence—for another day. I am content to await the proposals on that question. However, again, change is needed. In relation to the right reverend Prelates, if there is to be room for them in any future House, their representation must be wider than one particular Church, or they should have no representation at all. But let us await the report on that.
Something that has not been mentioned in the debate, but was certainly mentioned by the Royal Commission, is that there must be a break with the Peerage in this Chamber. We must have a new start, a new name and be more democratic. Although many of us may prefer that the House become entirely elected, I not think that any of us would advocate that that huge leap be done in one go. That is impossible; that is why we must return to a hybrid House.
It is often said—it has been said again from all sides of the House today—that if we have a hybrid House, the elected Members will challenge the non-elected Members. I must remind the House that throughout the world there are many hybrid Houses that work perfectly well. There is no reason why there should be such a challenge. Indeed, there is no reason why some appointees should not be retained with a new independent commission, so that expertise is retained.
670
I have always advocated—quite apart from the question whether they should be in the House—that a panel of experts should be appointed from whom we can draw as and when we need them.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Hoyle: Certainly, my Lords, although it is late.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to give us an example of a mixed chamber elsewhere that works well compared with the work of this House, and can he explain why there are far more chambers elsewhere that are wholly appointed than are mixed?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, that is not true. I could go through a number of mixed Chambers. Ireland is one such Chamber that works perfectly. It has people who are elected and people who are appointed. The noble Lord shakes his head, as he is entitled to, but there are many more such Chambers, and there are many parliaments that are fully elected and work perfectly, without the upper house challenging the other.
The noble Lord may care to read Reforming the House of Lords: Lessons from Overseas, and there are other reports that he might read. We could carry on all night, but the House does not want us to do that. The House wants us to differ in our opinions and present those opinions. I dispute what the noble Lord says. There must be a substantial elected element. I would recommend that it should be at least 50 per cent, if the reform is to be meaningful.
The next thing that I want to mention is the election date. We could not use any date other than that of the general election. We could not use the date of the European elections. I would like to see more people voting in European elections; they are important. However, the truth is that the turn-out is not there. To get the regional spread, we should ask people to vote in the general election and also in an open list system. When all the votes have been counted, the representation in this House will reflect the votes in each region. We should put a limit on the length of time that can be served because, as we know, there is no fixed date for a general election. That would mean that, if there were an immediate general election, no one in this House should have to step down just then. I want to see a good turn-out, so that we have a representative Chamber.
I would also like to see any reforms that are to be made carried through by the date of the next general election. The sword of Damocles cannot continue to hang over both Chambers. We must settle the direction in which we are going and be positive about it. So often this Chamber has missed the boat, and both Houses have missed the chance for reform. We have already got rid of many of the hereditary Peers, and the rest will follow in due course, whether we decide on a House that is appointed or partially

671
elected—perhaps the 80 per cent elected element that the Opposition are talking about. We should seize the opportunity. If we do not, we shall never be forgiven.
I make one last plea to the House. I am sorry to say that I must make it because of the speeches that I have heard today. Can the House, for once, instead of looking to the past, look to the future?
10.18 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Weatherill has already so superbly and succinctly said everything that I wanted to say.
I, too, am against any elected element in your Lordships' House. We have so many electoral systems already—for Europe, the Commons, local authorities and, for those of us who live in Scotland and Wales, a devolved Parliament or Assembly. For those who live in London, there is also the Greater London Assembly. It can surely be argued that yet another election would only increase confusion, not to mention creating even greater voter apathy. As I have mentioned before in your Lordships' House, I believe that that is one of the most worrying situations that we face today.
I did not agree with an enormous amount of what the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, said. However, I agree that, outside Westminster, people do not know what the House does; nor, sadly, do they care. The electorate, to put it bluntly, is bored by politics and politicians. Many of your Lordships have warned that the issue is one of the most difficult to have faced politics for well over a hundred years. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor claimed that it would take a genius to resolve the conflicting views.
I think nearly all of us, openly or secretly, are forced to admit that the House as it is currently constituted is working well. Therefore there must be an overwhelming case to leave it alone. I know how disappointed my noble friend Lord Cobbold is not to be able to take part in this debate today and tomorrow. I quote very briefly from his excellent letter in the Daily Telegraph.
"The really important fact that the people of this country ignore at their peril, is I hat the House of Lords is a unique pool of expertise and experience, which could never be equalled in an elected chamber. There are no salaries. The House of Lords costs one tenth of the I-louse of Commons. It is made up of Cabinet Ministers., civil servants, senior servicemen, trade-unionists, businessmen, lawyers, religious leaders, farmers, academics, teachers, sportsmen, doctors, nurses and journalists. These experts are willing and able to contribute their knowledge and experience to the scrutiny of new legislation and, where necessary, to require the Government to think again".
