Westminster Hall Sitting of 9 May 2001

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

People's Peers
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
9.30 am
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the issue of the so-called people's peers and the future of the House of Lords. Some of the usual suspects are in attendance and I extend a welcome to them, especially to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). They are in their final days in the House of Commons and have consistently promoted a democratic Parliament in the United Kingdom, a democratic Parliament that is denied to the people of our country. I look forward to their contributions to the debate.
I want to focus my remarks on the absolute absurdity—the nonsense, the charade—that surrounded the announcement a little more than a week ago of the so-called people's peers. Prophetically, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said that it would again open up the debate about the future of the House of Lords—and how right he was. I hope that this morning's debate will be a further nail in the coffin of that wholly illegitimate Chamber.
Having said that, it is with some pride that I show visitors around the building. I take them to the House of Lords and say how improper that Chamber is, but I then pause and say, "However, its functions are extremely important." One of the great challenges to us in the United Kingdom when trying to argue for constitutional change is to build in ratchets against arbitrary government. Lord Hailsham referred to our constitution as facilitating parliamentary dictatorship. All too often, we have seen how both Conservative and Labour Governments railroad through legislation without its having received sufficient scrutiny. The statute at the end of sausage machine is flawed. It is bad law. We have inadequate opportunities to check and probe the Executive, so much of whose work is done without a mandate from Parliament, but under the royal prerogative.
I am someone who unashamedly believes in bicameralism. There is an important function to be fulfilled in the Chamber that is currently occupied by the House of Lords. Its membership is "unlawful" and I look forward to the day when a totally elected democratic Chamber, with legitimate Members who have individual mandates, replaces it. I chose to be on the left of politics. I am a socialist. The history of our party has been one of trying to do away with that Chamber, yet I find it deeply disappointing, as do Labour party activists throughout the country, that we have failed to abolish the House of Lords and, as far as I am aware, it is not our intention to do away with it, or
72WH
even to replace it with an elected Chamber called the House of Lords. The position is to sustain the illicit situation in which the House is filled by a substantial number of hereditary peers and those who are appointed by the patronage of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats and the fig leaf of nonsense of so-called people's peers.
I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what our stance will be over the next four weeks on the House of Lords, which will be interesting. I remind him of our stance four years ago. We made it abundantly clear—it was unequivocal, not conditional—that
"A committee of both Houses of Parliament will be appointed to undertake a wide-ranging review of possible further change"—
to the House of Lords—
"and then to bring forward proposals for reform."
We did not fulfil that commitment. We reneged on it and appointed a royal commission instead. No mention was made in our manifesto of a royal commission. Royal commissions involve the great and good and the glitterati—the safe hands who constitute that cosy magic circle that runs the country whether the Government is Conservative or Labour. We fell into the chasm of merely doing what others have done, which I find deeply disappointing.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: The suggestion that I feel part of the current establishment is far removed from reality. Watching the Prime Minister on television yesterday, as he went to his school in Bermondsey, I realised that I was living on a completely different planet from him.
Mr. Mackinlay: I am talking about the House of Lords. If someone wants to divert to a completely different subject, so be it. I hope that it has not escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that, although the debate may be adversarial, it is between a Labour Member and a Labour Minister. In a sense, the hon. Gentleman is trespassing on a matter that is none of his business, as we are in government and it looks as though we shall be there for a long time to come. Such diversions are irrelevant. The hon. Gentleman should focus on arguing for a change in the culture in this country—the magic circle in a class-ridden society, that narrow group that runs and takes all the decisions in this country, especially in relation to the House of Lords, which is the subject of this morning's debate. We have reinforced the hereditary element in the House for Lords for decades to come, and we have reinforced the system of prime ministerial patronage. I find that entirely unacceptable.
I invite the House to consider, human nature being what it is, what Prime Minister or leader of the Conservative or Liberal party would appoint to the House of Lords someone who is bloody-minded, an irritant or a nuisance or who takes a different view from himself. I shall not name the person involved, but I have often heard people with a different view from that of a particular important person referred to as neanderthal. People who will ruffle feathers are never, and will never be, nominated.

73WH
The system is flawed. I look forward to hearing from the representative of the Liberal Democrats, as I understand—I acknowledge some credit—that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), who leads the party, and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) have at least created in their party machine a quasi-democratic system whereby the membership can throw up nominees whom the leader of the party might consider nominating for appointment to the House of Lords. If that is so, it is something. That certainly does not happen in the Labour party. I oppose appointment by the Prime Minister or the leader of the Labour party, but, so long as it exists, I should have thought that, within the Labour party and, for that matter, the principal opposition party, there should be some facility for panels nominated from the grass roots of the party, from whom the leader might select people for ennoblement. However, there is not. The matter of who is preferred is left exclusively in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. That is entirely unacceptable.
Each of us has been privileged to go abroad to represent Parliament and, perhaps, to lecture students or other parliamentarians in the fragile or emerging democracies of the world about parliamentary democracy. What arrogance we have, when we cannot see the beam in our own eye—when half our Parliament is unelected and illegitimate and has no mandate. We have the audacity to go abroad and talk about parliamentary democracy. Can my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary not see how absurd that is? It is time to mobilise the next Labour parliamentary party, with some vigour, to demand of the next Labour Government radical change in our parliamentary arrangements—to rid ourselves of this House of Lords by sweeping it away with a democratically elected second Chamber.
The nonsense of the people's peers has prompted this debate. Did you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that applicants were vetted by PricewaterhouseCoopers? We could avoid the next four weeks by sending our applications to that company. If the machinery for gauging what is representative or what may constitute a microcosm of the nation is so sophisticated, we could save a lot of time and effort. That is what happened, and that lovely company drew up the shortlist with Lord Stevenson and his Appointments Commission. Lord Stevenson has done a great service to the cause by showing his enormous snobbery, abysmal ignorance and insensitivity and by demonstrating that he is totally disqualified from selecting anyone. His utterance is no matter for levity; it is important. When examined about the absurdity of the 15 nominees that his commission had thrown up, he said:
"You haven't got your hairdresser in this list, but if you go back to our criteria one of them is that the human being will be comfortable operating in the House of Lords."
I find that amazing, and, of course, deeply insulting to the overwhelming majority in this country, some of whom fell for the lie that somehow, if they put in a reasoned application, they might be considered for membership of the House of Lords.
74WH
I am opposed to the lottery, and I counsel people never to buy a ticket because I see so many people seduced by the dream that somehow they might come up trumps. This is the middle class equivalent. I am sure that all hon. Members knew people who asked, "Will you give me a reference, because I am applying to the House of Lords Appointments Commission?" I told them, "Don't bother. It's an absurdity. It isn't going to happen. You're not going to get a look in." Those people are immensely able and would be capable of serving the House of Commons with distinction, but I knew that the appointments would be a farce and that they would not get a look in. However, they dreamed that they might get in, and they are deeply angry and hurt by the process and by Lord Stevenson's comments.
Let us look at the people who have been thrown up by the appointments process. The general view is that, under the existing process, many could have got to the House of Lords, and were probably already anointed to go there. They applied, and I am most unhappy about some of them, looking at their individual qualities. They signed up to get into the political arena. Politics is not a kid-gloved affair. It is deeply worrying that Sir Paul Condon, who was, to say the least, a very unsuccessful Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, should be nominated, especially as one of the criteria for selection was that applicants should have been very successful in their professional life and in the contribution that they had made.
If we examine Private Eye this week—and it is always useful to have a copy on these occasions—we see an important column relating to Valerie Howarth, who has been nominated to be a people's peer. The article tells us that she is the chief executive of the telephone charity Childline, and goes on to say:
"There was a time when Ms Howarth's dreams of being admitted to the ranks of the great and good seemed to have been dashed for once and for all. In 1984 she was director of social services in the London borough of Brent when a four-year-old girl in the council's care, Jasmine Beckford, was battered to death by her stepfather. Although she was cleared by the subsequent inquiry she was disciplined by Brent council, and given a written warning for not taking greater personal responsibility in the case.
The following year, Miss Howarth applied for and secured the post of social services director at Cambridgeshire county council. but omitted to mention the Beckford case in her interview. When it came to light the job offer was withdrawn."
Will the Minister tell us whether that matter was revealed in the application made by Valerie Howarth? If it were, I should have thought that she would be disqualified, because demonstrably she was not an outstanding person in terms of her career. If the matter was not disclosed, the application was flawed. What is the mechanism for disqualifying people who have not made their application for the job in question—as with any job—with appropriate candour, and disclosed facts material to an appointment? Parliament should be told.
Frankly, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham should revisit the appointment. I assume that, over the next 12 months, it is unlikely that Royal Assent will be given to a Bill that I would like and that would abolish the House of Lords or, perhaps, abandon the absurd experiment and silly idea of people's peers. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should tell us this morning that the business of the Appointments Commission, which I understand was dealt with by the Cabinet Office or Prime Minister, will be revisited in

75WH
time for next year. Alternatively, I should like my hon. Friend to say that the experiment will be abandoned—he may not use that word, but I will take a nod and a wink from him that the matter will be quietly forgotten and lost. We cannot go through the procedure again because it is offensive to applicants, a snub to the people of the United Kingdom and acutely embarrassing to the Labour party and the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a great man, for whom I have great and deep affection. However, the people's peers was not his best idea.
I am being unfair to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, because I think that the people's peers were not his idea, but that of some people whose names we know not, who are in 10 Downing street or policy think tanks, and who are unaccountable to this place. I hope that my right hon. Friend will learn from this episode that the focus group to which he should listen is the parliamentary Labour party, which—I suspect, like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—does not believe in such nonsense in its heart of hearts.
Is it true that when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I were parliamentary candidates, and during his long time in the Labour party, he rightly expressed scorn for the House of Lords? Did he not believe in doing away with that House altogether, or replacing it with a democratically elected House? It would be interesting to know that, because we would then know that in the heart of Government we have somebody who is advocating the view that will be reflected this morning.
I have said that it is wholly unacceptable that membership of the House of Lords should be subject to the patronage of the leaders of the principal political parties. People who are appointed have no mandate. There are some very good people, some of whom I am very fond of and who, contrary to their better judgment, have some regard for me. However, their membership of that House is not legitimate.
There are other serious problems that should be addressed with expedition. When a person is appointed as a life peer, he or she may well be able in body and in mind, and may be so for the next 10, 20, or 25 years. However, in that job there is no exit, other than going to the great parliamentary chamber on high, and seeing the great general secretary up there; such people must continue.
The matter is serious, but sensitive, and not uttered here because it is sensitive. I wish to deal with it with utmost delicacy. Some of the peers are past it, and some who are at such a stage are desperate to give up. However, the party Whips in the House of Lords scurry around putting leverage on them to come; they put leverage on the loved ones of those in the House of Lords to persuade them to come—in body, if not, in some cases, in mind. That is absurd. I have seen American tourists come down from the House of Lords Gallery in a state of total bewilderment. They cannot believe that it is a parliamentary Chamber—they have seen Gilbert and Sullivan.
How long can we go on like this? The least that should be done in a short Bill is to allow members of the House of Lords to abandon that House while perhaps keeping their titles. A credit may remain with the political party so that the arithmetic that is apparently so important is
76WH
maintained. I know that there is a system through which one can decline to apply for a writ, but that is not adequate. People should be given the opportunity to say, "No further."
The red chamber in Canada has a cut-off point in the mid-70s for its members. That is correct, so long as the House is unelected; when there are direct elections, it will be for the people to decide. I have always said that. There is a senator in the United States who is pushing 100—and so be it, as the people of his state are comfortable with that. I am not ageist in that I do not think that an age limit should be set on a democratic Parliament but, so long as the House is unelected, there should be a cut-off point or an exit for those people. In many cases, their families would like them to retire with some dignity—and I use that word deliberately. There are some sad members in the House of Lords who are losing their dignity but are being abused by the party political system and the Whips.
The rapid appointment of a large number of peers debases that parliamentary Chamber even more, and makes it an absurdity. It is far too large. My hope is that we might have a relatively small democratically elected Chamber, numbering perhaps 150, elected on a regional proportional representation list. There should not be big bang elections; there should be a fixed term, so that no opportunity exists for premature dissolution. A third of the members should retire in rotation.
People who oppose my idea say, "Mackinlay, we must not create anything that challenges the House of Commons." That is nonsense, because when we reorganise our constitution we can write in bold letters in the statute and paint on everyone's eyelids that the House of Commons is supreme and its view will prevail. The statute may also reiterate that the House of Lords has no responsibility for supply, so we do not have the problems that bedevilled Gough Whitlam. in Australia in 1975. That Chamber should fulfil the existing functions of scrutiny and frustration—it should frustrate sometimes by delay. It should also do the important job of review.
The House of Lords should be elected, however. If it were elected on a fixed-term basis, with a third retiring every so often, every member would have legitimacy, but the Chamber as a whole would not have a mandate to frustrate the democratically elected will of the people's popular House. which would remain the House of Commons. That is the sensible way forward. We also need to get rid of the Cross Benchers, bishops and Law Lords. Under the electoral system that I propose, it would be possible for independents to get elected. That would put the political parties on their mettle. There would be a level playing field.
Under the system that I propose, the people who had no mandate to represent anyone but themselves would be gone. The absurdity of one particular denomination being represented in a parliamentary Chamber would be gone, but not added to by designating a number of seats for the Roman Catholics, the Methodists, the Pentecostals or whatever. We should be a secular Parliament. To use the biblical phrase, "Render unto Caesar all that is Caesar's and unto God all that is God's." Christ was clear about that division of responsibility. He prophesied our ideal constitutional arrangements 2,000 years ago. There should be a cut-off point. People who represent religions should not be

77WH
given seats in the parliamentary Chamber: they may be religious, but they should not be in Parliament for that reason.
Yesterday, I tackled the Minister about another matter that could be expeditiously resolved. It is nonsense that senior Ministers can sit in the House of Lords while legislation for which they are responsible is piloted through the House of Commons. Questions about their Bills are answered at the Dispatch Box by junior Ministers who, in some cases, do not know the subject. They will pretend that they know about the matter by working from a brief, but they have no mandate to reassure hon. Members who make valid points and try to improve the legislation.
That situation is a charade, and it also increasingly happens the other way around. There are delightful people in the other place called Lords-in-waiting who play the role of jobbing Ministers by merely working from briefs: they are utility players who perform a variety of duties and pretend that they know what they are talking about when they do not. It is nonsense.
A modest reform could be expeditiously introduced. Ministers who are the architects and pilots of particular pieces of legislation should promote and defend them in both Houses. Other Westminster-style constitutions allow that to happen. I would invite Ministers who sit in the House of Lords to take a seat on the Treasury Front Bench. However, if hon. Members feel sensitive about the matter, a little Dispatch Box could be erected at the Bar of the House, because it would make sense for such Ministers to be able to speak in both Houses.
Recent Conservative Governments have included two distinguished and able Ministers who sat in the House of Lords: Baroness Chalker held the overseas aid portfolio, and Lord Young was a Trade Minister in one of Margaret Thatcher's Administrations. It frustrates the House of Commons when Ministers sit in the House of Lords. There is a rumour that Lord Macdonald might be promoted to the Cabinet when the next Labour Government is appointed on 8 June 2001. He cannot stand for election because he is unable to quit being a Lord. There would be one hell of a row if a Labour Government were to appoint Members of the House of Lords to the Cabinet as Ministers with important portfolios. The House of Commons is the people's Chamber, but its elected Members would not be able to have direct access to those Ministers at Question Time or when legislation for which they were responsible was debated. If a Labour Government were to do that, it would stand on its head the party's criticism of Margaret Thatcher's appointment of Lord Young as a Minister.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary must address that issue. I hope that he agrees with my view about the implications if Lord Macdonald is awarded a senior portfolio. I also hope that he recognises that the reform that I have proposed is sensible and modest and that further great changes are necessary.
I apologise for detaining this Chamber, but I have now got something off my chest, and I feel better for it. If the Government wish to endure by winning a third term in office, they must fulfil the expectations of the Labour party activists who have struggled for real—
78WH
rather than cosmetic—change in our institutions, who want to get rid of the class divisions that bedevil our society and who still occasionally sing the words
"It suits today the weak and base,
Whose minds are fixed on pelf and place;
To cringe beneath the rich man's frown,
And haul that sacred emblem down."
There are people in the Labour party who believe in change, and who might refer to themselves as socialists. There is also a larger body of people, spanning all political parties, who believe that the Parliament of which we are, in some ways, proud is also an anachronism, and they look to the next Labour Government to be radical and to reform the institution after the general election.
9.59 am
Mr. Martin Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who is a true friend, for raising the issue, especially as, at such a time, there are two categories of retiring Members of Parliament—those who know that they are retiring and those who have yet to find out. I hope that by 8 June I shall be in neither category, but this is an excellent moment to be debating the issue.
I suppose that, of all Members of Parliament, I should welcome the appointment of people's peers because they are Cross Benchers and will sit as independents. In a limited sense, therefore, I do welcome such appointments. However, I do not delight in the spectacle of the establishment selecting its own. I would like just one of those 15—or even two or three—to be somebody of whom I have never heard.
All hon. Members know many people of great and quiet distinction in their constituencies. Such people would, and could, have served admirably in the House of Lords. I find the suggestion that such people would not be comfortable in such elevated company absurd. It is a little bit like Army officers of the old school who objected to promotion through the ranks because a sergeant or warrant officer would not be comfortable in the officers' mess. That is nothing but arrant snobbery.
I should have thought that, of all Members of Parliament, the one least likely to accept a peerage if offered would be the hon. Member for Thurrock, and I think that I know why. Like me, he is a democrat, and he would not wish to be a member of an assembly that is so indiscriminate that one can buy one's way into it. The number of life peers as a percentage of the population is, I guess, 0.0000001 per cent. In terms of contributors to party funds in the coming election, however, I guess that at least 25 per cent. of them happen to be peers—in the case of the Conservative party, the percentage is probably even more. It is undeniable that that opens the door to corruption.
During one Prime Minister's Question Time, I made the point that peerages are bought and sold in this country on a greater scale than at any time since the days of Lloyd George. In doing so, I managed to offend the Government and the Opposition, and I drew the reproach of the Liberal Democrat leader, who did not like the disparagement of his great predecessor. It is clear, however, that we must find a different system, in which elevation cannot be bought. In this case, the

