Sitting of 2 February 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time tomorrow.

    HFC BANK BILL
    Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions of Private Bills.
    IMPERIAL COLLEGE BILL
    Read a Second time, and committed.
    UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL
    Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions of Private Bills.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HEALTH

    Dentists
    Charlotte Atkins: How many dentists there are per head of population (a) in the UK and (b) in North Staffordshire health authority; and what impact Government policies are expected to have on these figures. [67159]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The number of general dental service dentists per 100,000 of the population at the end of September 1998 was 35 for England and the United Kingdom, and 24 for North Staffordshire, excluding salaried dentists. The Government are funding six Investing in Dentistry bids in North Staffordshire, which will increase the number of dentists by six and allow 16,000 people to receive national health service care.
    Charlotte Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I was horrified, when I was elected in May 1997, to find that there were no NHS dentists in my constituency. Since then, the very good work of John
    708
    Rose and Liam Stubbs in the local health authority has attracted two more dentists to my area, but we are very much running to stand still. What are the Government doing to encourage more dentists to move into areas outside those covered by the dental schools? More dentists are especially badly needed in health authorities such as North Staffordshire, where dental health is so poor.
    Mr. Denham: A number of initiatives are under way to meet that need, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on her close involvement in this matter in her constituency. One of the most important initiatives is the Investing in Dentistry process, from which North Staffordshire has benefited already, and I know that two further bids are under consideration in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    So far, 242 Investing in Dentistry bids have been funded across the country, enabling another 600,000 new patients to receive national health service care. It is also possible, of course, to develop salaried dentist services in areas where other dentists cannot be attracted to practise.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is the Minister aware of the scandal that has developed over the past few months which means that people in Staffordshire have to wait 15 months or two years for dental and other operations at Good Hope hospital? In contrast, people in Birmingham have to wait only five or six months for the same operations.
    Will the Minister guarantee that he will look into that scandal and find out exactly why such a discrepancy has developed under this so-called "caring" Labour Government.
    Mr. Denham: Inequities in health care between different parts of the country were a feature of the development of the national health service under the previous Administration. I shall, of course, be more than happy to look into local cases brought to my attention by any hon. Member, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, with the extra investment through modernisation to tackle the pressure of waiting lists, the national health service in his area will do far better than it did under the previous Conservative Government. That applies in all other parts of the country as well.

    Neuroleptic Drugs
    Mr. Paul Flynn: What proposals he has to reduce the use of neuroleptic drugs in care homes. [67160]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): We are aware of concerns that have been expressed about the possible over-use of neuroleptics, and several current initiatives will help to address them, including the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the national service framework for older people.
    Mr. Flynn: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply and for the action that his Department has taken to deal with a distressing problem. The symptoms of senility displayed by many people in care homes are the result not of old age but of the misuse and over-use of neuroleptic drugs.

    709
    May I urge my hon. Friend to copy the initiative of the school of old-age psychiatry in Manchester, under which independent pharmacists and doctors were taken into homes? As a result, the use of such drugs was reduced, people's lives were lengthened, money was saved for the NHS and many elderly people were rescued from much unnecessary misery and confusion.
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that very legitimate concern about the use of neuroleptic drugs. I shall certainly look into the work that has been done in Manchester.
    My hon. Friend may also like to know that we have commissioned the Centre for Policy on Aging to draw up new national standards for residential and nursing care homes. The use of medication in care homes will be covered by the new standards.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: The Minister referred to draft national standards. Will he confirm that there will be formal consultation on them.
    Mr. Hutton: Yes.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Is it not ironic that, while residents of care homes may be over-medicated with neuroleptic drugs, there is massive rationing of psychoactive drugs for people with mental illnesses? What does that imbalance say about the Government's priorities and values? Will the Minister at least admit that that imbalance exists.
    Mr. Hutton: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the use of neuroleptics is very serious, and we are determined to address the issue. He has conveniently forgotten that, as part of our strategy to modernise mental health, we are releasing significant new resources to help purchase new anti-psychotic drugs.

    Primary Care Groups
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: How many primary care groups he expects to commence during 1999. [67161]
    Mr. Jim Dobbin: How many primary care groups he expects to commence during 1999. [67166]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): Some 481 primary care groups will commence on 1 April 1999, and they will have the capacity to commission services from that date. The degree of responsibility for commissioning services will be agreed between the PGC and the health authority.
    Mr. Dismore: Last week, I met representatives of Barnet West primary care group, who stressed the importance of recognising local factors in the work of PCGs. Does my hon. Friend share that PCG's desire for flexibility both in the setting up of PCGs and in ensuring that our doctors, our nurses and our community are in the driving seat when it comes to planning health care for our local area.
    Mr. Denham: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we have established PCGs covering all the general
    710
    practitioners in a particular area in order to put GPs, nurses and other professionals in the driving seat in primary care. As the groups develop, enormous use will be made of the new powers of PCGs to develop much better services.
    It is important that local factors and judgment are taken into account. That is why we have made it clear that the pace of development of PCGs over such matters as how quickly they take on the commissioning of services is a matter for local judgment and agreement.
    Mr. Dobbin: Can my hon. Friend reassure GPs who are working hard to set up the primary care groups, and to make them work, that clinics and out-patient services provided for their local communities will be adequately funded by each health authority.
    Mr. Denham: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's tribute to the active role that GPs are playing in ensuring that primary care groups will work. We have made it clear to health authorities that, where cost-effective and good services have been developed at practice level, we wish to see them continue. We also want to see plans drawn up to spread the benefits of those services to other patients in the PCG area.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the Minister acknowledge concerns about the extent of lay representation on PCGs? Will he undertake to reconsider lay representation if it is shown that it would be of immense benefit to the PCGs, particularly if it brought in wider expertise from outside the medical profession.
    Mr. Denham: I have looked at proposals for membership of primary care groups, and my view is that the different factors involved have been appropriately balanced. It is understandable that people are examining the formalities of PCG constitutions at this stage, but, given existing flexibility, primary care groups will develop effective partnerships to provide primary care at the local level. I am sure that health professionals will draw on the expertise of others, including lay people who are not themselves members of the PCG, to develop effective services. As PCGs evolve in practice, effective working partnerships will be created, and that is most important.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even by the standards of a Government who arrogantly sideline Parliament as much as they can, it is amazing, when the Secretary of State has published a Bill within the past few days to enable the abolition of fundholding, that fundholding has already been effectively abolished, and that arrangements are in place to dragoon GPs into collectives on 1 April, by which time the Bill will not have achieved even parliamentary consent, let alone Royal Assent.
    Mr. Denham: The right hon. Lady has failed to notice the enthusiasm, commitment and dedication with which so many fundholding GPs have committed themselves to primary care groups. They see that this is the right way to develop the national health service. Professional GPs are working in co-operation with other health

    711
    professionals to develop better primary care. They realise that we are moving in the right direction, and the right hon. Lady is out of touch with them.
    Miss Widdecombe: I am wholly in touch with the timetable: primary care groups are to be set up on 1 April and the Bill has not even commenced its passage through the House. I am aware that the Minister has dodged my question—he is so ashamed of his arrogance that he will not address it. Will he now answer me?
    Mr. Denham: The right hon. Lady does not understand either the legal or the parliamentary situation—although it has been set out very clearly and is evident from the Bill. Primary care groups can be, and are being, established under existing legislation. Fundholding will be abolished when the Health Bill achieves Royal Assent—assuming that that occurs. We shall make provision in the Bill—it should be perfectly clear to the right hon. Lady—for a residual fundholding scheme to operate from 1 April. I believe that the vast majority of fundholders will dedicate their energies to developing primary care groups and accept that fundholding will end on 1 April. It is there in the Bill. There will be a residual scheme for fundholders which will continue until the health legislation receives Royal Assent. I have answered the right hon. Lady's question, but she does not like my answer.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: The majority of Labour Members warmly welcome the establishment of primary care groups. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the establishment of such a group in North Charnwood—which covers the Loughborough constituency—which builds on existing co-operation between general practitioners in the area? However, will the Minister look closely at the management responsibilities of the group? It does not wish to appoint a manager but wants to allocate existing resources among the general practices in the group. Does that send the wrong signal to others who are involved in the PCG, for example, non-GPs—that it is GP-led?
    Mr. Denham: It would be wrong to comment on the particular local example to which my hon. Friend referred, although I shall be happy to look into the situation. We have published guidelines about the way in which we expect primary care groups to develop that strike the right balance between central encouragement and local flexibility. I shall look into the case that my hon. Friend has raised.
    Mr. Robert Walter: When the Government were elected, they claimed that they would save £100 million on administration in the national health service. The Government have already allocated a massive sum for the administration of primary care groups and they have stated that health authorities will also have to make money available to that end. The Government also expect GPs and other health professionals to give freely of their time to help with that administration. Have the Government assessed the total cost and effectiveness of primary care groups?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman fails to realise that, by introducing primary care groups, we will be able to cut
    712
    out a huge amount of the bureaucracy and waste that were an integral part of the internal market. For example, whereas there were about 4,000 purchasing groups under the internal market, there will be about 600 commissioning groups under the new arrangements. That will enable a huge cut in bureaucracy to occur. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are on target to meet our aim of saving £1 billion in management costs during this Parliament.

    Trainee Doctors
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What plans he has to increase the number of medical doctors in training. [67162]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The Government are currently implementing their recent decision to increase the number of undergraduate medical education places by about 20 per cent.—that is about 1,000 extra places—over the next few years. Numbers in postgraduate medical training are also growing to meet future requirements for general practitioners and consultants.
    Mrs. Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In inviting bids for that work, will he welcome and encourage new and innovative practices that complement other measures for developing a national health service for the 21st century? I have in mind the bid from the Exeter, Plymouth and Open universities, which, in addition to having a strong community focus, will seek to develop training through telematics and information technologies which will be the stuff of communication for doctors in the next century.
    Mr. Denham: I am aware of my hon. Friend's support for that proposal and sure that she will continue to champion it enthusiastically, but it would be wrong of me to comment on any individual proposals. Proposals for new medical schools will be considered alongside proposals from existing providers by the joint implementation group, which is now implementing the increase in medical school places in England. The group will judge those proposals against the objectives that are set, including value for money.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: Will the Minister confirm that his plans for more doctors include the number of qualified medical students who were due to enter the system anyway.
    Mr. Denham: The position is that there will be 1,000 medical school places in addition to the number that we inherited on entering office in 1997.
    Mr. Roger Casale: May I take the opportunity to bring to my hon. Friend's attention the existence of Wimbledon Civic Forum's health forum, which brings together local executives from the health sector and local residents to discuss the future shape of health services in our community? Will he acknowledge that such forums and community health councils have a valuable role to play in promoting transparency and

    713
    accountability in the new national health service, and will he undertake to review the future role of such forums and CHCs as important partners in the new NHS.
    Mr. Denham: I am very interested in what my hon. Friend tells me: I am not familiar with that forum, but perhaps I shall have an opportunity to become acquainted with it in the not-too-distant future. One of the hallmarks of the new NHS is the way in which we are encouraging wider public involvement and consultation, for example, in the development of health improvement programmes, and co-operation between different parts of the NHS. That helps to overcome the fragmentation and competition that were so characteristic of the health service as it was left by the previous Administration.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that the question is on the training of doctors.
    Dr. Evan Harris: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker.
    In seven years' time, when the last of the new medical students enter medical school, they will be able to look forward to receiving, five or six years later, a basic salary of £16,710. Will the Minister take this opportunity to correct the information contained in the press release issued yesterday, which stated that a junior doctor or house officer would have a basic salary of £26,405? Junior doctors cannot understand why they are expected to do three years in a one-year pre-registration post, or why the Government consider 32 hours of compulsory overtime at half rate to be included in the basic salary. If that is correct, what are the Government's plans to increase the hours over that basic number?
    Mr. Denham: Yesterday, we implemented in full the recommendations of the pay review body for doctors, which was the right thing for us to do. We are continuing to make progress on the matter of junior doctors' hours: we have increased the funding to the task forces that deal with that problem; and, although I accept that this is not the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question, we have made it clear that some of the conditions in which junior doctors are required to work—for example, their access to rest and canteen facilities out of hours—should be improved.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend know how many of the new doctors will receive training in the specialised treatment of cancer? The reason I ask that question is the huge amount of unsolicited tobacco advertising that still pours through people's letterboxes. My constituents are delighted that, in the White Paper, the Government proposed to ban such advertising, but can my hon. Friend tell me when that ban will come into effect, as it may have some bearing on the number of cancer specialists who need to be trained?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend raises a number of important issues in his question. We set out our proposals for action to reduce smoking and dependence on tobacco in last year's White Paper, and we are moving ahead on the implementation of those measures. In addition to the need for basic undergraduate training, there is the need to continue postgraduate specialist medical training, for we
    714
    have to ensure that we are able to meet the service standards and targets that we want to set in respect of the treatment of cancer.

    Nurses
    Mr. Andrew George: What assessment he has made of the costs to nurses of on-going and re-entry training requirements. [67163]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): This Government are committed to encouraging the training of nurses. In this year alone, £72 million will be invested in post-registration training of non-medical staff. As part of our effort to encourage former nurses to return to the NHS, we are investing £4 million this year in local return-to-practice initiatives and free return-to-practice courses. We are also making available £36 million over this year and the next three years to help enrolled nurses to upgrade their qualifications. Ward assistants and other NHS staff can now train to be qualified nurses while retaining their existing pay for the duration of the course.
    Mr. George: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that helpful reply. What advice can he offer my constituent, Rachel Blight, who broke her nursing career after 14 years for the sake of her family and now wants to return to nursing? She has recently paid £350 for her re-entry training, which involves going 35 miles to the local training centre for three weeks of study and two weeks of practical work. If we want to—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is perfect material for an Adjournment debate. Will the hon. Gentleman get to his question now?
    Mr. George: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We want to encourage nurses to return to their careers, but do not such conditions represent an obstacle to them.
    Mr. Dobson: Certainly, charging people for such courses is an obstacle, which I why I announced last year that the courses would be free. I shall look into why they are not free in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Following the pay announcement yesterday and the advertisement campaign that we have started, 2,874 people had telephoned the helpline by 2 o'clock today for further information about returning to nursing. I shall try to give the House an update later.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: On regional television a few days ago, a nurse from the Royal Bolton hospital made the comment—with which I agree—that there is a pool of young people and others who want to enter nursing but are put off by what they see as the high academic qualifications required to enter the profession. Has my right hon. Friend taken that into consideration?
    Mr. Dobson: Many people perceive the present courses as too academic for their liking. We are trying to change the situation to make it easier for people to enter nurse training in various ways. The changes in the past few years certainly put off a substantial number of young people who might well have gone into nursing.
    Mr. Tim Collins: I welcome any and every means to increase the number of

    715
    nurses in the national health service, but will the Secretary of State guarantee that those steps will prevent a repetition of the case about which I had cause to write to him a fortnight ago? That case concerns a constituent who was told that he needed a quadruple heart bypass operation and that it would be 24 months before the NHS could perform it. His GP told him that if he waited 24 months he would die, so he had to spend £10,000 on a private operation. Surely a case where someone has to pay to save his life represents the ultimate privatisation of the NHS.
    Mr. Dobson: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that his Government promised that no one would ever have to wait for more than 18 months for in-patient treatment; they did not keep that promise for a single month, but we have kept their promise since April.
    Ms Sally Keeble: What steps he is taking to increase the number of nursing trainees. [67164]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Between 1992 and 1994, the Tory Government reduced the number of nurse student training places from 15,000 to 11,000. The figure never rose much above 13,000 in subsequent Tory years. In January 1997, they announced their plans for an additional 1,300 nurse training places in 1997–98. We managed to add 1,400 nurse training places in that year, despite taking over after the start of the financial year.
    For this year, we have increased the number of new nurse training places to 15,000 again—the highest figure for six years. If the Tories had not reduced nurse training in their last five years in office, there could now be an extra 11,000 nurses available to work on the wards.
    Ms Keeble: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the centre for health care education at University college, Northampton in my constituency, which has had a share of the increase, successfully filling 60 extra nursing places over the past year and planning an extra 100 over the next three years? It filled all those places by careful local recruitment and close partnership. Will he join me in paying tribute to University college, Northampton for successfully attracting more people to fill the extra places that the Government have created?
    Mr. Dobson: I would certainly like to congratulate everybody involved in the increase. We have increased the number not only of training places but of applicants per 100 places—from 106 to 120 since we took office.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Why did the Government almost entirely undermine yesterday's welcome announcement, on increasing nursing recruitment by awarding some trainee nurses a pay increase of 11.8 per cent. and junior nurses a decent pay rise, and by not staging the awards, by announcing a pay increase of 4.7 per cent. for two out of three nurses—200,000, or all the rest? When they receive their rise in April, they will be less well off in real terms than four years ago. The Chancellor has £5 billion in the contingency fund. Could that not have been used to pay all nurses a decent increase?
    Mr. Dobson: I do not know whether that would be another charge on the famous Liberal penny. The hon.
    716
    Gentleman should remember that the Royal College of Nursing was very keen that an independent pay review body be established, and that the Government carry out the body's recommendations. We have done exactly that. I do not think that the Royal College of Nursing would want me to substitute my judgment for that of the independent review body, and I have no intention of doing so. We have implemented its recommendations in full.
    In negotiations with nursing representatives, I intend to try to make nursing more attractive to experienced nurses, who will be receiving a 4.7 per cent. increase—well above the rate of inflation—together with increments, in most cases, taking their pay increase for next year up to about 7 per cent. Nevertheless, they need to be encouraged. We want to change the grading system, which at present obstructs their career development and holds down their pay.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: My right hon. Friend probably agrees with me that we will never satisfy the Liberals, who said in their manifesto that they wanted an extra £700 million for the health service in this financial year and the next one. In reality, £7 billion is going in as a result of the statement the other month. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in order to ensure that we get enough nurses and other hospital staff, the pay rise needs not only to be adequate but repeated next year? Perhaps he will consider the point that, 20-odd years ago, we found a way of putting the pay of firefighters into the upper quartile. With rare exceptions, the problem was solved.
    Mr. Dobson: As my hon. Friend knows, I am very careful about making individual promises on behalf of the Government. The pay settlement and the changes that we want to make in the career structure of nurses over this coming year are intended to start solving the problems of nurse shortages and the way in which the previous Government ran the health service, which resulted in most nurses feeling as if they had been run off their feet and unable to give patients the attention worthy of their professional standards. We cannot put it all right in one go; this is a start.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one effect of yesterday's announcement and ask him how he intends to ease it? The pay rise granted to nurses, especially new nurses, will have to be met not only by the NHS but by the hospice movement and the voluntary sector, which depend on grants. Is it his intention that those grants should be enhanced, to ensure that the hospice movement and similar concerns are able to afford to pay for good and adequate nursing care?
    Mr. Dobson: One way or another, the hospice movement gets substantial grants from the Government. We want to encourage the hospice movement, and when it submits its applications, they will be carefully considered. The right hon. Lady would not expect me to be able to go any further today on that individual item.
    Ms Julia Drown: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that paying 12 per cent. to newly qualified nurses will be one way of attracting new trainees into the profession? Will he outline to the House some of the other initiatives that the Government are taking to attract more

    717
    people to the nursing profession—in particular, action on family-friendly policies and measures to tackle violence in the workplace?
    Mr. Dobson: Since we came into office we have been encouraging NHS management to introduce family-friendly policies, not just for nursing, but for the entire staff of the NHS, so that they can do their jobs as well as discharging their responsibilities to their families—for example, by offering staff shifts that enable them to take children to school in the morning and bring them back in the evening.
    One of the problems is that, in many places, the shortage of nurses is so acute that it is difficult to provide flexible hours because there are not enough staff to go round. That is why we have launched the £5 million advertising campaign on the back of yesterday's pay announcements, in an effort to break out of the cycle of decline that the health service faces. We also want to change the grading system, as I said.
    One of the things that I am frequently told by nurses as I go round hospitals and community services is that they get sick to death of equipment breaking down and going on the blink, which is upsetting for patients and disturbing for nurses. [Interruption.] That is why—if the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) would keep her mouth shut and her ears open—I have told the management of the NHS to give top priority, in small capital schemes, to replacing equipment that is constantly failing and letting down both staff and patients.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: What progress he has made in implementing the proposal to create supernurses. [67165]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Many talented nurses and midwives want to keep on treating patients and training their less experienced colleagues. Up to now, highly skilled nurses who reached the top of their professional grades could better themselves in the national health service only by going into management, so their hands-on skills are lost to patients and colleagues. In future, they will be able to apply to become consultant nurses, instead. We have been discussing the details of that with representatives of the professions, and our plans will be set out as part of our new strategy for nursing.
    Mr. Hammond: The fact is that, since the plan for supernurses was announced with a great fanfare last September, not a single one has been appointed. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's Department has instructed trusts not to appoint them. Yesterday, the Government announced a pay rise of 4.7 per cent. for the most senior nurses. I shall not ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that is fair or affordable, but will he tell the House whether he believes that it is sufficient to stem the haemorrhage of skilled and experienced senior nurses from the NHS?
    Mr. Dobson: I sincerely hope that it is. As the hon. Gentleman would know if he had read the details—and if he has not read the details, let me tell him for the first time—a number of discretionary increments are added for people who are at the top of the more senior scales, which make it possible for their pay to go up by more than 4.7 per cent.
    718
    With regard to the proposals for consultant nurses, we made it clear that we would introduce them after we had had thoroughgoing discussions with the representatives of the professions, so that we did not create trouble by establishing them. Those talks are still going on. [Interruption.] I can tell the right hon. Lady that doctors, nurses and midwives welcome being consulted about such matters, and not having measures imposed on them, as the previous Government did.
    Ms Harriet Harman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his forthright recognition that one of the ways to keep senior and experienced nurses in the health service is to recognise that most of them have family responsibilities for young children or elderly relatives and that, as well as invaluable work in the NHS, they also do invaluable work at home. I draw to his attention the industrial tribunal case of Hale v. Wiltshire Health Care NHS trust in which the trust was found guilty of discriminating by changing nurses' work patterns in such a way that they were prevented from taking their children to school. Will he ensure that all NHS managers implement his family-friendly policies?
    Mr. Dobson: Yes.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I welcome the attempts to improve the standard of pay and other matters, such as training for nurses, does the Secretary of State agree that the average patient speaks of a supernurse as one who gives tender nursing care? Is he aware that there is some concern that, with the professionalisation of the nursing profession, some nurses are so busy that they cannot spend the time with patients that patients require.
    Mr. Dobson: I have already said that many nurses find that they are run off their feet and feel that they cannot give individual patients the attention that they deserve. We want to deal with that, in part by increasing the number of nurses available so that there is a bit more time for patients. We must recognise that everyone still expects nurses to provide tender loving care for the individual patient, while, at the same time, nursing is becoming infinitely more demanding and complex, as new and incredibly complicated pieces of equipment come on to the wards and pharmaceutical products become more complex. It is very difficult for an individual nurse to reconcile those needs and it is vital that we have more nurses to enable them to do so.

    Cervical Smear Tests
    Mr. John Heppell: How many women in the Trent health region have received cervical smear tests in the last year. [67167]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): In the year ending 31 March 1998, 350,617 women in the Trent region were tested, up from 328,014 women in the year to 31 March 1997—an increase of nearly 7 per cent.
    Mr. Heppell: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. I congratulate the Government on their recent action in ensuring that quality standards on cervical screening are consistent across the whole country.