I think all those points are extremely relevant to our debate today.
I have to admit that not knowing when the second stage will be implemented is somewhat frustrating, especially in trying to plan for my own future. I have, however, always accepted that my days here are numbered and I feel immensely privileged to have been a Member of the House both before and after the 1999 Act. I have learnt an enormous amount from serving on various committees, having forged many new friendships and greatly appreciated coming into contact with incredibly helpful
672
and friendly members of staff throughout the entire House. I have found it a very rewarding experience and one that I shall always treasure.
I shall miss it greatly, and I wish the new House well. It is certainly one of the most civilised institutions of this increasingly violent and selfish society. Whatever is decided I hope and pray it will be beneficial to the inhabitants of the United Kingdom in calling the ever-powerful executive to account. I have a nasty feeling that it will just, in fact, be another layer of expensive bureaucracy. I hope and pray that I shall be proved wrong.
10.22 p.m.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, listening to the debate this evening I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, should quite pack his suitcase yet.
I have a small criticism to make of the Government. I listened to some of the speeches in another place today—of course, they went to bed at 7.30 p.m. The Minister announced that the Government had no view at all on these issues. I would like gently to suggest to the Government that it might have been a good idea to have a view about where they were going before they started on this process. As a member of the Joint Committee, and having spent a large part of the summer reading everything that I could put my hands on concerning House of Lords reform and associated issues, I confess that I can think of no issue where I have been in more different positions and found the issues to be more difficult than this.
When I was asked to join the Joint Committee it was probably on the basis that people thought I was in favour of a fully elected House, which I probably was at that time. I think I was in the category of those people whom the noble Lord, Lord Richard, mentioned in his speech. The Government had kicked out the hereditary Peers. It was a mess. What were we going to do? The obvious thing to do would be to have an elected House. That would carry legitimacy with voters and would also meet what appeared to be majority opinion in the House of Commons.
At the risk of being rebuked by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, the joy of the Conservative Party overleaping the Government in Disraelian manner was something which seemed attractive—although the principle was what motivated me, of course.
I have never been in favour of a hybrid House. If we have a House of appointed Members and elected Members, I want the chance to stand as an elected Member. I do not want the phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, directed at me. She said that respect comes only from elections. That is a most remarkable thing. I do not want to be a Member of this Chamber as an appointed person and hear an elected Peer stand and tell me that respect comes only from election. That essential dysfunction would be introduced by having a hybrid Chamber with elected Members.
Perhaps I may explain to the House how I finally cleared my brain. It was thanks to the good offices of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon. There are two of his former Parliamentary Private Secretaries on

673
the Joint Committee; myself and Kenneth Clarke. I proved more malleable than Kenneth Clarke. My noble and learned friend focused us on the issue of the role. Many speakers have made the point that the key question is: what is this place for? What do we want it to do? What are its roles and functions? Surprise, surprise—there is almost unanimity about that. Go down the corridor or across the House and in all the opinions about the reform of the Lords there is almost unanimity that this place should do pretty well what it does now and does very well indeed; that is, to be a reforming, revising House.
In most walks of life, if one wants to set up an organisation to undertake a task, one first works out what it should do and then what is the best way of getting the best people to achieve it. What has bedevilled the debate is the fact that we have thought about composition before we have thought about functions. Another place has a major problem because it wants this place to be just as it is now. Its Members do not want us to challenge their authority or to take any more powers. They want us to do nothing different. However, they want it to be elected. That is having your cake and eating it and that is believing two impossible things at once. It is a fundamental error.
I have been an elected Member and as an appointed Member I behave differently. For a start, as an elected Member I could not have changed my mind on the committee and not had a visit from the Chief Whip. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde, as Leader of the Opposition, said, "I gather you've had a damascene conversion". I said, "I've never been anywhere near Damascus". Elected Members behave differently—they have to because they are accountable to their electorate. That is their function. They would of course expect to be paid and the press and their electors would expect them to be full-time with no moonlighting and all the arguments that we have down the corridor. And of course they must be to a degree—and to an increasing degree in all political parties—accountable to the party. As an elected Member wanting to he reelected, one will be more partisan and less independent because one must satisfy a whole range of people.
I am delighted to see that the Prime Minister is reported as being against a hybrid House. Many people have argued that the life Peers are just like the hereditary. I am not sure that that is right because the arguments about expertise relate to the reform—the Life Peerages Act—but the point is that that was done over a long period of time. There was a long transition as the life Peers came in and the House managed to find a new role; one which is carried out extremely successfully.