79WH
House of Lords reminds me a little of space travel—one can buy one's way up there. I am convinced that that should not be so.
I once voted for an amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)—another real democrat who would never accept the golden shilling—which suggested bricking up the entrance of the House of Lords. It seemed to me that, if what we have is the best that we can do, we are probably better off without it. Patronage has been the curse of the British political system for 200 years, and it still is. However, we are now on the threshold of a general election and the almost certain re-election of the Labour party in vast numbers. Clearly, the House of Commons needs a different form of democracy—the Executive cannot continue to be as unchecked as they are. The House of Lords, for all its faults, provides some kind of a check. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Thurrock that the time has come to democratise the other place.
We are governed by a Government of unfinished business, and no business is more unfinished that that of the reform of the House of Lords. When I joined this Chamber, rather accidentally, four years ago, I thought that I was joining the free Parliament of a free people, but it has some dismaying elements of a rubber-stamp assembly. In the next Parliament, we can and must do better, in the House of Lords and in this House.
10.3 am
Mr. Tony Benn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on raising the subject and on his speech. Not many Members take an interest in constitutional matters, but he has done so from the beginning. He has knowledge, commitment and passion. It is appropriate to discuss the subject now, because we are about to go into a general election—not, of course, for our Parliament, but for half our Parliament. Every hon. Member present, except me, will be seeking support on polling day. However, those who have just been appointed will be in the other place for life.
I shall address a point that is not often made: the establishment has a deep hostility towards democracy. It took me a long time to realise that the establishment and the powers that be—including the Prime Ministers of the day, whoever they may be—do not want a democratic challenge. That is maintained in a skilful way, which includes the use of the royal family for political purposes. The Queen depends on the Prime Minister for her popularity, and the Prime Minister depends on the Crown for his power. That said, the establishment is not so committed to individual monarchs that it is not prepared to sacrifice one to save the Crown, as it did with Edward VIII in 1936. The Crown is the core of the system.
People say that this country does not have a written constitution, but of course we do. Without wishing to bore hon. Members, I can recite the whole constitution:
"I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law".
Every Member of the House, peer, Anglican minister and judge swears that oath. Privy Councillors swear an even worse one: they pledge to protect the Crown from
80WH
foreign prelates, potentates and powers. Indeed, when the Privy Councillor's oath was read to me, I said that I had said nothing and agreed to nothing, but I was told that the oath had been administered. Until that moment, I did not realise that the administration of an oath was an injection.
Under the constitution, the Prime Minister of the day has enormous power. Every Prime Minister—I am not making this personal—uses that power for political purposes. They used to appoint hereditary peers, but now appoint life peers. The idea of people's peers was proposed, which involves a sort of extended patronage. A committee is appointed to appoint people who are described as people's peers, but the purpose is to maintain political power.
Another important theme is the corruption of the word "representative", which has two meanings. Every Member is a representative of his or her constituency. When we are in our constituencies, the bus drivers, street sweepers, home helps and policemen are our employers. The other meaning is statistically representative. People talk about so many men, so many women, so many blacks and so many gays. The idea that we can have statistical representation and entrust to those people the right to pass laws, which we are expected to obey, is an abuse of what we boast is democracy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said.
I am not much of an academic historian, but I have studied a few things in my life in order to understand where we are. On Second Reading of the Reform Act 1832, rioters shot two redcoats in Wales. Speeches in the House of Commons warned that extending the franchise would undermine parliamentary democracy. Later, when women campaigned for the vote. Mr. Asquith, the great Liberal leader, said that, if they got it. parliamentary democracy would be undermined.
Our system is designed to brainwash us into believing that some people are better than us. Every country has people who think that they are better than anyone else, but we must be the only country where everyone accepts that that is the case. The cultural aspect of the peerage is that we are trained from birth to bow and scrape to someone else. Mister bows to the knight, who bows to the baronet, who bows to the baron, who bows to the viscount, who bows to the earl, who bows to the marquess, who bows to the duke, who bows to the royal duke. They all bow to the Queen. That is deeply corrupting of the democratic spirit. The system is not only absurd, as has been said, but absolutely contrary to our boast that we are a self-governing country. When there are riots in the streets of London, the Prime Minister always says that we live in a democracy, but we do not.
We are now being trained for a new group of managers. According to Gerhard Schröder, Mr. Prodi is to be the Prime Minister of Europe, but he is not elected by anyone. The head of the World Trade Organisation is not elected. If a peer is better than us, perhaps the head of the WTO is also better than us. Perhaps we are so inferior that we are not fit to govern ourselves. That coded message comes through all our political and civic systems, our education and so on.
If we are to tackle the problem, which I have no doubt we will—I hope that it does not take 700 years, as it did to make the House of Commons democratic—we must

81WH
recognise that it involves a challenge to power. There is no other way of describing it. We must say, quite openly, that we will not accept laws that are made by people we did not vote for.
I am not an advocate of violent action; I am a non-violent man. However, Governments only listen when there is trouble. I hate to say it but, for example, the pensioners would not have received that little bit more without the Labour conference last year. Possibly, handguns would not have been banned if there had not been a big demand in Scotland after Hamilton killed those children at Dunblane. Truthfully, the environmental movement would not have made much progress if Swampy had not been rather difficult. He will be the next people's peer, no doubt; we shall hear about that in the answer. My experience of progress is that it begins outside and, through the democratic process, permeates inside. Parliament historically is the last place to get the message.
I welcome the debate. It is a much more dangerous debate than perhaps the House might realise, because it challenges power. People in power do not want to be challenged. The Prime Minister did not want to lose the right to appoint people. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister will, in a sense, appoint Members of the House of Commons. Some MPs will decide to retire at the last minute—they will get peerages—and, under the rules of the Labour party, it can appoint the successors. There could be circumstances in which Members of Parliament would have to apply to Lord Stevenson and prove that they would be comfortable in the House of Commons. Indeed, I can imagine that, if market forces reach much further, parliamentary seats might be put out to tender. I am sure that Bob Maxwell could have put in a better bid for my constituency than I could have. Perhaps even the Prime Minister's job should be subject to some external bid under the best value principle.
However one looks at it, the question must be tackled. My limited experience is that capitalism, communism and feudalism have one thing in common: the management can be changed, but the system cannot be discussed. Someone who discusses the system is a threat.
I had already made my last speech; I am afraid that I have done it again. My grandfather was the Member of Parliament for Govan, and was known as the poet laureate of the House of Commons. I will finish with some words that he wrote:
"Though politicians dream of fame and hope to win a deathless name,
Time strews upon them when they've gone, the poppy of oblivion."
10.12 am
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on his perspicacity and timing in securing the debate on people's peers. With a general election four weeks away, I must be slightly measured in my comments. However, we are going into an election with a Labour manifesto that calls for something that I, as a Labour MP, repudiate. The manifesto agrees with the royal commission on the reform of the House of Lords, chaired by Lord Wakeham, which calls for a second
82WH
Chamber that is largely appointed, with a small elected element. That is simply not my view, nor was it the Prime Minister's View in 1996, when he said that Labour's policy was for a directly elected upper Chamber. Things have changed in that four-year period, and we now find ourselves, as the Government party, going into an election promising that one part of Parliament will be appointed rather than elected.
I believe that legitimacy only comes with election. Appointment fails on many counts, but what Wakeham proposed is absurd with a capital A. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, I believe in secular politics. What we will be asked to endorse—in the next Parliament, presumably—is not a secular second Chamber but a Chamber with people who have been appointed because of their religion. The Bishops Bench will be reduced from 26 to 16, I believe, but we will then have Buddhists, Baptists, Jains and Jews legislating on the laws of the land. I do not believe that that is right. More than that, I do not believe that members of the Labour party believe that that is right.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) talked about the patronage peers and how corrupting that is. Amazingly, over the next few days some of my colleagues in the House will decide that they do not want to stand for election to the new Parliament. They will be rewarded with peerages. That is deeply corrupting, not just for the people going into the House of Lords after the next election, but for those in the House of Commons, and I do not disparage my colleagues, who perhaps aspire to a peerage. It is corrupting and it should not be allowed.
Under the new system, we have the prospect of life peers serving well into the 21st century. I tabled an early-day motion in February 2000. The statisticians in the Library did some number crunching and told me that 49 per cent. of the present House of Lords will die by 2011. The average ages are 70 for male life peers and 64 for female life peers. About half of them will be dead by 2001; 90 per cent. will be dead by 2029, but 10 per cent. of those currently serving as life peers will still be serving in 30 years' time. We need a small, directly-elected second Chamber of no more than 100 to do a job of work. We do not need a bloated, elephantine monstrosity of 1,300, which is what we had before we got rid of most of the hereditary peers.
Will that happen? We had the ridiculous situation a week ago of people being discounted from consideration by Lord Stevenson because they would not feel comfortable in the second Chamber. He said that hairdressers could not cut it. That is a man who is a self-confessed intellectual snob. He should never have been given the job of chair of the Appointments Commission. In recent months, I have tabled many questions about that commission and I just about fell off my chair in January when I got an envelope with a little House of Lords stamp on the back. Inside was a letter from Dennis Stevenson, the noble Lord Stevenson. He wrote saying that over the Christmas period he had been looking at the questions that had been tabled about the work of the Appointments Commission. He noted that I had been very energetic and had tabled many questions and suggested that we talk about it.

83WH
I went to see Dennis Stevenson. He is a mover and shaker. He is chair of both the Pearson group, which owns the Financial Times, and the Halifax. That takes up a lot of his time, which probably explains why in the two years since he was appointed to the House of Lords he has spoken only twice. On both occasions he confessed to a feeling of nervousness.
Mr. Tony Benn: He was not comfortable.
Mr. Prentice: That is the man who says that hairdressers cannot cut it. I described all that as a sick joke. I am receiving lots of application forms from people out there who applied to Lord Stevenson saying that they wanted to be a people's peer. They tell me that they read in the paper that I think the whole process is a sick joke and that they agree with me. The whole system was designed to exclude 99.9 per cent. recurring of the British population. They never got a look in. We had that big con trick—not only the word from the spinmeisters in Downing street that we were going to have people's peers, but the farce of last year's four regional roadshows. They went from London to all four points of the compass with the message that new Labour would bring government back to the people. They said, "You, too, can become a people's peer; just fill in that application form, we'll check it against the criteria and you can join us in the House of Lords." It was never going to be like that. I will make a prediction for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. There will be no regional roadshows this year because, if the House of Lords Appointments Commission embarks on them again, there will be few members of the public, but many members of the media, finding out exactly what happens.
When I visited Lord Stevenson's lair in Tufton street, which is just round the corner from Smith square, it was incredible and like something out of "Smiley's People". The front door had no sign of who was behind it, and that office is separate from the main office of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which is just around the corner in Great Smith street. I was ushered into the noble presence and, within about three minutes, we were almost at blows—he accused me of being political. I told him, "I am a Member of Parliament," but he said that I was there only to be political. I was interested in the process of how people would be plucked from obscurity to be put into the nobility. I wanted to know who would do the sifting, what criteria would be used and whether people would be interviewed.
Most important, I wanted to know whether people who were rejected would be told the reasons for that. I asked Dennis whether that would happen, because it is good employment practice. There was a pause, so I asked him whether it was ministerial policy not to tell anyone. There was a longer pause, and then I twigged. There was no ministerial policy on the subject; it is a Dennis Stevenson policy not to tell people why they were rejected. Now we know why people were not told the reasons for their rejection. Only a tiny percentage of the 3,200 people who applied were ever going to be seriously considered. That is pretty corrupt.
84WH
Something else is corrupt. Who appointed the noble Lord Dennis Stevenson, the snob? I tabled a question to the Leader of the House about the criteria and qualities expected in the chairman of the Appointments Commission. She replied:
"The advertisement for the Chairman specified that the Government were looking for someone who is committed to making the House of Lords a body that is fully representative of all aspects of UK society and culture".
Well, blow me. If we are having 15 people's peers, half should be women, but that did not happen. There are seven knights, three professors and only a handful of women. On the chairman's qualities, she then said that the person should
"demonstrate excellent communication skills, including managing the media".—[Official Report, 8 May 2001: Vol. 368. c. 64W.]
Can hon. Members believe that, after the farce of the announcement of the people's peers
Who selected Dennis? The answer is a panel chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, assisted by Lord Fellowes, who sounds a good lad, and some other worthies, including a then independent assessor who is now a people's peer—incredible. I mean Cross Benchers, so I am not making party political points. I am talking about the process, the system, openness and transparency. We should be told about these matters rather than having to table parliamentary questions about them. Sir Herman Ousely, now Lord Ousely, was on the panel that selected Dennis Stevenson to become chairman of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. So there we are.
We must revisit the whole issue. When I said that the process was a sick joke, I meant it. I also meant it when I said that I hoped to re-ignite a debate on the future of the second Chamber. It saddens me to say it, but the Labour party has lost its way on this issue. The official policy cannot and does not reflect the views of the mainstream of Labour party members. No one in my constituency Labour party believes that the Government's policy is a good idea.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock on providing us with an opportunity to air this matter. It may appear a little arcane and an issue for the constitutional nerds, but it has a wider salience.
10.26 am
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)—who has a longstanding interest in constitutional matters—on initiating the debate. He has debated the issues with verve, commitment and analytical skill. I am hopeful that his arguments will be carried forward into the next Parliament.
In common with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I am retiring from the House of Commons. I am disappointed that the present Parliament has not carried the process of constitutional reform further. I acknowledge that considerable and important changes have been introduced over the past four years. They represent the British way of effecting change; step by step, rather than as a consequence of a carefully thought out blueprint for democratic modernisation.

85WH
Prior to the last general election, I had the satisfaction of meeting the current Foreign Secretary to discuss the possibility of a joint platform of constitutional reform— including changes to the House of Lords—that our two parties could endorse in our manifestos. If the electorate voted for a Government who could act on those recommendations, there would be a degree of legitimacy for a much wider reform of our institutions and more cross-party support than in the past. Earlier attempts to reform the House of Lords in the 1960s—including in the first Parliament in which I had the honour to serve—came unstuck because of the absence of any such agreement. The parties were divided about the direction of reform.
I felt that we had started the process of reforming the House of Lords quite well. We recognised the need to give priority to the removal of hereditary peers. No case was made for their participation in debates—and, ultimately, the enactment of legislation—when we were deciding what sort of upper House should replace one stripped of its hereditaries. It seemed that we might have some broad support for that proposition, but—partly because there were not enough Members like the hon. Member for Thurrock—for a long time, even among reformers, there was no consensus about what should take the place of the second Chamber. The whole thing seemed so anomalous that many in the Labour party thought that it should be swept away and that we should not have a second Chamber.
I have always favoured a second Chamber. The distribution of power, provided that it is accountable and democratic, is desirable; that is why I favour the devolution of power and want at the centre separate Chambers, performing somewhat different functions. It seemed right that that process should be kick-started after the last election. Unfortunately, our recommendations were not acted upon in the way that we recommended. We advocated the establishment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to introduce detailed proposals on structure and functions for the later stages of reform within a limited period. That body should produce recommendations for a democratic and representative second Chamber.
I take to heart what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said about the two meanings of "representative", and I agree with him. The trouble is that the Government latched on to the notion of a second Chamber constructed—not elected—of people drawn from different walks of society on the wrong basis of belief that what we wanted in a second Chamber were people with experience of different activities, who could speak with the authority drawn from that experience. However, what we want are people drawn from our society by those who choose them to exercise their judgment based on their experience and the evidence before them. They should not be elected merely to speak for themselves or appointed merely to speak about medicine, for example, because they have served as the president of the Royal Society of Medicine.
We require people of weight and judgment, chosen by the electors; something that the appointment of the people's peers failed to achieve. An exercise in which people were appointed following consultation with PricewaterhouseCoopers and others was bound to fail
86WH
There are always hopeful people who will apply for opportunities to give public service. As one of those who launched the SDP. I received hundreds of letters from people offering their services who thought they would be suitable to be Prime Minister.
There is a deep failure to grasp the importance of democracy within the Government and within Parliament. In the White Paper on reforming the House of Lords in January 1999, the Government stated:
"But the House of Lords and the work it carries out suffer from its lack of legitimacy, because the presence of the hereditary peers creates a permanent, inbuilt majority for a single party. For its functions to be properly performed, the House of Lords needs a degree of legitimacy which it does not now enjoy."
Candidly, a House of Commons and a House of Lords are either legitimate or they are not. It is not sensible to aspire to a degree of legitimacy.
Mr. Tony Benn: A hereditary peer would not get in on the basis of a degree of legitimacy.
Mr. Maclennan: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point.
We must aspire to legitimacy and that means democracy. If that word is missing from future dispositions, White Papers and other indicators of Government intention—what will appear in the manifestos of the various parties on that subject is also a litmus test—we must regard the entire process as suspect. We can expect that the House of Lords, in whatever form it is devised, will lose popular support and ineluctably wither away as an effective part of our constitution. As someone who believes in the distribution of power, I believe that that would be a pity.
10.35 am
Mr. Dominic Grieve: This has been a most enjoyable debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on introducing it. I took issue only with his suggestion that my position as a Conservative spokesman made me part of the establishment. Over the past four years I have felt increasingly marginalised; indeed, I have begun to feel that I no longer exist in a country in which government is carried out. That feeling reached a climax yesterday when, with an overwhelming sense of nausea, I watched the performance of the new establishment launching its election campaign by hijacking a school assembly service in London for political purposes. It was disgusting, if typical of the general drift of politics over the past few years. It was an interesting example of how a Government can come into office full of commitments to democratise the political process but, four years later, can produce absolutely nothing in that regard except the introduction of some features of establishment life which, as a Conservative, I find even more objectionable than the ones that pre-existed them.
The hon. Member for Thurrock made some good points. The so-called people's peers are nothing of the kind, although I confess that I mildly participated in the process. A radical human rights lawyer asked me whether I would support his nomination; I did not quite draw the hairdresser analogy in thinking that he might bring a bit of spark into the institution or that he might make a particular contribution in the wake of the