    719
    Will my hon. Friend confirm that the cervical screening programme has been a success, and has saved the lives of thousands of women, and that a lot of that success is due to the dedication of the staff of the service? The previous Government left the work of the staff unsung; the service was understaffed and the staff were overworked and underpaid. On that last point, will my hon. Friend at least ensure that, in the next pay round, the dedication of the staff is recognised.
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the success of the cervical screening programme. About 4 million women are screened each year in England and it has been estimated that the programme prevents up to 3,900 cases of cervical cancer each year. He might also want to know that coverage in Nottinghamshire is among the highest in the country—slightly over 90 per cent., compared with a target of 80 per cent.
    Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I am pleased that the Minister recognises that the cervical smear testing programme constitutes a huge advance in women's health in this country—in the Trent region and elsewhere. Will he also recognise that the programme was introduced—and was given huge stimulation—as a result of the NHS reforms introduced in 1990 by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)? Will the Minister take this opportunity to congratulate the previous Conservative Government on an important public health programme launched by my right hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Hutton: I am sorry to have to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I shall not be able to do that. We inherited a situation that was not satisfactory and I should point out to him that one of the consequences of the reforms that he oversaw, and for which he was responsible, was the compromising of the effective monitoring arrangements for the cervical screening tests. He should be ashamed of that.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: My hon. Friend will be aware that the assessment of the cervical tests varies from area to area, and that causes some concern. What mechanism is he considering to drive best practice through the service?
    Mr. Hutton: I can assure my hon. Friend that the whole thrust of our reforms, right across the board, is to improve the quality of services available to everyone who uses the national health service, including those women who use the cervical test screening programme.
    We want to improve the service across the board. That is one of the priorities that we have identified in all our policy documents, and in all that we have said in the House about our policies.

    Nurses
    Mr. James Gray: If he will make a statement on how he intends to meet his target for nurse recruitment. [67168]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Our target is to have enough nurses and
    720
    midwives to provide the treatment and care that patients need. We therefore need more nurses, and we need them now. That is why we have agreed the biggest real-terms pay rise for nurses for 10 years, and why we are paying it in full.
    That is not all. We are also making nursing more attractive by providing more flexible shift patterns. We want to make things better for more experienced nurses by replacing the rigid grading system with arrangements that will help them to develop their careers and reward their additional responsibilities.
    Mr. Gray: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. He will know, however, that only 15,000 of the 300,000 nurses in the national health service will welcome yesterday's announcement. In that context, is the right hon. Gentleman not concerned about the NHS Direct service, about which he will shortly make a statement? The service was piloted in Wiltshire hospitals—so well run by the Wiltshire NHS trust over the past three years, incidentally, and set up by the Conservative Government. Does the right hon. Gentleman not fear that a nurse-based service such as the NHS trust—thought up by the Conservatives—will be hard to man if experienced nurses leave the service?
    Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman ought to learn to count, or else brief himself before coming into the Chamber. While between 13,000 and 15,000 nurses will receive a 12 per cent. pay increase, another 70,000 will receive an increase of 8.2 per cent. or more, and the remainder will receive 4.7 per cent.
    I shall deal with recruitment through NHS Direct in my statement. At this stage, I shall merely say that I have urged NHS management who are involved in the introduction of NHS Direct to try to recruit, in particular, nurses who have had to leave nursing because of industrial injuries. A back injury, for instance, might make it impossible for a nurse to perform the normal nursing task, but that nurse might still be able to deal with telephone callers. Nurses would thus be able to use their skills for the benefit of patients and their own great satisfaction.
    Laura Moffatt: Can my right hon. Friend reassure us that the superb nurses' award—about which many of my colleagues will be thrilled—will affect neither recruitment nor the modernisation of our health service? Those who work in the health service are our best-ever asset, and we must ensure that we modernise their pay. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the money that has been set aside for modernisation will not be affected by the award?
    Mr. Dobson: I can confirm precisely that to my hon. Friend, who is one of two former nurses in the House. We are financing the nurses' pay increase with money that we put into the NHS budget for next year. We made the decisions in July last year, and, not unreasonably, we anticipated that the review bodies would make a recommendation well in excess of the rate of inflation, which they have. We therefore set aside, within the modernisation fund, certain sums to help to pay the increase if it reached the level that it has reached. That is a proper use of money to modernise the health service. I think that many people, especially nurses, detest the

    721
    suggestion that there is a conflict between paying nurses a decent wage and looking after patients. After all, it is the nurses who do the looking after.
    Dr. Peter Brand: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that nurse recruitment needs good schools of nursing. Will he use his good offices to sort out the unseemly dispute between the universities of Portsmouth and Southampton following the transfer of the contract for nurse training? A number of nurse tutors have been left in limbo, because those two public bodies will not agree on which is responsible for redundancy payments.
    Mr. Dobson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I want to improve the arrangements for nurse training, not overthrow them because there have been some good developments. I want to change them, so that there is considerably greater national health service influence over who goes into nurse training and what sort of training there is. The aim is to redevelop the links between the NHS and nurses in training. As the NHS has had so little to do with nurse training in recent years, many of those in management have lost interest in nurse training and not given it enough attention.

    Partnership and Quality of Care
    Mr. Bill Michie: What new legal duties on partnership and quality of care he expects to introduce during 1999. [67169]
    Ms Chris McCafferty: What new legal duties on partnership and quality of care he expects to introduce during 1999. [67173]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): We have set out new duties of quality and partnership in the Health Bill that was introduced in another place on 28 January 1999.
    Mr. Michie: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. I welcome the new initiative, which I believe to be the first on policing legal duties of partnership. Does it include social care?
    Mr. Hutton: Yes. If we are to improve services across the board—that is our primary objective—it is important that we find a way of getting the national health service and social services to work much more effectively together. We know from the result of the consultation on "Partnership in Action", which we published last year, that that is overwhelmingly what people want us to do. The Health Bill will, for the first time, remove the legal obstacles that currently prevent the NHS and social services from working effectively together.
    Ms McCafferty: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, through the Bill, for the first time, a legal duty will be placed on the quality of care, unlike before, when the only duty placed on trust chairs was to balance the books.
    Mr. Hutton: Yes, I can confirm that. Together, the changes that we have published in the Health Bill mark a decisive break from the NHS internal market and its
    722
    preoccupation with competition, which was the inheritance of the previous Administration. We intend to put quality and partnership back at the heart of the NHS.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: The Minister will accept that new legal duties will suggest new litigation. By how much will the NHS budget have to increase to take into account the litigation that will flow from the Access to Justice Bill.
    Mr. Hutton: I think that that is a typical lawyer's perspective. [Interruption.] I will answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's question because it is a serious one. The whole purpose and thrust of our new clinical governance and duty-of-care arrangements will be to improve the quality of care. That, I hope, will make it less likely that people will litigate.
    Mr. Howard Flight: Will the Minister clarify the Government's policy with regard to primary care centres and, in addition, beacon of excellence awards—proposed targets for practices? In my constituency, the leading general practitioner practice was well lined up to develop such a centre and has qualified for a beacon of excellence award, but, for the past few months, the NHS executive has been completely silent on how the scheme is going forward. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Health was quoted in a leading paper as saying that he supported such centres, pulling together a wider package of optician services, prescriptions and other health care services, but it seems that the Government policy in that area is somewhat in limbo at present.
    Mr. Hutton: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, the Government's policy is not in limbo. The Health Bill, which I invite him to study, will clearly apply to primary care, but the quality duty that we intend to legislate on is not about individuals; it is about institutions. The principle of clinical governance needs to apply obviously and clearly in the area of primary care, as well as secondary care, and it will.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Given that elderly patients represent around 50 per cent. of those in hospital, and consistent with the Griffiths report, "Agenda for Action", and Lady Walner's report, "Residential care: options for choice", may I invite my hon. Friend to agree that it is extremely important, as it was when those documents were published about a decade ago, that organisations of elderly people, individual elderly people and elderly people locally should be consulted on services that are vital to their particular needs.
    Mr. Hutton: The answer to my right hon. Friend's question is yes. I also draw his attention specifically to two of our current initiatives. The first is the establishment of the new national service framework for older people, which will make a very positive contribution in defining new service models and in setting national standards across the national health service for the care of older people. Secondly, as I said earlier, we are currently embarked on a new regulatory framework and standard-setting exercise for treatment in registered

    723
    nursing homes and care homes. Together, the two initiatives offer the prospect of developing policy in that very important sphere.

    NHS Drugs and Treatment
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: What recent representations he has received on the unavailability of particular (a) drugs and (b) treatments to patients in certain health authorities. [67170]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I have received representations about availability on the national health service of certain drugs in certain parts of the country. The current situation is quite unsatisfactory, which is why we are establishing the National Institute for Clinical Excellence—NICE—chaired by Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, to assess new drugs and new treatments and to issue authoritative guidance. NICE will ensure faster access to modern treatment right across the health service—which is why it has the support of doctors, nurses, midwives and other NHS staff.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Many people hope that the new National Institute for Clinical Excellence will indeed encourage innovation and change. However, people are not prepared for the institute to act as a straitjacket, dampening down innovation and making it more difficult to develop and make available new drugs. Recently, the Secretary of State was condemned by the British Medical Association for an inequitable and irrational approach in reaching his rationing decisions. Health authorities are in despair about how on earth they are to meet the new pay awards. Will the Secretary of State now accept the offer of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and lead a mature debate on the establishment of rationing and on how decisions are made in the national health service.
    Mr. Dobson: All I can say in response to that is that the professions welcome the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The BMA chairman was chairing the meeting at which I announced the appointment of Sir Michael Rawlins, and said that I had been as good as my word in appointing to chair the institute someone who commanded the professions' respect. The professions welcome the establishment of the organisation, which I am sure will do a good job. I am sure also that, if anyone is in despair running parts of the national health service, I should not want them to be working in despair—they can go work somewhere else.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Did not my right hon. Friend inherit a situation that included restraints—which varied across the country—on the availability of some drugs, such as beta-interferon, and huge disparities in the availability of some treatments because of huge waiting lists? Will he ensure that NICE maintains need as its primary criterion when it considers some of the alternative treatments that may become available because of genetic and other treatments.
    Mr. Dobson: Certainly, NICE will examine all new treatments and new pharmaceutical products, and it will issue authoritative advice. In some cases, it will be saying,
    724
    "Get on with it, quickly. This is a good development, and you should introduce it right across the country." Currently, no one performs such a function. In other cases, NICE may say, "We are not too sure about this. The results of its effectiveness testing may not be as good as we should have liked." If so, NICE may recommend that the treatment or product should be made available systematically in only one part of the country, so that further proper tests and assessments can be performed.
    The object of the exercise is to have fast access to modern treatment right across the national health service, and not to maintain the ridiculous current situation, in which some drugs are available in one part of the country but not in another, because of the lack of clear advice given under the system that we inherited from the previous Government.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Is the Secretary of State aware that 22,000 of my constituents made active representations about the closure of the Royal Haslar hospital in my constituency which would be a disaster for the defence medical services and a catastrophe for local residents? Will Ministers take a personal interest in the disaster that would result from the closure, particularly as the hospital in question is close to the constituency of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), and the closure would have reverberations there too?
    Mr. Dobson: It is clear that the closure of the Royal Haslar hospital will have an impact on health care in Portsmouth and in Hampshire generally and we are looking into that. I intend to meet the admiral who chairs the Portsmouth acute trust to discuss the matter. He is a most admirable admiral and probably carries a little more weight at the MOD than an ex-civilian.

    Primary Health Care (Liverpool)
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What assessment he has made of the role primary health care plays in improving health service provision in Liverpool. [67171]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): More than 90 per cent. of patient contact in the national health service takes place in primary care. In Liverpool, general practitioners and primary health care teams have a major role to play in improving the health of local people and in further developing services. That includes participation in the primary care groups where a key priority will be improving access to local services closer to where people live, rather than in a hospital setting.
    Mrs. Ellman: Does the Minister agree that in areas such as Liverpool, where many people suffer chronic ill health, it is absolutely essential that all parts of the health service work together effectively and co-operate with social services? How will his Department encourage the health authority in Liverpool to ensure that primary health care is used to its maximum, working together with community hospitals so that the pressures of chronic ill health do not concentrate solely on the acute hospitals such as the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS trust.
    Mr. Denham: A series of measures is already in hand, or will be introduced in the Health Bill, and will produce precisely the result that my hon. Friend would like. Already, in addition to the development of primary care groups, which we encourage to enable the health authority to grow and develop, there is a health action zone, and the health authority, in co-operation with others, will
    726
    develop a health improvement programme identifying how primary health care should be improved. The Health Bill will place a duty of partnership on all parts of the NHS. I believe that in Liverpool and elsewhere we are getting the structures right, putting in place the legal responsibilities and providing the resources to enable local people to lead the way in developing better primary care services.

NHS Direct
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I wish to make a statement on the development of NHS Direct, the nurse-led 24-hour helpline.
In March last year, we launched three NHS Direct pilot schemes in Milton Keynes, Preston and Newcastle upon Tyne. Between them, they covered more than 1.5 million people. They have proved a great success—up to the end of December, they had taken over 60,000 calls. Independent research has revealed that 97 per cent. of users are satisfied with the service provided, which they find prompt, friendly and professional. It has been particularly popular with young mothers and around 40 per cent. of calls have been about children.
Callers get through at first to a call handler, who takes their details and deals with any requests for basic information. Callers who have a specific health problem are then put through to a nurse. The nurse listens to the caller, assesses the case using what is called an expert computer-based decision-support system, and then recommends what action the caller should take. That can range from immediately summoning an emergency ambulance to advising callers to visit their general practitioner or the accident and emergency department, giving advice on how to treat someone at home, and offering simple reassurance.
A detailed survey of the three pilots showed that, for the latest quarter, 80 per cent. of callers were advised to do something different from what they had intended before they rang NHS Direct; only 9 per cent. of callers had intended to look after themselves at home, but after calling NHS Direct 38 per cent. of them were enabled to do so; 20 per cent. of callers were directed to more urgent care and 40 per cent. to less urgent care; and 530 people were transferred to the 999 service.
It rapidly became clear that the pilot schemes were a success, so last summer I authorised the extension of the scheme, with 13 call centres to cover 40 per cent. of the country—20 million people—by April this year. The first of those opened last month, covering 1.1 million people in the black country. Yesterday, a further scheme covering almost 1.6 million people opened in Essex. A further service covering Nottinghamshire opens next week and the first service in London opens in parts of west London early in March.
The other areas to be covered by about Easter are in the west country; Manchester; West Yorkshire; Hull and East Yorkshire; Hampshire; north-west Lancashire; Birmingham as well as the black country; Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham; Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire and Oxfordshire; and Newcastle and the north-east. Most of the services will be provided by the local ambulance trust, but they usually involve the local GP co-operatives, other NHS trusts and voluntary bodies. In some cases, local social services are involved as well.
The success of NHS Direct springs partly from the use of modern technology, properly managed and staffed by top-quality professionals with a sympathetic ear. It also depends on commanding the support of the NHS in each locality, particularly the professions involved in providing primary care. At my personal insistence, there will be a
728
major role for GP co-operatives in the delivery of the service in many parts of the country. I am pleased to be able to report that the west London call centre, to be located in Southall, will be run by a local GP co-operative.
Our original intention was to extend NHS Direct to cover 60 per cent. of the country by April next year. However, in view of its growing success and my concern to help the NHS cope with the special problems that it is likely to encounter over the millennium period at the turn of the year, I have decided that the programme should be brought forward to aim to cover at least 60 per cent. of the country by the beginning of December this year. In some cases, that will be achieved through extensions to existing centres where the service is well established and in others it will be achieved through opening new centres. We intend to cover South Yorkshire, Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Liverpool and parts of London. NHS Direct could be particularly valuable in all those areas next winter. To achieve that, we shall be investing an additional £10 million from the NHS modernisation fund on top of the £44 million from the fund already committed to NHS Direct in the coming financial year.
NHS Direct is proving to be a modern, additional, convenient and dependable service for the people who turn to it. It is also proving to be popular and professionally satisfying with the nurses who staff it. One centre recently received more than 300 applications for 50 jobs. Applications for nursing jobs with NHS Direct have come from other parts of the NHS, from the private sector and from those returning to nursing. With the support of the Royal College of Nursing and Unison, I am keen to encourage applications from experienced nurses who have left nursing because of, say, a back injury that left them unable to carry out routine nursing tasks. Working in NHS Direct could give them the opportunity to continue to put their hard-won professional skills and experience to good use to the benefit of patients.
The new schemes should provide the basic NHS Direct advice and information service that has proved so successful in the three pilot areas of Newcastle, Preston and Milton Keynes. From July, the Newcastle centre will be working with local doctors, A and E departments and other services to provide one gateway for out-of-hours services, with a single number for patients to call. That shows the huge potential for using NHS Direct to develop new and better services for patients in a way that is also popular with the professionals involved. Building on the experience of that pilot, I will be prepared to consider similar pilots where NHS Direct has shown that it can deliver the basic service and where there is a joint commitment by NHS Direct and the local doctors and other professionals involved to deliver services in that way.
Arrangements are now being made to set performance standards for NHS Direct call centres, drawing on careful evaluation of experience so far and on best practice for call centres in other sectors of the economy. We are determined to use the capacity of the national network that we are creating to provide the most dependable service. NHS Direct is a good example of the opportunities that new technology offers to help make the best possible use of the professional skill and knowledge of NHS staff, putting 21st-century technology in place for the beginning of the new century.

729
I am pleased with the success of NHS Direct, delighted that it can be funded from the extra £21 billion that we have found to invest in the health service, and glad to have been able to announce today that 60 per cent. of the country should have access to NHS Direct by December this year.
Mr. Alan Duncan: It is a happy task to give today's announcement on NHS Direct a general welcome from Conservative Members. Our objective always is to improve patient care and to see continuing improvements in the NHS. When the Government do the right thing, we will say so—and this appears to be just such a case. I hope that my warm reception for today's statement does not so shock the Secretary of State that he becomes an early user of the hotline. NHS Direct stands to be popular with nurses, patients and doctors alike. We are pleased that the Secretary of State has decided to build on a project which—as I am sure he is prepared to confirm—we started when in government.
Does the Secretary of State agree that a patient's GP should know of the advice given by NHS Direct to his patient, and by whom that advice was given? Does he accept that the success of the service will depend on the model that is adopted? Is he aware that there is some concern that ambulance trusts may not be the most appropriate providers of the service? Does he envisage lots of local units, or a few larger units? Is it not true that small and local is desirable, but that larger and more central is more economic? How will he strike the balance between the two? Will there be a single nationwide telephone number for the service?
We note that there is already evidence that nurses who have left the NHS will be attracted back to NHS Direct, but what percentage of nurses are applying from other areas of the NHS, given that there is already a shortage of nurses in those other areas? What is the right hon. Gentleman's assessment of any legal liability that might attach to the advice given by NHS Direct? What guidelines and safeguards will be put in place?
We wish NHS direct every success and we want it to add to patient care. We will watch closely the exact way in which it is implemented.
Mr. Dobson: It would be churlish not to welcome the general welcome from the hon. Gentleman—although it may be the sort of general welcome that could be matched by the Russians, who would say that their main general was "General Winter".
GPs will be informed of approaches made on the helpline, provided the person who has rung in gives permission. Confidentiality must work both ways. It applies not only to GPs patients, but to people who ring in to NHS Direct—and so it should. I have made it clear that, so far, ambulance trusts have been the principal suppliers of the call centres because they have the necessary experience and, sometimes, some capacity.
I have made it clear to GPs—and, in particular, those who are behind the GP co-operatives—that I want a greater involvement of GP co-operatives. That is why I say that it is at my insistence—rather against the advice of some of my officials—that GP co-operatives are now
730
so extensively involved. It is also why at least one of the new centres that will come into operation shortly will be run by a GP co-operative. Whoever provides the service, co-operation among all those involved locally is crucial.
The size of units will vary from one part of the country to another. I am a great believer in horses for courses: in some places there will be large horses and in others there will be small horses, because those who are responsible for providing the service locally will decide how best to do it.
We are trying to get a single telephone number, but that is proving more difficult in our relations with BT than we or, I would have thought, most people in the country would have expected, and we will have to do something about that.
We have not as yet set any national performance standards for NHS Direct, because if we are to set sensible standards we will have to draw on the experience of the set-up. Legal liabilities for NHS Direct staff will be the same as those for all other national health service staff.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. NHS Direct will seem to most people to be common sense, so it is strange that such a system was not introduced a long time ago. I welcome the fact that one of the inquiry centres will be in Wakefield.
Bearing in mind the fact that NHS Direct is about enabling people to make the best use of the NHS, will my right hon. Friend consider the marked differences in the use made of A and E departments from area to area? A while ago, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who was then a Health Minister, told me that more use is made of A and E in my area than in most other areas. There are reasons for that. I hope that calls to NHS Direct will be analysed and that we can examine the way in which people make different use of facilities in different parts of the country and tackle the discrepancies and the reasons for them.
Mr. Dobson: Again, as a believer in horses for courses, I note that, for example, when there is a large and famous hospital in a deprived area—such as the centre of Manchester, Newcastle or Leeds, or in certain parts of London—it has been traditional that people who wanted to be attended to went to that hospital rather than to their GP. Generally speaking, it is up to the national health service to adjust itself to people's needs rather than asking people to adjust themselves to the NHS. There may be variations, but we should not necessarily seek to eliminate them; we should simply try to cope with them.
There are large variations in all forms of use of the health service, be it in the proportion of people resorting to A and E or the state of people who are put in intensive care beds. That varies from one tradition to another throughout the health service. We need more uniformity in some aspects of NHS practice.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Liberal Democrats, too, welcome the extension of NHS Direct and the fact that it will be more integrated with GP co-operatives. We are a bit suspicious that the announcement was made today because the Secretary of State felt that he needed a good news fig leaf to cover the rather less good news on which we would otherwise have been concentrating.