Perhaps I may return to the issue of role because time is getting on. There seems to be agreement that whatever reform we have, it should not challenge the House of Commons. That seems to me to point to an appointed and not an elected body. There is agreement that this House has a great range of expertise. The right reverend Prelate asked: why would people not be prepared to stand for election from whatever background? As a former Cabinet Minister, the thought of going back to surgeries and so forth does
674
not fill me with enthusiasm. I imagine that eminent scientists and doctors are not filled with enthusiasm at the thought of having to go through the full political process. People may say, "That is disgraceful. You should have a more positive attitude". Life is as it is and if we want to have a House that is composed of such expertise, we have to be realistic and that points to appointments rather than elections. The House of Lords works.
I have to say—and as its Members have gone home they probably will not notice me saying it—that I am appalled by the decline in the House of Commons. Some years ago, a taxi driver took me past the House of Commons and said, "Do you miss that place?". I said, "The place I miss no longer exists". He thought that I was having some kind of breakdown, but what I meant was that it has changed into a completely different body through the dominance of the executive. So if we want parliamentary reform, it should start down the Corridor where there is a problem, not here where there is not.
This unpaid, ageing House sits longer and works harder than the House of Commons now. If I take a long week-end, I come down from Scotland on a Tuesday—and sometimes I find Scottish Members of Parliament coming home having done their week's work.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said that we will end up with a compromise. Let us not compromise our Parliament. The truth is that the more elected people we have in this Chamber, the less independent people we will have; the more elected people, the more cost to the taxpayer; the more elected people, the less specialist expertise; the more elected people, the less room there will be for bishops, judges and others; the more elected people, the more "yah-boo" politics and partisan campaigning we will see; and the more elected people, the more the House will challenge the Commons and the executive with, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out both in the Joint Committee and in the debate, pretty well unlimited powers. People believe that this House has no powers, but it has the power to bring the whole of the Government's programme to a halt if it chooses to do so. It chooses not to do so because of its position. Elected Members would use everything available to them in the pursuit of their constituency interests.
It is true that all of these aspects of having elected Members can be moderated. You could make the term longer to reduce patronage; you could say that there are no Ministers in this House to reduce patronage; you could do all kinds of things. But, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, pointed out, all we are seeking then to do is to make elected Members look more like appointed Members with the tenure of a life Peer.
I return, finally, to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and her idea that election brings legitimacy. No one argues that our judges need to be elected to have legitimacy and to command respect. The role of this House is to advise and to encourage the Commons to think again, and to do so in an intelligent and effective manner. It does not follow that legitimacy comes simply from election.

675
If I am asked what I do I say, "I work in the City" and "I am a Member of the House of Lords". I do so with a certain amount of pride. If I were a Member of the House of Commons I am not sure that I would do so with the same enthusiasm. It is true that the standards of the House of Commons have fallen and that people are disappointed by its performance. This House commands respect because of its work, not because of how its Members are appointed. When we come to the vote, I shall vote for having a fully appointed House and against all the other options—and I urge other noble Lords to do so too.
10.34 p m.
Lord Birt: My Lords, introducing an elected element into this Chamber without materially changing its role risks, in my view, unbalancing, unsettling our constitution.
This House has a limited but valuable role, much defined today—to debate the issues of the moment; to monitor the government of the day; above all, and most importantly, to scrutinise and propose amendments to legislation.
At its best, this Chamber discharges that role with distinction, because although some here, inevitably and reasonably, follow their party's line, there are substantial numbers of independently-minded Members on all sides of this House either with long experience of government, or with true and deep expertise in a particular field. They bring wide perspective and robust judgment to bear on proposed legislation.
But our role is limited, because, in the final analysis, as we know, we offer only advice; and that advice can in the end be set aside by the democratically elected Members of the House of Commons. All we can really do is to invite the government of the day to think again.
Many hereditary Peers have made a conscientious contribution to the business of this House. We have been moved, amused and stimulated by several during the course of today's debate. But the proposal to remove them was and is surely right, both on the grounds that birth alone is an untenable qualification for involvement in the legislative process in the 21st century, and because, as a method of selection, it is unlikely, to say the least, to provide the optimum mix of talents to enable this House effectively to discharge its critical role as a revising Chamber.
So, first, the essentially advisory role of this House; secondly, the non-binding nature of the counsel it proffers; and, thirdly, a body composed by selection of the experienced and the expert—the watchwords of the day—are all of one piece.
We could have had—but have not yet had—a fundamental debate about the British constitution. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, believes that that would be impossible. Starting with a clean sheet of paper, we could have designed some optimum mix of institutions. We could have debated whether one Church—any Church—in today's Britain should have an entrenched position in Parliament. We could have discussed the benefits of an organisationally discrete supreme court. We could have asked whether the nation's leading legal
676
officer should be a Member of the Government. We could have decided on one House or two—and if two, with what division of responsibilities. We could have determined the ideal split of powers in a two-chamber Parliament. But we have not.