87WH

Human Rights Act 1998, but I supported his nomination. I thought—thinking politically for a moment—that he was the sort of person on the borderline who might be nominated However, it did not happen. Instead we had the appointment of the great and the good, with the usual dilution caused by the shifting position of the establishment. As has been said, it was a con trick. I am sure that it will not be repeated in terms of the regional bandwagons, from which point of view it is completely irrelevant. The system of people's peers was designed to cloak the fact that the Government, having made a commitment to reform the House of Lords, failed completely to carry through any sort of rational strategy or policy.
As a Conservative, if I were asked to choose between what we have now and what we had before we abolished hereditary peers, I would have to say that I see no benefit whatever in the present system. The previous House of Lords was archaic and indefensible on any rational or practical basis, but I had a greater affection for it than for what we have now. The question is what direction we should go in. Several pertinent points were made on that subject. Speaking not as a party spokesman but from a personal view, I believe that the trend of history lies in the direction set out by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the hon. Member for Thurrock. I believe that we will eventually end up with an elected second Chamber. There are drawbacks to that, about which I remain anxious.
The point about preserving an independent element was also made; the independent element in the present upper House is important. However, I am concerned whether we shall be able to preserve that element by that method. I realise that forms of proportional representation may make that possible, but I have my doubts.
The place will be dominated by placemen of parties. The difficulty is that if the second Chamber is to remain subordinate—I am sure that it must within our constitutional framework—I am sure that the hon. Member for Thurrock will agree that the problem is who will be attracted to do that particular form of work. Are we not in danger of ending up with the second tier of rejects from those who failed to get on selection lists for their political parties? Those are real issues that must be considered carefully before we embark down that road. Although the end product is logical in terms of democracy—as stated so eloquently by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield—and logic, it may not work as well in practice as it does on paper.
The second thing, which could be done at once, is to end the Prime Minister's powers of patronage over appointments to the House of Lords. Having seen the performance of Lord Stevenson in relation to people's peers, I, like the hon. Member for Thurrock, am worried about an appointments commission. However, if this House put its creative mind to the matter, we could set a statutory framework and guidelines and find suitable appointments commissioners to do the job. Beyond that, there is no earthly reason why the Prime Minister should have powers of patronage over appointments to the House of Lords. That could be got rid of quickly. When the Conservative party gets back into government, which I believe and trust will be soon, I hope that that is one of the first things that we shall do.
88WH
We have ended up with a hybrid. The Prime Minister says, "Of course, I am setting up the Appointments Commission. Various people will be appointed by it and I shall not interfere with the Leader of the Opposition's rights of nomination." That is nice, but the Prime Minister has kept the power to appoint such peers as he wishes. As long as that is the situation, the system will remain inherently corrupt.
The Liberal Democrats were angry about the criticism of Lloyd George by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). Lloyd George was extremely corrupt; it is as simple as that. He was extremely corrupt in the way in which he used his powers. As a matter of absolutes, one thing that I should like to see in politics is the diminution of the ability of politicians to be corrupted by their office or to corrupt others in the process of discharging their office, which is always a great challenge in democracies.
To return to a point made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, we must remember that, however clear-cut and perfect a structure we set up, it is still possible to corrupt it. I come from a half-French background. The constitution of the French Republic, as set up, is supposed to reflect democracy. If one examines the way in which it operates in practice, it is riddled with corrupt practices of one kind or another, despite its democratic credentials and its adherence to the rights of man. We should not get too carried away with the principle; we should examine the practice.
I want to leave a great deal of time so that the Minister has a leisurely opportunity to reply to the debate; I intend to speak for only a few more moments. I disagreed with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield when he said that the only constitution that we have in this country is the oath that we, as Members, take to the Sovereign. The only constitution that we have in this country is the oath that the sovereign takes at her coronation, which is worth examining because it forms a fairly reasonable framework—which can always be altered—for the way in which government should be conducted, if we remove the references to the established Church.
We have a flexible constitution that has served this country well and there is an essential role for an upper House. We need a revising Chamber that is relatively and reasonably detached from the cut and thrust of the political process, so it can take an independent view. That is what we should set out to achieve, and not gimmicks such as people's peers. The process by which the old constitution of this country has been gradually turned on its head has produced not the democracy that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield wants but a substitute for the sort of country that Napoleon III set about creating; a populist autocracy, in which the Prime Minister is Napoleon III writ small.
10.44 am
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has introduced the debate in his usual challenging and robust way; I congratulate him on that, and on securing the debate. Many of his remarks concerned the suitability of the so-called people's peers. I confess that it is a phrase that I personally never use. However, I think of my hon.

89WH
Friend as a people's champion. Whatever the events of the next few weeks bring him, I will always think of him as the thane of Thurrock.
If the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Tatton (Mr. Bell) will forgive me, the early part of the debate seemed to concern the parliamentary Labour party. I am conscious of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) that the matter has not only been pursued historically but will be pursued in future.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) may not have the opportunity to pursue the argument in this place, but I know that he will do so vigorously elsewhere. I will not say that he made a farewell speech; I have said that before, and he may be tempted once more. However, I want to put on record an important and influential comment that he made, which was that we should not lose sight of the fact that the mood for change comes from outside the House. A strong Government and Parliament should turn outwards, listen to the voices, reflect on them and introduce change. My right hon. Friend mentioned the environmental movement. If we do not listen to its concerns and projections, there will be serious environmental consequences.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and the hon. Member for Tatton acknowledged that things had changed. The message that I took from them was that change was not happening quickly enough and that we were not making enough progress on the matter. I look forward to hearing the views of the hon. Member for Tatton, perhaps in a debate of a different title, after 8 June. We will sorely miss the statesmanlike comments and perceptions that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has provided over many years.
It has been suggested that the list of names announced by the Appointments Commission proves that the idea of opening up the process of appointment to the House of Lords is a farce. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock went further and said that it was an absurdity, a nonsense and a charade. Supported by other hon. Members, he argued that, in effect, the usual suspects had been appointed, so nothing had been gained from the establishment of an independent commission on appointments. I do not believe that to be the case. In the past, the process by which peers were chosen was shrouded in mystery. For non-political, non-working peers, a list of names was published twice a year, but how the names emerged was known to few in government, and even fewer outside. It was not clear to the recipient, or anyone else, whether it was simply an honour or a recognition of past achievement for which nothing was required in return, or whether the main intention was that the individual would bring experience to the Lords and contribute to a revising Chamber.
Mr. Mackinlay: So what has changed?
Mr. Tipping: A great deal. First, the Prime Minister no longer controls the names. I know that there has been
90WH
argument about the 15 names and the quality of the chairmanship of the Appointments Commission, but it has brought forward the names, not the Government. The obscure process by which the names were selected has been opened up, although perhaps not far enough for some of my hon. Friends. Instead of relying on soundings in Departments or the random recommendations of those outside who have some knowledge of how the system works, we now have, by the instincts of the Prime Minister, a more open and transparent system. We know who is responsible; the Appointments Commission is recommending the names.
Mr. Mackinlay: If there is greater transparency, can my hon. Friend the Minister tell us whether it was news to him, as it was to me, that someone on the body appointing the Appointments Commission was actually a beneficiary of it; a nominee after it was set up? My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) revealed that. It is wholly corrupt. Is the Minister going to address the question of Valerie Howarth who was clearly deficient in her application in terms of the criteria laid down by the Commission? Did that woman disclose in her application that she had failed in her application to become director of social services for Cambridgeshire?
Mr. Tipping: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will come to those points in a second.
We clearly know who is making appointments and how that is being done. The important thing about the independent Appointments Commission is that it has set out criteria, which my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle has examined. He might not like them, but they are there for him to examine. The Appointments Commission has checked the names against those criteria. He mentioned the roadshows. Whether they continue in the regions next year is a matter for the commission. It is an independent body, which does not belong to me.
As an avid reader of the Appointments Commission's website, I am confident in the knowledge that it approached more than 10,000 organisations, asking for suitable candidates to apply. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield supported one such candidate. Its report is on the record. That contrasts with what went before. More than 3,000 people applied; that is a big step forward. Of those, 15 have been recommended for appointment. All have made it clear that they are willing to serve and expect to be hard-working, committed peers.
I shall labour the point; the Appointments Commission was set up to be totally independent. It has a remit, which I believe that it has fulfilled. My hon. Friends do not agree with the remit and that is the basis of their argument. Within the remit, however, the Appointments Commission has done its job. It is the commission that must take responsibility for individual names. The Prime Minister has committed himself not to become involved in those appointments and not to block names unless major issues, such as national security, arise.
It is not for me to comment on individual names and I will not comment in depth about the people who have been recommended. If we look at our careers—I say this

91WH
to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock in an open-handed way—we have all made mistakes in the past. The important thing is to come through those mistakes. My hon. Friend asked whether it was news to me that Herman Ouseley, a member of the committee that appointed the Appointments Commission, was recommended. It was not news to me. The Appointments Commission will be issuing a press release today, setting out its views on that matter. It believes that the process was carried out properly and transparently. My hon. Friend might not accept those assurances, but those are the views of the commission, taken after careful consideration.
I would like to make some general comments about the people appointed. The individuals nominated—my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock has given names—have without exception, in their differing ways, given outstanding public service over many years and have exceptional records of achievement. As hon. Members have said, in comparison to the traditional composition of the House of Lords, the new peers come from more varied ethnic backgrounds, include more women and are, on average, younger. We have had a discussion about death. I wish these peers a long and active life in the House of Lords. We are making important steps in the right direction.
Mr. Grieve: I certainly do not consider that the people who have been appointed are unsuitable to serve in the House of Lords. However, does not the Minister agree that the list of names suggests precisely the sort of people that one might have expected to be sent to the House of Lords under the old system? The whole thrust of the idea of people's peers was to reach out to other or further sections of the community that had not previously succeeded in securing representatives. Is that not the key failure of the appointment process?
Mr. Tipping: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The success of the Appointments Commission has been greater than he acknowledges. A young man from the black and Afro-Caribbean community—who has been the chief executive of a voluntary organisation and has now been offered a peerage—is very different from the current kind of peer. The Appointments Commission has widened the range.
In the few minutes that remain I want to talk about the wider issues involved in the future of the House of Lords. Change has occurred, although my hon. Friend the member for Thurrock and others do not think that
92WH
it has been sufficient. After a century of trying, phase 1 of House of Lords reform has taken place and the vast majority of hereditary peers have gone. We need to move from the past arguments to the future arguments. I am committed, as are the Government, to a way forward that builds on the work of the royal commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock grimaces at that, but the Government have made it clear that the basic premise of the commission's report is correct.
The argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, which is supported by several hon. Members, is that the correct way forward is to disestablish the present system and put in place a democratically elected second Chamber. However, there are real dangers involved in creating a void and putting a new structure in place. In fairness to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, he recognised some of those dangers. He acknowledged that the second Chamber's primary role should be that of a revising and delaying Chamber; a Chamber for the exchange of ideas. I am worried that we might set up a Chamber that is in opposition to the House of Commons. I believe in the paramount position of the House of Commons. In terms of the scales of balance, it is fundamentally important that that is where the real power and democratic structure of Parliament should reside. Any change to the second Chamber will have profound consequences for the House of Commons.
I am not arguing that we should not have change in the House of Commons; indeed, there is a compelling case for more modernisation. However, to create a democratically elected second Chamber comprising 100 peers elected by proportional representation, or whatever it may be, would have real consequences for the House of Commons. That requires careful thinking through, and I counsel my hon. Friends and colleagues within the party to take a cautious approach.
I want to make a couple of final points. I was asked what had happened on the question of the Joint Committee. Let me be blunt about that. We were unable to reach agreement on the Joint Committee's terms of reference, but the Government are committed to ensuring that all parties have a say in the way forward and the mechanics of changes to the procedures.
In conclusion, there has been vigorous debate in Westminster Hall today, and it is absolutely clear that there are different views. The debate will continue and I look forward to the publication of the election manifestos.

Police Manpower (London)
11 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I welcome the opportunity to introduce one of the last Westminster Hall Adjournment debates of this Parliament—[Interruption.]
Mr. Andrew Welsh (in the Chair): Order. I ask those who are leaving to do so quietly.
Dr. Cable: It concerns a subject that is of considerable concern to my constituents and, I suspect, to many others across the capital. It is important to begin by acknowledging that matters have moved on since the initiation of regular debates in this Chamber on the London police, who are now the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police Authority. None the less, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) has important residual responsibilities, particularly in respect of funding and of senior appointments. Indeed, much of what I say today will be relevant to him, rather than simply an indirect reference to the work of the MPA.
Many of my later remarks will seem critical or express concern, so I shall begin on a positive note. Good things are happening in the Metropolitan police. Many of my constituents reacted very favourably to the way in which the Metropolitan police handled the recent major demonstrations against globalisation, and I unreservedly support the work of the police in containing those demonstrations in a highly effective and professional way. As one of my constituents said, that is what we pay our taxes for.
After many years of decline, there is some—albeit short-term—evidence that recruitment figures are stabilising and possibly improving. The Government's crime fighting fund and the top-up from the mayor and the Greater London Authority have provided funding at least to stabilise, and perhaps to increase, police numbers. I gather that sufficient recruits passed through the training school at Hendon in the past few months to enable the targets to be met, and we hope that those figures, which demonstrate the positive element in the picture, are sustainable.
My colleagues who are here today represent the many different aspects of London. Like me, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) represents suburban Twickenham. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), however, represents a rather different aspect of London and London policing.
Although I want to speak on a London-wide basis, I begin from the perspective of my own constituency, where there is a paradoxical situation. One might wonder why someone from Twickenham wants to raise crime as an issue. All surveys show that the police in Twickenham are extremely popular. The local police division survey showed that they are highly respected, very popular and the subject of little criticism. Senior officers work extremely well with the local community. In terms of key indicators such as burglary and street crime, all statistics demonstrate that ours is an exceptionally safe borough with very low rates of
94WH
recorded crime. Moreover, there is considerable evidence to suggest that performance targets are being met.
However, that picture contrasts with the perceptions of constituents of all political persuasions, who often express serious fears. A contingent of constituents who visited my surgery last week were literally shaking with anger at the lack of order in their suburb. They said heatedly that it was the south Bronx of London, but I cannot imagine anything less like the south Bronx. The following day, I looked round the area and at first sight I was reassured. The street was placid, tree-lined and attractive, but a closer look revealed that every bus shelter had been smashed, every white wall had been daubed with graffiti, there was broken glass in the road and every car seemed to have been damaged. I was told that, the night before, 20 or 30 youths had gathered on the street corner drinking heavy spirits, smashing bottles and abusing residents. The police were called, but said that they could not come because they had no resources. There was a tremendous feeling of frustration.
I have raised the paradox of fear of crime and the apparent objective reality of very little crime. I am often told by the police that the problem is one of perception and I am beginning to worry about the concept of fear of crime. We are told that residents are suffering from a paranoid delusion and fear something that does not exist, but it does exist. The objective reality underlying the fear of crime is that in many parts of London, and certainly in mine, policing levels are low. In my division there are around 250 police officers and the number in Kingston is similar, which are by far the lowest numbers in London, at around one third of the level in a comparable population such as Lambeth. Lambeth has special problems, but are they three times more serious? Many of the crimes in my constituency about which people care passionately, such as widespread criminal damage, do not fall within the key indicators that are measured and monitored by the Metropolitan police, and much of the frustration arises from the fact that the problem is not treated as seriously as the main crime indicators.
Much crime is unreported. After another night of violence, I spoke to residents in Hampton and it seems that around 50 orders were placed with a local glazing company to replace broken car windows. However, only 15 incidents were reported to the police and when I asked some of the residents why they had not reported them, they shrugged their shoulders and said, "Why bother? There is no follow-up and nothing happens. Why should we report them?" They say that it is difficult to get anyone to come out from the police station and one wag on the police telephone said, "Why don't you call your MP?" The frustration is real.
There is a potential backlash in constituencies such as mine. We pay disproportionately more for London policing because of the precept on council tax. My constituency is an area of high council tax because of the way in which the mechanism of local government funding works and people pay disproportionately more and received disproportionately less in return. Of the 1,000 new police officers promised by the Metropolitan police authority, we shall have 14. That is very welcome and will bring the division up to its theoretical full strength, but it is a very small number and does not even begin to address the concerns that I am describing.