731
How many nurses will be engaged in NHS Direct? Will integration with primary care groups, trusts and GPs throughout the areas to which the service is extended be guaranteed? Have the pilot schemes demonstrated any impact on the rising tide of emergency admissions or on the demands on consultants and other practitioners? Have the pilots already shown money to have been saved and pressure moved from other places in the health service?
Mr. Dobson: It is difficult to determine the causes of all sorts of complex shifts in the national health service, especially in winter, but, roughly speaking, twice as many people are advised to do something that is less demanding on the health service as are advised to do something that is more demanding on it than they would have done had they not telephoned. The rest of the hon. Gentleman's points are all part of the Liberal Democrat leadership campaign. We are used to him spending at least a penny every Health questions and such like, and now I suppose it is "Three Coins in a Fountain".
Kali Mountford: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his announcement, especially as it includes my constituency of Colne Valley, which he visited last year at the time of a meningitis outbreak. How does my right hon. Friend envisage NHS Direct integrating with the other services that support schools, parents and hospitals at such times?
Mr. Dobson: For a start, NHS Direct is supposed to be relatively free-standing and to do its basic job of receiving calls from people who are concerned about the health of themselves, their relatives or neighbours, and giving direct advice. It is likely that, eventually, its functions will be extended to other spheres, but it is crucial that each local service demonstrates that it can do its basic task before it seeks the agreement of the other professionals in the area to extend into more complex spheres. If there were an outbreak of meningitis or something else that is very frightening for parents, the people working at NHS Direct, like everyone in the front line, would be all the more vigilant, and I am sure that arrangements would be made to inform other people in the health service if issues cropped up unexpectedly or needed to be drawn to the attention of people with greater expertise.
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I join in the general welcome for the national launch of NHS Direct. The Secretary of State's proposal will make an important contribution to the more effective use of NHS resources. He is right about that, but I have one niggle in my mind. Can he explain to the House how he has persuaded himself that an idea, the piloting of which started a year before he took office, is his idea?
Mr. Dobson: The pilot schemes for NHS Direct started after we came into office, in Milton Keynes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wiltshire."] The pilot schemes started in Milton Keynes, Newcastle upon Tyne and Preston and Chorley. They drew on bits of experience—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Do you remember, Madam Speaker, going to the doctor when you were a lass and he said, "Say ah"? They cannot stop doing that on the Opposition Front Bench. Obviously, the pilot schemes drew on bits of information and experience that had been gathered in this country and others. That was the only sensible thing
732
to do, because it is best to try to make use of experience. However, the three pilot schemes, run in the way that we intended, were introduced in Milton Keynes, Newcastle upon Tyne and Preston and Chorley, by us.
Miss Anne Begg: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement today that NHS Direct will give jobs to nurses who have found it difficult to continue on the wards because of, for example, a back injury. I ask him to go further and draw on a pool of nurses who have left the profession, perhaps some time ago, because of encroaching disability or an illness, such as multiple sclerosis, and nurses who may have taken early retirement because the physical aspects of the job had become too much for them. Such people have much relevant expertise and making use of that would not exacerbate existing nurse shortages.
Mr. Dobson: I can honestly say to my hon. Friend that that is the very point that I have been making to departmental officials for a long time and I am disappointed with their performance in seeking and securing the recruitment of people who are disabled. The proportions are no greater than for the general recruitment of disabled people, despite the fact that that point has been drawn to officials' attention time and again by Ministers. It is an ideal situation to enable people with immense practical skills and experience acquired in nursing to make use of them, despite having a disability that makes it impossible for them to work on the wards.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the NHS Direct scheme, and also look forward to reports covering the peripheral regions of the kingdom. I underscore what has been said about the ambulance service, which has years of experience of such work and alongside which GPs have been employed to give really professional guidance. However, may I advise the Secretary of State to be careful about using one telephone number for the whole nation, given BT's lamentable failure to cope with the recent storms in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Dobson: I shall bear in mind all the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Mr. Kevin Barron: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the success that NHS Direct has achieved already. The extension of the scheme into South Yorkshire will be warmly welcomed by the people there, who will regard it as a further investment in our national health service. Given what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, may I, as a resident of Southwark, thank my right hon. Friend for extending the scheme to my neighbours in London as well?
Mr. Dobson: As with everything else that we have done, we have tried to ensure that the new developments in the national health service are concentrated initially on the most deprived areas, as part of our general effort to raise the standard of health of people who are the most badly off more quickly than we raise the standard of health of the rest. That very proper and reasonable priority includes the introduction of NHS Direct, and we shall stick to it through thick and thin.
Mr. John Bercow: Although the statement is welcome, how can the Secretary of State

733
guarantee that nationwide implementation of the NHS Direct scheme will not be compromised by the Government's decision to raid the so-called modernisation fund to pay for the welcome increase in nurses' salaries?
Mr. Dobson: There are terms of abuse that one is not supposed to use in the House, but let us assume, for the purposes of answering his question, that the hon. Gentleman is fully equipped with all his senses. He might have noticed that the day after announcing the biggest real-terms pay increase for nurses for 10 years, I am announcing that further expenditure is to be brought forward from the modernisation fund to deal with another aspect of modernising the national health service. The modernisation fund will continue to fund all the other aspects of modernisation to which we are committed. It can do so because, as I explained earlier, we have ensured that it contains a sum to cover the likely additional increase in pay for nurses.
While we are talking about helplines, I can tell the House that the latest figure for people ringing in to express an interest in returning to nursing is 3,400—a rise of 600 in the hour that we have been talking.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can I ask an awkward—although I hope not malign—question? Does my right hon. Friend recall that I sent him a long and complex paper by Lord Justice Sir Philip Otton on the question of medical negligence? What happens when, in good faith, a person rings up for guidance and, in equally good faith, is given that guidance over the telephone? If that guidance turns out to be disastrously wrong, could NHS Direct be sued in the courts? Does not the potential exist for a legal nightmare, even though people might act in the best of good faith on the basis of what they are told? What is the legal position?
Mr. Dobson: As my good and hon. Friend knows, I have discussed the paper with Sir Philip Otton, and we are holding discussions with other people about the problems of litigation for the health service. However, there is no difference, in terms of liability, between advice given over the telephone through NHS Direct, advice given face to face and advice given over the telephone by anyone else. Liability would depend on whether there was a degree of negligence. That is the legal position and we cannot change it. At some point, something will go wrong—that is inevitable; face-to-face advice goes wrong, and operations go wrong even when they are carried out by the finest surgeons in the land. It is no good our pretending that that does not happen. We must try to make sure that the best-quality advice is available. but the liability for NHS Direct is just the same as it is in any part of the national health service.
Dr. Evan Harris: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the apparent success of the pilots, and welcome their extension to Oxford? It remains to be seen whether my constituents will welcome our pilot or see it as adequate compensation for the millions of pounds worth of social services cuts forced on the local authority by the Government.
What research is the Secretary of State commissioning into whether the pilot schemes have already reduced attendance at A and E departments? Are the figures for
734
Milton Keynes A and E attendances lower than the figures for surrounding areas, or has their rise been smaller? There is a danger that schemes such as the pilots, which appear welcome and worth while, may in fact increase attendances by finding untapped demand.
Mr. Dobson: We must look at the net effect. Clearly, some people who would be reluctant to dial 999 for an ambulance or to try to get their doctor out in the middle of the night will ring up NHS Direct in the knowledge that a 24-hour helpline exists for them. As I have said, one survey shows that 530-odd people were immediately put in touch with an emergency ambulance when they called. It is almost impossible to calculate how many of those people were additional to those using the ambulance service or going to accident and emergency departments.
There have been attempts to analyse the figures, but the relationship between them and what happens on, for example, Tyneside—involving, say, the Royal Victoria infirmary or the Freeman hospital, which are both in Newcastle—and NHS Direct is difficult to discern. I have told the people involved in the schemes that we do not want to come up with a lot of false claims, and, at present, any direct claims could be false and misleading. Roughly speaking, 40 per cent. of calls have involved people who were advised to do something less than they had intended, and 20 per cent. resulted in people being told to do something more. There may be a net gain, but that is not the object of the exercise: the object is to make top-quality advice available on the phone for people who are bothered about their health.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: May I pass on the warm feelings of the people of Milton Keynes about the success of the national health service pilot in our area, which is efficiently run by the Two Shires Ambulance NHS trust? I accept the point that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made in his reply to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) about the difficulty of analysing different uses of the service. However, will the analysis of the use of NHS Direct in Milton Keynes be made available to Buckinghamshire health authority, so that it may use the information as one of its indices of health care need in the area and ensure that the needs of Milton Keynes are rather more fairly funded within the county than they have been heretofore?
Mr. Dobson: Certainly, all the information will be made readily available. There is nothing commercially secret about it. When I went to the opening ceremony at Milton Keynes, I was somewhat disturbed to observe that the local coroner turned up.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Like others, I wonder why we are debating NHS Direct, not the acute problems caused by the nurses' pay award. Will NHS Direct help my authority, which has received less than 1.7 per cent. growth money, and which has an inflation allowance of 2.5 per cent? The pay award will cost twice that, and the authority's share of the modernisation fund, which is apparently intended to pay for NHS Direct, will cover less than 25 per cent. of the cost.
Many of the Secretary of State's hon. Friends have thanked him for what he has done for their constituencies, but other areas of the country that have enormous demand

735
are being offered a deaf ear by the Government when they ask how on earth they are to cope. Please will the right hon. Gentleman find a way to assist constituencies such as mine, through NHS Direct or in any other way?
As to the scheme, has the Secretary of State learnt any lessons about the GP practices from which the callers come? Traditionally, many people might have contacted their GP, who has a 24-hour commitment, with their queries. I imagine that the Secretary of State will learn some interesting information about those who make enormous demands on the NHS Direct service and those who use the services of their GP. How will the Secretary of State ensure that there is appropriate feedback about the use of the service and what that reveals about the rest of the NHS?
Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Lady has raised two points. The fact is that, next year, funding to the national health service will increase by 5.7 per cent. in real terms. A substantial chunk of that increase will go to Surrey—although it is true that it will not be as substantial a chunk as would have been allocated under the rigged system that we inherited from the Conservatives. We are trying to target our efforts at the most deprived areas where people are least healthy, which is a wholly laudable priority. The financial officers in the health service in the right hon. Lady's area should not be in despair. If they cannot manage with the money they have, they are not doing a very good job because they are receiving much more funding.
NHS Direct is a perfectly good scheme which was welcomed at its inception by the British Medical Association. Doctors in each area are enthusiastic about it once it is in operation. They have initial doubts about the scheme's likely impact: some are concerned that it will take work away from them and others are concerned that it may add to their work load. If, like her colleagues, the right hon. Lady is an expert on the Wiltshire scheme, she will know that it appeared to reduce GP work loads in Wiltshire. However, we do not know whether that is a typical outcome: it may vary between different parts of the country.
Mr. John Gunnell: As the calls to NHS Direct will be incoming, will the nurse who responds initially be able to call the patient back if she is concerned about her original advice or the patient's condition? Will she pass on the call to another health service agency or person who will then make that contact?
Mr. Dobson: The person who first receives the call will take a note of telephone numbers, addresses and names. Therefore, either the nurse who gives the advice or some other professional will be in a position to get back to the caller if they have reconsidered their advice or they want to check that everything is okay after several hours. Callers are often advised, "Go to bed and tuck yourself in, and I'll ring back in a few hours to see how you are." It is a very flexible service, which is one reason why it is so popular.

Points of Order
Mr. John Maples: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order goes to the heart of the rights of Members of Parliament to hold Ministers to account. In October, I tabled questions to every Government Department about the use of RAF and chartered flights. All of them answered, except the Treasury—the Chancellor simply refused to do so. Standing Order No. 22(4), which deals with written questions on a named day, states:
"the Minister shall cause an answer to be given".
I suggest, Madam Speaker, that under Standing Order No. 22, you have the power to insist that the Chancellor answers my question. The Chancellor is blatantly and brazenly refusing to give factual information about his use of public money. In recent days, his taste for chartered jets and helicopters has been leaked and we can see what he has to hide.
If Ministers are allowed to get away with this trick, they will be able to deny information to hon. Members on any subject that they find embarrassing. Madam Speaker, I hope that you can find some way to stop this deplorable practice—otherwise the rights of the House will be seriously eroded.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I am not responsible for the answers that Ministers give to parliamentary questions. No doubt, those who are currently sitting on the Treasury Bench will have noted his remarks and may well follow through on that issue.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I say that I have been a Member of Parliament for 20 years and can refer to thousands of replies of a similar nature that I received from Conservative Ministers, except that they were far more devious? They referred to disproportionate costs. Conservative Ministers did that repeatedly when they did not want to answer questions asked by Labour Members.
Madam Speaker: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples).
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a different, but related, point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there not a distinction to be made between your not being responsible for the nature, content or quality of an answer being given, and the issue being asked about, which is, as I understand it, that of whether an answer is given at all?
Madam Speaker: An answer has been given—I think that the hon. Gentleman is not quite aware of the situation. I have nothing to add to my earlier comments.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee),
That the matter of transport policy in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
Question agreed to.

Computer Millennium Non-compliance (Contingency Plans)
4.11 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require organisations responsible for the provision of essential public services and critical infrastructure to draw up contingency plans in the event of their computer systems failing to deal with calendar dates after 31st December 1999; to require such plans and the names of those responsible for them to be notified to an appropriate authority; to require the plans to be made available on demand; and for connected purposes.
In 1995, in a question to the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), I warned of the possible consequences for business and government of the threat to computer systems posed by the failure of most of them to recognise the year 2000. On hearing that, the whole House fell about—I do not suppose that there were many hon. Members then who knew what I was talking about. Today, scarcely a day goes by without a reference to the threat of "Y2K", as the issue is technically called. Today, with only 333 days left, there is growing awareness that not enough has been or can now be done to ensure that the commencement of the new century will be trouble free.
It is true that this country is probably ahead of most others in taking the action necessary to avoid problems. In addition to the measures that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon told me his Government were taking, in response to my Adjournment debate on the issue in June 1996, the then information technology Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), announced the establishment of a TaskForce 2000 business awareness campaign. In 1997, the current Government replaced TaskForce 2000 with Action 2000, which last year introduced the millennium bug campaign. In addition, the current Government report quarterly to the House on the progress being made by central Government in tackling the problem.
The Leader of the House made the fourth such statement to the House on 2 December, when in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) she said that, when she had attended an international conference on the issue, it appeared that this country was much the best prepared. The right hon. Lady also said that we are internationally vulnerable, and she was right to do so. One of the essential messages that everyone needs to understand about this unique issue is that no computer is an island, and no island such as ours can be insulated from the global economy. No matter how well this country is prepared, if our computer systems are linked to others that are not ready, ours will be affected by them.
There is no internationally recognised standard on millennium conformity, or any world test day: I have argued for both of those in the Council of Europe in its role within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Today, there is ample evidence that Japan, much of south-east Asia, China, Russia and many European countries with which we trade, such as Spain, will not be millennium ready. Because there is no longer sufficient time left—let alone sufficient resources available—to ensure that such countries will be ready, the early warnings by experts that there will be a tidal wave
738
of chaos affecting whole economies, commencing where the new millennium first arrives, in the Pacific region, and moving westward with the speed of time, are no longer treated with incredulity.
The same logic applies just as crucially to our economy and the provision of public services. It is truly an all or nothing situation. In a network of computer systems, the chain is as strong as its weakest link. If one system is not compliant, all those with which it is linked are at risk. That is why no one can guarantee that we shall avoid problems at the end of the year. The magnitude of the millennium issue is impossible to quantify. The truth is that no one knows what will happen when Big Ben strikes midnight of the new millennium.
To date, the House has kindly allowed me to introduce two Bills to respond to that issue. Because I did not consider that it would be sufficient to rely on voluntary awareness and action on the part of those in the private sector to ensure that British business would be millennium ready, I introduced the Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance) Bill in 1996 and again in 1997. In March last year, I introduced the Millennium Conformity Bill, which would have required all date-related computer systems to conform to the British Standards Institution code. Neither Bill received the support of the Government of the time.
Today, most experts agree that anyone now waking up to the issue and commencing the time-consuming, painstaking process of essential testing will find that there is not enough time left. That is the view of the head of Action 2000, Gwyneth Flower, who recently said:
"We are too late to have a trouble free transition to the new millennium".
That is why it is now essential to ensure that contingency plans are in place, and especially to ensure that our public services are maintained and that our critical infrastructure makes a seamless transition into the next century. That is the purpose of the Bill that I seek the leave of the House to introduce today. It accords with the advice of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, the National Audit Office, Action 2000, TaskForce 2000, the second report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, the 66th report of the Public Accounts Committee and the second report of the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. The difference between their advice and my Bill is that they make exhortations to take voluntary action, whereas my Bill would impose a statutory obligation on those concerned.
Why should that obligation be necessary? As I have already emphasised, voluntary action has not resulted and will not now result in this country being completely millennium ready, so it will not ensure that contingency plans will be in place. The Bill would do more to ensure our protection. It would require organisations responsible for providing essential public services and critical infrastructure to draw up contingency plans to maintain continuity in the event of the failure of the computer systems involved. It would require such plans and those responsible for them to be notified to an appropriate authority and to be made available on demand. Hon. Members from both sides of the House are sponsoring the Bill.
It may be said that such a Bill is unnecessary because existing legislation provides for contingency plans to be drawn up to deal with a wide range of civil emergencies,

739
from floods to terrorism and from hurricanes to epidemics, and those arrangements are already in place. That is true, but all that legislation is designed to respond to unforeseen events. Such contingency plans are broadly designed to respond to a variety of situations and, conventionally, to counter physical failures. Year 2000 problems are not a physical failure; they are a logical failure.
It is not well understood that all conventional forms of contingency and disaster recovery planning for information technology systems will not work for year 2000 projects. New forms of contingency plans will be needed. Moreover, existing legislation does not provide for business risk scenarios, and existing private sector contingency plans are also unlikely to be appropriate for potential millennium emergencies.
Unlike most emergency situations, the threat of the millennium bug is utterly predictable in its timing. It will begin to affect non-compliant, date-related computer systems from midnight of the first day of the new century—either with immediate effect or after a period, according to what the computers have been programmed to do. That is a threat on which we can legislate precisely.
My Bill calls for contingency plans to respond precisely to the performance of computer systems. It is confined to those that provide essential public services and infrastructure that is critical to our nation. If passed, it would do much to ensure minimum interruption in our daily lives and the protection of the most vulnerable people. Without such precise legislation in response to such a predictable and unique threat, a growing mood of uncertainty and alarm may develop over the year, altering the behaviour of the public and financial markets. We still have time to avoid that scenario; that is what my Bill will do.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Dr. Lynne Jones, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Robert Sheldon, Rev. Martin Smyth, Dr. Rudi Vis, Mr. John Townend and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

Computer Millennium Non-compliance (Contingency Plans)
  COMPUTER MILLENNIUM NON-COMPLIANCE (CONTINGENCY PLANS)
  Mr. David Atkinson accordingly presented a Bill to require organisations responsible for the provision of essential public services and critical infrastructure to draw up contingency plans in the event of their computer systems failing to deal with calendar dates after 31st December 1999; to require such plans and the names of those responsible for them to be notified to an appropriate authority; to require the plans to be made available on demand; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 February, and to be printed [Bill 39].

Point of Order
4.22 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noticed the fine body of parliamentary persons who sponsor the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). By dint of queueing, I promoted a ten-minute Bill last Tuesday. Parts of my speech were played on "The World This Weekend". I was put out when asked on that programme which Minister listened to my speech, because no Minister, either from the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office, was on the Front Bench to do so. I noticed that there was no one from the Department of Trade and Industry to listen to the hon. Gentleman's speech today. I shall be very blunt: if the Government of the day had listened years ago to the House of Commons and the hon. Gentleman when he promoted his previous Bills—I served on the Committee that considered one of them—we would not be in the bloody mess that we are today about the millennium bug. That applies to both Governments concerned.
Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order. I see on the Front Bench not only the Leader of the House, who is responsible for the subject of the ten-minute Bill, but a galaxy of Ministers, all of whom I know share some responsibility for the subject.

Orders of the Day

  House of Lords Bill
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [1 February], That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
  Which amendment was, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the House of Lords Bill as it fails to address the role of the Second Chamber, its relationship to this House and its long term composition and hence, rather than improving the governance of the United Kingdom by establishing a sustainable, balanced and effective constitution, it merely adds to the incoherence of Her Majesty's Government's piecemeal constitutional changes."—[Dr Fox.]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  4.23 pm
  The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I quote:
  "The idea of hereditary legislation is as inconsistent as that of hereditary judges, or hereditary juries; and as absurd as an hereditary mathematician, or an hereditary wise man, and as ridiculous as an hereditary poet-laureate".
  When Tom Paine wrote that in "The Rights of Man", which was first published in the early part of February 1791, he could scarcely have imagined that, almost exactly 208 years later, his criticism of the hereditary Members of the House of Lords would still be relevant, and would still be opposed by the Conservatives.
  What exactly is the Conservatives' view of the hereditary principle in the legislature? Even after careful scrutiny of the speeches that they made yesterday, it is difficult to say with any confidence. Indeed, the Conservatives still seem to believe that membership of the legislature should be determined by what happened in a previous lifetime. The only other person who seems to believe in that principle is the England football manager. Perhaps the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is already exhausted by the unequal struggle of trying to reconcile the conflicting wings of his team, and is even now sending his application to be the next England manager. He will plan, no doubt, to select a hereditary England football team, presumably with lots of players on the right wing, little ability up front, and an open goal at the back.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) did sterling service for the House yesterday in seeking to establish precisely the views of the Conservatives on the hereditary principle. In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Woodspring stated:
  "We have made it perfectly clear that the hereditary principle in itself is not something that we challenge."—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 620.]
  However, in winding up, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) stated that the Conservatives did not oppose the abolition of the hereditary peers' right to vote, in principle. We are growing accustomed to the Conservatives changing their policies from day to day, but we shall have to get used to them changing their principles from hour to hour.
  I shall give the Conservatives an opportunity now to dispel our doubts. In a few weeks they will have the chance to make their views known to the royal
  742
  commission. I look forward to hearing whether they will propose retaining a hereditary element for the future, long-term composition of the House of Lords.
  I welcome the Conservatives' recent conversion to the cause of constitutional change. We did not hear a great deal about that during their 18 years in government. Indeed, the boast of the hon. Member for West Dorset last night that the Conservatives will make serious and radical proposals for reform, not only of the House of Lords but of the constitution of Parliament as a whole, sits uncomfortably with the Conservative manifesto on which he was elected. At page 49 the manifesto dismisses the need for radical change, and at page 50 it states:
  "We do not believe there is a case for more radical reform".
  The hon. Member for Woodspring, perhaps unconsciously, gave away the real reason for his conversion to the cause of radical constitutional change, when he said that we needed a stronger Parliament because of all the different trends that had emerged in our recent history. I suspect that his grasp of recent history stretches all the way back to the early hours of 2 May 1997, when a radically different trend among the electorate produced a radically different Government.
  Since "The Rights of Man" was published, there has been a series of unsuccessful attempts to reform the House of Lords. The Roseberry proposals of 1908 were drawn up by a Committee of the House of Lords chaired by Lord Roseberry. The Committee concluded
  "at an early stage in their proceedings"
  that
  "it was undesirable that the possession of a Peerage should of itself give the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords, and that the dignity of a peer and of a Lord of Parliament should be separated".
  In March 1910, the House of Commons passed by 175 votes to 17 a resolution accepting that
  "a necessary preliminary of reform and reconstitution is the acceptance of the principle that the possession of a peerage should no longer of itself give the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords".
  I repeat:
  "a necessary preliminary of reform".
  The 1917 Bryce conference was the first serious attempt to develop the preamble to the 1911 Act that
  "it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis".
  It proposed that the membership of the hereditary peerage would gradually be phased out, with the existing peers electing a reducing number of seats in the House. The justification for retaining the rapidly reducing hereditary element was to provide continuity with the existing House of Lords.
  The 1948 party leaders' conference was called to discuss the possibility that a more comprehensive reform of the powers and composition of the House of Lords could be achieved. It was agreed that
  "the present right to attend and vote based solely on heredity should not by itself constitute a qualification for admission to a reformed second chamber".
  Instead, personal distinction and public service should be the criteria, to be applied to the hereditary peerage in the same way as to everyone else.
  The 1968 proposals had their origins in a joint committee of Labour and Conservatives, to which official support was given, with its inspiration coming from