If at some point in the future the role of the upper House were to change fundamentally, if it were to be given real and substantial additional powers, then direct election of all of its Members is likely to be the best method of selection for that House at that time. But, in the absence of such a fundamental re-appraisal, our role is to remain essentially the same. In those circumstances a well-constructed and democratically rooted process of direct appointment is far more likely than direct election to produce stout, independently minded Members of experience and expertise, from a comprehensive array of groups and interests, who can truly bring a different kind of scrutiny to bear than Members of heavily whipped parties in another place.
I do see the strength of the argument made by the Royal Commission for electing members to represent the interests of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, but for me that argument falls on the grounds that partial election to this Chamber would introduce the notion of democratic equivalence with the House of Commons, and thus undermine, possibly fatally, our role as an essentially advisory Chamber.
So, in due course—and for these reasons—I plan to cast my vote for the option of a wholly appointed Chamber and to oppose all options proposing an elected element, unless and until we are presented in the House with more far-reaching proposals for a fundamental re-alignment of our political system.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, further to the beginning of the noble Lord's speech, will he remind us what he did to become a Member of this House, and what he did to catch the selector's eye? He might also explain why he thinks he should be a Member while my noble friend Lord Ferrers, a Privy Counsellor and distinguished former Minister, should be flung out.
Lord Birt: My Lords, I do not think any appointed Cross-Benchers know why they were selected.
10.40 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, Members of another place now treat politics as a profession. Years ago, that was not the case. It means that they need to climb the greasy pole in politics with the object of becoming a Minister. They need to follow their party's lead and abide by the Whip in order to make certain that at the next election they will be selected and re-elected. As professional politicians, if they lose their seat, they lose their income and can no longer look after their family. They may have considerable difficulty in getting a job elsewhere.
The same would apply if Members of this House—or what is to follow it—were elected. They would lose their independence of mind and would do what their party and party leader wanted them to do. Independence of

677
mind is extremely important in this House. It should also be important in another place, but it is not as important there now as it was 20 or 30 years ago.
There has been a suggestion that, if we were to have an elected or partially elected second Chamber, Members might be elected for a term of, say, 15 years, after which they would not be allowed to stand for election again. That would be a great mistake. Because what person, safely ensconced in a career, would leave for 15 years and then attempt to return to it? They would have lost it. It would be extremely difficult for them to get back again.
The function of this House is to revise and scrutinise legislation. We do it well, but we need the expertise and experience that can be gained outside Parliament. Because we are an unpaid Chamber, we need to make our living outside Parliament, so some of us attend only part time. But, at the same time, we gain experience and understanding of what is happening in the real world outside politics. We can, therefore, bring our experience to bear in looking at legislation. As the House knows, we do that well and most of our amendments are accepted by governments of all political colours.
For those reasons, this House should be wholly appointed, not wholly elected. A partially elected House would not work properly. Therefore, I will vote for a wholly appointed House when the vote comes.
10.44 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, like some noble Lords, I shall try to speak briefly, not only because of the lateness of the hour but the fact that many of us had the opportunity to express our views on the further reform of your Lordships' House in earlier debates.
It is a truism that complicated, complex constitutional issues often boil down to simple but fundamental questions. So it is with further change in the composition of your Lordships' House.
The second and third order arguments are also important. For example, we need to ensure that any future change maintains or even enhances the ability of this House to revise and scrutinise legislation. We also want to maintain a Chamber where the Government could, on occasion—let us not beat about the bush—sort out their legislation away from the partisan cockpit of the House of Commons. As someone responsible for navigating the Scotland Bill through your Lordships' House, I am well aware of the benefits of the role played by this House. However, important though those arguments are, when they are put to one side, there remains, in stark simplicity, one important issue—the supremacy of the House of Commons. Should it be maintained or should it be eroded?
The paradox at the heart of the debate on introducing any elected element into your Lordships' House is that its constitutional impact is likely to be greater on the House of Commons than on the House of Lords. This House works as a subordinate, scrutinising and revising Chamber. It does not threaten the supremacy of the House of Commons because it cannot claim a
678
democratic mandate. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, said, it works well within the statutory and conventional limitations imposed upon it. Indeed, if it were to work up to those limits, virtually no Government would be able to secure their legislative programme.
This virtual self-denying ordinance is bound to change with the introduction of an elected element. Quite simply, we cannot have a first and a second-class democratic mandate. It is a little like virginity—you either have it or you do not. It is as simple as that. It would be impossible to argue that elected Members of the House of Lords did not enjoy the same democratic mandate as elected Members of the House of Commons.
During the legislative battle between the two Houses, when push comes to shove, why should elected Peers give way to elected Members of the House of Commons? The balance between the House of Commons and the House of Lords would not only begin to change with the introduction of an elected element, it would continue to change. It is not an end point, but a process.