95WH
My concern is not parochial. I read the previous debate on the Metropolitan police and many of the same concerns were expressed by my colleagues in south-west London, by Conservatives in Uxbridge and Bexley, and by Labour Members in Croydon and Upminster. They were concerned about crime, much of it unreported and much of it not in high priority areas—for example, criminal damage and graffiti. The problem is not being tackled.
I have outlined the context in which I launch the debate, but I shall now concentrate on police numbers and recruitment. As the Minister knows, the context is one in which police numbers have declined steadily, year on year, without interruption since 1990. If blame is to be attached, it is widespread, although police numbers were much lower in the 1960s and 1970s.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that during the years of Conservative government, the number of police officers in London rose by 4,500, but under the present Labour Government, the number in London has fallen by 3 per cent. and crime has risen by 3 per cent. in the past year? That cannot be a coincidence.
Dr. Cable: It depends on which years we use as our base. In 1990, police numbers were 28,300. Since 1997, they have fallen to 26,675. Why the Conservative Government changed their priorities and started cutting police numbers is something that the hon. Gentleman will no doubt explain later.
There has been a transformation in the funding arrangements. The combination of the fighting fund and the GLA has created a more optimistic environment. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I shall run through the arithmetic. Over the two years from March 2000 to March 2002, the base case from which the police and the Home Office will have been working is the expected decline in police numbers of about 2,700 because of wastage and retirement. Usual recruitment will bring in another 1,070, leaving a deficit of 1,600, as a result of which the rate of decline in police numbers will have accelerated.
Since its introduction, the crime fighting fund has funded 1,200 posts over two years, but that still leaves a deficit of 400 to 500. The extra precept contribution from the GLA now means that a positive balance has been achieved over that two-year period. That is welcome, but given that the crime fighting fund and the precept increase are politically difficult accomplishments, how does the Minister see such stabilisation being sustained for years in light of the fact that there will be a high level of attrition from the police through retirement? There will be a substantial bulge within the next few years.
As for recruitment policy, everyone welcomes the fact that London allowances have been increased substantially, thereby nullifying the negative effect of the withdrawal of housing allowances by the former Home Secretary under the Conservative Administration. That is a welcome change. However, I find certain aspects of the recruitment problem mystifying and inconsistent. When helping a police officer who had left the force prematurely and was living in police housing, I discovered that his house was
96WH
in the process of being auctioned and that police houses throughout my constituency were being sold off at private auction, with no end use by the police service.
Common sense suggests that that is utterly perverse. We have an enormous police recruitment problem. There are police officers in my constituency who commute from Portsmouth and round the M25 from St. Albans because they cannot afford housing in the area. Yet, police property is being sold off. Substantial amounts of it have been sold over the years, most recently under the MPA, but previously under Home Office guidance. Will the Minister clarify matters? The only explanation that I have been given is that there is a mismatch between the accommodation that is available, which is mainly family, and that which is wanted by young recruits who are often single men and women.
However, even a moderately imaginative landlord could find a way in which to convert a three-bedroom house into bedsits with shared communal facilities. A little imagination by the Metropolitan police property department would solve the problem, which relates to the wider issue of affordable housing, our access to which is shrinking. In many areas such as my constituency, there is no land on which to build new houses. The stock of housing that can be afforded by young professionals, including police officers, is diminishing, yet an asset is being sold for no obvious reason. There is a distinct lack of joined-up thinking. I hope that the Minister will bring that problem to the attention of the Metropolitan police.
As for recruitment, we recognise that it is not only a matter of numbers. There must be quality and balance among the recruits, the most obvious being the ethnic mix. We know that the police are making big efforts. I pay tribute to Mr. Grieve and the impact that he has had in making the Metropolitan police a friendlier environment for ethnic minorities, both as members of the public and recruits. The culture is changing in a welcome way. Recruitment numbers are beginning to reflect that, but are still hopelessly inadequate in terms of the 25 per cent. target that has been set.
The problem is not simply one of ethnic minorities. Many types of people could make a useful contribution to the police service, but were discouraged in the past by unimaginative forms of recruitment. The Home Office has been examining recruitment criteria and perhaps the Minister would report on that. About a year ago, I brought to his attention the case of a young man who had a large gap in his teeth. Under a 1920's regulation he was debarred on medical grounds. That case was investigated and solved, but it was the tip of a large iceberg.
The problem is not only one of full-time police officers. One of the points emphasised by my colleagues is the need to examine a much more varied portfolio of police careers, especially the role of specials, the numbers of whom have declined astronomically in London and elsewhere under the Government. There are many unnecessary financial impediments such as lack of compensation or reimbursement for court time spent by specials. An unnecessary regulation has been brought to my attention whereby special police officers cannot stand for Parliament. One of my political colleagues, Jonathan Simpson who is a special police officer in Hampstead and Highgate, has had to choose

97WH
between a political career and one as a special police officer. There is no obvious reason why such a regulation should continue to exist.
Similarly, there is broad consensus among police thinkers of the need to use volunteers creatively—to man the police station for example, not go round with baseball bats late at night.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I seek a point of clarification on the interesting question of the political responsibilities of police. A similar issue arises in relation to being a parish council member. Is it the view of the hon. Gentleman's party that all special constables should be able to serve in Parliament and take part in voluntary activities such as being a councillor for any political party? Does he believe that to be the case both for special constables and police officers in general? It is a genuine inquiry.
Dr. Cable: We have made the proposal in respect of special constables. As a result of the transfer of responsibility, police officers are no longer—even indirectly—civil servants. Metropolitan police officers work for a London authority rather than for the Government, so the potential conflict of interest that might have arisen as a result of a police officer being a Member of Parliament does not arise. We are putting forward the proposal for specials, but the Minister may wish to respond to the fact that the logic applies to the wider recruitment problem.
Mr. Heald: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that the reason for the decline in the number of specials is that councillors cannot join? Does he agree with the special constable who said in Police magazine in February that the reason was that the service was a:
"thoroughly demoralised and over criticised, under-resourced"
organisation whose
"members work anti-social hours and often find themselves in…danger"?
Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman widens the discussion unnecessarily. The Minister asked a precise and helpful follow-up and the hon. Gentleman's intervention was propaganda.
I noticed many specials in the lines of police officers manning the anti-globalisation protests. Therefore, they share in the credit attracted to the force as a whole, with all the improvements in morale that follow.
Clearly, the question of police manpower is not simply a numbers game, important though the number of officers is. It is also an issue of the usefulness of police time. I know that the Minister has devoted a lot of thought as to how much of the frankly absurd form-filling requirements of the police can be dealt with. I have seen studies that suggest that progress has been made on that problem, but much needs to be done.
In terms of the allocation of time, a question that concerns many of us is why police time cannot be spent more productively on the street. A recent survey conducted in north London showed that approximately 10 per cent. of operational police time was spent on the street, while 40 per cent. was spent administratively.
98WH
Police officers often cite the little bit of received wisdom that the chance of a police officer on patrol encountering a criminal committing a crime is about as likely as being hit by an asteroid. That little bit of wisdom has acquired a dangerous life of its own. A little reflection suggests that, if beat policing is done more flexibly and thoughtfully, and if, for example, police walk on opposite sides of the street rather than together, or go on a car patrol and fan out from the car, many of the things that our constituents want to see, such as a visible police presence on foot outside their homes, could be achieved with an economy of manpower. I should be interested to hear from the Minister responsible for police how far thinking has developed in the police in terms of that old controversy.
On the use of time, I recognise that, as an economist would put it, substituting capital for labour can often be an intelligent way of managing resources. One way of substituting capital for labour is replacing people with cameras, or, at least, cameras that are watched.
I end with a little whinge to the Minister about cameras. I have tried for some years to support the local police and council in their efforts to introduce a CCTV system. He may recall my asking at Home Office questions why Treasury rules did not allow us to have a system because of the difficulties of funding recurrent costs. He wrote me a nice, sympathetic letter encouraging my local council and police to apply under his funding. They spent 18 months putting together a package and finding revenue streams that would enable them to cover recurrent costs, which they put forward a few months ago. A few weeks ago, they were told that they had been rejected because by then all the money had been spent. I hope that he will give a morale boost to my area by suggesting that the relevant fund will have a fresh look at that application. That is an example of the wider point that we are dealing not merely with numbers but with good use and deployment of resources.
Discussion about police numbers and police time relates to input rat her than output. Eventually, we want to know whether crime is being reduced, as that is the name of the game. I do not want to enter into a sterile debate about whether crime is rising or falling. I simply make the point that there are big disparities in the way in which crime is measured, as we know from recorded crime and crime surveys.
A particular anxiety for my area is that many of the crimes that matter most to people are simply never recorded. If every graffiti tag were recorded, the crime figures would be astronomical and disastrous, which they are not. I ask the Minister—we are entering a general election in which crime reduction will be a key theme—to bear it in mind that in many areas such as mine there is still very deep apprehension about crime and the lack of policing, however it is measured.
11.22 am
Mr. Edward Davey: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on having secured this important debate, albeit on the eve of the election. It helps us, before we leave this place, to focus on some of the real issues.
Police numbers have been a political issue for many years. If we were to read debates in the House from the 1960s and 1970s, we would see that similar arguments

99WH
were being rehearsed. We have not learned from past mistakes in dealing with police levels, and I shall broadly enter that domain before making some more detailed points.
My hon. Friend rightly discussed the importance of performance as well as numbers. In the past, some Governments, in particular Mrs. Thatcher's first Government, decided that all that they needed to do was throw money at the police, and they wasted a lot of resources. Later Tory Governments decided that that was not the thing to do and slashed police numbers.
Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the number of police constables—officers on the front line—increased every year under the Conservatives?
Mr. Davey: I do not accept that. In some periods, the number of Metropolitan police officers doing real jobs involving catching crime, whether on the street or in the office detecting criminals, fell. Police numbers in the Metropolitan police fell for 10 years, which included a long period of Conservative rule. The Conservatives seemed to take the position that the issue was not police numbers but performance. We need to stop thinking along the lines of the issue being numbers in one period and performance in the next—we need to tie both together and raise our ambitions about police performance levels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham is right to say that the key issue is outcomes, not just in terms of reducing crime but in respect of making our neighbourhoods, homes and communities feel safer. My constituents in Kingston and Surbiton are similar to my hon. Friend's constituents in that they perceive a great deal of crime, some of which is graffiti and vandalism. That is often called "low-level crime" in the jargon, but for our constituents it is serious; they see it as they come out of their doors and it makes them feel unsafe. We have an ageing population and many pensioners feel unsafe to go out on the streets. That is a public cost; it is a disadvantage to a society.
Some outcomes that we should be measuring are intangible. The issue is not simply whether car crime or burglaries have fallen or risen; we need to consider outcomes that are difficult to measure. If we put them high on the list, up there with such serious crimes as rape and street robbery, the need for extra police would be far more evident. We need to measure police performance rigorously to ensure that there is proper output for the input from the taxpayer. Let us ensure that those outputs and outcomes reflect the real desires of our constituents, rather than those that are easy to measure for Ministers and their officials. That is not what the game should be about: the outcomes and outputs should be those that matter to our constituents, and they are sometimes not as measurable as we in our technocratic world might like.
Having made that general point, I want to discuss some of the challenges that we face in respect of police numbers in London. The long period of decline is flattening out and things seem to taking an upturn; our challenge is to make up the police numbers that we have lost, so that we can raise levels of performance. At the same time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said, from 2002 for about three or four
100WH
years there will be a bulge, as a lot of officers will retire. We must keep recruitment going to make up for past losses and to prepare ourselves for the huge bulge of retiring officers. That is an enormous challenge for the Government and the Metropolitan Police Authority.
We must recruit thousands of officers, year on year, for a long period, especially if we want the police to meet the wider objectives to which my hon. Friend and I have referred. In Kingston, burglary and car crime are falling, but street robbery is increasing, as are a lot of minor crimes that are not measured, such as vandalism and disorder from gangs of youths resulting mainly from intoxication. if we want to crack down on such crimes, areas such as Kingston will need a substantial rise in police numbers.
We also need a strategy to persuade the media to report crime properly. In the past week or so, the local police in Kingston published the latest figures, which showed some reductions in crime. The local paper, however, decided to pick on one figure that showed an increase from a relatively small basis and make a splash headline out of it that totally misrepresented the crime statistics. That is not helpful in the fight against crime or in explaining to communities or individuals what is happening.
Mr. Charles Clarke: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman but, to be honest, I have thought about the matter a lot, and other than by spending a lot on positive PR, I am not sure of the approach that we should take to achieve what he wants. Does the hon. Gentleman have any proposals on how to achieve the aim that he sets out?
Mr. Davey: I, too, have thought about the problem, which is difficult. With a free press, if a journalist gets it into his or her head that there will be a scare story, there is nothing that one can do to stop it. I would not want it any other way. However, in the Kingston division the retired chief superintendent Alan Given and his successor, Geoff Braithwaite—who is very welcome—have taken a very proactive approach to dealing with the media. They have managed to get positive stories in the local papers for a considerable period. It is all about borough commanders and senior police officers taking a proactive response, rather than just responding to stories. It is similar to the way in which Millbank operates its spinning.
Mr. Clarke: Is the hon. Gentleman recommending that we should apply Millbank techniques to the police force in Britain?
Mr. Davey: I would not want to go in that direction. For example, I would not want to see Sir John Stevens visiting a school and singing a hymn at the launch of his campaign to get more money—that would not go down terribly well.
I shall discuss positive aspects of what is being done to meet the challenge that I have outlined. The recruitment exercise referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham is going well, and I have joined in that in two ways in Kingston. I joined chief superintendent Braithwaite and his officers at a recruitment fair in the Bentalls centre, which is the main shopping centre.

101WH
It pulled in not only potential recruits but young children who may be recruits in future. We watched actors performing an arrest. Some actors played drunken youths, and we saw how a police officer dealt with that situation sensitively. That demonstration of policing in town centres is a pro-active method of encouraging more people to join the police force.
Chief Superintendent Alan Given, who was head of Kingston police, was appointed by Sir John Stevens to head the recruitment task force at 26 Aybrook street, where the headquarters for recruitment is based. I went there a month or two ago to discuss how the recruitment exercise was going. what problems had been encountered and how they were dealt with. The first thing that was impressive was the management information database. Previously, the police did not know what was happening to applications or people coming through Hendon. Currently, there is careful monitoring and recruitment performance is assessed from the data. Surprisingly, that results in some of the flaws of previous practices being exposed, and new innovative methods of getting people to apply to and join the police.
A table of sources of inquiries breaks down where inquiries from potential applicants come from, such as from answerphone, billboard, career centre, Home Office, internet, jobcentre, magazines, newspapers and so on. A brief perusal of that table shows how, in July 2000, most requests were made by applicants leaving their name and address on the answerphone. I am pleased to say that that is no longer the main source of inquiry for an application, and more inquiries now come from responses to newspapers, magazines, proactive work by the police, and, interestingly, via the internet. In July 2000, 69 inquiries were received from the internet, while in February, 1,001 such inquiries were received. The Metropolitan police are moving into the 21st century and using the internet as a method of getting people to apply for jobs. That is welcome, and I pay tribute to Chief Superintendent Alan Given and Sir John Stevens for the work that the task force is doing. I could go through many other tables, but I feel that I may try your patience, Mr. Welsh.
Information is now being made available, and it is significantly influencing recruitment methods. Old practices are being abandoned. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham has alluded to some of them, and I want to describe one more. An applicant was told that he was too young and that he should go away and get some experience of life. He backpacked round the world for two years, but when he returned, he was told that he could not apply to join the force as he had not been resident in the UK for the past two years. There are far too many examples of the Metropolitan police acting in arcane ways and setting up obstacles, so it is not surprising that the tearing down of old practices has led to a large increase in recruitment.
A key question is whether institutions such as Hendon should be expanded. Can it currently accommodate enough recruits for us to realise our ambition of policing the capital as thoroughly as Londoners would wish? If the numbers of recruits passing through Hendon are kept up over the next few years, would that be sufficient
102WH
to meet the challenge that we are facing? The Minister should examine that issue with the Metropolitan Police Authority.
I have a couple of minor criticisms of the Government. I am delighted that they restored the housing allowance. The Tories cut it and that was a disastrous policy: recruitment fell dramatically, which set back policing in the capital by several years. However, the Government failed to restore it quickly enough. My party had to harry them for three years before they eventually got round to reintroducing it, but even then they did not do it properly. There are several anomalies, and I wish to draw one of them to the Minister's attention. Prior to 1994, single officers received half the housing allowance. In 1994, that allowance was frozen: if such officers subsequently married, they still received the single person's housing allowance. However, those officers, who have been serving for several years, might now be working alongside new recruits who receive the full London housing allowance, regardless of whether they are single or married. Experienced officers receive less housing allowance, even though they have remained in the police, merely because they happened to be single prior to 1994. What message does that send to them? It cannot be right. I hope that the Minister will tackle such anomalies.
The Government are addressing another important issue because my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) brought it to their attention in the House several months ago: the need to encourage officers to stay in the force longer. I hope that the Minister can report some progress on that. Although it is important to encourage new recruits, it is also necessary to address the issues of quality and experience, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said. We must ensure that the cadre of police officers comprises not only new and inexperienced recruits but a broad range of officers, some with 30 or 40 years' experience, others with 20 years, and 10 years, and five years. Veterans and new recruits learn from each other, and they offer different skills and attributes to help meet the challenge of policing in London. It is therefore essential that the Government swiftly produce concrete proposals to encourage officers who are approaching their 30-year period of service to remain in the police.
I have spoken to several officers about the matter, and it is apparent that the key issue is their lump sum payment after 30 years' service. They want to be allowed to stay on when they take the money, rather than also be required to take their pension, and to be penalised by the tax system. Although that change might require primary legislation, the Government must facilitate officers to stay on by addressing that financial matter. That would provide a massive incentive, and make a considerable contribution to the recruitment challenge and to helping to ensure that we get the correct mix of officers within the London force.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Before my hon. Friend concludes, will he comment on another annoying feature of the police force nowadays, whereby an officer who has become familiar with an area, has built up contacts among the general population and knows the children and the head teachers of the schools is then