  743
  Richard Crossman. The proposals had largely been agreed when co-operation broke down between the two sides over the Lords' rejection of the Rhodesian sanctions order. As a result, they were published in a White Paper in the name of the Government alone. However, hon. Members on the Conservative Opposition Front Bench in the Commons spoke in favour of the ideas when the White Paper was debated in the Commons. In the other place, the White Paper was approved by 251 votes to 56, including a majority of 108 to 43 among Conservative Peers.
  It was agreed, in principle, that the hereditary peerage, and the in-built Conservative bias that resulted, undermined the legitimacy of the House of Lords. In volume 2 of his diaries, Dick Crossman wrote of the all-party consultations at the time:
  "We really got an astonishing amount of agreement in a very short time. It is clear that the Tories and the Liberals really believe in a House of life peers … the vital thing is that they are willing to abandon the hereditary principle as a reason for membership of the reformed House of Lords".
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister for the excellent history lesson that he is giving us on the previous proposals. Does he agree that the failure in all those systems was that nobody agreed on how we would end up with a better House of Lords, a better second Chamber or, indeed, no second Chamber? It is wholly wrong for the Government to try to achieve reform in two bites, instead of introducing proposals that had been accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House and achieving reform in one go. Why are the Government carrying on with this illogical proposal?
  Mr. Hoon: The proposal is not illogical, and, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a few minutes, I will deal with his point in my brief description of the history of it.
  The 1968 White Paper stated unequivocally that
  "succession to a hereditary peerage would no longer confer membership of the House of Lords".
  It was proposed that existing hereditary peers could keep their seats, but not their voting rights. Their heirs would have no rights at all. What sank those proposals was their complexity, together with the decision by the Conservative Opposition to withdraw their support. The proposals were so complex that there were an almost infinite number of issues on which it was possible to delay progress.
  It is clear that, in each of those efforts at reform, it was assumed that the inheritance of a peerage would no longer automatically give the right to attend and vote on legislation in the House of Lords. Each time, the complexity of those comprehensive packages led to difficulty and to eventual defeat. Although the key elements of the reform proposals—the need for a revising second Chamber, the extent of their lordships powers and the overriding need to remove the rights of hereditary peers—received widespread support, the minority opponents of each element combined to defeat the whole. That is why this Government's step-by-step approach is such a sensible and pragmatic way of achieving reform.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: To add to what my hon. Friend was saying about the situation in 1968 and 1969, the objection was that we would create a massive amount of patronage. It was obvious that the
  744
  Conservatives were quite prepared to exchange principle for power, as they saw it. We would have had an aldermanic Bench: people would have gone to the other House and received pay without having to fear elections. That stimulated Enoch Powell, Michael Foot and, to a certain extent, me to act.
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his observations. I have started to read one of his speeches from those debates, but he will forgive me for not having yet completed it. The Government have clearly sought to address those observations in the package of proposals in the White Paper.
  The pragmatic approach that I have described was deployed by a Conservative Government, who proposed and passed the Life Peerages Act 1958. The purpose of that Bill, as described by Lord Home in the other place, was to
  "propose reforms which would lead to the greater efficiency of this House and therefore for the better working of Parliament, and which would bring this House more nearly abreast of the times".
  That was an entirely pragmatic proposal, taken forward by a Conservative Government. It was a single-step reform, which was required to improve the legislative process.
  Lord Home further explained that the 1958 Act dealt only with the life peers, and not the other matters which were being pressed on the Government, because
  "we are convinced, after the lesson of fifty years, that if we try to get more we shall end up getting nothing at all."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 1957; Vol. 206, c. 610–13.]
  Quintin Hogg, then Lord President of the Council, added that
  "it ill becomes those who have deliberately decided to do nothing to taunt those who have decided to do something on the grounds that what they have decided to do is too little."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 December 1957; Vol. 206, c. 845.]
  That certainly seems to be an entirely accurate summary of the present Conservative criticism of this Bill.
  The then Lord Chancellor said:
  "on no fewer than ten occasions during that period of one hundred years have unsuccessful attempts been made to alter the law … all unsuccessful because someone had forgotten that the best can so often be the enemy of the good."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 December 1957; Vol. 206, c. 936.]
  If a Conservative Government were right in 1958 to deal with the creation of life peerages in a pragmatic, single-step reform, why should it be wrong today for a Labour Government, implementing a specific manifesto pledge, to seek to remove in a first stage the rights of hereditary peers to vote?
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On that manifesto pledge, my hon. Friend will recall that the manifesto specifically said that there would be a Joint Committee of both Houses in relation to the second stage, and used the words "to bring forward proposals". I know that there will be a royal commission, and I am told that a Joint Committee will sit after the royal commission. Will my hon. Friend put some beef on what, exactly, will be the procedure for the Joint Committee? Will it be able to reject the proposals of the royal commission and will it have a time scale? What are the rubrics for that Joint Committee coming forward with what our manifesto described as proposals for the second stage?
  Mr. Hoon: For technical reasons, the Joint Committee cannot meet until the Bill has passed through Parliament.

  745
  It will consider the parliamentary implications of any recommendations that are made by the royal commission. There will be a two-stage process: the royal commission will consider ideas in a general way, and will then put them to the Joint Committee, which will examine the specific implications for Parliament, both here and in the other place. Its suggestions will then have to be put before Parliament, which will legislate if necessary.
  Mr. Mackinlay: What about the time scale?
  Mr. Hoon: I shall deal with that in due course, when I have looked at the proposals for the transitional House.
  I want to emphasise one point. If the Conservatives' main argument—perhaps their only argument—
  Mr. John Major: I thank the Minister for giving way. It is most courteous of him.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has made an important point. After the royal commission has reported, its report will go to a Committee of both Houses. I consider that entirely proper, as Parliament itself is sovereign. Can the Minister assure me that the Committee will have an opportunity, if it wishes, to object to, reject or change the commission's proposals, and that, if that is the case, the Government will not automatically cast aside the Committee's views, but will recognise that Parliament will wish to have its say in what the reform is? Can I be assured that Parliament will not necessarily rubber-stamp the work of a royal commission whose members have been appointed by the Government?
  Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman has, in a sense, answered his own question. It is clear that, ultimately, Parliament must decide on the recommendations of either the royal commission or the Joint Committee. It will be for Parliament to legislate, if legislation proves necessary—as it is likely to, given the likelihood of a fundamental change in the way in which legislation is passed.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I hope that the Minister will be as helpful to me as he was to the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). At what point might the Government wish to indicate their view—before the Joint Committee sits, or during its hearings? Certainly, we shall not learn about the Government's position during the consideration of the royal commission.
  Mr. Hoon: It may not be entirely appropriate for me to say at this stage what the Government's position might be, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that Labour and other political parties are very likely to want to make their views known. That may give him some idea of Labour's thinking.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister's reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was a little disingenuous. Did he mean that the Government would not have their own
  746
  view—that the Government would not whip their troops? Will the Government allow Parliament truly to make a decision on this matter.
  Mr. Hoon: Parliament always truly makes a decision on any matter. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should make such an observation, given his long experience of the ways in which this place works.
  Mr. Major: I am sorry to pursue my point, but it is a genuine point, and I think the Minister may not have understood precisely what I was saying.
  When the royal commission's report goes to a Joint Committee of Members of both Houses and, presumably, from all parties, the Committee will doubtless make specific recommendations. Of course Parliament decides; the question is, will Parliament decide on the Joint Committee's recommendations on a free vote, or will the Government, having made up their own mind, determine—using their large majority—to overrule Joint Committee views that may not be the views of the royal commission?
  Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman tempts me too far down a road leading to something that is still in the future. Although we have clearly indicated the importance of the royal commission reporting quickly—I will deal with that later if I have time—we have also indicated that we would encourage the Joint Committee to resolve its responsibilities in terms of the parliamentary implications of any royal commission suggestions. Obviously, it is important ultimately that Parliament does decide, and it will be a matter for Parliament.
  Mr. Tony Benn: Does my hon. Friend understand the difficulty that faces the Government? The Bill is a simple one and no Labour Member would dispute it, but the new House coming out of the deliberations of the royal commission and the Joint Committee will be immensely complex. The fear of many people—I am one of them—is that the transitional deal that will preserve hereditary peers will become the permanent solution. With the Bill itself, we do not know what the Government view is, but we do know that the process will involve the most complex legislation. It could be so complicated that we end up with hereditary peers electing each other—and we have not even fulfilled the manifesto commitment.
  Mr. Hoon: I have already made it clear that the Government take the view that the royal commission should report as soon as possible—by the end of this year if it can do so. That is a tight timetable for a royal commission, but it follows from that that the Government are determined that there should be a second stage. We have set that out clearly in the White Paper, but may I add this? My right hon. Friend and I were both elected on a specific manifesto commitment to remove the right of hereditary peers—
  Mr. Benn: All hereditary peers.
  Mr. Hoon: —of all hereditary peers—to vote. Of course, what we propose, which is contained in the Bill, is designed to achieve precisely that, so the Government have an interest in delivering the manifesto commitment

  747
  on which Labour Members were elected. Therefore, there is no reason why we should want a transitional House to last any longer than it absolutely has to.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hoon: No. I must make progress. I have given way on a considerable number of occasions. I was hoping to demonstrate how important it is to analyse what precisely the objection of Conservative Members is to the Bill. We had a good deal of debate yesterday and I regret to say that their objections did not become particularly clear.
  I hope that Conservative Members will not object too strongly if I suggest that there are some suspicions about their real motives in arguing for the reasoned amendment. Are they genuinely in favour of profound constitutional change, or are they simply using the amendment as a fig leaf to hide the embarrassing fact that they have little idea whether they are for or against the hereditary principle?
  The suspicion must be that the Conservatives are using the reasoned amendment to frustrate not simply the particular change in the Bill, but any change in the composition of the House of Lords. It is they who want to kick reform into the long grass.
  In contrast, the present Government set out clearly in their manifesto not only their principled position, but the means for achieving their goal. The Government are fulfilling their manifesto commitment. A Joint Committee of both Houses will be appointed to take forward the proposals of the royal commission, which has been established to ensure the widest possible public debate. In analysing the options, the royal commission has been given clear terms of reference.
  The royal commission is to report by 31 December 1999. The tight timetable will provide for its recommendations to be completed in sufficient time for the Government to respond to them in advance of the next general election. It demonstrates the Government's seriousness and sense of purpose in moving forward towards a full reform of the second Chamber. Once the royal commission has reported, the Government will establish the proposed Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to examine the parliamentary implications of the commission's report. It, too, will be asked to work to a tight timetable.
  The time limit is much shorter than for most royal commissions, notwithstanding the need for the widest possible public debate and the need to find consensus.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving way, but, equally, he will appreciate that it is a most important matter. Everything that he has said so far concerns the composition of the upper House. Have the Government any idea at all what they want the function of the upper House to be because, if they change one House, they are bound to change the other?
  Mr. Hoon: For reasons of brevity, I skipped over the terms of reference for the royal commission. The hon. Gentleman can find them in the White Paper, but they briefly are:
  "to consider and make recommendations on the role and functions of a second chamber; and
  to make recommendations on the method or combination of methods of composition required to constitute a second chamber fit for that role and those functions."
  748
  Very clear guidance has been given to the royal commission on the matters on which we should like it to achieve consensus. Equally, we have to realise that the commissioners must be free to make proposals that can achieve consensus and command the support of the country at large. We hope that they will be able to do precisely that by the end of the year.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The idea of a royal commission was first announced in July, by Baroness Jay, in another place. We have now had an announcement on the royal commission's chairmanship. When will the Government be able to tell us the size of the commission and who the other commissioners will be?
  Mr. Hoon: We shall announce those details in due course. I anticipate that it will not be a large royal commission. We want to ensure not only that the widest possible view is reflected in the commission's membership, but that the commissioners are few enough to be able to get on with doing their important work in a short time scale.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I should like to clarify one point with my hon. Friend. He keeps saying that the Joint Committee will consider the "parliamentary implications". However, our manifesto did not say that—it said that the Committee would make proposals. Will my hon. Friend flesh out both the implications of our manifesto commitment and his definition of a "tight time scale" for the Committee?
  Mr. Hoon: The Committee will make proposals based on the parliamentary implications of the royal commission's recommendations. I cannot do any better than that in answering my hon. Friend's question. That will be the role of the Joint Committee, which will follow the findings of the royal commission and make recommendations to the House, on which my hon. Friend and all other hon. Members will have an opportunity to comment.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The Minister said that the names of those to serve on the royal commission will be announced shortly. Will the Government be consulting the Conservative party on a Conservative nominee to serve on the commission?
  Mr. Hoon: The Conservative party is already well represented on the royal commission, and I am sure that Conservative Members will be delighted by the names of those who fill the other places.
  Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House briefly mentioned the package of measures for the transitional House of Lords which have not been included in the Bill, because they are temporary administrative matters. However, they are an important and integral part of our proposals, and it is right that I should deal with them in more detail.
  The Conservative party continues to maintain that our intention must be to create a "House of Patronage". Undoubtedly, from experience, they are aware of the potential for partiality in the exercise of the current powers of the Prime Minister to control access to honours. From 1979 to 1997, the Conservatives created 173 Conservative peerages to only 96 Labour ones. Excluding

  749
  resignation and dissolution honours, the figures were 126 to 59. That imbalance added to the already dominant Conservative representation in the House of Lords.
  The new Government's position is radically different. We have consistently made it clear that we do not intend the transitional House of Lords to be one that is under the Government's control. Our manifesto was explicit on that point: we said that no one party should seek a majority in the House of Lords. Are the Conservatives able to commit themselves unequivocally to supporting a second Chamber in which no single party should have a majority? If they are, what action are they willing to take to achieve such a Chamber?
  We have also made it clear that the system of appointment of life peers will be reviewed. We have committed ourselves to maintaining an independent Cross-Bench presence of life peers. We have said that, over time, the number of party appointees should more accurately reflect the votes cast at the preceding general election. We shall deliver on those promises.
  There are three elements to our proposals: first, the principle that will help to determine numbers in the transitional House of Lords; secondly, introduction of an independent appointments commission to nominate Cross-Bench peers; and, thirdly, the undertaking to forward to the Queen without interference the recommendations of other party leaders and the commission.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must make progress.
  I shall deal, first, with the principle. We have publicly committed ourselves not to seek more than broad parity between the Government and the main Opposition party. Consistency with our manifesto would have allowed us to seek about 40 per cent. more seats than the Conservatives have in the other place. We have, therefore, gone much further in restraining the Prime Minister's powers than we had to. Consistent with our commitment to maintain an independent Cross-Bench presence, we have undertaken to allow peers to be created in proportion to the numbers of the other parties.
  Secondly, the appointments commission will be an advisory, non-departmental public body. As such, it will be accountable to Parliament, through Ministers, in the usual way. That answers one of the points raised yesterday by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). The Prime Minister will relinquish entirely his power to recommend nominations to the Cross Benches, giving up that power to an independent appointments commission. There are two important aspects of this to draw to the House's attention. The first is that the very act of setting up the commission is an indication of the Government's continuing commitment to the retention of independent Members of the House of Lords. The second is the reduction in patronage that will follow.
  The commission will be set up later this year. It will begin to operate when the transitional House comes into existence. It will include members of the three main
  750
  parties, together with a majority of independent members. The appointment of the independent members will be "Nolanised" in accordance with the relevant rules of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. As those rules were drawn up under the previous Government, I am sure that Opposition Members will not be tempted to claim that the body in question will not be properly independent.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Exactly how are they to be "Nolanised"? What will be the process?
  Mr. Hoon: The appointments will be subject to precisely the procedures that the Nolan Committee expects such bodies to use—right hon. and hon. Members are becoming familiar with those procedures.
  The appointments commission will be encouraged to seek nominations from a wide field, and will be able to consider nominations from members of the public. It will take over the role of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee in vetting all peerage nominations for propriety, for example to ensure that they are not proposed in return for party donations instead of public service. That, after all, is how we came by so many hereditary peers earlier this century.
  Thirdly, control over names will be relinquished. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has committed himself not to interfere in the detail of other parties' nominations. Within the agreed numbers, and subject to approval by the appointments commission, the Prime Minister will pass on any names submitted to him by the other political parties.
  Taking the Government's proposals together, the Prime Minister will in future have less influence than any of his predecessors over appointments and over the composition of the House of Lords.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way as I wish to raise an important point. Does what he has just said mean that the Prime Minister will have ultimate control over who is appointed to the commission? Everybody who is appointed to the commission is bound to have a political view, so how will the political balance be maintained?
  Mr. Hoon: On the contrary, the position is precisely the opposite. As we set out in the White Paper, the chairman will be an entirely independent figure.
  The question was raised yesterday about what guarantees the Government could give that the transitional arrangements would actually be put in place. Having set out commitments for a transitional House in our White Paper, it seems clear that, if we had then included them in the Bill, we would have been accused of wanting to make the transitional House permanent. Our intention is to move on from the transitional House as soon as we can. The Government were elected on a clear and unequivocal commitment to reform the House of Lords, with a specific first stage of ending the rights of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.
  Whenever efforts have been made previously to remove the hereditary peers' rights to sit and vote, and at the same time to deal with the powers and the composition of the House of Lords, they have failed. Taking the process step by step makes it more, not less, likely that real reform will actually take place. Removing the hereditary peers first removes a first real obstacle to reform and change.

  751
  The Government are carrying out their promise as part of their wider constitutional reform programme because the House of Lords as presently constituted is an outdated relic. Its reform is long overdue and reform is essential if we are to create a modern constitutional democracy. Only after the removal of the hereditary peers can we create a modern Parliament for a modern Britain.
  4.54 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: To follow the Minister's Glenn Hoddle analogy, I am not sure what he did in a previous life, but it must have been quite dreadful for him to be given today's hot potato.
  In opening the debate for the official Opposition, let me first pay tribute to the dedication and commitment of the many hereditary and life peers who have served Parliament well—the life peers since 1958 and the hereditary peers over several centuries. I know that the Leader of the House meant to say that yesterday, but she inadvertently completely omitted it from her speech.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Does that extend to the 200 hereditary peers who could not be bothered to turn up in the last Session?
  Mr. Evans: I was paying tribute to those who had given great service, dedication and commitment. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the attendance record of some of the life peers—even some appointed by the current Prime Minister—he will find it wanting.
  At a recent conference on Lords reform, the Liberal Democrat peer Lord McNally spoke of the difficulty of getting life peers to serve on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill Committee in 1996. Only one life peer served on the Committee, to six hereditary peers.
  I enjoyed hearing the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) referring yesterday to the modernising policy of previous Administrations. Even the introduction of the hereditary principle for peerages was a modernising move at the time. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that, even after the passage of the Bill, the second Chamber will lack democratic authority. The White Paper refers to all sorts of mechanisms to determine the composition of the future House of Lords and talks specifically about the down side of having a body that is wholly democratically elected.
  There is no perfect model that would suit all systems of government. As hon. Members have pointed out, the composition depends on what we want the second Chamber to do. The Government have already decided, in the remit that they have given the royal commission, that this Chamber should remain the pre-eminent Chamber of Parliament, so they do not want a solely elected second Chamber. The new House will want to use all the powers at its disposal and may demand more, depending on how often its elections are and what form of electoral system is used if there is an elected element.
  The unfinished business of 1911 will remain unfinished if the Bill is enacted. It leaves too many unanswered questions. The manifesto commitment has already been
  752
  sacrificed. The Labour manifesto "New Labour Because Britain Deserves Better"—pause for laughter—says:
  "As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute."
  So much for that promise, because we have already moved to a two-stage process.
  Will the new House be more democratic? As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said clearly yesterday, the answer is no. Leaving a House of nominated peers is not more democratic, as Viscount Cranborne said during a conference on the future of the House of Lords last year. He said:
  "Why is it that a nominated peer is more democratic than an hereditary peer? I would say that neither of them is particularly democratic, but at least people like me do not owe our places to the living, but merely to the long dead."
  Mr. Nigel Beard rose—
  Mr. Evans: Talking of which.
  Mr. Beard: The House of Lords has consisted of hereditary peers and life peers for 40 years. I have never heard the Conservatives question its legitimacy. Do they believe that the hereditary peers gave the House of Lords a mark of respectability that will be removed when it is left with people who are nominated for what they have done during their life time?
  Mr. Evans: Viscount Cranborne put it succinctly. Why should a House full of nominated peers who owe their positions to the current Prime Minister and previous Prime Ministers—I think that the White Paper mentions eight—be any more democratic than the current House? We are not arguing for the preservation of the second Chamber as it is currently constituted. In his tour de force covering historical approaches to such reforms, the Minister said that the Conservative Front Bench supported the 1968 proposals to remove the hereditary principle. We are not arguing with that. We simply want a more effective approach to the reform of the second Chamber.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Viscount Cranborne was slightly in error, since he, alone of all Members of the House of Lords, owes his place to somebody who is still living—his father? I believe that Viscount Cranborne is a peer by accelerated succession, which means that he has his place by virtue of one of the extra titles that his father is not using. Was not the hon. Gentleman wrong? [Laughter.]
  Mr. Evans: Hon. Members may still be laughing at my reference to Labour's manifesto. However, the point is well made. The Chamber will be no more democratic if peers are nominated by the current Prime Minister or previous Prime Ministers than if they are there by dint of birth. We are looking for something that is far more effective, and we are not getting that with the proposed reform.
  Yesterday, the Leader of the House referred to the Bill as simple. She should not confuse short with simple, because the intention behind the Bill makes it radical, and that intention is to shift more powers to the Executive. The Executive have already enjoyed an increase in the

  753
  payroll over the past 40 years. The Executive constantly sideline the House in the presentation of policy, and use patronage and the stick over their Members to ruthless effect. We have Government by pager, supported by compliant, drip-fed Members of Parliament and abetted by the Liberal Democrats, who are no longer members of the Opposition but part of a coalition.
  The coalition is led by a Prime Minister who is prepared to bypass the newspapers—which are only interested in tittle-tattle and trivia—to speak to the nation on the Richard and Judy show about Humphrey the cat, football and life at No. 10. No doubt the next stop for the Prime Minister's assault on serious political messages will be the next edition of Hello! magazine.
  The Lords have been regularly chastised by the Prime Minister and his obedient followers at Prime Minister's questions. If the Lords dared to do their job, if they scrutinised legislation—and improved it, on certain occasions—and if they called on this House to think again when the legislation was sufficiently bad, their very existence was threatened.
  The Bill is all about further enhancing the powers of the Executive. The so-called modernising of the House of Commons—half an hour of questions on a Wednesday, everybody home early on Thursdays, constituency weeks for Members—has nothing to do with keeping the Executive in check and everything to do with keeping Back Benchers in the dark.
  We have a presidential style—as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said yesterday—but without the checks and balances. Any reform of the second Chamber should have at its core the improvement of Parliament's work. The proposed reform does not do that. The Conservative party is not tied to the second Chamber as it is at present constituted. Indeed, many attempts at reform have been made by both parties. Viscount Cranborne stated:
  "We would go quietly if a properly independent chamber takes our place. To be asked to go without that guarantee is to be asked to connive at the final victory of the executive over Parliament."
  Mr. Mackinlay: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with care, and he is being mealy-mouthed. Why do not the Opposition come out unequivocally—I would welcome it—for a democratically elected upper House, on a different basis from this House?
  Mr. Evans: There are many ways in which we could go forward. We set up a commission under Lord Mackay to look into the various options, and Viscount Cranborne asked Lord Richard, when he was Leader of the House of Lords, to come forward with an options paper. If the Government were serious about proper reform, and about a consensual approach, they would have set up the royal commission 20 months ago. The fact is that they did not, and we are now being offered a cobbled-together, two-stage deal. I will have a little more to say on that deal, and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) may agree with me.
  Mr. Martin Linton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that even a peer nominated by the Prime Minister in the interim, transitional House has more right to sit in the Parliament of this country than Lord
  754
  Cranborne, whose only claim to be in the House of Lords is that he is the great-great-great-great-grandson of one of Elizabeth I's Ministers, Robert Cecil—who was, many think, the original "Blackadder"?
  Mr. Evans: Perhaps one of the Whips could have a word with the hon. Gentleman, as he has clearly not been listening to the debate. I have already been chastised for the fact that Viscount Cranborne was appointed as the nominee of a former Prime Minister. Neither method of appointment is democratic, as the hon. Member for Thurrock suggested. We need to investigate ways of getting a more effective second Chamber, so we must consider its functions. The royal commission should have been sitting 20 months ago. If the Government had set it up as soon as they were elected, it would have reported by now and we would have been able to reform the second Chamber in one stage, instead of which we have two-stage proposals—and many of us believe that we may never even get to the second stage.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend help to protect the credentials of my noble Friend Lord Cranborne as an appointee? Does not the real reason why he does not have to wait until his father's death lie in the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) had him elevated in the peerage of Lord Cecil of Essenden? He is a genuine appointee.
  Mr. Evans: That is the point I was trying to make—obviously rather poorly—and my hon. Friend makes it better than I ever could.
  Instead of considered reform, bringing into balance the various arms of government and ensuring proper and full scrutiny of legislation, we are offered this two-stage exercise. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was absolutely right yesterday when he said that, after the next general election, the new Parliament will not even know the structure in which it is supposed to operate.
  The reform follows other constitutional changes, none of which is yet operational. We will have the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, with new voting systems; European elections under a different form of voting, with the closed-list system giving more power to the parties; a London mayor and assembly; and a Europe demanding more powers, with co-ordination. We have to use the word "co-ordination" because we are not allowed to use the word "harmonisation", just in case people twig what is happening in the European Union.
  In an interview with the Financial Times, Baroness Jay referred to the House of Lords reform as part of a jigsaw, but the trouble with jigsaws is that pieces go missing, especially when they are all thrown in the air at the same time, as is happening now.
  Maria Eagle: Regardless of whether it is done in one or two stages, does the Conservative party favour changing the composition of the House of Lords?
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friends and I have already said that we would favour a reform of the second Chamber; we do not expect hereditary peers to be part of the royal commission's proposals and we would not seek to