When we set off down the road of constitutional reform, it is a good idea to know, at least roughly, where we want to finish up. It is my belief that a hybrid House would be essentially unstable. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was absolutely right when he said recently that the real choice is between a wholly elected and a wholly appointed House. I believe that is a constitutional and political reality. That choice will eventually, if not immediately, have to be made.
Once an elected element is introduced, the power of the democratic mandate argument is so strong in our political culture that there would be irresistible pressure to increase the proportion of the democratic element until we finished up with a wholly elected House, no matter what the belief and the intention was at the beginning of the process. Once we start the process, the end point is, in my view, absolutely clear. It is a stark choice between an elected and an appointed House. That House would increasingly challenge the supremacy of the House of Commons.
On what basis of any understanding of a theory of a representative parliamentary democracy would it be possible to defend the Parliament Act, for example, if there was a wholly elected House of Lords? At least one of my friends in another place has argued that it would be possible to have a wholly elected House of Lords but at the same time reduce its power. That has no consistency or sustainability whatever—it has no theoretical base at all. My argument is that the supremacy of the House of Commons could not survive as we know it the introduction of an elected element in your Lordships' House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, made it clear earlier that she fundamentally disagrees with that argument. As far as I understand her argument, and arguments like hers, it relies on an assertion that the House of Commons can remain supreme because it says that it is supreme. That will not do. The House of Commons can claim the supremacy that it enjoys

679
because it uniquely possesses an elected democratic mandate. When one makes a breach in that wall, the claim of supremacy begins to erode and continues to erode until it effectively disappears.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, my argument was based on the fact not that the House of Commons was elected, although I believe that to be important, but that built into our whole historical tradition are certain rights that are exclusive to the House of Commons. In particular, there is the crucial right of Supply, which dates back to the English Civil War, and the Parliament Act, which makes it clear that when there is any conflict the House of Commons will be supreme.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for clarifying her position, but I must counter it. If one looks back on that historical development, the ability to claim the right of Supply is based on the fact that, imperfect as it may be, at any one time the House of Commons was elected and your Lordships' House was not. That is the historical basis on which the House of Commons could claim the right of Supply.
I shall look again at the arguments that the noble Baroness advanced in her speech, but they boil down at the end of the day to saying that the House of Commons is supreme simply because it claims supremacy. My argument is that its supremacy is based on its unique claim to democratic electoral legitimacy.
In terms of the constitutional journey on which we have embarked, Parliament is best served by arriving at a position in which the House of Lords, because of its lack of democratic legitimacy, cannot and will not challenge the supremacy of the House of Commons. It is as simple and stark as that.
10.54 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, after so much has been said, there is nothing I can do except to reinforce some arguments, dot a few "i"s and cross a few "t"s. I should say at the outset that my instincts are in favour of a wholly appointed House. I shall consider two arguments against that, the first relating to legitimacy and the second to appointments.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, had some trouble with legitimacy; he did not like it. It is perfectly true that hardly anyone has tried in this debate to define it, but it is really not that difficult to explain. In political theory, it is simply what makes the powers exercised by government acceptable to the general public. In traditional societies, that could be dynastic or divine claims. In our type of society, legitimacy ultimately derives from popular election or democracy. I do not think that there is any real dispute about that. However, although we cannot have full legitimacy without democracy, we can have democracy without full legitimacy. Northern Ireland, since 1922, and many other places with ethnically divided societies have been examples of that.
So we add other requirements to legitimacy as the debate goes on. One of them is "representativeness", which I think was suggested by the Joint Committee. A reformed House
680
should be representative of the major groups in society and the major parts of the country. However, that is different from popular election and may be in conflict with it. We may not get a representative group from a general election in the sense that "representativeness'' is being used. However, how far do we really want to take representativeness? Do we want a House that is truly representative of the community in terms of knowledge and intelligence, for example—what the pollsters call a "representative sample"? Surely not.
So we come to another requirement of legitimacy, which is roughly being able to speak with authority on the particular subject of interest. That comprises expertise, so that we talk of "expert authority". Here we come very much into the area of what this House is all about. We can add other requirements, such as incorruptibility—a very important requirement for legitimacy—integrity, independence of mind and so on. My belief is that, for what this House does, we have enough legitimacy. The House does not wield the supreme power of government, but it has a great deal of what one might call second order legitimacy, which might well be destroyed if it was popularly elected—a point powerfully put earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth.
Provided that the law-making supremacy remains with another place, a second Chamber can only benefit from being able to bring the highest-available ability to the scrutiny and fashioning of legislation. The only people for whom that doctrine seems anathema are the tabloid press, which wants to drag everyone clown to its own moronic level.