103WH
moved somewhere else? I appreciate that there are reasons for doing that, such as avoiding corruption, but I cannot believe that it is good practice. It is damaging not only for the officer's family but for children who grow up in the community and elderly people. It is important for them to know their police and to see them regularly in the area, but the current practice militates against that.
Mr. Davey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right. The policy of tenure under the former Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is gradually and diplomatically being phased out by the new commissioner, and not before time. I hope that it will tackle the sorts of problems to which my hon. Friend referred. She and I share a wonderful area called New Malden, which crosses the boundaries of our two constituencies. It happens to have the largest population of Koreans in the UK, for the historical reason that the Korean embassy was situated nearby. A few years ago, the local beat officer went to the trouble of learning Korean. That shows the degree of commitment of some of our wonderful officers. Having learned Korean, however, he was moved away to an area where there was no Korean population, supposedly in the interests of his career. That was bad policing—the officer did not want to move, but he was required to do so. That is an example of how absurd bureaucratic practices can diminish good policing.
I want to make two other points, one of which is a constituency lobbying point in respect of technology, and, specifically, cameras. I know that the Minister is still in office, and Parliament is not dissolved, so I am sure that he can answer positively. Kingston council applied for funding for CCTV on Tolworth Broadway. I wrote to the Minister on the matter when the Home Office turned the application down. I was disappointed because there has been a spate of vandalism and attacks on individuals going about their business on Tolworth Broadway. Shopkeepers and the local community feel that if they had CCTV, they could protect the area far more effectively. The police believe that such IT investment could be used to good effect, and that criminals who are vandalising property and attacking law-abiding citizens could be caught. I hope that, in the last few days of this Parliament, the Minister will review that decision and consider making a grant to Kingston council, to enable CCTV to be installed in Tolworth Broadway.
My final point is a general one about the allocation of police resources—the famous resource allocation formula, which I am sure that hon. Members have considered. I am delighted that my noble Friend Lord Tope, who is chairman of the finance committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority, is considering reform of the resource allocation formula in London. It must be reformed. because it does not reward success. If crime is reduced through effective policing, resources are taken away, which is the most perverse incentive that I can think of for tackling crime. If local police reduce one or two of the headline crime statistics, there are many other services that they would like to provide to their community. Such a resource formula will not increase service or performance levels, because the incentives are wrong.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham on representing his constituents on this issue with a tenacity and ability that is probably
104WH
unequalled by any other Member of Parliament. He has done a sterling job, and has raised an important issue, which Liberal Democrat Members have a great ambition to resolve through major investment in London's police.
11.44 am
Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words. I am grateful for the persistence of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) in seeking Adjournment debates. I have not counted but, at the end of this Parliament, he is surely near the top of the Adjournment debate league. He does it not because he loves speaking in such debates but because he is keen to ensure that issues are brought to the Minister's attention and that progress is made, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said.
I should explain that the red box in front of me is not here because of some new arrogance or delusions of grandeur on my part. The reason is simply that my office prepared my papers for today and put them in this box. I have never before appeared in the House with a red box, although in a few weeks' time, I and all my hon. Friends will have red boxes.
The issue is important, and I am grateful that we are debating it again, less than a week before the dissolution of Parliament. The blunt fact is that police numbers have gone down significantly during this Parliament. That is not something for Labour to be proud of, and the public will be reminded of it regularly before the election. The decrease in numbers was not necessary. It was obvious that that would happen if the Government did not alter their spending limits. The Home Secretary epitomised the Government's belated awareness by appearing at Hendon the other day, surrounded by police recruits. The Minister was aware of the need for publicity campaigns and more money before he became a Minister at the Home Office, and it is something that some of us have been urging on the Government throughout the term of the Parliament.
Police numbers have gone down across London and in individual boroughs. In my borough of Southwark, we have a larger police establishment than in outer London boroughs, but we are not up to strength. People such as the borough commander, to whom I pay tribute. say that they would be able to do more if they had the full complement of police officers. Clearly, adequate resources are needed to deal with tragedies such as the death of Damilola Taylor and the investigations that followed it.
Another unsatisfactory situation is the decrease in special constables in London and the rest of the country. That problem is less obviously the fault of the Government, and they have shown a belated interest in it. I was privileged to chair the special constables awards in Portcullis house the other day in the presence of the mayor of London, the commissioner and others. It was a splendid event, which honoured excellence in special constable work. The winner this year is a special constable who looks after Deptford market in the London borough of Lewisham. Police and special constable numbers must increase in the London boroughs.
Mr. Heald: When we pressed the Government to keep recruitment up and to increase police numbers, their

105WH
reaction was that our argument was sterile and simplistic. That is what the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said. Only recently have the Government woken up to their duty to have a recruitment campaign and put some officers on the street.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is bizarre that, in the first half of the Parliament, the Government said that they could not do anything about police numbers, which were entirely a matter for chief constables. The Government said that they would allocate money, but they stayed within their spending limits. The second half started with the famous Bournemouth speech; the Home Secretary got into a bit of a pickle, and suddenly the Government started allocating money. That money effectively became ring-fenced and allowed police numbers to increase.
I shall not be overly political, but my hon. Friends have pointed out the weakness in the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). After a good record on police numbers from 1979 to 1992, for some inexplicable reason the previous Tory Administration suddenly took their eyes off the ball and started the decline in police numbers that the Labour Government continued. In London, neither Labour nor the Conservatives come to the election with a history of having done well in their last term of office. They have done badly with respect to police numbers and safety for Londoners.
Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman knows that the number of police constables rose every year under the Conservatives. Why will he not accept that point?
Mr. Hughes: The uninitiated may not be aware of this debate. It is about police officers. I do not want to get stuck in the statistics groove, but the crude facts are that the numbers of police officers—people drawing their salary and putting on the uniform—decreased between 1992 and 1997. The numbers had risen before then. I pay tribute to those officers. Of course it matters whether they are out on the streets or behind a desk. I agree that we need them more out on the streets.
Mr. Charles Clarke: For the sake of accuracy, police numbers went down from 1990, not from 1992. That is two years more than the hon. Gentleman stated.
Mr. Hughes: I am aware of that. I was not seeking to hide it. I was seeking to take each Administration separately. I was comparing the previous Tory Administration with this one.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is about to speak on behalf of the Tories, yet surprisingly not one single Tory or Labour Member representing London is here. In a one and a half hour debate the speakers will include the person who moves the debate, the Minister who responds and probably the spokespeople from the three parties. It is unusual for the other parties not to have at least one representative. I cannot believe that all the people who are not here will also be absent this afternoon. I wager that many
106WH
London Members, Tory and Labour, are in the House today. They are just not at this debate on policing in London.
Mr. Andrew Welsh (in the Chair): Order. I know that hon. Members are keen to fight the general election, but I hope that they will stay in order and on the subject.
Mr. Clarke: Just for information, there is a meeting, as there is every week at 11.30 am, of the parliamentary Labour party, which my colleagues are attending. The Prime Minister is speaking at it and that is why they are not here today.
Mr. Hughes: That is quite a good, although not a completely good reason. Surely one representative of the London Labour MPs could have attended the debate, but if the Prime Minister is upstairs reading from the hymn book and singing at the troops I am sure that it will all be lovely.
Mr. Clarke: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hughes: The Minister is bound to say that.
My colleagues and I are much strengthened in our case. We six Liberal Democrat Members have had police manpower in London at the top of our agenda in this Parliament and are therefore pleased—I pay tribute to the Government for this—that responsibility has now been transferred from the Government to the Greater London Authority and the Metropolitan Police Authority. I pay tribute to those authorities and to the mayor for the way in which they have started their work. The mayor made it clear that he wanted significant numbers of extra police in London and the GLA therefore raised the precept to start that process. That was a good decision, which we gratefully supported.
Mr. Davey: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Conservatives on the GLA wanted to cut the police budget by £48 million, which would have undermined the policing in London?
Mr. Hughes: It was extraordinary that when the parties on the GLA put forward their budget proposals, the Tory proposal was significantly lower than that of the mayor, the Liberal Democrats and Labour members. The blunt truth is that people have choices. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not cease to remind his electorate of that in the next few weeks, and rightly so. At the end of the day, political parties are teams and we are collectively accountable for our decisions.
One matter that the GLA and the MPA have taken over has particular interest for my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). The Carriage Office, which regulates taxis in London, has been given the long overdue job of dealing with minicabs. That is indirectly related to police manpower because the more people who are working, the quicker the job can be done. I therefore wonder whether we will soon have a change in regulations about numbers of taxis generally, which is a concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton. Will we get on with licensing

107WH
minicabs so that the safety issues, on which my hon. Friend has been a pre-eminent campaigner, can be addressed?
Dr. Tonge: Is my hon. Friend aware that only last week in my constituency a young woman was raped by a bogus minicab driver? That was not the first such incident; it happens far too often in London. Is he aware that it is two and a half years since the Bill was enacted, but we are only just beginning to license minicab firms, let alone drivers and their vehicles? Is that not a disgrace?
Mr. Hughes: It is a disgrace. I was not aware of that case, but we would all express revulsion at it. I hope that my hon. Friend's comments, although brief, will be noted and that the Commissioner, his force, the Carriage Office, the GLA, the MPA and others will get on with the job. Every day that that does not happen, people's safety is at risk. I am sure that, like the rest of us, my hon. Friend will keep up the pressure.
Like Sir Paul Condon, Sir John Stevens is seized of the need for more police officers in London. I pay tribute to them, to Trevor Pearman, my local borough commander who recently moved on, and to Rod Jarman, the current borough commander. They have made the case for more officers at every opportunity.
Demand is such that provision is stretched. For obvious reasons, there are many more pressures on policing in London than that in other parts of the country. Events such as the anti-globalisation protest focus on London, because it is the capital city. Normally, it has national sporting events. I say "normally" because, although Twickenham carries on and Millwall football club is even more pre-eminent than before—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton does not agree, even though Millwall has just been promoted, winning its final match on Saturday 5-0. We have lost Wembley temporarily, although perhaps for slightly longer than we had bargained for. None the less, there are huge extra demands on London, and we pay tribute to the police for dealing with them.
Yesterday, there was a big protest outside the Home Office. People were protesting, rightly, about antiterrorism legislation that the Government got wrong. It is not wrong to have such legislation, but they got the detail wrong. Sadly, the police were also required at some cost for two National Front marches in my constituency on recent weekends, and there will be a third this weekend. The good news is that the marches attract little support. The bad news is that they are extremely demanding of police resources, manpower and time. I wish that the National Front would realise that its prejudiced view is not nearly as appealing as it thinks.
Although such demands exist, we should not say that marches and protests should not take place. They are in the nature of political life in any democracy, so we must bear their cost. The public understand that there must be policing of the May day activities on one hand and of the National Front on the other. I dissent from the view floated the other day by Lord Harris of Haringey, the chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, that the National Front should be a proscribed organisation.
108WH
I am keen for us to re-examine the public order legislation, but once we start to ban people from expressing views completely, we get into trouble.
Mr. Charles Clarke: Let me say for the record that Lord Harris was speaking for himself on that occasion, not for the Labour party.
Mr. Hughes: I understand that. I did not mean to misrepresent the position and I hope that I did not. My understanding is that the Home Secretary's view is similar to mine and shared by Ministers. There are powers to ban marches in certain cases, but they require the police to come to the view that they cannot manage the public order implications.
My party believes that there should be an increase in overall numbers and that there should be minimum numbers. We have put a proposal to the Government, to which they have not yet signed up, that there should be a standing conference on policing to keep both sets of numbers under review and to make objective recommendations on what they should be. My hon. Friends and I approach the debate in the belief that there is a case for London to have police numbers comparable, in proportion to population, with those of New York and Paris. That would mean a significant number of extra officers, which the public want and are willing to pay for.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and others that the problem is not a shortage of interest. Yesterday, I went with our party leader to English Martyrs Roman Catholic primary school in my constituency to start our election campaign. When we asked the youngsters what they wanted to do in the future, a little lad of 11—he happened to be a black lad—said, "I want to be a police officer." Many people spot that career option, but we are not very good at responding to it. Will the Minister say whether the Government are urging the MPA and London police authorities to consider two different ideas: a cadet system and a sponsorship system? A police cadet system would get people interested and police authorities that opted into a sponsorship system, rolled out nationally or in London, would be able to tell potential recruits, "If you are aged 16 or 17 and willing to join the police, we will pay for you to go through college. If you sign on for five or 10 years we will look after you in the early years, as the armed forces do and as many City firms have done in the past." That would increase recruitment and I am keen for the Government to support it.
Secondly, I want to underline the points that have been made about housing needs. Many more people would be police officers in London if they had local housing; they do not all want to travel for 50 or 100 miles to work. There is a case to be made for what used to be called section houses for police officers when they join the force, usually at an age when they are not yet married. It is like going to college or university the new officers are with their peer group and are usually happy to be housed in student-type accommodation and to be with their mates. It is a good experience before settling down and living in their own place. I want section housing to be brought back and key worker housing to be developed.

109WH
Can the Minister say whether any police force has carried out a needs assessment of the kind of housing that the police want so that that profile can be matched to what is provided? We should consider making part of the salary, or perhaps a bonus, portable and able to be transferred from one property to another.
Thirdly, I support the proposition mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton that we should break with the idea of police signing on automatically for 30 years. Police officers should be allowed to sign on for 10, 20 or 30 years, starting at the age of 18, 28 or 38, and then be allowed to carry on beyond the age of 48 or at the end of a 30-year period if they wish to do so. A more flexible system would attract many more people, some of whom, at about the age of 40, may be fed up with their job and want a life change. They would be happy to do police and community service. I cannot understand why it has taken so long to respond to such suggestions.
Fifthly, may we please have part-time police officers? That would allow many people with family commitments to join the police force. We should also get rid of the nonsense that prevents people becoming specials; for example, in order to be the Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate in Hampstead and Highgate, Jonathan Simpson has had to resign his special commission. There may be few people in that category, but no one should be precluded from doing public service because he or she has a political career. A Member of Parliament should be able to be a special constable.
Sixthly, may we have a community safety force to supplement the police? Seventhly, may we encourage the police to recruit more volunteers? Front desks do not need to be staffed by uniformed police officers. It is frustrating to have to wait in a queue because no officer is available; someone has to be there when people ask at the desk for police assistance, and a volunteer would perform that job adequately.
My penultimate question to the Minister is please can we stop tying up so much police time in replicating work done by others? Every police sector does its own crime statistics. Surely, a few people in the service could compile the crime statistics for the whole of the Metropolitan police and relieve officers on the beat of that task.
Lastly, there is a danger that police are now into partnership policing and that is all very good, Mr. Winterton—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): I hesitate to intervene on an hon. Member who is so experienced in this place, but the one thing that I have gained in 30 years here is the title additional Deputy Speaker. At this stage in a Parliament I would love to be so called.
Mr. Hughes: I bow deferentially to your status, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are one of the few people who have been here even longer than I have.
The police are keen that they do not have to attend more and more meetings that replicate the same work.
110WH
I end on a key point. The funding formula needs to be altered because unless we recognise and reward success, we penalise it. The Minister has told me two or three times in debates that the Government are examining how to do that. It is difficult, and I do not know whether talks have taken place to reach an agreement. It must be a priority for whoever is at the Home Office after the election that police success—not just in London, but everywhere—does not result in a financial penalty to the service. I hope that we have made a strong and practical case for ways in which we can increase police numbers; we need more and the public want us to provide more. This was the last opportunity to make that case in this place before the general election.
12.5 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: Yesterday, the Prime Minister visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who came here today with a red box. I wondered whether that was a sign that the third way was back on track.
We have had a good debate, and it is pleasing to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the officers of the Metropolitan police—and the City police, because we are debating policing in London. The police do a magnificent job, often in difficult circumstances. I also congratulate Sir John Stevens on his leadership of the Metropolitan police. The London public were dreading May day this year because last year's scenes were dreadful. Some of our most important national monuments were desecrated and there was widespread violence, but police planning and performance kept us safe this year.
If the Minister is prepared to comment, what does he think about some of the protestors' comments that they may now complain under the Human Rights Act 1998 and seek damages for the way in which the protest was policed? It is the job of the police to secure the peace. Does the Minister not agree that that Act should not deflect the police from that duty? Does he accept that it is odd for protestors to complain after the peace has been kept and, if he feels that the Act, which his party introduced, will lead to such nonsense, should he not put forward proposals to change the situation?
Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether his party intends to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 if it is elected at the next general election?
Mr. Heald: It is no secret that we have not suggested repealing the Act, but we would be grateful if the Minister, with all the advice, assistance and legal help that he receives, told us the legal position on the protestors' complaints. The Government introduced the legislation and, if there is a problem, all parties will want to examine it.
Between March 1979 and March 1997, police strength in the Metropolitan police increased by 4,500. This Government came to power promising to put more officers back on the beat but, almost from the start, their