  755
  reintroduce them. We have made it absolutely clear that we have broken with the past on the hereditary principle for our second Chamber. I cannot be any clearer than that.
  If only we had had the royal commission up and running. We all want an effective Parliament with effective scrutiny from the second Chamber. If the Government had set up the commission at the outset, we could have been considering its proposals in detail, instead of which we have a halfway house that will not be for the better government of the country. Many of us still fear that we will not get beyond stage 1.
  Mr. Clive Soley: We are pursuing this point because we do not have clarity from the Opposition. It is perfectly reasonable to ask whether, if the Conservative party were in government—or if it were only 18 months to two years ago, when that party was indeed in government—it would have argued and voted for the abolition of the right of hereditary peers to vote in the House of Lords. The answer must be yes or no.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman asked that question yesterday. I refer him to Hansard. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said:
  "Will he accept this perfectly clear statement from the Opposition; that there is not a chance in hell of the Opposition proposing the resurrection of more hereditary peers than will already have been put in that House by the Government?"—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 654.]
  We have no intention of reintroducting them. When we were elected in 1979, the matter was not a priority for us, because we were too busy clearing up the mess that we inherited from the previous Government.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Evans: No. It is wonderful to have all these smoke signals from Walworth road, but I must now make some progress.
  The Government should learn that the constitution of this country is not like Cardiff Arms park, which can be flattened and rebuilt at a different angle, bigger and better than before. Even with all the problems that Cardiff Arms park has had, at least it has had an architect who knew what he was doing, unlike the architect of the current reforms, who does not see the bigger picture because he is concentrating on each part.
  On the problem of the Scottish Parliament and the West Lothian question, for instance, all we are told is that there will be a reduced number of Scottish Members of Parliament after the next general election. The Scottish Parliament was supposed to be the answer to the rising tide of nationalism, but, since its announcement, support for the nationalists has risen.
  We do not know what the arrangements for the Welsh Assembly will be and it is leaderless as far as the Labour party is concerned. Indeed, the Prime Minister, who should be in the Chamber to listen to this debate, is in Wales to support his Secretary of State for Wales, because he does not trust his party to put in the right candidate.
  Under the European list system, for the first time in our history people will go into polling booths and will have to vote for a party, not an individual candidate. That is another constitutional change.
  756
  The White Paper describes the remit for the royal commission, when devising the second Chamber, in these terms:
  "Having regard to the need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent chamber of Parliament and taking particular account of the present nature of the constitutional settlement, including the newly devolved institutions, the impact of the Human Rights Act and developing relations with the European Union".
  However, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament will not start until July. Given the Christmas and summer recesses and the fact that the bodies will not work a five-day week, the royal commission will have little chance to see how the devolved bodies work and what sort of relationship they should have with this House.
  Viscount Cranborne asked for a bedding-down period for the devolved bodies to reflect on how they will interact with this House, but we have not been given that opportunity.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: We are now nearly two years into a Labour Government. The proposal for the abolition of the House of Lords has been on the table all that time and it was a manifesto commitment. Is my hon. Friend not able to give the views of the Conservative party on the constitutional reform of Parliament? We will have to make representations to a royal commission in a matter of weeks and, therefore, it is not unreasonable that we should stand up today and say what we believe in.
  Mr. Evans: I accept what my hon. Friend says, and we wish to see any reform of the second Chamber as part of a whole-picture reform of Parliament. I will talk later about the need for a more effective House of Commons to provide a check on the Executive. An effective second Chamber must also be part of keeping the Executive under check. We will make representations to the royal commission, but we will do so in terms of how we wish to see Parliament being settled after the reforms are implemented.
  The Labour-dominated Scottish Affairs Committee recently stated:
  "As far as we can see the Constitutional Reform is being conceived piecemeal. If there is an overall blue-print showing how all the pieces fit together none of our witnesses were aware of it. As Mr. Barnes put it, 'What the Government has done is to set free 2 devolved assemblies without thinking how the relationship between them is structured."
  That is even without the English dimension being taken into account. The West Lothian question has been acknowledged but not addressed by this Government, and now they are talking about introducing a structured version of the West Lothian question into the second Chamber.
  The White Paper is a confused document that exposes the hidden intent behind the reform. All eyes are on the composition of the upper House, but few are considering its powers.
  Mr. Phil Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Evans: No, I have given way sufficiently, and I shall make some progress now. The White Paper states:
  "For its functions to be properly performed, the House of Lords needs a degree of legitimacy which it does not now enjoy."
  It continues:
  "The Government believes that the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords is a significant factor in the lack of political effectiveness and balance of the House."
  Page 11 states:
  "The Government wants to see the House of Lords as a modern, fit and effective second chamber of Parliament for the 21st century."
  That seems to mean, "Let us get the composition right and the Lords will be more legitimate and better able to use its powers." However, page 40 of the White Paper lets the cat out of the bag when it reveals the Executive's fear that the second Chamber may be effective in bringing the Executive to account. Paragraph 24 states:
  "But as well as being constrained by the Parliament Acts, the House of Lords also observes self-denying ordinances in the use of its powers over legislation. The most important of these is, as has been noted, the Salisbury convention. But usually the Lords, conscious of their absence of a specific mandate, their political imbalance and the existence of inheritance as one of the qualifications for membership, have restrained themselves in other ways, going further than the actual legislative constraints on their powers."
  Paragraph 25 talks about institutionalising the understandings under which the present House of Lords operates. Paragraph 26 boldly states:
  "A better approach might be to reduce the theoretically available powers",
  such as
  "the length of time the Lords should be able to delay legislation approved by the House of Commons".
  Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Evans: No.
  That has nothing to do with making a more effective House of Lords but everything to do with making a more dominant Executive. Let us consider this Chamber's powers to keep the Executive in check, and the powers of the Whips to encourage obedience—which are obviously working well in the case of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). Then there is the power of the party machine in our constituencies and here, and also the tools available to the Executive, which include patronage and the spin doctors.
  That may seem fine to a Government with a mighty majority, but such majorities do not last for ever, as Conservative Members found out to our cost. Part of the modernisation of Parliament must be strengthening the ability of Back Benchers to bring the Executive to account. Instead, the Executive are growing mightier and the Bill will increase that. We have a chance, with these reforms, for a fight back.
  As for the transitional, halfway house arrangements, we must remember that the Parliament Act 1911 was only a temporary measure too, and that we had to wait 88 years to consider the matter again. All hon. Members are duty bound to remember where we have got to. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary will provide some answers, when he winds up the debate, to the questions that I am about to pose.
  758
  As regards guarantees, what security of tenure will there be for people appointed to the transitional House? Will they remain there if and when stage 2 comes into operation? If there are no guarantees, what incentives will be used to encourage people of sufficient calibre to offer themselves as transitional Lords?
  The White Paper talks about maintaining a significant independent Cross-Bench element. At present, there are 317 Cross-Bench peers—119 lifers and 198 by succession. What will be the total number of Cross Benchers after the reform? If Cross-Bench and other peers cross the Floor of the transitional House, will a system be put in place under which parties can renominate them to that body?
  Very few people in this debate have mentioned the costs involved. At present, the cost of maintaining the House of Lords, including building maintenance, is £42 million. The Government have stated that they want the reformed House of Lords to contain a large number of working peers, some of whom will need offices. What support will working peers be given to meet office costs and secretarial allowances?
  The royal commission has been asked to spread the net wider when it comes to peers sitting in the House of Lords: indeed, the Minister of State himself talked about "the people's peers". If the Government do not intend that only wealthy people will be attracted to the upper House, what plans do they have for a pay structure for the new peers? I am sure that all hon. Members will accept that people without some wealth would not be able to live in London under the current per diem arrangements.
  Who appoints the appointments commission? I know that the guidelines are set out in the White Paper, but there will be political nominees to that body, and who will choose them? We all remember the Jenkins commission farce, when Lord Alexander was announced as the Conservative nominee, even though no one had bothered to consult the party about who it wanted as its representative. Will the three political parties nominate their own appointees? How many nominees will there be? Who will appoint the independent members?
  I intervened on the Minister earlier to try to find out whether we would be able to nominate our own political candidate for the royal commission. I think that I was given the answer no. The Government have decided who will be the Conservative nominee—Lord Wakeham—and they think we should be grateful. That is hardly inclusive or proper consultation with a political party. It hardly gives us confidence about the consultation.
  How long will the transitional House last? Without giving an answer to that question, the Government are asking for a free ticket without timetable, direction or final destination. A former Minister has said:
  "I have concerns about the reform. If all the Government is going to do is to abolish the Hereditary Peers to sit and vote and then kick the second stage into touch it will be a great missed opportunity."
  That former Minister was Lord Richard,
  in the New Statesman on 31 July 1998. He continued:
  "Whatever you do to the House of Commons is going to make the 2nd chamber more troublesome for the Commons. There is no getting away from that and a lot of MPs on both sides are worried.

  759
  I have no idea what the PM's views are. I've not talked to him about it. I don't think his mind has been engaged in this in any concentrated way."
  The Government know all the possibilities for stage 2, but they have no clear idea of where to go. We fear the same as Lord Richard and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and others of independent spirit on the Labour Benches—that the second stage simply will not happen.
  I have no doubt that the royal commission will sit, just as the Jenkins commission sat. The royal commission will present a report, just as Jenkins did. If that report does not come up to expectations, however, what will happen to that report? Jenkins is now sitting on a shelf somewhere in Downing street. What will happen if the royal commission's report does not come up to standard? What guarantee do we have that, even after the Joint Committee has seen it, the commission's report will not end up gathering dust on a shelf, just as the Jenkins report on proportional representation has done?
  We have been given no guarantee. Stage 1 is happening without stage 2, and hon. Members know that that is the reality. It was Bagehot who said:
  "With a perfect lower house it is certain that an upper house would scarcely be of any value. If we had an ideal House of Commons, it is certain that we should not need a higher chamber."
  Never have we needed an effective second Chamber more than we need it now.
  I have seen wrecking amendments in the past, but the Bill is a wrecking Bill, like all the other wrecking constitutional Bills since May 1997. The Government's approach is incoherent and clearly incomplete. They are not finishing unsettled business from 1911, but creating unsettled business for well into the future. The House has the chance to do something that its Members normally leave to the upper House—to ask the Government to think again. Tonight, let us do just that.
  5.23 pm
  Sir Edward Heath: As I always do, I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) yesterday. In particular, I listened to that part in which he said that many of us wanted to keep life peers in the House of Lords because Prime Ministers had such joy in creating them. With a wave of his hand, the right hon. Gentleman said that I was one of those Prime Ministers who had created that sin. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that I found absolutely no joy in creating life peers. Every time I created one, nine people turned up saying that it should have been them.
  Mr. Benn: For every peer created, there are nine hovering around Prime Ministers, saying, "What a brilliant speech you made." The penumbra of patronage is even more dangerous than the patronage itself.
  Sir Edward Heath: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I must say that, when people have been turned down, they do not come saying nice things—exactly the reverse. The right hon. Gentleman said that I was one of those who had created a large number of peers. Therefore, I was inspired to turn up the figures—which are quite interesting.
  760
  As we have heard many times, the process started with Harold Macmillan in 1958. I was his Chief Whip at the time, and I remember that one of his main reasons for creating life peers was to bring to the upper House people with experience in business, administration or overseas affairs who would not normally be there. He believed that such people could make an extremely valuable contribution to general debates. His choices were admirable, but they did not fit the Bill. If one follows their careers in the House of Lords, one will find that they seldom contributed anything of unique interest that they had gained from outside experience.
  It then became purely and simply a political affair. Life peers were created for a variety of political reasons—often because it was felt that individuals would be less trouble up there. As I have been blamed for running away with this process, I shall give the right hon. Gentleman the figures. I found that Harold Wilson created 226 peers, Lady Thatcher created 216 and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) created 171. The present Prime Minister, with remarkable speed and determination, has already created 105. Looking at my own figures, I found that my total was 48.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The people's Prime Minister.
  Sir Edward Heath: My annual rate was only 12. I discourage the right hon. Member for Chesterfield from saying such things in future, because I was certainly not to blame.
  I have thought a great deal about the problems that we are discussing today. Of course, this debate is about only one thing: the abolition of the peerage. It is about nothing else. The innumerable questions raised and dozens of comments made in the debate bear no relation to present events. The Bill says simply that we will wipe out the historical peerage in the upper House. That does not make for much of a debate: either you do or you do not. What else is there?
  The Government have offered a compromise in the form of a proposal from the Cross Benches that 91 peers should remain in the upper House. We must look at that proposition from two sides. There are those who say that we should keep those 91 peers. Is it a very polite plot, in the hope that time will run on and the 91 will remain? It may be. On the other hand, it may be a rather impolite blackmail on the part of the Government, who are saying, "Very well, we will let 91 stay there, provided you let this Bill go straight through without any trouble." That is my reading of current events. I would not worry about retaining 91 peers because I do not believe that it will mean very much to them. They may be disappointed in the end, and there will be more bad feeling.
  The question is: do we abolish the hereditary principle for membership of the upper House? The Leader of the House was quite clear when asked about future developments: she had no answers. The reason is that the Government have not worked anything out. I do not mean to be offensive, but I am absolutely astonished that the Labour party spent 18 years in opposition and did not work out the details of what it wanted to do about the upper House. There is a moral there for my own party: although the Conservatives might not be 18 years in opposition, they must use the time that they are there properly, so as to be ready for the future.

  761
  It is true that, in opposition, the Conservatives have to do a great deal of work on their own policies, but it is also true that the reason why the Leader of the House could not say any more than she did is that she does not know any more. However, she did say that the reason why reform broke down in 1968 was that the Government tried to do too much at one time. I have to correct her on that, for that was not the reason at all. The measure commanded a large majority in the Lords—5:1—and the support of all parties; it then came to this House. Devaluation had just occurred and morale was pretty low, but the reason why the measure fell was that it was opposed by Michael Foot, who said, "Away with an upper House—we don't want an upper House at all." He got a lot of support. On the Conservative side, the measure was opposed by Enoch Powell, who said, "Let's go back to the 14th century with the upper House." He got some support. Faced by the two of them, the Government lost their nerve and Harold Wilson said, "Let's pack up." That is what happened—it was not an attempt to do too much at one time.
  The debate has proved how impossible it is to have a proper debate unless there are positive propositions on what to do next. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield ended his speech with a warning to the Leader of the House and to the Government, saying, "Yes, but wait for the next stage." We all know what that means, as far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned: on many different problems, he reaches the last stage and the Government get pretty peeved about it. We now know that, unless propositions are advanced that receive full support from a large number of Labour Members, the Government are in for a difficult time with the next stage.
  To give the royal commission only until Christmas sounds fine, but it faces an impossible task. Lord Wakeham is a great friend of mine and was an immensely able Chief Whip. He knows all about the difficulties of administration, but I can assure the House that having a mixed-party commission as well as outsiders, and being told to solve the problem in less than 12 months, is entirely different from solving a party problem as Chief Whip. I wish him well, for he faces an extremely difficult task and we must await the outcome.
  Before I sit down, I shall say a few words about my own beliefs. First, I believe that the time has come for the end of the hereditary principle in politics—that is my absolute conviction. We are about to enter the first century of the next millennium and it is time that that came to an end, although that is not in any way to undervalue what has been done in the past by many—not always the same few—families. Theirs was a tremendous task and we owe them a great deal for having carried it out, but it is now over and we must move on to a purely democratic arrangement.
  The measure does not affect the royal family for, as we know, the Queen does not sit as an hereditary Member of the House of Lords. In Europe, there are many proofs of that: I have found at least six European Union member countries that have a sound monarchy, but no hereditary system. I therefore want to see the abolition of the hereditary system.
  We must then answer the question of what will be substituted for that system. Should we have appointments? That is largely what has been discussed
  762
  today. I am extraordinarily dubious about switching to any of the systems that have been detailed. The Prime Minister is pleased to have said that he does not want to make all the appointments, but will just look after his party and, similarly, party leaders can look after the other two parties. An odd committee, appointed by the Prime Minister, will look after the rest of the appointments.
  That is an opportunity for those leaders to gain far more power than they have at the moment, which would not be in the common interest. It would be extremely dangerous. Their increased powers would apply not only to the upper House, as it would then be, but to a range of their activities in the country, on the economy, politics and administration. Having once occupied that position myself, I know the extent to which it could be abused.
  My second point is that the upper House must be elected. That will cause astonishment—I think that I heard a great gasp of breath behind me. If we have an elected system, it must fit in with our present system. That can be done. The powers that are given to the upper House—if we still call it that—need not interfere with the powers of the Commons. That is a question of working out the system and how it will operate.
  The fact that we have such a flexible election system for this House makes it very difficult to decide on the election system for another House. In the States, on the same date, representatives are elected for two years and senators for six years. It is not possible to do that here. It is very difficult to decide how that should be done without having a fixed timetable for one or other of the Chambers. We may come round to the idea of having a fixed timetable for both, but that would be an enormous change to our system.
  As I have said, this is the end of the hereditary system. It should be the end of appointments, because what will be required in future makes it impossible to have anything other than a mass of stooges, which is not what the system is about.
  We are witnessing rapid change—faster than before—of the whole system of our government. I am not sure that it is yet realised that this House is being considerably changed. I am always struck by the fact that those who have the power of organisation want the occupation of MP to be a daytime one. There have been changes to Wednesdays and Thursdays, and we often do not sit on Fridays. We are being given a week off later in the month. That is turning the job of a Member of Parliament into a daytime occupation. The impact is that professional and business men will no longer be able to enter the House. As a result, they will not be available to be members of a Government. That is a drastic change which will affect the rest of society as well as the membership and behaviour of this House.
  I do not believe that such a process can be changed now that it is on the move. The Prime Minister comes here on Wednesdays for half an hour of questions and gets tired at the end, but does not appear otherwise. This debate, tremendous as it is, has not been attended by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who opened for the Opposition yesterday, has not appeared today and the Leader of the House has now disappeared. That shows the lack of attention now paid to Parliament. I see that developing with the greatest possible regret

  763
  because it is immensely damaging to our political system and the welfare of our present citizens and those who are due to follow.
  I want an elected upper House and an elected lower House because they will have the power to deal with those who simply want to cast off the whole parliamentary system and run it in a centralised fashion. It is becoming more and more centralised because that is how—I shall not go into the niceties of the issue—those in power get their way, reaching all the ends that they want to reach.
  This is a momentous debate; you may not have realised, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We must consider matters in this new way because we in this House can try to influence developments. That is the lesson that I draw from this one-way debate. Although it may be solely about abolishing the hereditary system, it is one of the indicators of the future of our parliamentary government.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: I think that all of us would agree that the speech of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was utterly commendable for its clarity and firmness of view. Thank goodness that, at long last, someone on the Conservative Benches has expressed a firm opinion on how the reforms should be carried forward. However, our Government Front-Bench team should not embrace his blandishments and his suggestion that we should decide on the outcome of the reforms and the review before we embark on anything. I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when she said yesterday that, only too often, the House has been prevented from conducting any reform because it has become bogged down in an insistence that everything be right and clarified before any change is made.
  The course of action on which the Government have embarked, including the decision to depart in one respect from the party manifesto to set up a royal commission before establishing a Joint Committee of both Houses, is therefore absolutely right. [Interruption.] I do not in any way want to risk stirring up and provoking my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), but I am afraid that I must tell him that I was the lonely voice in the original Cabinet Committee discussion who urged that we set up a royal commission. I did so because I thought that the party's original commitment to create a Joint Committee of both Houses immediately was rather incestuous and introspective. I thought that it was right—the Government decided that it was right—to create a mechanism by which we could tap the views of the wider public and all those who want to contribute to those matters before both Houses came together to decide how to proceed.
  Incidentally, I hope that I have not just breached part of the Official Secrets Act 1911 in disclosing such a point. I do not want to retard any progress that I may or may not be making. I shall just chalk it up on my freedom of information slate for a later day.
  I also thought that setting up a royal commission was right because there was every risk that a Joint Committee of both Houses would become a political playground for the Opposition, who would not be able to resist playing politics with it, in which it would be difficult to reach any half-decent outcome in any reasonable time.
  We have seen from the debate so far that the Opposition are incapable of placing the interests of Parliament above their own narrow party and partisan interest. In the
  764
  process, they have tied themselves in the most awful convoluted knots, as was evident from the speeches of those on the Opposition Front Bench, both yesterday and today. What we heard today from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was a contortion too far, even by the standards of this Opposition.
  No doubt, the Tory party will try to free itself from its illogical predicament by means of a late burst of democratic enthusiasm, when its own commission under the chairmanship of Lord Mackay reports. It would not surprise me in the least if the Tories were to follow rather tardily and, in this respect alone, unfortunately, the leadership shown by their former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
  However, no late democratic conversion undergone by the Opposition will carry any conviction whatever with the public. Most people observing their antics will simply conclude that they are showing an interest in a democratic second Chamber only because no one is showing any interest in their returning to power in this Chamber. People will conclude, rightly, that that is a pretty squalid and cynical exercise on the Opposition's part, that their interest in a democratic second House is only skin deep and that their democratic credentials remain wafer thin.
  What is clear from so many of the speeches that we have heard from the Opposition is their deep longing to retain their 3:1 in-built hereditary majority, which they have held on to through so many generations. If they were given half a chance, they would continue to do so.
  The Government should pursue their simple, step-by-step, considered and consensus-building approach to reform of the House of Lords. If the so-called Weatherill amendment is offered again in the other place, we should probably embrace it. It would be a proper reward for good behaviour on the part of a House that might otherwise be tempted to filibuster the Bill endlessly, thus doing enormous damage to the rest of the Government's programme. If we can get the Bill and the rest of the programme on which we were elected through the upper House with minimum delay and damage to ourselves, we should seize the opportunity.
  I certainly do not think that we should embrace such an amendment if it were offered in this place during our Committee stage. It should be a matter of consensus building, which we should judge in the light of the behaviour of the other place.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Has not the right hon. Gentleman just demonstrated his utter cynicism? He is prepared to vote against the amendment, as it were, one week, and to vote for it the next, at the behest of his party bosses. Is not such an exercise in cynicism beneath contempt?
  Mr. Mandelson: It is an exercise in eminently good sense from a party member who supports a Government who want to get their business through both Houses, because that is what we were elected to do. Our approach and behaviour should take their cue from the attitude and behaviour of others in the upper House. That is entirely reasonable.
  The Government's approach and the discussions that we conduct should start with the recognition that the House of Lords is far from bad, but that it can be improved. Its revising wisdom is, for the most part, a