From the start of the present phase of this debate on the reform of the House of Lords, I have argued that it is contradictory to want to change the composition of the House while leaving its powers unchanged, that the two need always to be considered together. It seems to me to have been a defect of many of the reports advocating different types of composition—and either a wholly elected House or a partly elected House—that they have tried to separate these two points and have either argued that the powers should stay the same or failed fully to specify what new powers and functions they want a reformed House to have that require it to be directly elected. Instead, the argument has tended to be that your Lordships' House would exercise the powers it already has more firmly or more vigorously if it were more legitimate. But surely that argument made most sense, I regret to say, when the majority of the House consisted of hereditary Peers. That was the basis of such self-denying ordinances as the Salisbury convention. But there is no reason at all why that convention should apply in the kind of House that we now have.
In other words, what we have to make up our minds about is whether we want to start on a constitutional journey which leads to a fully written constitution with a fully blown division or separation of powers, or whether we want to carry on broadly with what we have, allowing it to evolve slowly in ways that we cannot entirely foresee. We have to make up our minds about that. That is the choice which is posed by the Liberal Democrats. I speak as an historian now. I do

681
not see any such evidence of the misgovernment of this country over the past 50 or 60 years as to justify such a radical break with our constitutional past.
I turn briefly to the second aspect of my speech—how is an appointed House to be appointed? We are all very much against patronage although we are all here because of it. That applies even to those noble Lords who are the beneficiaries of patronage granted a century or two or longer ago. One must not be too harsh on the patronage system; otherwise, we would be questioning our own right to be here. But I accept the fact that once the hereditary Peers have gone, the system of appointment has to be much more open, transparent and publicly accountable than it has been in the past. The problem is to devise a system of appointment which guarantees high quality while at the same time preserving the interests of the government of the day in getting their business through the House. The latter is essential as the Lords is not a debating Chamber, it is part of the legislative process and no one has wanted your Lordships' House to be anything but that.
Any advocate of an appointed House, therefore, must accept an independent, powerful appointments commission, as, indeed, the Joint Committee has done. That would function rather like a selection committee in any other walk of life; people would be nominated and it would choose from among the available candidates. As I see it, the Prime Minister and other political leaders should have no privileged position in nomination except in two respects: in deciding the political balance of the House as a whole and for the purpose of particular appointments to Front Benches. That is where I believe that the privileged position of the political parties and the Prime Minister in particular is applicable. But for all other purposes nominators would be on equal terms. The recommendation for new Peers which would then go to the sovereign would be funnelled through the appointments commission.
There is no reason why under that system indirect elections cannot occur. Occupational groups can nominate people for membership. Normally there would be more nominees than available places but that is true of most appointment procedures; namely, that there are more candidates than jobs on offer.
I should like to add a couple of points in regard to the requirements for membership of your Lordships' House to those already suggested by the Joint Committee. First, it would be desirable to have evidence of someone's ability to put a case persuasively. That takes into account the particular nature of the business of this House. Secondly, I refer to availability and, thirdly, to age. Age is connected with availability as with successful people availability tends to increase with age.
My fourth point is more controversial and relates very much to the times in which we live. I refer to some sort of security clearance. It goes very much against my instinct, but it is something that we need to pay attention to in a world in which a Guy Fawkes might
682
well have more success than he did in 1605, if we are to preserve our freedom of access to the whole of Westminster.
My final suggestion is that a fully legitimate appointments commission should be elected by the whole of this House. Any noble Lord should be eligible to stand.
I am not against all elections. Whenever there is more than one elector and one candidate, that is an election, explicit or implicit. It is the size of the electorate that matters. In the case that we face today, I would simply echo the famous words of Kingsley Amis: "More means worse".
11.6 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I too would like to thank the Joint Committee, especially the seven noble Lords and one MP who attended every one of its sittings. I am sad that the Joint Committee's work was so limited in its remit. It has therefore told us nothing substantially new, but has served the great benefit of clarifying the confusion that the Government have got themselves into on the matter.
In the past six years there have been massive changes in the way in which the House works. One of the first things that one ought to note is that the reason for the appointment of Peers has changed. When judging this House, it is wrong to look only at the number of people in each party. That gives a very misleading picture of how the House works. A more accurate way of looking at the House is to look at the number of working Peers.
Furthermore, there are two agreed legacies of the House of Lords Act 1999. First, we have lost a great deal of experience and expertise. Secondly, the percentage of noble Lords under the age of 50 has dropped by more than 60 per cent. Now that I am over 50, I tend to agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon when he said that age was quite a good thing. However, we have also lost a great deal through the youth that we lost under the 1999 reforms. Another important point is that the powers and working practices of this House are constantly changing, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith pointed out.
We have been asked to vote on seven options. I am disappointed that there is not an eighth option anyway, that of a right to vote on the status quo. I wish that the Joint Committee had at least made some remarks as to why the remaining hereditaries are no longer acceptable. It is a given that we must go, but I do not think that there has been a justified argument for that.