111WH
philosophy was that increasing police numbers was not vital and a sterile argument. Indeed, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said on 4 February 1999 that
"we must move way from sterile and simplistic arguments about police numbers."—[Official Report, 4 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 1099.]
As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, Opposition Members, in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who was shadow Home Secretary at the time, argued that we must keep police numbers up and continue recruiting. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he did too. We are constantly told, "Oh no, we are not debating that today; we must assess efficiency." The Government have badly lost their way.
The Conservative years witnessed rising police numbers, with more constables appointed every year. The number of civilians employed was also increased by 50,000, releasing many officers to work on the front line. No one would say that it was perfect, but rising police numbers and their greater presence on the streets was better than what followed under the Labour Government. Police numbers declined rapidly against a background of retention problems, so crime rose. It is inexplicable why the Government took that line.
In London, police numbers fell from 26,677 in March 1997 to the latest figure of 24.861—a fall of 1,816 officers. As a result of boundary changes, it might be fairer to reduce the figure to about 1,500. The City of London police have experienced a fall of 148 officers. Overall in London, 1,600 or more officers—3 per cent.—are no longer policing our streets. At the same time, the number of special constables—volunteers who give their time to police our streets—fell nationally by a third.
What has been the effect of the decline in police numbers? Sir Paul Condon, the highly respected former Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, said:
"It means that we cannot devote the resources to murder inquiries that other forces do. It means we have fewer bobbies on the beat that we, or the public would like… The time for fudge and prevarication is over."
Others followed up the same theme of rising crime. In the year to September 2000, 6,000 more violent crimes were committed in London than in the previous 12 months—a rise of 3 per cent. We have thus seen a fall of 3 per cent. in police numbers and a 3 per cent. rise in crime over the past year. It is no coincidence or surprise: fewer officers doing the job will lead to a rise in street crime, so the Government should take responsibility for it.
In December last year, Sir John Stevens announced that the Metropolitan police was in crisis. He spoke about the ability to fight crime being "stretched" and pointed to rises in street robbery and violence and increased use of guns. He also emphasised the difficulties of recruitment:
"People are saying, 'Do we want to join the service'"
A few weeks ago, the Home Secretary announced that the number of police recruits was increasing, with a 27 per cent. rise in the numbers sent to Hendon, but in the last financial year, the Metropolitan police lost 199 officers.
112WH
It is instructive to hear the comments of the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, Glenn Smyth. The Minister laughs, of course, because he will not like the following quote:
"It may be good news for other parts of the country, but it is certainly not good news for the Met… Only 3 per cent. of application forms sent result in a recruit at training school."
That certainly does not constitute a success. He continued:
"The Met is a ticking time bomb… unless there is a huge upturn in recruitment and more importantly retention the Met will be a third smaller in 2005-06. If there is a light at the end of the tunnel it certainly hasn't been turned on yet!"
I recognise the truth in that.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) referred to the bulge in imminent retirements. We may have had a one-off boost in recruitment, but at the cost of a huge national advertising campaign and the Metropolitan police deciding that people whom they had previously rejected for various reasons could join the force after all. It is not a sustained improvement for the future. If the Minister is serious about the police service, he will have to tackle some of the serious morale problems that it faces.
The fact that police stations in London are closing is of concern to London residents. The force is being stretched out, with 1,600 fewer officers and no special constables to fill the gaps; police stations cannot be manned. The Minister will confirm that around 40 police stations have closed during the Labour years. Chief Superintendent Jarrett, talking last year about the closure of Pinner, Edgware and Wealdstone stations, said:
"I share people's concern. I'm a resident here. I know what it's like not to have a police station nearby when, for example, you want to report you'll be away from your house for a few weeks. It's very difficult."
Morale in London is hit when the ordinary officer on the beat who wants to do a good job, as the public want him to do, has to say, "Well, I'm sorry, your police station is closed. We do not have the men or the women to police your area in the way that we would like." It is sad that on a day such as May day we have officers everywhere and see what a fantastic job the police can do; they can have high visibility and provide us with policing in the capital of the sort that people want—yet that is not the case year round.
The Government say that when we were in government we had years of putting extra money into the police and rising police numbers, but still did not get on top of crime—however, that shows how long it takes and what a sustained effort is needed to reduce crime and change the culture so that people believe that police officers will catch them if they commit crime. Once we let the situation slip—as the Government have done—and start saying that police numbers do not matter, that the debate is sterile and let numbers fall, youngsters thinking of committing crime start doing so because they can get away with it. The word goes round that the police are not out there. One ends up with a culture in which violence on the street is more prevalent.
The country will pay the penalty for those years of neglect under Labour. It is no good saying just before an election, "Oh well, we've realised we were wrong and have put extra resources in and got a few police officers. We are sorry—give us a second chance." Damage will be done to London for many years. I hope that all the

113WH
proposed new recruits come forward and I welcome the fact that there are more, as do all Conservative Members. However, a young officer on the beat for the first time is no substitute for those seasoned officers who have left the force. All officers of experience say that it is officers who have been doing the job for a period who do the best work for the police. I welcome the volunteers.
In conclusion, we need to restore police numbers and morale. We must be fair and not over-criticise. We must get rid of red tape and review police functions so that police officers do the job that they should do. It is about ending the insult of the early release scheme whereby officers who have been assaulted see the early release of the more than 200 criminals who carried out the assaults. It is about cadet schemes, part-time police officers, and specials and retirees working for a few more years and allowing officers to work for less than 30 years. Above all, we must restore police morale, which requires a change of Government.
12.19 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): We have heard some excellent speeches during the debate—they did not all consist of political tub-thumping—and a wide range of important points were made. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr.Cable) for initiating the debate. The tone with which he and his Liberal Democrat colleagues spoke was correct. They tried to identify the problems, but suggested that there had been progress in some areas and identified that straightforwardly. I appreciate that, because when such matters are reported in the media, it is important that they are dealt with soberly. I acknowledge that some matters still need to be rectified and I shall speak about those, but the story is more positive than it has been for a long time.
I want to emphasise this momentous period for the Metropolitan police. The Metropolitan Police Authority was established last April and many people had campaigned for that important development for a long time. It changes many of the relationships significantly. The relatively new leadership of Sir John Stevens and the deputy commissioner, Ian Blair, is driving through a major and important programme of reform in the Met. The boundaries of the Met have been redrawn so that they are coterminous around Greater London and, even more significantly, within Greater London the establishment of borough commands, which are coterminous with the local authorities, gives a massive drive to all the work that needs to be done on development of crime reduction partnerships.
I pay tribute to the work being done by borough commanders throughout London. I have visited many parts of London during the past six to nine months, for a variety of reasons, and the quality of the borough commanders whom I met has been outstanding. The work being done by the force to decentralise decisions to the borough commands to enable that partnership to develop is important, but difficult for reasons that we know.
We have made changes in numbers and resources and I want to make a couple of party political points. It is important to record that police numbers in London
114WH
were in decline from 1990 onwards. When we came to power in 1997, there were fewer police officers in London than at any time during the 15 years since 1985. We decided to accept the Conservative spending limits for the first two years and there was plenty of argument about that and our decisions on how to deal with our appalling economic inheritance, particularly public spending, which we had to get under control. We took that decision first and we have seen the result in low interest rates, high employment and strong growth. There are party political arguments among Liberal Democrats and in my party on whether those decisions were right, but they were taken and the proof of the pudding has been in the eating because they allowed the strong increase in funding that we have seen in the past couple of years, which has been projected through the comprehensive spending review to the future.
From 30 September 2000 to 31 January 2001, there has been an increase of 160 officers in the Met, which is the first significant increase for more than a decade. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) referred to police stations and it is worth bearing it in mind that during the past year, 2000-2001, for the first time in 10 years, no police stations were closed and four were opened. There was an increase in the number of police stations in London last year.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the difficulty of attracting recruits, but interest in joining the Met is currently at unprecedented levels, with more than 250 inquiries every day and more than 6,000 information packs being sent out to prospective applicants during March. That is not a picture of a force finding difficulty in recruiting people. I shall not go through the arithmetic of the extra resources that we have put into London, including the important increases in pay and the establishment of the rail companies operating system with the welcome assistance of my hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Indeed, I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Hill), in his place to commend that tremendous and important achievement.
I shall not go in detail through the figures on the increase in spending on the Metropolitan police grant because there is insufficient time. At this time of change, we have extra numbers and resources going into the police and the situation is starting to move forward, which is something that it is important to place on record. At the same time, as part of that substantial process of change, we have a renewed commitment by the leadership of the police in London to high-visibility policing, because the issues raised by the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for Twickenham about the fear and importance of crime—even in their relatively crime-free constituencies—are correct. It is right to say that we must establish a presence because people are concerned about crime. It is necessary to deal with it in a direct way, which is why the police are taking many initiatives in that area.
There was publicity in today's papers about a decision, of which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will be aware, in the London borough of Southwark to locate police officers in schools in that part of the city. It has been advertised as the first such scheme in Britain, although it is not

115WH
actually the first. Last week I was in Clapton, where the police have opened an office in a secondary school in the middle of a low-crime area, which means that they will be circulating around that school. A series of similar initiatives are being developed up and down the country, but I pay tribute to what the Metropolitan force is doing in that area.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I thoroughly support that initiative. It is hugely important that young people going to, and at, school can feel that it is a place of safety and that they are not under threat from other pupils or those outside. If we have to do it; we have to do it—for as long as is necessary.
Mr. Clarke: That is absolutely right. It is not only schools; police are being located in libraries, housing offices and so on because we acknowledge that to have police located around the community is an important means of building strength and support for the kind of partnerships we need.
Not least in the litany of change, which includes the establishment of the MPA, the new leadership of the deputy commissioner, the change of boundaries, the establishment of borough commands, the increased resources and the development of the focus on visibility, is the diversity agenda, to which the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton and for Twickenham referred. It is important and it is beginning to change the situation. Specials are being recruited and we have set a target to increase their numbers significantly because I agree with the important criticisms that have been made in that area, not least those that concern the need to seek recruits from ethnic minority communities.
There is an enormous agenda with a difficult history. The important task of reforming the human resources and finance functions of the Met in order to establish basic information about what is happening will not be easy. However, the leadership of the force is driving such changes through, which is something that I welcome and congratulate. The recruitment standards issue and form
116WH
filling for expenses are classic examples of their kind, where things that have gone on for years are now being steadily changed. Indeed, the tenure system is another excellent example and it is being reviewed for the exact reasons that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) mentioned in her interventions. We must get community-experienced police officers staying in posts so that they can influence and strengthen communities. Changing that enormous service is not easy. It requires a great deal of commitment by both the police and Government, but it is something that we are offering and seeking to implement.
Manpower, the specific subject of this debate, is an important element, but it is not the only element because nobody believes that the issue is sterile. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who is a colleague of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, told me in discussion on national television—he probably was not watching because it would have been boring for him as he knows the subject so well—that she concedes that the policing issue involves not simply numbers but the quality of policing and how it operates.
I shall conclude by correcting the hon. Gentleman on crime. The Commissioner has made it clear that the total number of notifiable offences in the 12 months to 31 March 2000 decreased by 2.2 per cent. Crime in London has fallen. Burglary is down by 9.5 per cent. Vehicle crime is down by 0.2 per cent. and in Richmond, I gather that it is down by 9.9 per cent. Street crime has increased, and we are focusing on that in the various initiatives that we are introducing, but crime is going down. That is the way in which our policies have been working. They are making a difference. I am the first to acknowledge that there is a great deal more to be done, but we will do it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I congratulate hon. Members on a well-informed and constructive debate, but we must now move to the next debate, on an alternative route for crossrail.

Crossrail
12.30 pm
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to have secured this important Adjournment debate. I would not be so foolish as to expect the Minister to be able to give a definitive response to the points that I will raise, notwithstanding the respect that I have for him and for his ability to grasp important and complex issues. I hope, however, that he and his Department will accept that I, and those putting forward the same point of view, have a strong case, worthy of consideration.
That case is to argue that the new crossrail link's eastern end should run further south than the route originally proposed: south of Stratford, running through Canary wharf, the royal docks, Barking and Dagenham and on to Purfleet. I have no pecuniary interest to declare, but I should point out that I am chair of the Thames gateway all-party parliamentary group. That is the area affected by the proposition under discussion.
I seek to address the question of how to deal with London's prospective growth. That question has not really been asked for decades—it has not had to be. However, London is now growing again, gaining jobs and facing tremendous pressure on housing. It needs a transport infrastructure to service it. The problem of accommodation for key workers is an essential element of the housing stress and must also be solved.
We must combine spatial and economic development with a workable transport plan, bringing the key issues together. The decision that I am discussing today is the most important since the end of the second world war. It is about access: not just to places but to jobs, opportunities and homes.
The Minister responsible for regeneration at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has constantly argued that we need a key to access all the deprived areas of the Thames gateway. The plan that I shall put forward for consideration does that by serving south London and north Kent as well as docklands, east London and Essex. It addresses the areas of greatest deprivation, therefore providing the greatest opportunities. The main spine for east London is the A13 trunk road, but it will not be able to carry the volume of traffic expected in years ahead. The route that I propose is only a mile from the original study.
At present, the east end of crossrail—I shall deal only with its eastern end—is proposed to go from Liverpool Street to Stratford and on to Shenfield. The plan has been around for some 15 years and was first promoted when Stratford was expected to become the regeneration and employment hub of east London. The plan has been gathering dust while east London has been gathering momentum. Stratford is, and will continue to be, an important centre, not least because of the proposed channel tunnel rail link. It has, however, become neither the regeneration nor the employment hub.
It is to the Government's credit that they have grasped the nettle that crossrail will happen. We must maximise the advantages that crossrail will bring to the capital. However, the reality of what has happened in
118WH
east London has been different from the expectations of 15 years ago. I shall refer to specific figures later. The real regeneration and employment hub has not been Stratford. Canary wharf, Exel, London City airport, the university complex and Norton Pharmaceuticals have joined Tate and Lyle and others. It is docklands that is the real hub. Stratford, which the Docklands light railway and Jubilee line termini have already enhanced, is still an important area. However, at present more than 60 trains an hour pass through it during rush hour, and I wonder whether it can cope with additional capacity.
I ask the Minister to look at the figures for potential development. According to consultants' calculations, the total development for the southern route through Canary wharf, the royal docks, Beckton, Barking Reach, Dagenham dock and Purfleet could exceed 40 million sq ft, if I may be forgiven for using the imperial measurement. However, development for the Stratford to Shenfield line could be as little as 10 million sq ft. Housing developments such as that at Barking Reach are very much in line with London's Mayor Livingstone's announcement on Monday that east London can provide the brownfield sites necessary to accommodate London's increasing population.
The London Mayor and the Government agree that, if London's population does grow to the latest estimate of about 8 million, and if we are to protect the green belt, we need more housing on brownfield sites. They also agree—thankfully, they seem to agree on quite a lot at the moment—that east London has the necessary sites, but we must ask how those sites will be accessed. That is a particularly important question to answer if we are to build for the densities that are being discussed.
According to the study by the Centre for Economics and Business Research that was commissioned by Canary Wharf Ltd. some two years ago, we can expect docklands to generate between 110,000 and 165,000 jobs in the next 10 to 15 years. However, the Jubilee line and the Docklands light railway cannot take the strain that that will impose, and nor, as I have said, can the A13. We need not only to ensure the public transport infrastructure necessary to service commercial developments but to attract more inward investment for brownfield sites. We know that work is under way further to develop the Greenwich peninsula, but standing as it does in the shadow of Canary wharf, it could well suffer from a lack of transport infrastructure, which could deter further investment.
Equally, the development potential of the riverside areas of Barking and Dagenham will not be realised without further public transport investment. The connection with the channel tunnel rail link at Purfleet will relieve pressure on the European link to St. Pancras, create additional capacity and provide alternative routes to London. It will also provide fast access to London and the City from the east.
Challenges have been made to the suggestion of a more southerly route. For example, it has been said that extra costs could be involved, but they could be vastly outweighed by the extra benefits. The estimated cost of the entire project is about £7 billion, and the construction of a southerly route might add only £800 million to that figure. It is also argued that a southerly route would not address the potential of the Lee valley and the opening of the route to Stansted, but nor, I would argue, would the Shenfield route. Stansted

119WH
is important to the development of east London, and it is clear that the various arguments must be explored. However, we must recognise that, whichever route is chosen, certain options will not be covered.
Whether it proceeds along the original route or the more southerly one that I am proposing, crossrail needs to built within the anticipated time scale of 10 years. However, I would argue that both routes are possible, even if there is a change in favour of the more southerly route.
I thank Mr. Robert John, of Canary Wharf Ltd., for bringing the matter to my attention. I also thank Mr. Chris Glaister, of Glaister's, and Mr. Peter Twelftree, of Steer Davies Gleave, for their briefings, and Mr. John Biggs, our hard-working member of the London Assembly, for his thoughts on the matter, which, as always, proved helpful. Historically, east London has been the poor relation of this great capital city, but that has been changing for more than 20 years. We need river crossings—that case has been well argued, and I am sure that the Minister is familiar with it—and improved transport links, of which crossrail should be one of the most important.
The Mayor of London has put forward his 15-year plan, and the Government have their long-term plans to eliminate social exclusion and child poverty and to create more opportunities. They argue for economic competency with social compassion, stability without boom and bust and a head and heart approach. East London has a pivotal role to play in ensuring the success of both the Mayor's and the Government's strategies. It was the vision of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and others that docklands and the Thames gateway could play their full parts.
Crossrail will be important to the success of any strategy—the question is whether we want it to be central. There are already capacity problems on the docklands rail and public transport network, which must be addressed if we are to fulfil sustainable regeneration potential. Failure to do so would be a failure to match the expectations about the new gateway area as a motor of economic growth for London and the south-east—and, for that matter, the United Kingdom—and could even stifle that important growth.
As I said earlier, this could be the most important decision since the war. My request is that those responsible for making it give the southern routes full and fair consideration.
12.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing the debate and providing the Chamber with an opportunity to discuss the proposals for cross-London rail links. This is indeed an opportune time for such a debate. Last Thursday, the Government announced key strategic decisions, showing their determination to provide London with the major new passenger rail capacity that the capital needs over the next decade or so. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's warm welcome for that announcement. He is absolutely right—it is an historic decision.
It is important for me to start by reiterating the details of the announcement, which was made after my hon. Friend secured the debate. Work will start immediately
120WH
on the project definition and design development of a central cross-London rail link, the tunnel section of which could follow the alignment of the crossrail scheme. The work will look at alternative service patterns and will lead to a recommendation on the option to be taken forward. For the purposes of my speech, I shall call the scheme crossrail—since everybody else does—but it is not necessarily identical to the old crossrail scheme that was proposed some 10 years ago.
The work will be taken forward jointly by the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that that, along with the decision to undertake a feasibility study into the south-west to north-east route, is a clear demonstration of the Government's commitment to the development of rail schemes in London. It is a first step, and there is much work to be done to identify the best options, but Thursday's announcement represents real progress towards providing London with a world-class rail network.
It will be helpful if I set the work in the context of the Strategic Rail Authority's report. In December 1999, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister asked the SRA to carry out a review of the issues relating to rail travel on an east-west axis across London. The report concludes that London is near to capacity in terms of the current national rail network, the central termini and the underground. That infrastructure, even supplemented by committed schemes, will not deliver the capacity to meet expected growth in passenger and freight demand over the next decade or so. The report recommends the consideration of a package of schemes of varying sizes and impacts to overcome those problems and to create a railway network that is appropriate to London's status as a world city.
In producing the report, the SRA took as a priority the identification of schemes that provide significant additional capacity in the central area to reduce congestion, to improve access and network capacity in key regeneration areas, to support the development of a network of strategic interchanges, to provide effective routes and operating conditions for freight and to provide fast and effective access to and from Heathrow. The report shows that there is little opportunity to provide the significant increase in capacity required to support the forecast growth by upgrading the existing system. Schemes for upgrading existing routes by lengthening platforms, increasing frequencies and building additional track were all considered, as were plans to link the Circle line to the national network. None of those could deliver sufficient new capacity. The report concludes that new cross-London links are required, probably along the protected corridors of the crossrail from Paddington to Liverpool Street and the Chelsea-Hackney line.
Since the beginning of the year, the Government, with the mayor and the SRA, have been considering the SRA report. Apart from the report, a large number of national schemes are being progressed or proposed in the London area. They range from relatively minor track improvements to major schemes such as the Thameslink 2000 scheme and the crossrail proposal. None of the schemes stands alone; they all have interfaces with one another. In most cases, they interface