  765
  benefit rather than a hindrance to the parliamentary process. It must be recognised, however, that there are two aspects of the House of Lords that the public find objectionable. The first is the existence of hereditary peers—the principle of being born to rule, something that the public will never accept, and nor should they—and the second is that the public find unacceptable the excessive power of patronage by the Prime Minister, however worthy and suited are his nominees to membership of the other place. Both those objections about the House of Lords are rightly addressed in the Bill.
  What people like about the House of Lords is the fact that it is, in some respects, somewhat less partisan, and somewhat less tribal, than this place. The public like the idea of Cross Benchers—people who do not owe their membership of the House of Lords to the patronage of a party or to having been shepherded by Whips—and the idea that the House of Lords is a collection of soldiers, dons, business men, doctors and trade unionists. Although they like the composition of the House of Lords, they would certainly prefer the average age of its Members to be reduced, and for it to have more women and more representatives of ethnic minorities.
  Mr. Mackinlay: If we were to pause after implementing the new arrangements, how we would get the loose cannon, the bloody-minded, the eccentric and the awkward? Those people simply would not become Members of the House of Lords, except by patronage. One of the benefits of electoral systems is that they throw up the bloody minded, the awkward and the irritable. That is important, because a Chamber of Parliament must have that cocktail of characters to provide scrutiny and accountability, without fear or favour and without showing partial affection. If we pause with the setting up of an independent commission for the Cross Benchers and the involvement of party leaders, we will not get that.
  Mr. Mandelson: I shall overlook my hon. Friend's obvious invitation, and come to that point in a moment. I entirely agree that the bloody-minded should have their place in the House of Lords. He could draw up criteria that might be introduced on the workings of the appointments commission and I am sure that such an amendment, in due course, would be taken very seriously by Ministers.
  The public do not want the removal of a clear party mandate, a clear manifesto and a clear means—the basis—by which a Government can carry their programme in this place. Those, of course, are the basis of the House of Commons: people know exactly what manifesto they are voting for, they offer a clear mandate and they vote to constitute a majority for the governing party in this place. People like such clarity and the straightforwardness about this place, which depend entirely on the dominant role given to the House of Commons by the Parliament Acts and by the Salisbury convention. Any reform of the House of Lords needs to take that firmly into account; if we alter the basis on which this place operates, rather than enhance democracy, we will risk severe damage to it.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take a moment to note that his
  766
  arguments about the straightforwardness of the system for election to this place and the manifestos are the main arguments for retaining our present system of voting for the House of Commons.
  Mr. Mandelson: I recognise that entirely, but that argument is set against the other argument in favour of electoral reform, which is that we want a more representative and more fairly elected House of Commons. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not be drawn on that issue on this occasion.
  I do not want the House of Commons to be demoted. I do not want the conditions created in which we would create two rather powerful Houses of Parliament which would compete, risking gridlock and constitutional stalemate between them. That would be the inevitable consequence of building up the House of Lords and its powers through any reforms that we might be minded to introduce. That is not a matter for the Bill; in the first instance, it is a matter for the royal commission and its excellent chairman, Lord Wakeham.
  I cannot resist teasing the Government slightly about Lord Wakeham. I learned of his appointment in the way that we are always informed about the background to the Government's thinking: through the proliferation of spin doctors and such people who, I am afraid, infest this place. When I heard that Lord Wakeham—a Tory peer—was being appointed to prove that no one was trying to fix anything, a smile came to my face. After all, there is no better fixer than Lord Wakeham. He is lucky, as we are, to have sitting alongside him that paragon of selfless humanity, independence and integrity—my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
  I shall offer the House two concluding thoughts on reform and thinking about the future composition of the House of Lords, but will not be drawn on them in any detail because this is not the time. First, when—in my view, at least—some glue is needed in the United Kingdom to set against the possible fissiparous effects of devolution, a second Chamber, if constituted and composed in the right way, could contribute a bit of that much-needed glue, to keep the United Kingdom together. I am glad that the Government have given some inkling of that thinking in the White Paper, which is absolutely right.
  I contribute my second idea as a well-known, if not notorious, pro-European who is none the less worried about the remoteness and lack of legitimacy of the European Union's institutions. This is not the time to develop that argument; I have done so on other occasions in other places. If we were to use the second Chamber to create a link between this national Parliament and the European Parliament, we would help to overcome the slight gulf that has opened up between this Parliament and the institutions of the European Union.
  In both those respects, we could use this opportunity of reform of the House of Lords to make other, wider improvements to our constitutional settlement. I have no doubt that those ideas, along with many other worthy proposals, will be considered by the royal commission in due course.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. John Major: Let me begin by welcoming the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) back to the Back Benches. It is an

  767
  honourable estate. As a Back Bencher, the right hon. Gentleman has an important part to play in trying to check the control of an Executive with an over-mighty parliamentary majority, and I look forward to seeing him perform that role.
  Certainly, during the past few minutes, the right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that he has the capacity to surprise. Not since Satan denounced sin have I heard such a recantation as the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the possible implications for the "glue" of the United Kingdom of the devolution policies that he previously supported. But, speaking with some experience, I can tell him that he will find that returning to the Back Benches is not too bad; indeed, it has a large number of compensations.
  I once advocated a classless society, so I am not here to defend the hereditary principle for legislative purposes. It is, for those purposes, a dead principle, and I am unconcerned about that aspect of what the Government propose in the short term. I am here to defend the effective and efficient working of Parliament, in Commons and Lords, for I do not wish to see that die in the same fashion as the hereditary principle, which is now doomed to extinction.
  Over recent months, we have had a great deal of talk about reform of the House of Lords. Let us be clear: up to a point, this is reform. It is the first half, the destructive half, of reform. It is tearing down what exists; it is condemning the hereditaries to the tumbrel—but it builds for the future, nothing. It is, at the moment, a blank cheque for the future of the House of Lords. The hereditaries are disappearing into a vacuum, and, as we wish them godspeed, we have no idea what will replace them in the medium term. Not even my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Wakeham has any idea, and he is to chair the royal commission—a royal commission with an impossible mandate: to replace 700 years of constitutional practice in a few months of part-time consideration.
  I do not know what the commission will propose. Maybe—given the virtues of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), as adumbrated by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool—if and when the Government ever get around to appointing all of it, the commission will prove to be very wise; maybe. What I do know is that, given the time scale, it will have no time for consultation, no time for consideration, no time for reflection, and no time to weigh the implications of what it may decide. If there had been some weighing of the implications of the Scotland Bill, we might not have had the Scotland Bill and the right hon. Member for Hartlepool might not now be worried about the glue of the United Kingdom. What is clear is that the commission has no time. The timetable imposed by the Government makes it less of a royal commission, as I have always understood it, and more of a high-powered fig leaf, as the Prime Minister understands it.
  I hope that, when they have been appointed, the commissioners will examine their task and then say to the Government, "This is an important task, but if we are to perform it properly we must ask for more time. We are, after all, a royal commission and not a focus group, and we want to produce a report, which will be considered by Parliament in both Houses, of which we can be proud, not a report that has been too rushed."
  768
  I do not say that to make a short partisan point; I say it because the way in which Parliament works, in Lords and Commons, matters to us. Whatever changes may be made in the House of Lords will have an effect on the House of Commons. That is why, earlier, I sought the Minister's assurance that, if the Joint Committee of the Commons and the Lords disliked the royal commission's recommendations, the House of Commons would have an opportunity to decide on the Committee's views on a free vote, rather than a Whip imposed by a Government with a very large majority.
  Thus far, this reform has been sold to the country on a questionable prospectus. If we are to believe Cabinet Ministers, a phalanx of self-interested peers, Conservative to the bone—both men and women—appears whenever necessary to frustrate the people's Government. I speak as one who occasionally had a bit of his Government frustrated by those same peers. The concept that they are there, waiting to rush out of the hills and frustrate just this Government, simply does not stand up to examination. When they attacked my Government, it was to the cheers of Labour Members; when they attack their Government, the peers are very impertinent. How dare they raise the possibility that the Government might be wrong! What a dreadful proposition! Off with their heads! The Leader of the House is pleased to see them go at the first possible moment: she will be there at the guillotine, knitting to hand, as head after head disappears in the near future.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Major: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  Hereditary peers are, of course, an easy target to attack. As I have said, I am not here to defend the hereditary principle in legislative terms—
  Mr. Hope: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Major: I may give way a little later.
  The Government, however, never miss any target if it can deliver an easy headline. It does not matter whether the target is the unpopular principle of hereditary peers, or the dotty ramblings of a football coach; if there is a mob mentality to disagree, this Government will put themselves at the head of that mentality in order to garner a headline or two.
  Now, who was the first to intervene?
  Mr. Hope: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, and I understand that he and Opposition Front Benchers do not support the inclusion of hereditary peers in a reformed second Chamber. Can the right hon. Gentleman therefore explain why he and his Front Benchers seem to support the inclusion of hereditary peers in determining the composition of that second Chamber?
  Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman will let me proceed, he will learn many other things, as well as the answer to that point.
  Let me now make a substantive point. Although hereditary peers are to go, even Labour Members, in their quieter moments away from the Chamber, will admit that many of the hereditary peers—not all; they will not

  769
  concede that—have had great virtues. They will admit that one of those virtues—I testify to it, for it was used against me often enough—is their independence, because of their hereditary nature, from the party Whips, when they choose to exercise it.
  How is such independence to be replicated? We have heard nothing of that from any Minister. How are the new peers to have the independence of Whips that the present Lords enjoy? The Government do not know the answer to that. How are the new peers to have the vocation of the hereditary peers? It was said earlier—and I can testify to this, too—that many of the life peers appointed were keen to go to the House of Lords, and were going to be there morning, noon and night; my goodness, they would turn up on Sundays. Where are they—not just those whom I appointed, but those appointed by many others, including the present Prime Minister? No sooner are their bottoms on the red leather Benches than they zip off somewhere else, and turn up only occasionally.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: There are some in the Gallery.
  Mr. Major: There are, of course, exceptions, who not only attend the House of Lords but are diligent enough to return to listen to what is said in the Commons.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Did not Lord Archer miss the 1994 Conservative party conference, when storms were raging over the Anglia Television deal, because he was too busy as a working Conservative peer? He is a real busybody, that Lord Archer, is he not?
  Mr. Major: I can think of a substantial number of peers whose work rate in the House of Lords does not match that of my noble Friend Lord Archer.
  We are told that we should not worry about the mass axing of the peers because the Government have a mandate. Yes, they have; but as an argument of principle that is pretty pathetic. It is generally the last refuge of a Government who, although they have no credible case, can at least point to something that was in their manifesto. But I must tell them that they have no mandate to act without thinking about what they will do to our constitution and to the working of our Parliament. They have no mandate to tear down what works without telling the House of Commons what they will replace it with. They can tear it down, but, before they do so, they have an obligation to explain what comes in its place.
  Liberty needs protection from democracy. The Government are tearing apart, piece by piece, act by act, the most sophisticated constitution of them all, with little real understanding of the implications of what they are doing. That is why I think that it is a mean, inadequate little Bill. It is not because of the substantive point; it is because of what is not in the Bill but should be. The Bill utterly misses the chance of a proper reform of the Lords and, with it, reform that will have an implication for us in the House.
  What will the new Lords, as no doubt it will come to be known, be about? Will it be a deliberative Chamber? Will it be a revising Chamber? Will it be a check on over-mighty government? Or will it be a rubber stamp for
  770
  party hacks, party funders and party apologists in the upper House? If it is, I might be inclined to join my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and to contemplate a wholly elected House—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) should not over-excite himself.
  The ideal is a Commons that is democratic and decisive, and a Lords that is independent and reflective. Will it be so? A proper reform would make clear what the future of the Lords is to be. Will it retain the right to delay and to change legislation? If rights are lost, the ancient checks, balances and safeguards of our constitution will genuinely be at risk.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Major: I will in a moment.
  We should define and, in some ways, increase the power of the Lords, because it can carry out work that will help the work of this Chamber and make it easier. It is and must remain the subordinate House, but it could do work that would make it easier for the House of Commons to carry out its functions properly. That would be a real reform.
  Why not, as a matter of routine—it cannot always be done, but the Leader of the House will know that it could often be done—as often as possible send draft legislation to the Lords for examination and for comment before it comes to the House of Commons? Why not let the Lords take public evidence on many contentious and technical issues, so that we may produce better drafted legislation?
  Why not give the Lords a statutory obligation to take evidence on European legislation and on treaty commitments, so that the House of Commons may be better informed when it comes to consider those matters? Why not have a
  standing commission to consider our evolving constitution? At the moment, it evolves as a result of piecemeal actions by the House of Commons, by judges and in other ways. Why not let a standing commission consider how the constitution operates? Those reforms to the Lords would be worth while. They could be part of the Bill, but they are not.
  Let us be a bit more dramatic. Why not look at ministerial roles as well? Why not let Ministers vote in one House, but speak in both Houses? One practical advantage of that is that it could significantly reduce the number of Ministers, and I know from personal experience that that would be a thoroughly good thing. It would also save immeasurably on travel expenses.
  Why should not the Prime Minister—who, without consulting me, the then Leader of the Opposition, or, so far as I know, the Liberal Democrats or any other party, decided to present himself here once, rather than twice, a week—contemplate answering questions in the House of Lords occasionally as well? I say that not to be mischievous, but to suggest what we might do to make the work of the two Houses more cohesive, and to put the upper House in a better position to support the work of the primary House—the Commons. Let us look at those ideas.
  What we have before us is a little cameo of a Bill. It is vindictive in its intent and probably unthinking in its effect. That is hardly worthy of much of the hype that has surrounded it.
  Mr. Maclennan: Is not the argument that the right hon. Gentleman uses the sort of argument that was used against

  771
  the removal of the rotten boroughs in 1832? Is he not condemning a good reform by admitting that it does not solve the entire problem? Surely we can vote to condemn the rotten boroughs and accept that the franchise should be widened further later.
  Mr. Major: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The whole thrust of what I have been saying is that I do not object to the departure for legislative purposes of the hereditary peerage, but that, as part of the Bill, we should be enhancing the way in which both Houses of Parliament examine legislation and have control over the Executive. Fewer Ministers means more Back Benchers: that is another helpful thought on control over the Executive. Sadly, it is becoming all too evident that the whole Bill has been poorly considered. It has been poorly prepared. It is partisan. We do not know what will follow it and neither, worryingly, do the Government.
  Mr. Savidge: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Major: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  Like other constitutional changes, the Bill diminishes Parliament in the Lords and, potentially, in the Commons. In many of the things that they are doing, the Government run the risk of bypassing the House of Commons as well.
  The Cabinet and Prime Minister, like all their predecessors, have some virtues and many faults. Among their failings, the one that concerns me most is not a single item of policy—they have won an election and they are entitled to put their policies into operation; they have the majority to do it—but, and I profoundly hope that I am wrong, their disregard, even contempt, for the views of anyone other than themselves. Even the House of Commons—Parliament itself—is for them too often apparently a rubber stamp and an irritating anachronism. Their reforms in the House of Commons are already in danger of turning it into a derelict, powerless and pointless place that is empty for half the week.
  That is one of the practical effects of moving Prime Minister's questions from Tuesday and Thursday to one single Question Time on Wednesday, and of the other reforms that the Leader of the House and the Government have brought forward. That may be convenient for this Government at this time, but it is not good for the House of Commons in the short or long term.
  Dr. Ladyman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Major: No.
  If the Government are attacked, their habit is to attack the critics, not answer the criticism. They strangle alternative views even in their own party, as a number of their Back Benchers will testify. That is why reforming our constitution piecemeal without the whole scenario being subjected to proper democratic examination in this House and the next is so dangerous.
  On the Bill, the Government have listened to nothing thus far but their prejudices. Like the Scotland Act 1998, it may yet prove to be a shambles, with a constitutional price to be paid in future.
  The abolition of the peers on their own is no great point, but the Commons should remember that introducing such a measure without proper consideration
  772
  and examination of all that it entails is but part of a pattern. It should remember that it is the master of the Government, not its servant, and should realise that diminishing the power of any part of Parliament in the way that the Bill does runs the risk of diminishing the power of every part of Parliament.
  The question before us today is the abolition of the peers—very well; abolish them. However, the real issue behind the Government's overall constitutional change is the authority of Parliament itself over the Executive. On that issue, this House—both Opposition Members and Government Members—should think very carefully, to decide how far it will permit the Government to go before it asserts its own rights.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I welcome the House of Lords Bill, which, at long last, will give this place the opportunity of transforming significantly the upper House. All previous attempts at reform have been the subject of guerrilla tactics by opponents of change, and by unlikely alliances, such as the ones mentioned by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) that included Michael Foot and the late Enoch Powell.
  Achieving reform in two stages, in a relatively simple five-clause Bill, was a tactical masterstroke. It is no wonder the Opposition are calling for a more comprehensive Bill, as that would allow them and the unelected peers on whom they rely to frustrate the legislation and to bog down reform in ancient procedures, so that they may misuse the past to impede the future.
  It is a myth that the House of Lords is a reforming force; the opposite is true. At every milestone in democracy—the male franchise, votes for women, abolition of slavery, and even the Ballot Act 1872—the House of Lords has been a force of reaction.
  We know the impact of that reaction in my own city of Edinburgh. When the Lords opposed the Great Reform Act 1832, Edinburgh had a population of more than 100,000 men, women and children. Guess how many citizens were entitled to vote? It was not half the 100,000 population, not a quarter of it and not even one tenth; in 1832, only 33 citizens could vote in the whole of Edinburgh. The House of Lords whole heartedly endorsed that old, undemocratic and corrupt arrangement. The fact was that 100,000 citizens in Edinburgh were disfranchised, and that it was not the peers, but the people themselves who fought for greater democracy. That is why we take no lessons from the peers.
  Today, little has changed with regard to the majority of those in the Corridors of the other place. This year, 81 more peers gained entitlement to sit in Parliament, by right of birth, than hon. Members were elected to Parliament, in a general election involving 31 million voters. Today—70 years after all women gained the vote—there are still 62 peers who may sit in the other place but who do not even live in Britain. Those peers can legislate in the other place and affect the lives of millions of people.
  We are supporting the Bill on behalf of the descendants of Edinburgh citizens who never had the vote, not on behalf of the few descendants of a handful of people who were chosen centuries ago by the reigning monarch.

  773
  In 1997, the people of Edinburgh voted for the party that pledged itself to modernise our country and our democracy.
  Reform of the House of Lords is long overdue. It is therefore fitting that our Labour Government are now, in this Bill, making such positive and practical proposals. By what right can hereditary peers veto reforms necessary to modernise our health service, to invest in our schools, colleges and universities and to give the jobless a new deal? We cannot allow an unrepresentative second Chamber to block progress.
  As the Bill deals with a matter of principle, I shall make no adverse comments on the quality of those who sit in another place. I question the legitimacy of peers' rights on the ground not of paternity, but of democracy. Some of those in the other place are descended from families that have rendered this country great service, including outstanding scientists, doctors, teachers, engineers and explorers, and great military figures and great humanitarians. However, they are all in the other place because of patronage—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said earlier in the debate, in his expansive, amusing and highly thought-provoking style.
  The House should not, however, confuse some of the reminiscences and forceful views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield with the facts. He was right to point out that, since monarchs effectively ceded their powers to Parliament, Prime Ministers have increasingly exercised patronage in appointments to the House of Lords. However, it is simply not true to say that that practice continues unabated. For the first time, we have a Prime Minister who is determined to reduce his powers of patronage in appointments to the other place. He wants to give his powers to an independent appointments commission, so that it may make non-political appointments to the second Chamber.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield lamented that he was unable to cede similar powers when, as President of the Council of Ministers, he used the royal prerogative without any consultation with Parliament. It was an amusing debating point. Nevertheless, at the time my right hon. Friend did not feel sufficiently strongly to make an issue of the nature of those powers. His comments, 22 years later, make for interesting listening.
  The Bill is not the last word in reform. Some people see greater merit in a unicameral legislature that is strengthened by committees—which would operate constructively, like our Select Committees, rather than as the farce into which our Standing Committees too often descend. Such committees could scrutinise legislation far better than the House of Lords currently does.
  Some people advocate an elected second Chamber. The current problems in the American Congress and Senate demonstrate some of the pitfalls of such a system.
  The Bill will, at a stroke, remove the biggest single obstacle to change: hereditary peers. The Bill seeks only to accomplish that objective and will take us one more step along the historic path on which we embarked in May 1997. Modernisation of the House of Commons has started. We have legislated for elected bodies in Scotland and Wales and for elections in London. Now, we are dealing with modernisation of the House of Lords.
  774
  We are achieving a goal that has eluded Parliament for most of this century. If nothing more follows from the Bill—if it stands alone—we can be proud of giving our legislature a modern and fresh start for the new century.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: We support the Bill—which is hardly surprising, as we have been trying to get rid of the hereditary peers for 100 years. The Bill itself closely follows the Cook-Maclennan agreement, and is clearly only the first stage in a relatively speedy process of fundamental reform.
  At times, particularly yesterday, the debate on the Bill seemed like a rerun of the 1911 debate. Today, we have heard some new ideas, which have been quite interesting, especially when considering the source—former Prime Ministers—of some of them. Yesterday's debate was like the 1911 debate without the passion. We should remember that, in 1911, Asquith was denied a hearing by the Conservatives for about three quarters of an hour.
  Now, the argument is over. No one outside the diminished Conservative ranks, and not many within them, really believes that the hereditary principle is an acceptable way of choosing a legislature. However, I should say that, yesterday, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said that
  "the hereditary principle in itself is not something that we challenge."—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 620.]
  The statement is there on the record, although I think that it rather slipped out.
  The usual Conservative approach to the issue is not to defend the hereditary system but to temporise, to delay and to offer seductive arguments, to the effect that any partial change is unacceptable, because it must all be done at one go. Of course they hope that, with luck, that will never happen, because they have a majority in the current Lords to frustrate change. There would therefore never be a satisfactory scheme, so nothing would ever change.
  The Conservatives had 18 years in power, during which they could have reformed the system in their own way. They never lifted a finger to do so. There was a hint that they might do so, only once or twice, when Mrs. Thatcher suffered the occasional severe rebuff in the other place. Perhaps she woke up one morning and said, "Let's just abolish them"; but nothing ever happened. [Interruption.] That is what she used to do. When bits of the constitution annoyed her, such as the Greater London council, she was not against sweeping them away entirely. However, something stopped her doing so when it came to dealing with the Lords. [HON. MEMBERS: "Perhaps she needed somewhere to go."] Indeed. Perhaps she had a place lined up for herself.
  When another Government try to do something about it, every argument and delay is deployed. We have been discussing the issue for some time now. One historian records that, in the 1910 constitutional conference, the Conservatives
  "dangled all kinds of fantastic bargains before the indifferent noses of Asquith and Lloyd George"—
  including joint sittings on constitutional matters, but
  "the one thing they were not ready to sacrifice was the essentially Conservative nature of the Upper House."
  —and so it remains.