The Joint Committee points out that there must be more work on costings. Once again, we are being asked to make decisions when we do not know what their full implications will be. There are no details on how elections will take place, if they do take place. There must be an election for an individual. Any closed list system would be totally wrong for a House of this nature.

683
I carried out an interesting exercise on the idea of having elected representatives for areas of population. Should 50 per cent of the House be elected, that would be roughly 300 Peers. That is one for every 200,000 people. Coincidentally, that would be one representative for the whole of the area that comprises the highland council; it is about one-third of the size of Scotland and about the size of Belgium. I am not sure that that is a good way to have an elected Member.
There will not be many elections if there is a statutory term of 12 or 15 years. A number of noble Lords said that there are currently too many elections and four or five more elections in one's lifetime will not make a material difference.
I have found today's debate very interesting. In 1999, we hereditaries were told that we were undemocratic and that we had to go because we were undemocratic. Today, there has been much more about the legitimacy of patronage and its superiority over the elected system. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester reminded us of that. Am I the only noble Lord in. the House who hears some similarity in today's arguments with some of those made by hereditary Peers in the past?
I turn to powers and conventions. When the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, reformed the House in 1999, she did so with a cudgel or—perhaps more appropriately—a guillotine. The present Leader of the House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is reforming the House with a stiletto. He is attacking the soft underbelly of the House; that is, our working practices. Carry-over is a seismic shift in the way in which the House operates.
We are at the start of a two-year trial of the reforms that have been introduced. I strongly believe that in the future our ability to revise will be continually curtailed, revised and reduced. In five or 10 years, the House that we believe we are operating as a good revising. Chamber will not be a House that is able to revise in the same way as this one is. The logical conclusion from that is that the Joint Committee's recommendations on roles, conventions, functions and powers, and the foundations on which it based its arguments, are shifting. It involves a snapshot of an historical House, not of the House today. We will probably therefore make decisions on totally the wrong basis. I am seriously concerned—I made this clear when we voted on working practices—that some of the proposals will undermine the role of the House, change its relationship with the Commons and weaken it.
Given all that is currently going on with the change in powers, my first option would be to leave the House's composition as it currently is. However, I know that that is not practical and that at some time in the future it must change. When it changes, I do not believe that it can do so without having an elected element. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who said that once one starts with an elected system, it will be ratcheted up. I believe that it will be the policy of the party in opposition to say, "We want more elected people—senators or whatever they are called—in the second Chamber".
684
It is inevitable that we will have an elected element in the House. Otherwise—and in association with the changes in working practices—the House will lose its credibility. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, said that we may need to bite the bullet. He is right; we must go for a large elected element of the House now. As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, reminded us, that will entail that the powers, functions and duties of the House must be clearly spelt out and written down. I do not like that option but given what we are faced with, I believe that it is an inevitable consequence.
11.14 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as an advocate of reform, I find this a fairly depressing debate. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, I had hoped that, as a House, we would spend more time considering how we could make a contribution to reviving the state of the body politic in this country rather than, as we seem to have done, discussing how to preserve the undoubted virtues that we have here.
I agree with a great deal that has been said about the consequences of changing what we have. I agree with many of my noble friends' strictures on what would happen if we had a largely elected House: the influx of party politics; the challenge that we would make to another place; and the question of whether we would get people with the necessary quality to perform our existing functions.
But I am equally concerned about the idea that a House of Parliament should be appointed by a quango. I find it an astonishing idea that this should be the summit of the "quangoracy". One works one's way up through the various quangos and then, eventually, reaches the greatest quango of them all—the House of Lords—by virtue of an appointments commission which is essentially appointed by the existing House of Lords. I find that an astonishing idea in a democracy.
I am distressed, too, by the idea that we should despair of getting good people to stand for election. We need good people to stand for another place and therefore we should be looking at ways of getting good people to stand for election. In any event, anyone who has climbed the greasy pole to be, say, head of the BMA has stood for election 100 times, whether simply as a person who, among two or three others, is preferred or receives promotion or, ultimately, is the one chosen to head such a great organisation. Elections are not foreign to such people, but they do not want to become involved in parliamentary elections.
It occurs to me that perhaps we are looking at things the wrong way round. Throughout today, we have been talking about electing the politicians and appointing the Cross-Benchers. Perhaps we should elect the Cross-Benchers and appoint the politicians.
The political appointment system has worked extremely well. When I look at the Benches opposite—there are not many Members there at present—I am fairly impressed by what has been done by political appointment. Some extremely good Members on all

685
Benches in this House—in particular, on the political Benches—have been put there by politicians. They have sometimes surprised those politicians by what they have done afterwards. But they have made a major contribution to this House and they have maintained their personal independence and integrity, as my noble friend has illustrated this evening in his Damascene conversion.