121WH
with the London Underground or bus routes and interchanges. They need to be taken forward in a coordinated manner.
While recognising the statutory powers and responsibilities that fall to the Mayor and the SRA, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport set up a high level group to ensure clarity on objectives and priorities. The group aims for the development of a co-ordinated strategic approach to London rail projects in general, and to oversee programme co-ordination for work on the projects. It has a formal tripartite structure and is chaired by my right hon. and noble Friend with the Mayor and the chairman of the SRA. The announcement on Thursday followed the group's consideration of the further appraisal of the SRA report.
The purpose of the project definition work is to identify the precise scheme to be taken forward. There are a number of potential routes for the central tunnel, and more particularly for national rail destinations. There are also a number of chain service patterns that need to be examined more thoroughly before we decide on the optimum scheme. In the east, that will include an examination of options to serve the Thames gateway, the Lee valley and other destinations in east London. The approach used to assess options on destinations served will be based on a wide range of parameters, including costs and various benefits such as regeneration, accessibility, environmental benefits, relief of overcrowding, journey time improvements and fare box revenue. Extensive consultation will take place with local authorities, regional development agencies and other interested parties before any decision is made. I can assure my hon. Friend—I know that he will welcome this—that plenty of opportunities will arise for alternative routes to be considered as part of the project definition work. That work will lead to a recommendation from the SRA, TFL and the high-level group.
The heart of the project, which will now be developd, is the construction of a new tunnelled route through the centre of London. Although that alignment could be similar to the crossrail proposal, with new stations at Liverpool Street, Farringdon, Tottenham Court Road, Bond Street and Paddington, the position of the portals and the design of the stations are very likely to be different. The current designs for the central area section of crossrail are held by London Underground, which is responsible for safeguarding the alignment. Existing suburban rail services could be linked across London using the tunnel, perhaps with services to Romford and Shenfield in the east, and to Ealing and Reading in the west.
Mr. Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend said that there would be full opportunity for representations to be made during the project definition work. Forgive my ignorance, because this may have been included in last week's announcement, but will those suggestions be called for or will they have to be volunteered, and is there a time frame for that opportunity?
Mr. Hill: Now that I have made it clear that there will be a consultation stage, it will certainly take place.
122WH
I reassure my hon. Friend that that was always the intention. I shall write to him providing the details about the time scale and how the opportunity will develop, so that he, other hon. Members and other interested parties in his constituency and in the docklands area can take advantage of it.
I was speaking about the opportunities that will arise for existing suburban rail services. The proposals that we are now considering would allow the Great Western main line and Chiltern line to connect to the Great Eastern main line and the London, Tilbury and Southend line, now known as the C2C. Crossrail could also serve Heathrow airport. However, all that is to be confirmed in the project definition work. The Government have allocated £150 million to fund the costs of crossrail project definition and design work.
The SRA believes that a crossrail link would have the highest proportion of travellers who would benefit from fewer interchanges; that it would be likely to generate the least short-term disruption to established travel patterns; that it would be best at supporting regeneration, given its penetration of west London, and that it could be brought into operation more quickly and with the least risk. A crossrail link would provide a major boost to the development of London's integrated transport network by providing a substantial increase in rail capacity in central London. It would improve access to and across the central area from many parts of east and west London. It would serve both the west end and the City, giving direct access for business, social and leisure travel within a wide area of Greater London.
A crossrail link would provide interchange at nine underground stations and at many stations on the national rail network. By removing the need to change from rail to underground at Paddington and Liverpool Street, a crossrail link would provide new opportunities for journeys to and through central London. It would also reduce crowding on several underground lines and busy stations. It would complement Thames Link 2000 services, if approved, with an interchange at Farringdon, thereby giving access to the north and the south and an interchange with the possible Hackney south-west line, which would be provided if the scheme were to be pursued.
Journey times would be 30 minutes from Slough to the City, 11 minutes from Paddington to Liverpool Street and 20 minutes from Ilford to Bond Street. Such a link would also benefit many road users whose journeys would be improved because of the more attractive rail services. It would provide a high quality of service both on trains and at the new stations and bring wider economic benefits to London. The route would also serve a significant number of regeneration development sites, including the Park Royal area, Paddington, the lower Lea valley at Stratford and the Thames gateway. Stratford, in particular, would be a key interchange station for the regeneration of the Thames gateway.
The construction of completely new infrastructure would allow features such as full access for mobility impaired people to be included as an integrated part of the design. The project definition and design development work will take about 14 months and will lead to a recommendation on the option to be taken forward. It is a major project and no decisions have yet been taken about the most appropriate process for seeking powers. At such an early stage, it is difficult to

123WH
estimate when the construction of a crossrail link, if approved, may begin, but it is unlikely to be before 2005-06. The aim is for the link to be operational by the end of the year 2010, but it might be later depending on how long it takes to obtain the necessary powers and planning consents.
Increased capacity and the provision of new services are essential if we are to meet our targets for passenger growth and keep London and Londoners moving. I am delighted that the SRA, TFL, Railtrack and London Underground are working together to deliver the transport system that is fit for our capital in the 21st century. I hope that the vision that I have set out today for improved services will become a reality at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): The debate has ended a few minutes early. I regret that, in the absence of the Minister who is to reply to the next debate, I shall have to suspend the silting until 1 o'clock.
12.53 pm
Sitting suspended.

Anglo-Irish Relations (Official Documents)
1 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: I am privileged to have the opportunity to speak on the issue. Documents released during the past two years and, indeed, this year in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom under the 30-year rule have intensified suspicion of the involvement of the Republic of Ireland in assisting the formation of the Provisional IRA and supplying it with arms.
It will be noted that I refer to an intensifying of suspicion. I do so because contemporary opinion was highly suspicious of the activities of the Republic's Government, and justifiably too, when one casts one's mind back to speeches such as Jack Lynch's on 13 August 1969. He strongly implied that his Government would no longer be in a position to continue in the role of a mere spectator of events in Northern Ireland. There was also the movement of troops to the border areas. Such moves by that Government fuelled the disturbances in Northern Ireland and entrenched a residual suspicion that has never been dissipated. The 1970 arms trial in Dublin and subsequent hearings of the public accounts committee there not only failed to create the desired transparency in the events of that time but further clouded the amassed knowledge of the dealings and transactions that took place. There is an obvious need for transparency and an obvious requirement for accountability.
Victims of a generation of Provisional IRA violence in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, as well as the citizens of the Irish Republic, have the right to know precisely the involvement of Ministers of the Fianna Fáil Government in the formation of the equipment of the Provisional IRA. That right to know is regardless of the motive of any of the Ministers involved. Whether an internal power struggle took place in Fianna Fáil or the policy was a means of containing the unrest within Northern Ireland is a secondary issue. The primary issue is the actions and level of participation of those involved. Anglo-Irish relations continue to be damaged because of this issue. The current Irish Government can never hope to win the trust of British citizens in Northern Ireland without transparency and closure on this issue and others, such as Garda collusion.
Good relations north-south and east-west require a level of confidence in the Irish Republic's Government that can be achieved only by their adopting a more reflective, mature approach. They must pursue the twin goals of transparency and accountability rather than the regressive goal of damage limitation. Unless such actions are taken, the current Fianna Fáil Government may find itself viewed with the same justifiable suspicion as its 1970 predecessor. We must have detailed knowledge of the precise roles played by Charles Haughey, the then Finance Minister, Neil Blaney, the Minister of Agriculture, and military intelligence through Colonel Hefferon and Captain Kelly, in creating and equipping the Provisional IRA. We must be in a position in which to gauge the level of knowledge of Minister of Defence Gibbons, Minister of Justice O'Morain and the Taoiseach Jack Lynch in initially acquiescing to the arms operations and then the manipulating of their political show trial.

125WH
We know that the Government sub-committee on Northern Ireland policy headed by Blaney and Haughey disbursed vast sums that reached those who were to become the Provisional IRA in Belfast. We know that military intelligence agitated for a split in the republican movement and there is no doubt that assurances of financing and aid encouraged and facilitated the decision to split from the IRA command structure.
Regrettably however, the involvement of particular individuals in Government is less accurately documented and those involved have not been held to account. Official Government papers released in the United Kingdom have strongly indicated the opinion of the UK Government to the goings on in Dublin. The letter written by the British ambassador in the Irish Republic to the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, is but one example. In reference to the arms trial, the ambassador wrote:
"Whatever the verdict, if Mr. Haughey was not part of a conspiracy, he was at any rate up to the neck in a scheme to import arms illegally".
Mr. David Trimble: The passage quoted by my hon. Friend should be underlined. Like me, he would want to congratulate the ambassador on having had such a precise and accurate picture of what was going on. Is he not somewhat disturbed at current media comments in the Irish Republic. where some journalists and others are trying to cast aspersions on Prime Minister Lynch's colleagues, who clearly broke with the Haughey faction? Is it not good to have this statement which clearly states Haughey's position? Does he agree that some Dublin journalists are trying to blacken Gibbons and Lynch to exculpate the Haughey faction, and that such a form of historical re-writing is to be deprecated?
Mr. Beggs: I thank my right hon. Friend for that constructive intervention. He knows that I want to focus attention on those on whom responsibility lies for much of the trouble that we have all endured. It is not my intention to afford an opportunity for journalists to divert attention elsewhere, away from those who are culpable and guilty.
In the Irish Republic, the documenting of secret sessions of the public accounts committee reportedly has coded references to those who had control over the bank accounts used to distribute the £100,000 of so-called aid—a considerable sum in 1970. The Government papers that have been released strongly indicate the authorised omission of evidence by Minister of Justice, Dessie O'Malley, and his Department's apparent tampering with the witness statement of Colonel Hefferon. That deleted evidence implicates the then Minister of Defence, James Gibbons, much more than the mere "vestigial knowledge" that he admitted at the trial.
Of course, it was necessary for Gibbons to be adjudged clean with regards to the scandal—as Minister of Defence, he could have rendered importation of arms legal by mere involvement. Coupled with the release of the Berry papers, conflicting with the evidence given by the secretary to the Minister for Justice at trial, these
126WH
documents create not so much a whiff as a stench of cover-up—that is cover-up, not stitch-up. It seems that many of those currently in the Republic who take an interest in this undoubted crisis both then and now for Fianna Fáil Governments, do so with a view to vindicating Haughey, Blaney and others by the persecution of Lynch, Gibbons and O'Malley, to whom my right hon. Friend referred. Those new sources give weight to a theory that a selective prosecution of individuals was necessary to mask the deep-seated rot in Government policy and involvement with Northern Ireland with an irresponsible pandering to an ideological notion of nationalism.
What we all must remember, and what may have greatest impact on Anglo-Irish relations, is that even if Mr. Haughey and those who can only be termed his co-conspirators were wrongly prosecuted—possibly, persecuted, as some have suggested—it does not prove an absence of participation on their part. The wrongful aspect was that all those involved were not put on the stand with them, or that the policy was not illegal as it was sanctioned from top to bottom, and that the Fianna Fail Government of the time had institutionalised enthusiasm for creating and arming the Provisional IRA.
In the interests of progress and the improvement of Anglo-Irish relations, it is essential that new information relating to the arms crisis of 1970 be fully examined and evaluated and that such examination be carried out by a broad independent public inquiry in the Republic of Ireland. That inquiry must not only narrowly assess the dubious circumstances of the prosecution of Haughey, both Kellys and Albert Lyukx. It must he an inquiry into the wider scandal—scandal is the correct term.
The inquiry must investigate the actions of Fianna Fáil Ministers who, if they did not act as mother to the Provisional IRA, acted as a midwife at the birth of the organisation by funding northern republicans through links forged by Captain Kelly with his namesake in Belfast and by transferring moneys through the Irish Red Cross Society.
The inquiry must also focus on the actions of individuals such as Blaney and on whether his cross-departmental control over Kelly and instruction of Gibbons was a sanctioned delegated power. It must consider the extent to which Blaney and Haughey's joint dictation of policy on Northern Ireland was implicitly approved throughout the Cabinet.
The 1970 arms trial verdict can be dismissed as easily as the jury in that trial accepted the republican rhetoric that was used to defend those who were clearly engaged in importation.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Beggs: I would prefer not to do so.
There has never been accountability or transparency on this issue. More than 3,000 victims in over a quarter of a century deserve better. It is impossible to predict what would have happened had encouragement and support not been given to the then potential Provisionals. However, the inability to make concrete

127WH
predictions does not negate the duty of the British Government to secure transparency and accountability on behalf of murdered and maimed citizens.
It is on that basis that I urge the Minister to make representations to the Government of the Irish Republic requesting an independent inquiry on this arms issue in order to ensure that Anglo-Irish relations—east-west and especially north-south relations—are not further harmed by lack of closure. If relations are to progress and not regress, the southern Irish state must come clean, and the circumstances of the 1970s arms scandal and trial must no longer be denied and concealed.
1.15 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) on securing the debate. I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government, and I listened with real interest to what he said. I share the belief that in order to comprehend the present or mould the future, it is first necessary to understand the past. Therefore, in the Irish context, it is important that these papers have been released and are being studied. They form an important part of the backdrop to subsequent events.
However, I contend that the prime significance of the papers lies in the fact they have been published, without delay beyond the norm, and that they are now available to inform public debate. The evidence for that is here, because they form the basis of today's debate. The hon. Gentleman would agree that it is a sign of the maturity of the bilateral relationship between Britain and Ireland that both countries are willing to confront history, and learn from it.
The papers tell us about events that happened 30 years ago. It is right that those events should be known and discussed, and I understand why they provoke such a strong interest and response from the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues and many people in the island of Ireland. However, it is important to make the distinction between history and current events, and nothing that we learn from the papers detracts, or should be allowed to detract, from the progress that has been made.
The hon. Gentleman called for an inquiry. If new information emerges about events that occurred in the United Kingdom jurisdiction, the possibility of further inquiry is kept under review, as a general rule. However, it appears that the events to which the hon. Gentleman referred took place, or allegedly took place, under Irish jurisdiction and, therefore, are matters for the Irish Government.
Mr. John D. Taylor: I follow the point that the Minister makes, but he will recall that there are public inquiries in Northern Ireland, which is in the United Kingdom, that were requested by the Dublin Government. Therefore, it is consistent for the United Kingdom Government to request the Dublin Government to hold a public inquiry into the matters under discussion today.
Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman makes his own point. Whether to hold inquiries on any matter under the United Kingdom's jurisdiction is a matter for the
128WH
United Kingdom Government. Similarly, any inquiry into matters under the Irish jurisdiction is a matter for the Irish Government. I am sure that the remarks of the hon. Member for East Antrim will have been heard in Dublin and elsewhere.
Mr. Maginnis: Further to that point, I would not want the Minister to avoid the issue, but will he tell us whether he will make representations to the Irish Government so that even-handedness can be seen? I shall not go into the fact that our own Government of the day must have had some information about what was going on, but the Government of today have the same responsibility to their citizens of Northern Ireland as to their citizens elsewhere throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Wilson: I strongly endorse the hon. Gentleman's last point. Obviously, exactly the same rules for jurisdiction would apply to citizens anywhere in the United Kingdom, as I am outlining in the example. The British Government have fulfilled the responsibilities that hon. Members would expect of them by ensuring that the papers were released under the 30-year rule, and are stimulating public debate such as is occurring today, which has flowed from the publication of the papers. Equally obviously, the Government of Ireland are aware of that debate and will arrive at their own decisions on where to take it.
It is important to put Anglo-Irish relations—for obvious reasons, I prefer "British-Irish" relations, but we shall not quibble about the semantics—in context. I understand the specific nature of the debate to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it is important to recognise what is going on at present. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland recently said, Northern Ireland is a better and more prosperous place in which to live than it was three years ago, never mind 30 years ago.
In a debate at this time, it is incumbent on me, as a representative of the Government, to emphasise that now is the time to complete the Good Friday project, which means people pushing politicians to complete the job that they asked us to do three years ago. The great progress that has been made in recent years in resolving outstanding issues relating to Northern Ireland has allowed the United Kingdom and Ireland to develop a wider and deeper relationship so that we no longer constantly view each other through the single dimension of Northern Ireland. In a way, the significance of the documents that we are discussing is to remind us what happens to such relationships without that co-operation between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. That is not merely of historical significance but is a relevant reminder in the present-day context.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister's distinction between British-Irish and Anglo-Irish, but the reality is that we seem to be dealing with an Anglo-Irish agreement. In that context, he may remember what he said about learning from history. History repeats itself. That same Dublin Government today has arms dumps and an army operating in the Republic, contrary to their own constitution. I ask again whether the Government will make representations to the Dublin Government for an inquiry.
Mr. Wilson: The debate relates to a specific subject and I do not want to widen it out. There is excellent security co-operation between the United Kingdom authorities and the Irish authorities, and I have no reason to suppose that the Irish Government countenance illegality on the part of an element that would threaten the democratic stability of Ireland just as it would threaten that of Northern Ireland. I do not believe that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would say that that is true of the present Irish Government, whatever happened in the past.
On making representations, I believe that the documents stand alone; they are in the public domain. The British Government have fulfilled their responsibility and have not evaded it any more than the Irish Government have. When documents emerge, or are published by Governments, that inform public debate and tell people what happened or shed light on events that happened 30 years ago, an inquiry into them should not be automatic. At some point we must move forward rather than always relying on history.
Mr. John D. Taylor: I return to the basic point. The Dublin Government made representations to the present UK Government about a public inquiry into the Bloody Sunday episode in Londonderry city. The Government complied with that request. Why can that not work in reverse? Why can the present Government not make representations to the Dublin Government about a public inquiry into the funding of the Provisional IRA by Haughey and others?
Mr. Wilson: Mr. Winterton—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. One title that I have in this place after 30 years is that of Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Wilson: I unreservedly apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The distinction that the right hon. Gentleman draws is wrong. A Government can make representations to another Government on any subject. However, the implication that the Bloody Sunday inquiry was held because of representations by the Government of Ireland is not a logical extension of that principle. Representations can also be made within a jurisdiction.
I will not move from that position. The debate is taking place, and light is being shed on the matter, because of the maturity of the relationship between Britain and Ireland. That is also the reason why the documents could be published. Older documents concerning the relationship between Britain and Ireland have never been published, but that is a separate matter. It is an important advance in the relationship between the two countries, and especially in their willingness to face up to past events and to the causes of their differences, that documents that are historic in terms of the 30-year rule, but contemporary in terms of the interest that they provoke and the emotions that they arouse, have been published without any delay after 30 years. I hope that that will continue to be standard practice.
Mr. Beggs: I recognise the benefit that is accruing from the release of such information. However, will the Minister state that he shares my concern that there might be good reason to believe that evidence was tampered with, and that there are serious omissions in the information that is being released? Or is he so worried about damaging the good relations that are proclaimed between our Government and the Irish Government that he is incapable of confidently expressing to the Irish Administration that the time has come to clear the matter up and to bring the truth into the open so that what happened can be fully exposed?
Mr. Wilson: As the alleged events took place within the jurisdiction of the Irish Government, and they have serious potential implications for the Irish state, it is for them to determine whether another inquiry is required. I will make no further comment, except to state that the matter has been investigated in the past, and that it is up to a British Government to determine whether events that occurred within their jurisdiction require investigation.
Mr. John D. Taylor: I agree with the Minister. The Dublin Government should make the decision on the matter. That is not under challenge. However, the Dublin Government successfully requested that the British Government establish a public inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday and apologise for the potato famine. Therefore, we want the Minister to ask the Dublin Government to set up a public inquiry into the dreadful affair that caused so much unhappiness, bloodshed and death in Northern Ireland for 30 years.
Mr. Wilson: It is absolutely certain that famine does not discriminate in terms of class or creed—or, at least, certainly not in terms of creed. The potato famine affected every part of Ireland, so political jurisdiction is not an issue with regard to that.
I am not prepared to allow the premise to be established that the Bloody Sunday inquiry was established at the behest of the Irish Government. There were good reasons within the United Kingdom for that inquiry to take place, and it is going ahead on that basis. Although they are being a little ungenerous, I understand the motivations of the hon. Members who are focusing on demanding that representations be made to the Irish Government, rather than on acknowledging the achievement of the British and Irish Governments in releasing information without which the debate would not be taking place. That is an important advance, both in terms of informing legitimate debate on such topics and events that have resonance down to the present day, but it is also a demonstration of the confidence and maturity of the relationship between the British and Irish Governments that that step can be taken. On that basis, we should be learning from the past. We should be interested in such events and the lessons that we can learn from them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have run out of time and must move to the next debate, on Northwood and Pinner community hospital.