  775
  Then it occurred to me that there is a crucial difference between 1999 and 1911. In the 1911 debates, the Conservative peers and their relations wanted to die in the ditch for hereditary peerages. Ironically, Lord Cranborne's kinsman, Lord Hugh Cecil, led the jeers that drowned out Asquith. Now, however, the peers are offering compromise and the Conservative Leader and a few of his hon. Friends are enthusiastic about fighting in the last ditch.
  It is said that in 1911, when the Conservative Lord Lansdowne heard Lord Halsbury speak against the Bill, he
  "knew, as one sentence followed another, that he could no longer vouch for the sanity of his followers".
  Lord Cranborne must have felt rather similarly about the Leader of the Opposition during the fateful meeting at which he was told that he should never have offered the well-known compromise for the interim House.
  Several hereditary peers live in my constituency, which has quite a long feudal tradition. They really are a decent bunch. They are all landowners, and one is a very large landowner. In various ways, they make a valuable contribution to the life of the community. I have not noticed any of them pressing to prolong a system which adds a seat in the legislature to their inheritance. I do not think that any of them, particularly the new generation, see it as their role in life. If they did, they would probably prefer to seek democratic legitimacy by standing for election. The battle to keep the House of Lords as our second Chamber is now being fought not by hereditary peers, but by those within in the Conservative party who look back with nostalgia to a society long gone. It is the battle of the young fogeys.
  Let us not forget that the Bill creates only an interim House, whose days are necessarily numbered, and that will create future problems for the Government. When the commission and the Committee of both Houses have done their work and we are ready to put in place a new and more democratic second Chamber, 500 life peers will lose their entitlement to be legislators until their dying day and their right to the facilities and opportunities afforded by membership. Life peers have a higher average age, and are the most extensive users of the splendid facilities of the House. I fear that the Government may have a harder time convincing some of their well-established life peers, particularly those who have gone there after long service, of the merits of phase 2. Yet phase 2 is integral to the reform and we welcome the Government's commitment to it.
  Before I turn briefly to the phase 2 second Chamber, I have a couple of secondary questions that arise from the Bill. Are peerages as an honour to become obsolete, or will titles be granted in future? If so, will it be on a life or hereditary basis? Mrs. Thatcher had a rather strange habit of awarding hereditary peerages to people who had no male heirs. The last remnants of the creation of hereditary peerage were in her time and on that basis. Will peerages continue to be awarded as honours; and on what basis? I do not think that anyone has made a decision on that.
  Mr. Linton: Although the Bill says clearly that hereditary peers should lose only their right to sit and vote in the House of Lords and that it should not affect their status in any other way, once hereditary peers have lost their powers and privileges would it not be open to the
  776
  Government or anyone else to refer to them by their names rather than their titles, in the same way as any other citizen?
  Mr. Beith: Some of them prefer it. If, for the sake of argument, I am allowed to breach the rules of the House, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) prefers to be called Mr. Michael Ancram, although that is not, in terms of the peerage, his real name. No doubt others will follow suit, but that is not what we are discussing.
  We are trying to create an effective second Chamber and the Bill raises the question whether hereditary peers should be created in future. I certainly hope not, as honours should be awarded for what people do in their lifetime and not be conferred on successive generations. That also goes for the quaint practice of calling the children of life peers "honourable"—a perversity that dates from the 1960s.
  Consideration is being given to ways in which other denominations and major religious groups could complement the Church of England bishops in the interim House. I believe that the Church of Scotland and the English free Churches welcome the idea, but it requires a different approach because, emphatically and as a matter of belief, there is no equivalent to bishops in their systems. Leadership is exercised by ministers and lay people in a variety of offices. Some are annual offices rather than long-term positions. Episcopacy and a priestly caste are alien to their traditions. The Government should bear that in mind in considering the make-up of the interim House.
  The Government will also have to give some thought to the issue of Scottish representation in the interim House, bearing in mind that it was specifically provided for in the Treaty of Union and in subsequent legislation, including the Peerage Act 1963, which greatly widened Scottish representation in the second Chamber.
  I would assert two principles in respect of the phase 2 second Chamber. First, we wish to see a predominantly elected House. We see room for a procedure to allow some nominated Members so as to ensure the continued membership of people from walks of life that preclude involvement in party politics; but it needs to be a democratic Chamber.
  Secondly, its role should complement the role of the House of Commons: it should neither rival it nor replicate it. Its delaying capacity should effectively be limited and not be subjected to bypassing by the extended ping-pong that was illustrated by the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. The second Chamber should be able to force the House to think again, and not merely as a formality; but the wholly elected House, once it has fair elections, must prevail.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) suggested yesterday, the second Chamber should do things that the House cannot readily do or does not do very well. It could review certain public appointments, and fill more of the gap in the scrutiny of delegated legislation. It should have a role in representing the specific concerns of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom and their Parliaments and assemblies.
  On the other hand, the other place probably does not need to do some of the things that it does now. It is not necessarily logical to repeat ministerial statements in the

  777
  second Chamber. However, I was quite attracted by the suggestion of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), that from time to time the Prime Minister might answer questions in the second Chamber and that Ministers from this House should be able to take their legislation through a reformed second Chamber, replacing the requirement for Ministers to be appointed in another place.
  The issues will be considered in the commission and in the Joint Committee. If we were not committed to a speedy process, I would be anxious about the Bill progressing in its present form because it leaves the second Chamber in an unsatisfactory temporary state. However, even in those circumstances I would still, with a heavy heart, want my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the Bill because, at long last, it ends a totally indefensible feature of our constitution which has defied numerous previous attempts at reform. So let us get on with it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I call Mr. Marshall Hall.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I am delighted that you should have made that error, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it has never been made before.
  I begin by saying what a privilege and joy it is—it fills me with humility to speak in the same debate as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). Until he spoke, I had intended to begin by saying that I had never participated in a debate that had revealed so starkly the intellectual and political poverty of the Opposition. By that, of course I mean the present Opposition.
  This is a fine Bill. It is an historic and seminal Bill, which deserves—and will almost certainly receive—wholehearted support. However, I have one fundamental reservation about it. Its only substantive clause—clause 1—extends to 17 words. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, it is beautifully simple. However, beauty and simplicity can be improved on. My reservation about the Bill is that it is far too long. The single important clause reads:
  "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage."
  I should prefer a shorter Bill, which would read:
  "No one shall be a member of the House of Lords."
  If that is felt to be too succinct, I would be prepared to widen it so that it read:
  "No one shall be a member of the House of Lords or anything remotely like it."
  Hon. Members will understand that I wish to come out and reveal myself to be an unashamed, intractable, practising unicameralist. I suspect that when the second Great Reform Bill comes to be debated—the important Bill—the Government will discover that many others will come out and reveal themselves to be intractable and practising unicameralists.
  In a modern elective democracy based on constituency Members of Parliament of integrity and reasonable ability, there is no purpose in having a second Chamber, be it
  778
  elected, partly elected, appointed, partly appointed, anointed, semi-anointed or even driven in haphazard groups from the street to form the people's second House.
  As we enter the transitional phase that we are debating, I bleed for my Government and the difficulties that lie in store. The likely constitution of the new, interim, transitional House of Lords is a glorious mess, relying partly on patronage, partly on old patronage, partly on a new appointments commission of doubtful legitimacy and partly on a rump of self-selected peers—presumably those with nowhere better to go. Reform thereafter will be even more difficult, relying on a hitherto unappointed royal commission which will have to struggle with the myriad ways in which a second Chamber may be cobbled together and the associated powers that it may be allowed.
  Anyone who has made any study, however ephemeral, of royal commissions and their habits will see immediately that the terms of reference are mischievous and far too wide. There are only two. The first is to consider and make recommendations on the role and functions of a second Chamber. The second is to make recommendations on the method, or combination of methods, of composition required to constitute a second Chamber.
  We, the elected representatives of the people, are setting up a small royal commission composed of the great and the good. I have no faith in the great and the good in this country. This country's economic decline over the past 50 years can be laid entirely at the door of the great and the good. I say that with due deference to several hon. Members. The one thing that has not impeded this country's progress in the past half a century has been this Chamber and the Palace of Westminster. Yet we in this Chamber are deferring to a small and unelected commission of the great and the good. In their terms of reference, we are asking them to tell us what we want and saying that we do not know how the second Chamber will be elected or what it is going to do—we want their recommendations.
  I have little confidence in terms of reference that are so wide, because the ambit of the report will be so great that it will be too easy for any committee to refuse its recommendations. To reform this House and the Palace of Westminster, we do not require the expense of the members of a royal commission; we require a gang of bricklayers. They should be told as a matter of urgency to wall up the entrance on the other side of the Central Lobby. After they have applied themselves to the necessary amount of Pugin wallpaper, the job can be completed in a week. The same firm could then be employed to turn what used to be the second Chamber into a reclusive home for the elderly and infirm, no doubt looked after by supernurses.
  When that is done, we shall at long last be left to our own devices in this House. In particular, we shall be freed from the most pernicious aspect of the second Chamber—the power of patronage. We have no concern about dealing with the hereditary principle. It is an intellectual deficit on the part of the Conservatives that some of them continue to argue, at least by implication, for its retention. Patronage is the great evil that we must fight. The difficulty with the transitional provisions and any provisions that may follow is that at least some members of the second Chamber will be appointed by patronage, which will lie in the hands of the Prime Minister.

  779
  Here we have a double nepotism. Not only will some people be elevated to the upper House by the patronage of the Prime Minister; thereafter they may be elevated into government by the same patronage. That is an intolerable system which is long overdue for reform. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to address the issue, because the transitional provisions will do nothing to stop that double nepotism.
  The absent Leader of the Opposition is struggling to climb a mountain to get back to electoral respectability. Some of the few blows that he succeeds in landing in the House are his points about nepotism and patronage. The continual allegations about Tony's cronies are some of the few that cause Labour Members some consternation and periods of silence, as Conservative Members will have observed.
  The Leader of the Opposition has a point that he may probe. However, the great problem is whether he will promise that he would not employ such patronage. As Prime Minister, if there were an upper House with nominated members, would he turn his face against such patronage and refuse to appoint to the Government those who were not elected? If he said that, I suggest that he would earn public respect—the lack of which, hitherto, has been part of his problem.
  I am one of the few unicameralists to have absolutely and genuinely come out—probably the only one—and spoken in the debate. I listened with great respect to the speech of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells); it was rather less than totally full-blooded in its commitment to unicameralism. If I am wrong, I shall retract my statement immediately. One or two of us may come out in the debate, and I suspect that many more will come out in due course.
  It distresses me when I hear colleagues on both sides of the House deliver apologias for the continued existence of a second Chamber by saying that we need it as a check on an over-mighty Executive. We are the check on the Executive in this Chamber, and we need no help or sustenance from anybody else.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman thought that my adherence to unicameralism was not as full-hearted as his clearly is. The difference between us is simply that I do not believe—as I said yesterday—that any proposal that comes from the Committee, which he so accurately described, meaning that power is transferred from this Chamber to whatever ersatz assembly we establish, either temporarily or permanently, will be agreed by this elected House of Commons: and that is quite right. Unicameralism is therefore the only solution.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The chances of this House passing, or the Committee recommending, a unicameralist solution to the problem is small indeed. That is one of the reasons I have not tabled an amendment to the Bill—because I am not given to exercises in futility.
  On the other hand, that does not stop me saying that there is manifestly only one answer to the problems with which we are grappling. What distresses me when I hear Members producing apologias for the existence of the second Chamber is that they are, in fact, providing an alibi for our own inadequacies. That concerns me more than anything else. Let us have done with it, once and for all.
  780
  When we no longer have that alibi, hon. Members who, at this stage, are content—because the second Chamber exists—to adhere to the Whip in circumstances where they do not agree and where they may wish to be a check on the Executive may, in due course, change. In addition, we will need to review the Select Committee and other Committee procedures to provide the wherewithal for this House, and this House alone, to provide the check on the Executive—which is, in reality, the substance of the debate.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: It is always interesting to hear a political party that has discovered Thomas Paine two centuries after his advent. From the House of Lords to here, the repetition of the notion, that there is nothing so absurd as the principle that the Poet Laureate should be hereditary, manifestly demonstrates the absurdity of the hereditary principle.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Why?
  Mr. Shepherd: Because—I say to the hon. Gentleman, who spoke dismally for most of his speech—it does not follow that one has a talent that is inherited.
  Many of us on both sides of the House have never thought that the hereditary principle should inform our constitutional arrangements in the latter part of the 20th century, and in a long-established democratic nation. The Government's attack on the upper House has been focused on the question of legitimacy. That is why I will profoundly disagree later in my speech with the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) about a unicameral system of government.
  The Government, rightly, have challenged legitimacy. Why should it be that, because I am the inheritor of my father's name, I should be a legislator in a democracy? However, that question can be asked of an appointee. We did away with the aldermanic principle in local government. Why should one be a legislator by appointment? That is profoundly anti-democratic in itself.
  What underlies the concern of my right hon. and hon. Friends is the true incoherence with which the Government—with neither history nor an understanding of where we have come from—tackle important constitutional change. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) thinks that, after he has done his constitutional mis-works, the United Kingdom may require glue which the House of Lords may provide in an—unstated—reformed state. Many of us do not like taking a step in the dark, for the very reasons that have been adduced by the Government. One stage may not lead to another, and an unknown second step may be perilous to us.
  The right hon. Member for Hartlepool, in a twist of fortune, may appreciate that he also made a step in the dark that led him astray. However, he still talks as if he were running Government Front Benchers and trying to hold them on-message. The act of hubris in his speech was bemusing to someone who has served as a Back-Bench Member for 20 years.
  The American revolution was not founded in an abyss. Thomas Paine's great language—which fired that part of a discovered continent, and helped inform the French revolution—was a declaration of principles. When the

  781
  revolution was successful, those principles were filled in by the building of a constitution. The American constitution—which was spoken of disparagingly by some—has stood the test of two centuries. It has protected and enhanced the freedoms and liberties of the American people, and it has protected them against revolution.
  The British constitution has done likewise. For three centuries, the British constitution has provided a focus, and it came about because of the impetus from here—this House of Commons. When the Government talk about the primacy of the House of Commons, I have an historic and instinctive sympathy for the argument. However, that primacy has long since gone in the 20 years that I have been here.
  Is this an independent Chamber? No, of course not. It is the creature of the person who leads the party with a majority. This is not a partisan point. The frustration of Labour Members who served in previous Parliaments was palpable in terms of what they thought were unpalatable and over-reaching acts. There is no defence for the people of this country against a parliamentary majority, and that is the danger that has informed our constitution.
  Mr. Sheldon: Government Back Benchers were always the safeguard. If the Government do not have an overwhelming majority—such as there is now—sufficient Government Back Benchers can bring about change.
  Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman will know that that is my sentiment and that I have tried to honour that principle, as have others in this House. However, in the age of patronage and promotion, one sees press reports that state that the only value of a Member of Parliament is if he or she is a rising star. It is assumed that the only purpose of being a Member of Parliament is to influence or to become a member of the Administration; hence some of the frustration of those in opposition.
  I hold the setting aside of the disciplines of party to be the ideal; those disciplines have killed with patronage this Chamber's effectiveness in safeguarding the liberties of our citizens. The Law Lords recognise that fact and judicial review has become an important method of trying to protect the citizen. We have invoked the European Court of Human Rights as part of our domestic law, because of our own failures; time and time again, the argument could be won, but the vote was lost.
  We no longer protect freedoms and liberties. It used to be a central argument of constitutional reform or the building of constitutions that one has checks and balances, back and forth. Montesquieu analysed the English constitution. We should use the phrase "English constitution" more, because the glory of this island flowered from an English constitutional settlement over many centuries. The island was incorporated, but the House no longer represents its elements. I have seen Conservative Governments, with no majority in Scotland, voting against the intent of Scottish Members and not even listening to their own Back Benchers on Scottish law reform. When that happened, we were no longer representative.
  The Prime Minister controls the House, which is effectively his poodle. The outside world recognises that. That is why we have fallen in the world's esteem.
  782
  That has happened not because Ministers take Concorde, but because we no longer act as a proper brake or check on the ambitions of the Executive. Whenever one says anything about Government policy, it becomes manifest that the whole mechanism is geared to defend it even when it is unsustainable.
  As an instance, I take the emergency terrorism provisions for which the House was summoned in the summer. The Irish Supreme Court has said that the legislation is inoperable and the Royal Ulster Constabulary has said that it cannot be used. More consultations are being held and it is very inconvenient. The legislation became imperial management of a presidential nature.
  Mr. Dalyell: Pre-Mrs. Thatcher, it was not always so. For example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is right: Harold Wilson could not accede to the pressing request of the President of the United States, Lyndon Johnson, to send what he called "a battalion of bagpipers" to Vietnam, because Michael Foot, Jack Mendelson and many others prevented him from doing so. When there was a normal majority—a thin one—in 1978–79, devolution was a rather different story.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I am not too keen on the thin majority point.
  I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) says, including about the terrorism provisions. Does he agree that, if one wants to inject some backbone into Government, and possibly Opposition, Back Benchers, so that they can indulge in the luxury of independent or dangerous thought, the existence of a second Chamber is precisely the way of inhibiting that, because that so-called countervailing force or check is in reality no check at all and merely gives the Government yet another way of controlling their Back Benchers?
  Mr. Shepherd: I started by saying that the Government attacked the House of Lords by questioning its legitimacy. Clearly, if part of the legislature has no legitimacy, it ceases to be a proper check; it has no authority. Every time the second Chamber does something of which the Government disapprove, the charge is made that it is not legitimate.
  We have an opportunity to reform the second Chamber and make it a representative body. It is unthinkable to me that, in a democracy, those who legislate do not stand accountable to the electorate—the people of this island—in determining whether a law is valid. I listened with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). It is funny how, as one grows older, the spirit grows younger. I understand from some of his colleagues when he was Prime Minister that the world was not entirely as he may have suggested, but he rightly described how we were beginning to see the prospect of this country having checks and balances, and a constitution in balance. Labour's reforms have shown us how uniquely vulnerable we are to huge upheaval, whereby we end up with the master of spin, now out of the Government, saying that maybe we need glue.
  I am deeply concerned, as many hon. Members have been. I believe that the second Chamber should be elected and that its powers should be enhanced to provide the

  783
  necessary checks and balances. The former Attorney-General, no less, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), said that election to the House of Lords should be staged, and I agree. I believe that the Government should have to fight for their business. I have been concerned by the growing assertion by Prime Ministers and acceptance by Back Benchers that Governments have a right to their business. It is for Parliament to adjudicate on whether the business proposed by the Government has sufficient merit, but the process is no longer seen in those terms.
  Considering the great opportunity presented by the Bill, even in the absence of a thought from the Government, the very conditions laid down in the White Paper are grotesquely inappropriate. The primacy of the House once lay in the fact that we were more representative and that we could exercise power as it ebbed away from the landowners. Our people had to pay the money that made Government work. There was a real purpose to us.
  Now, as we increasingly become baying party hacks, on-message, with bleepers, trying to juggle the minds and imaginations of a free people, we are merely prattling along; we are an empty Chamber, echoing to who knows what. This nation's vitality was in discourse. There is much talk about what can happen if we sit in semicircles or horseshoes and connect—I use language familiar to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey)—and find a new, purposeful way forward. All we want is a settlement and a coherent constitutional reform.
  The Government specifically charge that we are not interested in constitutional reform; but I am, and I know that many of my colleagues are. I am slightly ashamed that, almost two years into a Labour Government, with the clear objective of a half-baked, half-stage reform—
  Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shepherd: Excuse me.
  Many of us have a genuine concern that reform could be frozen at the point that we have reached; then we will have a House of total patronage. I took encouragement from my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup when he commented on the qualities of some of the appointees. There is nothing distinguished about some of them, although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) suddenly recalled, there were merits in some of his appointees, and they attended debates.
  The Labour Government know full well that half their glitterati, who have never contributed anything to public debate in terms of the details of legislation, do not turn up. What is their purpose? It is a blatant exercise in what most excites a sinking nation at the end of the 20th century: patronage. People want to be a lord, a knight, a something. In the historical context that amounted to something, but today it is but a bauble. In America, people build hospitals or museums to get the fame and recognition that we confer by patronage.
  I did not mean to take so long, but I wanted to say that I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to the extent that the proposals should be thought through. However, I also tell them that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The royal commission
  784
  has to report by the end of this year and it is already 2 February. The Bill will go through and my party has no identified, coherent, alternative strategy for the building of a constitution. We have to have one, and quickly. It is not as if we have not had time to reflect on the matter. This is, alas, no longer the age of pamphlets, but the arguments have been laid out. How do we ensure checks and balances? How do we rein in the Executive?
  I agree that individuals can make a difference, but only for the lifetime of their stay in this House. We must broaden the inclusion of elected representatives. It is banal and absurd to suggest that people from the Clapham omnibus should be sent to the House of Lords—a title that must be replaced by, perhaps, the senate or the second Chamber—at random, as if in some revival of Athenian democracy. We might as well make it a lottery prize and say to people, "Well, you didn't win £8 million, but you are now a Member of the House of Lords." That sums up the crassness of this Government's approach to deep matters which involve the protection of our liberty and freedoms. We must be a body that expresses and, therefore, represents. Most of us are not.
  7.12 pm
  Angela Smith: I have spent many happy hours yesterday and today listening to the debate on the Bill, and I have been surprised that so little of it has focused on what the Bill is about. That arises from the confusion among the Opposition about whether they are for or against the Bill. In 1997, the Conservative party handbook for the general election made its position clear by stating that it was important to defend the hereditary principle on its own merits, but only one Conservative Member has had the courage to do so. I wonder what else the handbook contained that Conservatives would no longer defend.
  The Conservatives have missed the point of the debate. Whatever follows—and we all have a great interest in that—it is right that we get rid of the voting rights of hereditary peers, because they are wrong in principle. Only those who undervalue the role of legislators, and the scrutiny of the work of the Government and the House could argue that accident of birth is qualification enough for a seat in the second Chamber. For some, the issue is that there is an inbuilt Tory majority through the hereditary peers. As wrong as that is, the arguments for reform are valid whether the inbuilt majority is Tory or Labour.
  It is a great shame that, with a golden opportunity before us to reform the constitution and modernise this place, we have to drag the Opposition kicking and screaming into the 21st century. However, perhaps we should not be surprised. On more than one occasion in the past, we have had to drag the Conservative party forward, kicking and screaming. I hesitate to go back as far as the repeal of the corn laws in case a Conservative Member contradicts me and says that they should not have been repealed, but every stage met with opposition from the Conservatives then. Even when Attlee marginally reduced the powers of the House of Lords in 1947, he was heckled by Churchill, then a Conservative, who described the Government's action—overplaying his hand somewhat—as an "act of socialist aggression".
  Perhaps even sadder was the House's response to the early attempts to gain votes for women. At the beginning of this century, Members of Parliament used