None of us is subject to that strong a Whip any more, even if we are put on a key committee by the Chief Whip. A great deal of independence is to be found in political appointments. It results in people who make a key contribution to the political life of this House, and it seems to me to be a very effective way of choosing the political part of this Chamber. It also avoids dumping another party-political election on the electorate.
But if, at the other end of the argument, one asks, "What about electing the Cross-Benchers?", then half the structure for that is present in what has been proposed so far. The appointments commission can say, "We need a couple of doctors or people with medical experience in this House. Therefore, if you are going to apply for this particular slot, you must have the relevant qualifications". The people who apply for that slot will not be elected by a small closed group of people—we are not going back to university Members or anything of that kind—but they will be on the slate for election when it comes to the House of Lords. In deciding what is needed in the House of Lords, a doctor will be able to choose whether he votes for the medical candidate or for some other interest group chosen by the appointments commission. People will be able to pursue their own passions and choose their own people.
Perhaps a section of the election could even be an open category. People could propose themselves or perhaps a group such as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection could get together with other, similar-minded charities and say, "We wish to propose a candidate for the House of Lords". There would then be a collection of people to vote for, at least one of whom would excite the passions and interests of voters.
A voter would want to ensure that the anti-vivisection candidate, the peace candidate or the doctor had enough votes to be elected. It might be that the BMA has put forward a candidate and that I want to vote for the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who would not have been put forward by the BMA. It is a much more personal choice to have someone such as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, than a medico-politico. It would be the people as a whole who would make that choice and not a closed-off appointments commission, with a question mark over how its members will be appointed. That gets down to the idea of people's Peers, but the people standing for those particular positions would have been chosen because of their
686
expertise. When they arrive in the House, they would have the necessary expertise but would be individuals chosen by the people.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion. However, can the noble Lord say how he would prevent the political parties endorsing and getting behind one candidate rather than another? How would he stop the political parties' involvement in such an election?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, overt contributions by political parties and discussions of who they would prefer could be banned. But politics is part of life. However, given the general level of interest in politics in this country, it is clear that people's passions for other things run much higher. A candidate representing a particular section of society would look to that section of society for the vote. Let us suppose we required a countryman or two. It would not be a question of who the political parties were endorsing. People would vote for what they cared about, which is their vision of the countryside. It would be a much more direct and personal election. I think that we could break the link with political parties in a major way.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He really cannot get away without answering one or two more questions. He pictures the people making a choice between a doctor and a countryman. Can he say something about the constituencies that would operate that? Would the countryman be elected by those who marched in the countryside march; would the people as represented by the listeners to the "Today" programme be choosing nation-wide, or would it be simply paid-up members of the British Veterinary Association who would choose? There are many questions to which I am sure the Joint Committee would be interested in hearing his answers.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should be delighted to talk to the Joint Committee. The answer would be that one could vote for anyone. I would have a choice. All those candidates would stand and I could choose whether to vote for the doctor, the countryman or whatever other category I was considering. I would vote for the person that I cared about in the category about which I was passionate. It would be very much a question that those who cared about who was elected as the doctors' representative would vote for a doctor and participate in that election. Those who cared more about who was elected as the countryside representative would vote in that election.
We would be doing very much the same if we had an appointments commission which would decide that we wanted people of this or that category and someone with these particular abilities, except that we would be allowing the people to choose rather than an appointments commission. If we could make such a system work, we would be free of any challenge from the other House because it would be a completely different method of election. We would be free of any

687
constituency responsibilities. We would have people of the quality we want because that would have been assured by the system of allowing people to stand. We would be electing people who would not demand great offices and full-time appointments but who would expect to come here on the sort of basis we have now. We would have the legitimacy of election and independence.
That seems to be worthy of consideration. I know that that is a surprise to my noble and learned friend Lord Howe. However, just because it is the opposite
688
way of looking at things to everyone else, except perhaps the noble Lords, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Parekh, who touched on this, it does not mean that it is not worth consideration.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington, I beg to move that the debate be adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Queen's Counsel
  Queen's Counsel
  Crown Dependencies
  Crown Dependencies
  Irish Human Rights Commission
  Irish Human Rights Commission
  County Donegal: Civil Servants
  County Donegal: Civil Servants
  Northern Ireland: Food Safety Promotion Board
  Northern Ireland: Food Safety Promotion Board
  UK Diplomatic Missions: Shared Facilities
  UK Diplomatic Missions: Shared Facilities
  Crime Reduction and Tackling Drugs Misuse: Funding
  Crime Reduction and Tackling Drugs Misuse: Funding
  Ex-service Personnel: Housing Needs
  Ex-service Personnel: Housing Needs
  Social Fund: Flood Insurance
  Social Fund: Flood Insurance
  Animal Movements Arrangements: Local Authority Finance
  Animal Movements Arrangements: Local Authority Finance