Northwood and Pinner Community Hospital
1.30 pm
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I am grateful for the opportunity to slip under the wire and raise an issue that is important to my constituents in what, I am told, is the last debate initiated by a Back Bencher in Westminster Hall before the dissolution.
Northwood and Pinner community hospital is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who is in his place today, but it is of considerable importance to my constituents. It is potentially a key location for new, extra intermediate care provision, which could benefit not only my constituents but people in the north of Hillingdon. From meetings that I have chaired, attended by Hillingdon health authority, local residents' associations from Harrow and Harrow West primary care group, I know that Hillingdon health authority is in sympathy with that idea.
I seek from today's debate and from the Minister recognition of the need for ministerial pressure on the London region of the national health service and on Hillingdon health authority to translate that sympathy into detailed planning and the subsequent modernisation of Northwood and Pinner community hospital.
A key finding of the national beds inquiry, published in February 2000, was that
"at least two of every 10 days spent by people aged over 65 in acute hospital beds could be better provided in alternative facilities such as intermediate care beds".
The NHS plan published in July 2000 took forward some of the inquiry's conclusions, outlining what intermediate care might include. It promised an additional 5,000 intermediate care beds with an extra £900 million of investment by 2003-04
"in new intermediate and related services",
precisely
"to promote independence and improve quality of care for older people."
I do not want all of those 5,000 intermediate care beds at Northwood and Pinner, just a small number.
The Department of Health, in a circular in January this year, said that
"intermediate care should form an integrated part of a seamless continuum of services linking health promotion, preventative services, primary care, community health services, social care, support for carers and acute hospital care."
It went on to say that intermediate care services, if not provided in a patient's own home, should be provided in "community-based settings" and, crucially, should be "discrete, step-down facilities" in comparison with the services largely provided by acute hospitals.
Intermediate care is good not only in itself but for the wider modernisation of services in the NHS. It could, for example, help Northwick Park hospital to continue to end problems that it has had with bed blocking. That would help to speed up services for those who most need acute hospital care there as well as providing better care for those who no longer need an acute hospital bed.
132WH
I want to set out some of the context surrounding Northwood and Pinner community hospital. Three key developments in the past six years now impact on some of the issues that affect it. Mount Vernon hospital, some one and a half miles from Northwood and Pinner community hospital—a district general hospital until 1995—lost its accident and emergency unit and its paediatric beds under the previous Government. I and other Harrow Labour councillors vigorously opposed those moves before the 1997 election.
In 1998, perhaps not surprisingly, given the attitude of the royal colleges to specialist services being provided at hospitals that are no longer district general hospitals, Hillingdon health authority proposed to move burns and plastics specialist services from Mount Vernon hospital to Chelsea and Westminster hospital. Following considerable public opposition to the proposal, although the move of burns and plastics services from Mount Vernon has been confirmed, they will instead move to Northwick Park hospital, the main district general hospital serving my constituents. I am pleased that the move will keep excellent clinical teams together.
An almost unnoticed feature of that debate was Hillingdon health authority's offer of new community hospital facilities in north Hillingdon to augment existing provision, which Harrow residents were assured would also be available to them and their GPs.
Another key element of the background picture is that the Government's health reforms were being implemented at about that time. They enabled individual high-quality GP practices to band together to form a primary care group and have much greater input into and say about the structure of local health services.
In addition, following the merger with Central Middlesex hospital, the new management team at Northwick Park is beginning to change the culture of a hospital that has always offered generally excellent care once people are under the surgeon's knife, but has not always been known for the quality of its basic administration, the openness of its management or its customer care. I am referring to the part between the GP saying, "You need an operation", and its taking place. That was coupled with an infrastructure that was starved of resources. For example, the accident and emergency unit, which had needed modernisation for at least the past 10 years, helped to give Northwick Park a reputation that few would envy.
Now, however, there is a sense of things changing. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), opened a completely refurbished accident and emergency unit several weeks ago. New intensive care beds have been provided, and maternity is next in line. Crucially, the strong new management team is much more willing to engage with the concerns of local GPs and residents and, more relevant to this debate, to contemplate providing specialist clinics closer to patients.
In my constituency, a high-quality primary care group is keen to develop intermediate care facilities and take advantage of the promise of modern expanded community hospital provision. Ideally, it can access high-quality clinician support from a changing and modernising Northwick Park hospital. Where better to

133WH
begin the process of developing intermediate care options than at Northwood and Pinner community hospital, which is no more than 500 yd from my constituency and has considerable local public support?
Northwood and Pinner community hospital was opened on 2 December 1924. It was built on land donated by a local family on the condition that it was used for a community hospital or retirement home. The hospital was built with money given by local people, much of it by weekly subscription. Many of their descendants still live in the area and take an active interest in the development of the hospital, which they rightly regard as partly theirs.
Back in September 1983, Hillingdon health authority decided to close the hospital to compensate for a £1 million overspend. As we can imagine, there was a massive outcry from the local community about a decision that was condemned by the entire hospital staff. They were joined by local business and community groups, local churches, all local residents associations and Brunel university medical group. On 26 October 1983, recognising the considerable support for Northwood and Pinner community hospital, those groups occupied it. They locked the front and back doors and excluded all non-medical management staff. The hospital continued to treat patients but under the management of clinicians and the local community. It was occupied 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with pickets outside protesting at the planned closure and the Conservative Government's running of the national health service.
The occupation had the support of almost the entire community. Local businesses sent food, milk, money and equipment. A carol service, which was led by a local councillor after the hospital's chaplain had refused to take part, attracted 200 people, including the writer and actress Mollie Weir, who had lived in Pinner and knew the community hospital well. I was told that she made a special point of travelling across London to give her support. The protesters eventually took Hillingdon health authority to court after it insisted on the closure, and the High Court found in favour of the protestors. Lord Chief Justice Woolf said that the health authority's actions had been wrong and awarded costs against it.
I pay tribute to the leadership of Councillor Keith Toms, who is now deputy leader of Harrow council, who organised a highly successful campaign. Mike Turner, who now chairs a local health watchdog, Community Voice, described it as one of the few cases in the 1980s when a community forced a health authority to keep a hospital open. I continue, rightly, to be pressed by local residents, general practitioners and councillors—not least Keith Toms, but also Councillor Gillian Travers, who I am delighted is challenging the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood at the coming election.
There have been various attempts since 1983 to move forward with other developments at the Northwood and Pinner community hospital. Six years ago, the London region allocated £300,000 to build a new two-storey building on the site, but, in its wisdom, Hillingdon health authority decided to build those new premises in south Ruislip instead. Despite such setbacks, the
134WH
community continues to support Northwood and Pinner community hospital through a friends of the hospital group. It has continued to give many thousands of pounds to purchase special beds and baths, and other important patient facilities. The community hospital, working closely with the health centre next door, provides 10 respite care beds, four of which are used by Harrow GPs, 13 elderly care beds, GP admission beds, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and chiropody.
Those facilities, together with the Northwood health centre, are provided in buildings that are:
"overcrowded, poorly organised and in need of major refurbishment".
Those were the words of a feasibility study published on 10 April 2000, which was in a report that was prepared for Hillingdon primary care group and Harrow and Hillingdon Healthcare NHS trust. Since then, preliminary costings have emerged in media reports, with talk of a refurbishment programme costing upwards of £8 million. That figure has not surprised local people, GPs or horrified health authority experts. To the frustration of local people, particularly GPs in the north of my constituency, and despite that excellent original feasibility study, the detailed planning for a refurbished Northwood and Pinner community hospital has not taken place.
The hospital offers an excellent opportunity for my constituents to see their GPs delivering intermediate health services that are neither purely primary care nor best delivered in a district general hospital setting. It is local, accessible and strongly supported by the community. Harrow GPs already have access to beds, but they want to see more short stay beds in order to help more Harrow people move from acute hospital back home. In addition to clinician support from Northwick Park hospital, they see no reason why there should not be outpatient clinics for endoscopy, low-tech dermatology, or ear, nose and throat. Why not expanded physiotherapy and chiropody services too? They also want the opportunity for local GPs with specialist skills to deploy and develop those talents further by providing clinics at Northwood and Pinner community hospital.
The refurbishment plans for Northwood and Pinner seem to have had a lengthy gestation period. That is due in part to a wider review of Hillingdon's health economy and the detailed work that the health authority is doing on the implications of the national beds inquiry for intermediate care in its area. I have excellent individual GPs. They want a refurbished and modernised Northwood and Pinner community hospital to provide the intermediate care options alongside a virtuous circle of a strong primary care group and a slowly improving Northwick Park hospital, the local district general hospital.
That vision is supported in my constituency by most of the health care fraternity and local residents. I look now to my hon. Friend the Minister to provide some much needed push to the London region and to Hillingdon health authority to get on with the detailed planning for the modernisation of this important community asset.
1.45 pm
The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on securing this debate, especially as it is the last Back-Bench initiated debate in Westminster Hall this Parliament. It is also gives us an opportunity to discuss the future of a local community facility that is greatly valued by the people who use it. My hon. Friend made a strong speech in support of the local community hospital, but also gave a powerful description of the views of local people. The views of the GPs in the area will clearly be important in the future direction of local services, particularly when the primary care trust will have such an important role.
Northwood and Pinner community hospital has 34 in-patient beds and is located in the London borough of Hillingdon. Although that is close to the border of my hon. Friend's constituency, it is actually in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who is also present today. Ten beds are provided for respite care and 13 beds are supervised by a local consultant physician for patients who may require rehabilitation and physiotherapy following an acute illness, and may be awaiting residential or nursing home placemmt. Seven beds are provided for Hillingdon GP access and four for Harrow, West GPs. The average length of stay for patients is 28 days.
The ownership of the Northwood and Pinner community hospital transferred to the Hillingdon Primary Care NHS trust when the PCT was established on 1 April 2000. Hillingdon PCT was a first wave trust, one of only two established at that time in London. It is therefore at the forefront of developing the new models of care for the 21st century NHS. The services at Northwood and Pinner community hospital continue to be managed for the present by Harrow and Hillingdon Healthcare NHS trust, but they are being progressively integrated with those run by the PCT. That is why we feel that the views of local GPs will be so important in determining the future direction of services.
The NHS in Hillingdon, in partnership with social services, is keen to implement an inclusive approach involving local community groups to review all its services, to develop new models of service, along with patient care pathways, which will be utilised to deliver the NHS plan. Proposals are being drawn up jointly between all partners, including an estates strategy for providing suitable premises and infrastructure for the services. The Northwood and Pinner community hospital site is an important part of the NHS facilities in the borough and is already providing some intermediate care services.
The PCT is working closely with health and social care partners in north Hillingdon and the local community to determine the future configuration of local services. I know that my hon. Friend will understand that Ministers cannot pre-empt the outcome of local discussions, but I can reassure hon. Members that any proposals for change will be discussed with the local community and, should changes to services be planned, they will be the subject of full consultation. I shall ensure that the points made so powerfully by my hon. Friend about the need for progress and direction are heard by Hillingdon health authority and by the other partners to the local debate. I reassure my hon.
136WH
Friend that the Government are committed to making appropriate and effective use of community hospitals and see an important role for them in delivering local health care and in the future development of intermediate care. I shall follow discussions in the area with interest; we shall wait for local discussions and consultations to take place on the direction that the local community wants to take.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I tell the House that, typically and courteously, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) sought the permission of the initiator of the debate, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), of the Minister and of the Chair for his intervention.
Mr. Wilkinson: I should tell the Minister how much local people on both sides of the borough boundary appreciate any interest in a facility of high quality such as the Northwood, Pinner and district cottage hospital. Will the hon. Lady bear in mind the need for balance between the facility at Northwood and Pinner and existing facilities at Mount Vernon and at Northwick Park and Watford? There is hope that there may be opportunities at Mount Vernon for some community services.
Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the future of services at Mount Vernon. It is important to take them into account and to ensure that there is proper local community discussion and support for their future direction. I undertake to ensure that the points made by the hon. Gentleman are heard by the local health authority and by partners to the debate locally.
The Government recognise the strength of feeling that people have for their local community hospitals, which include Northwood and Pinner, and the value of those hospitals as part of the community that they serve. In the NHS plan. we pledged that, as well as additional money, by 2004 there would be some 5,000 extra intermediate care beds, some in community hospitals, some in existing facilities, and some in new developments. As my hon. Friend made clear, community hospitals are not just about beds; they could be developed for ambulatory care services and as bases for local access to consultant outpatient advice and treatment. Too often in the past, such hospitals have been sidelined and their potential ignored. Now, with a new emphasis on intermediate care and on delivering care closer to home, there is an opportunity to breathe new life into community hospitals.
As hon. Members know, the national service framework for older people was published in March. That tasked the NHS and its partners to work together to develop modern services to meet the special needs of the older population. I understand that in Hillingdon, and in Brent and Harrow, that approach has been adopted in all service areas, including those for older people.
The Government, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, want further developments to proceed as quickly as possible. The modernisation of

137WH
local services is in the interests of my hon. Friend's constituents. Local people expect and deserve a modern health care service in their area. It is important to get the right services agreed in the right place to meet the needs of local people. Thorough assessments are being made of local needs. It is also important to ensure that there is proper public consultation about changes, which should not be driven merely by the NHS in detachment from the local community. Members of the local community should have a proper opportunity to comment on any proposed changes. As hon. Members will know, the NHS plan made available £405 million of additional funds annually by 2003-04 compared to 1999-2000 for the NHS component of new intermediate care services to promote independence and improve the quality of care for older people.
The Government have already invested additional funds in excess of £100 million in the NHS in the past financial year to provide intermediate care services, in part to ease the pressures on acute care over the winter. Between them, Brent and Harrow and Hillingdon health authorities received extra investment of £1.3 million, which helped to ensure that long waits for admission at both Hillingdon and Northwick Park hospitals were kept to a minimum over the winter months. Those sums are part of an overall increase of more than £30 million, almost 9 per cent., for Brent and Harrow health authority and £15.7 million, or 9.35 per cent., for Hillingdon health authority for use in the current financial year. Indeed, in its plans submitted for the
138WH
current financial year, Hillingdon health authority has indicated expenditure of £1.7 million on intermediate care services.
It is clear that there is support for expanding intermediate care services. My hon. Friend made a strong argument for the development of intermediate care services at his local community hospital, and we will follow that debate with interest and ensure that his comments are properly taken on board. We support the determination of hon. Members to obtain patient-centred services in modernised facilities for their constituents and to take advantage of all the opportunities that the NHS plan provides.
I look forward to a successful partnership between the statutory and voluntary agencies in the Hillingdon and Harrow, West areas to develop the future for intermediate care and other facilities, so that we can ensure that every patient—elderly patients and patients across the board—gets access to the modern, high-quality care that they deserve from the NHS.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I move the Adjournment. may I say to the Minister that I wish her well, whenever her happy event takes place.
I believe that Westminster Hall has proved of immense benefit, particularly to Back Benchers. Although I am showing a bias, I hope that the experiment of Westminster Hall will be continued in the new Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Two o'clock.