  785
  parliamentary tactics and every single trick in the book to prevent women from getting the vote. Few people would now oppose the women's suffrage Bill of 1904, but it failed. It was second on the Order Paper to a non-controversial private Member's Bill, which proposed that carts travelling on public roads at night should carry a light behind as well as a light in front. Few Members disagreed with the Bill, but it was debated for hour upon hour to frustrate change and modernisation of the constitution.
  Mr. Tyrie: Is the hon. Lady aware that the extension of the franchise to women was accomplished in two stages, with the first stage introduced by a coalition Government including the Conservatives and the second—the reduction of the voting age from 30 to 21—by a Conservative Government?
  Angela Smith: I am aware of that, but the reform could have been achieved much earlier had Conservative Governments supported it. Contemporary accounts mention silly stories and foolish jokes being told during the debate, while other Members joined in the laughter. Such behaviour, then as now, does nothing to raise this House in the public's esteem. Members probably felt safer ridiculing such measures in those days because there were no cameras in the House to record their antics. That is another progressive measure that was opposed by Conservatives.
  A former Member of the House, Charles Bradlaugh, was unable to take his seat until he had the right to affirm the oath. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) mentioned yesterday that he was here because the law was changed to remove his hereditary title. There was opposition to the reduction of the voting age from 21 to 18. I raise those examples to show that the modernisation of Parliament has always been slow, tortuous and difficult.
  Mr. John Hayes: My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) corrected the hon. Lady on her point about suffrage, and I wish to remind her that virtually every reform of the 19th century was opposed by the Liberal party and pioneered by the Conservative party. I think specifically of prison reform, slum clearance, Disraeli's reform Acts and a range of social and economic legislation. The hon. Lady should take a more thorough look at history before she makes such claims.
  Angela Smith: I make no claims for the Liberals, but I was talking about constitutional reform. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's correction, as he puts it, because history shows that Conservatives took a long time to accept reform. Many Opposition Members have already accepted that the hereditary principle is wrong, having supported it at the time of the last election. Reforms such as working class men getting the vote, women getting the vote and secret ballots all had to be fought for, but nobody today would argue that we should go back and that those reforms were not essential. It is incredible today to think that anybody argued against those measures, and people in the future will be incredulous that Members of the House of Commons were prepared to support the right of hereditary peers to take part in our legislature.
  786
  Those of us who passionately believe in the reform of the second Chamber have waited a long time for the Bill. I must correct some of the comments made by Opposition Members. We are not seeking an easy life. There is a role for a second Chamber in a modern democracy, but to be effective it must have legitimacy. There is no legitimacy in using an accident of birth to claim privilege. The current qualifications for membership of the upper House bring into question the authority and integrity of our entire parliamentary system. Last week, Lord Strathclyde said that their lordships have sought answers from Governments on
  "deep and detailed questions about Bills and policy".
  He is right to say that that is a good role for the second Chamber, but he claimed that their lordships did so
  "on behalf of the people of this country."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 1999; Vol. 596, c. 586.]
  He missed the point. He has no authority to ask for anything on behalf of the people of this country: he asks for himself.
  Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Lady agree that when the reform set out in the Bill has been achieved, and the hereditary peers have been removed, the life peers who remain will be in no better position to claim that legitimacy?
  Angela Smith: That point has been dealt with many times. The life peers in the transitional House will be there on their own merit, not on the merit of people from centuries ago.
  The Labour party has always had a somewhat uneasy relationship with the House of Lords. Many distinguished parliamentarians from the House of Commons have refused to take a seat in the Lords because of its undemocratic composition. In his autobiography, Fenner Brockway—whom many Labour Members recall with great affection—recalled his dilemma at being offered a seat in the House of Lords. He wondered whether it would compromise his principles: indeed, he seemed far more delighted that the local council named a block of flats after him than he was with his new title. He used to delight people with the story of how a friend wrote to him and addressed the envelope to The Lord Brockway, without adding the number of the house. The letter was returned with the words "No public house of that name in this street" written across the envelope.
  Yet if Fenner Brockway had not taken his seat in the House of Lords, we would have been deprived of the political contribution of an honest, radical, courageous and decent man. I make that point to emphasise that this Bill is essential, not because of any individual Members of the House of Lords, but because the debate is about the legitimacy of the upper Chamber.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Lady has given us a potted history of how the people have had to fight to increase democracy in this country. I accept that that is what happened, but will she say whether there would be any circumstances in which she would vote for a decrease in the power of the second Chamber to check the Executive? Would she support increasing the powers of a legitimate second Chamber to check the Executive?
  Angela Smith: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I shall wait until the royal commission has completed its report, as I want to give those questions as much detailed consideration and thought as we are giving the Bill.

  787
  I repeat: an accident of birth cannot give a person the right to participate in the law-making process in this country. When my father retires, I will not be taken on to make radiators at Ford, and nor should I be. I have no special privileges because of the random circumstances of my birth, and nor should anyone else.
  The House has a golden opportunity tonight to move forward into the future, or to look backwards. I hope that support will come from Conservative Members who, although they claim that they support getting rid of the hereditary principle, seem very reluctant to vote in favour of the Bill.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: Every so often in each Parliament a Bill comes along that tells us more about its promoters than about its provisions. This is just such a Bill.
  The Bill is sinister and deeply flawed. What the Government propose has to be stated again and again so that people may fully appreciate the constitutional monstrosity involved. The Government are expelling 60 per cent. of one House of Parliament without indicating how that portion is to be replaced: in other words, 40 per cent. of Members of Parliament as a whole—it is worth reminding ourselves that peers are Members of Parliament—are to be expelled.
  We have been given neither a clear idea of how those Members of Parliament will be replaced nor any binding commitment to come up with a specific plan for their replacement. At the very least, the expulsions should be stayed until the royal commission report—or the Joint Committee deliberations or the colour of the Government's proposals—clarify what will stand in their place.
  The composition of the House of Lords cannot be considered until there is agreement about what that House's functions and powers should be. That is as self-evident today as it was to those of us who wrestled with the issue in the committee appointed by the then Mrs. Thatcher, and chaired by the late Lord Home, more than 21 years ago.
  By introducing stage 1 without giving any indication about stage 2, the Government defy their own instruction to the royal commission. As Lady Jay made clear, the terms of reference ask the royal commission
  "to consider the role and functions of the second chamber as a preliminary to considering its composition."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 1999; Vol. 596, c. 585.]
  Those are the instructions to the royal commission, but the Bill defies them. We are asked to embrace stage 1, not as a subsequent or complementary task, but as a preliminary. Tonight, we set in train the process of expelling 60 per cent. of the Members of one House of Parliament, without a single firm proposal on how those Members will be replaced, or any agreement on the functions that a new and newly reformed House will perform. We are asked to begin that process on the basis of a deeply flawed Bill.
  The Bill has three major flaws, and one minor flaw.
  Mr. Linton: The hon. Gentleman said that what he calls the expulsion of the hereditary peers should be stayed at the very least. Does he or does he not support the retention of hereditary peers in the long term?
  Mr. Fallon: No. Once we have agreement on the functions and powers of a second Chamber, there can be
  788
  no case for retention of the hereditary principle or of the existing hereditary Members. If the hon. Gentleman reads the 1978 report of the Conservative review committee, he will see that position clearly set out.
  The first major flaw in the Bill is that it contains no commitment to introduce stage 2. There is no such commitment in the preamble, let alone in the text of the clauses. In the Parliament Act 1911, the preamble at least stated that, eventually, there would be an elected or modernised second Chamber. It is true that stage 2 of that process was delayed, but the commitment to that stage was always present in the 1911 Act. It remained as a constant reminder, like a knot in a handkerchief, and I urge Ministers to accept an amendment to make it clear that they are committed to introducing stage 2 in this Parliament.
  What the Minister of State said this afternoon worried me further. He said that the Government would simply be looking at proposals emerging from the royal commission, and at proposals that the Joint Committee had scrutinised. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary winds up the debate, he will reaffirm the Government's intention to proceed with stage 2 in this Parliament. That would give us some compensation at least for the expulsion that the Bill sets in train tonight. Otherwise, we will be left—as we were after 1911—with stage 1 on its own. There will be a hostage House up the Corridor, kept on permanent tenterhooks at the bidding of the Government, with no commitment to its replacement by stage 2.
  The second flaw in the Government's proposals for the temporary House is that there is no limit on that House's membership. It is true that there is no limit on the membership of the present House of Lords, but that has long been acknowledged as one of its weaknesses. The problem is less important because only 40 per cent. of that House is nominated. In the new, interim House established by the Bill, almost all Members will be nominated. It is therefore vital, as a constitutional safeguard, to have an upper limit on the patronage that the Prime Minister, through the appointments commission, will so freely dispense.
  We have not been told very much about the appointments commission. Who appoints it? Cronies, as Conservative Members have learnt, can appoint cronies—that is the essence of cronyism. The Bill should contain a constitutional safeguard against the Government flooding the interim, temporary House with cronies when they need to overcome a difficulty in getting legislation through.
  Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fallon: No, not at the moment.
  That limit could take a number of forms. It could be a numerical ceiling on the size of the upper House. Equally, it could be a limit on the number of new creations that can be made in any one year.
  The limit on the size of the temporary House is needed because of the third and most serious flaw—the failure to exclude the Bill from the operation of the Parliament Acts. The draftsmen of 1911 did not exclude the 1911 Act, which was assumed to be a piece of temporary legislation. There is no need to repeat that mistake now. The principle should be obvious: the new temporary House should have to consent to the reform of its own composition, just as we are required to consent to stage 2 and future

  789
  modernisation—otherwise, we shall have no check at all on the next stage of constitutional reform, which could be whipped through the House of Commons, then through the temporary House.
  If the Government accept some check under the Parliament Acts for the lifetime of a Parliament, it automatically follows that, having reformed the other chamber, they should accept a similar check on the composition of Parliament. If they are not prepared to accept that in the Bill, they have precious little faith in the composition of the temporary House that we are asked to license.
  Mr. Beith: It seems odd to criticise the temporary House because it is open to cronyism and will consist entirely of appointed members while simultaneously insisting that its assent is essential to any reform that would make it better.
  Mr. Fallon: The missing link is another flaw—the lack of a ceiling on the number of Members. Once that is put in place, there will at least be one check on the extent to which the temporary House could be flooded with additional creations.
  Dr. Ladyman: Does the hon. Gentleman feel no sense of shame when he talks about the Government flooding the House of Lords? The Government of whom he was a member were prepared to bus in 450 hereditary peers to enforce their will on the Maastricht treaty. When the Conservatives were in government, they could temporarily influence the composition of the other place whenever they wanted.
  Mr. Fallon: If the hon. Gentleman had studied the history of the upper House during the Conservative years, he might have been interested to note that the Parliament Acts procedure has been used only against a Conservative Government. In all the years since the revision of the Parliament Acts in 1947, the procedure has been triggered only once—against a Conservative Government during the passage of the War Crimes Act 1991. The hon. Gentleman would also have learnt that even Margaret Thatcher in her heyday was often checked and her provisions reversed by the upper House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) explained, Conservative Governments had to live with that, and even with being checked by Conservative peers. The Labour Government are not prepared to tolerate that for a moment.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fallon: I want to make some progress because some of my hon. Friends wish to speak.
  The Minister may be able to clear up a final minor flaw in the drafting of the Bill. This is one of the few occasions on which we are entitled to refer to the Prince of Wales. Clause 5 classifies the Prince of Wales as an hereditary peer, and he will therefore be barred from the upper House. Will the Minister clarify whether the Prince of Wales will therefore be entitled to stand for this House?
  The Prince of Wales might run from Highgrove, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), or from St. James's palace, which
  790
  is situated in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), so they, at least, ought to know whether the Prince would be able to stand for election to the House of Commons. He made occasional, but important, contributions to debates in the other place. If he is entitled to stand for the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, I cannot see why his talents should be denied to the House of Commons.
  Let us consider the principles behind the Bill. The Conservatives have always supported a strong House of Lords. Conservatives fought to protect the longer delaying powers contained in the Parliament Act 1911. We introduced life peers in 1958. Our Front-Bench team supported Dick Crossman's reforms to remove the hereditary peers 30 years ago. Margaret Thatcher and our present leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), have set up our own review committees to consider how to strengthen the House of Lords.
  Mr. Hope: It is clear that there is some support on the Conservative Benches for the abolition of the hereditary principle. In that case, why must the hereditary peers play any role in determining the make-up of the second Chamber?
  Mr. Fallon: The hereditary peers are being invited by the Prime Minister to play a part in determining the future of the second Chamber and its continuity with the existing chamber. The Prime Minister cooked up that deal, so the hon. Gentleman should address his question to his own Government.
  We support a strong House of Lords, but it is becoming ever clearer that Labour wants a weaker House. We have at least heard the honesty of the unicameralist position set out so clearly by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). True socialists have always been single-chamber democrats. They have always trumpeted the doctrine of the mandate. Once elected, they say, a Government can do anything in the name of the popular will. That is how they define democracy—unlimited government.
  We, on the contrary, have always accepted that the will of the 51 per cent. cannot be absolute, as that would be the path to elective dictatorship. There must be limits to the force of the mandate. Why else would Governments seek a fresh mandate? John Stuart Mill famously wrote of how
  "A majority in a single assembly … easily becomes despotic and overweening".
  We intuitively accept that there must be limits in a democracy to the authority of a popular majority. As we reform the House of Lords, two issues are before the House: where those limits derive their authority from; and how we give them institutional expression.
  Some countries ascribe authority to old age or experience. In our country, we once ascribed authority to mediaeval offices—that is why the bishops sit in the House of Lords. Part of the answer may lie in tradition, although I would not claim that dukes, marquesses and earls are custodians of any living tradition. Another part of the answer lies in the common law, but that common law has been weakened by statute, and surrendered, neatly, to Europe.

  791
  These matters are difficult to elucidate, but the very survival of our second Chamber as a constitutional safeguard can be seen in the exemption from the Parliament Acts of any Bill to extend the life of Parliament. That concept implies the existence of some other source of authority in our society, above the ability simply to choose and to change a Government. We accept that there must be limits to the ability of the 51 per cent. to tyrannise the 49 per cent. Given that the monarch is now a figurehead, and given that the common law is subservient to statute or to continental law, it is only the existence of a strong second Chamber that can protect people against their Government.
  Labour Members and the Government want a weaker House of Lords. The White Paper clearly signals that fact. A key question that it poses for the royal commission is whether the functions of the present House of Lords are still necessary. It queries the interrogative function with some weasel words about whether the House of Lords should still have direct access to Ministers.
  Even the second Chamber's legislative function—the essence of a Chamber of Parliament—is questioned. The White Paper suggests that the second Chamber should no longer pass amendments that it can stick to but should offer what it coyly calls
  "recommendations for improvements to legislation".
  We will have a new stage in the passage of Bills called "Lords' suggestions". The House of Lords will not be able to play a proper legislative role and pass its own amendments to Bills. The Government come clean at the end of the White Paper—they can no longer disguise their intentions. On page 40, they say that there is a case for reducing the "theoretically available powers".
  The Government admit that there might be a case for reducing the delaying power and scrapping the ability of the Lords to propose amendments in lieu to House of Commons legislation. They even want to scrap the Lords' power to reject secondary legislation. That means that a Bill in this place—we have seen several of them in the past year and a half—that gives Ministers enormous powers regarding secondary legislation and orders that are steamrollered through this place cannot be checked because the House of Lords will not be able to exercise its traditional rights over secondary legislation. That is a Cromwellian law-making position.
  There we have it. This Bill is not about Parliament: it is about government. It is about making life easier for Ministers and their officials. It is about saving Ministers the chore of having to expose their policies to public scrutiny and about eliminating the need to justify their Bills and orders and submit them to the public gaze. The Bill is about making government easier, quicker and simpler. That was never more clearly stated, somewhat carelessly and shamelessly, than by Baroness Jay—who, by the way, has never troubled to seek election to any public office. In her statement on 20 January, she said that House of Lords reform is about "modernising government".
  There we have it: in a single sentence, we can see the present Government's contempt for the House. The Government equate Parliament with government—for Labour Members, the two are synonymous. That is why, in the past 18 months, this place has become mere lobby fodder. That is why, against the wishes of Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister comes here only once a week.
  792
  That is why our powers are being given away to new assemblies or foreign councils. That is why constitutional Bills are guillotined. The Government believe that Parliament is simply an extension of government.
  That should come as no surprise. Some 21 years ago, the Labour party opposed the second Chamber in its entirety. In 1977, the Barry constituency Labour party tabled a resolution, which read:
  "the House of Lords should be deprived of its present powers over primary and delegated legislation and should be renamed the Consultative Council of the Realm."
  That moderate resolution was swept away by the Labour party conference, which voted by 6,248,000 to 91,000— a majority of 6,157,000—for the
  "total abolition of the House of Lords and the reform of Parliament into an efficient, single-chamber, legislating body without delay."
  Labour wants a legislative machine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) reminded us eloquently, that is not the sole function of the House. We are here not simply to pass laws but to represent people's grievances. We are here not just to mobilise consent but to express opinions. We are here not just to facilitate the Executive but to protect the governed. This Bill, which vandalises the upper House and expels more than 700 members of our Parliament, signals not just a weaker second Chamber but marks yet another step in the deliberate enfeeblement of our own.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: Like all Labour Members, I welcome the Bill and its provisions for removing the hereditary peers. I played a role in the 1968–69 legislation, which I shall describe briefly while revealing some of the pitfalls that we must avoid.
  The last time the House was involved in debating the future of the House of Lords was 1969. I opposed that legislation, proposed by a Labour Government, because it involved a scheme, planned with the collusion of the two Front Benches, that would have provided an aldermanic bench. Back Benchers on both sides opposed the measure. Hon. Members may not recall that aldermen held an historic position in local government. Once a councillor was elected to the bench, he stayed there for life. He was influential and respected, with no elections to fight—it was an envied position.
  The scheme devised by Dick Crossman was of that type. It was designed to lead eventually to paid peers enjoying power without the troublesome task of fighting elections. It was about power with security, and, understandably, it did not enjoy the enthusiastic support of Back Benchers on either side. My role in that process was to realise at the outset that the guillotine could not be applied to the Bill. While others were playing parliamentary games, I saw that it could be defeated. After 14 days and 14 nights, including morning sittings, the Bill was finally dropped.
  The case that is always made in support of the second Chamber concerns its role in revising legislation. However, as Professor Griffiths—the great expert on constitutional matters—pointed out long ago, and as page 36 of the White Paper confirms, Lords amendments are more often than not Government amendments. The Lords' role in this process, although useful, may be easily overstated. In fact, the Select Committees could undertake part of that work—and there has been a move in that

  793
  direction. Nowadays, Select Committees are more powerful and membership of them is much sought after, which makes it easy to transfer that part of Parliament's work to them.
  In the present debate, many hon. Members have expressed the wish to see the House of Lords become more independent of the Executive. That has been a common theme throughout. Some hon. Members have looked to the Lords to redress the weakness of the House of Commons in facing the Executive. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) made that point: he said that the weakness of the House of Commons in facing the Executive could be remedied by improving the standing of the House of Lords.
  The weakness of this place has increased over the past 20 years. The failure to halt the poll tax, and rail privatisation—which was called by the great Conservative Member of Parliament, the late Robert Adley, a "poll tax on wheels"—was not the fault of the House of Lords: the responsibility lay with us. We were the pusillanimous House of Commons. We do not need more powers; we have enough already. The trouble is that we have not used those powers when it was necessary to do so.
  I have thought that the weakness of the House of Commons in the past 20 years—first with Margaret Thatcher and now with a 417-seat majority party, which produces its own problems—has been an aberration. We can deal with many of the changes that are called for so long as we have the resolve to do so. If the resolve is there, the aberration ends.
  The measure before us is limited—and I support it fully. In yesterday's debate, most hon. Members agreed that the hereditary peers had to go. The amendment that is yet to come will provide for the 91 hereditaries to remain for the first phase. The royal commission is to produce its conclusions by the end of this year, in nine months' time. I wish it well.
  Some years ago, the Royal Institute of Public Administration held a one-day seminar for those who had been members of royal commissions. I had been involved in one on civil service reform and so was invited to attend. All those attending that large seminar felt some disillusionment; some even expressed anger at the fact that their work had been used not to bring about change. In some cases, they felt their work had been ignored; in others, that there had been lengthy delay. In the case of civil service reform, the surprise of others was a surprise to me—I had expected what happened in that respect. It took 17 years and a Conservative Government for the civil service reform that I had wanted to be achieved. There had been 1,400 departmental committees within the civil service, but a complete end to that nonsense was not brought about for 17 years. Let us not misunderstand the likely speed of reform in this country. Although 17 years' delay is a serious matter, the lesson of that seminar is that the majority of reports are not implemented and that none is implemented speedily.
  The royal commission on the House of Lords has to consider an endless variety of alternative systems. In the debate so far, we have heard many suggestions: the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggested a House of Lords comprising 87 senators; a unicameral solution was proposed by the hon. Member
  794
  for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews); a House of experts was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris); and there have been many other suggestions. There are as many solutions as there are Members of Parliament—many and diverse are the schemes that can be proposed.
  Those schemes are not the only considerations that the royal commission has to survey: it will have to consider the consequences of devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as our relationship to Europe and other constitutional changes. The commission has to digest all that, but it cannot know how those matters will turn out in practice for some time yet, and what form they eventually assume has to be an integral part of the commission's consultations.
  After that hurdle has been cleared, there is to be the Joint Committee of both Houses. How long will that take? Then, there is the passage of a further Bill from this House to be negotiated. We must remember that, if that measure is taken in the next Parliament, there will be new Members of Parliament who do not have our experience and background and who will have to learn what arguments were made in the preceding Parliament. The result of all that is that one does not need to be a pessimist to believe that there might be some delay before the second stage takes place.
  My fear is that the first stage will be the only stage. There is a case for that, but it is nothing like the case that we want to be made. However, there is limited appetite for constitutional reform. After the proposals for devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and changes to the European Parliament elections, we see that House of Lords reform can hold only limited interest once we have passed from general observations to detailed examination of legislation. That is where the problem arises. Broad statements of principle can achieve some sort of consensus; it is the detail that will split asunder not only parties, but even individuals who find it hard to find agreement among themselves on central matters, so complex are the possibilities.
  We must remember that Lord Cranborne did not act to accept the retention of 91 hereditary peers and so undertake what many considered to be a treacherous act in order to buy two or three years of continuation; he realised that there was a possibility that the arrangement would last in perpetuity—or at least for his lifetime. That is why he did what he did and subverted the Conservative Opposition—his eye was not on the short term, but on the possibility that stage 1 could be the only stage. That is the view of one who has some considerable knowledge and understanding of the position. In the light of all that, we need to consider more carefully than we have done throughout this debate what happens in phase 1. We are currently dealing with phase 1, which might last for a long time, so let us see what we can do to get it right.
  In phase 1, 91 hereditary peers are to remain, bolstered by the creation of new peers who would make the House of Lords somewhat, albeit not a great deal, more representative of the electorate than it is at present. There would then be an increase, not only in its legitimacy, but in its perceived legitimacy; therefore, it is unlikely that the interim Lords would be quite as restrained as the unreconstructed House. In other words, the Lords would be likely to throw their weight around a little more, and

  795
  certainly no less, than they do at present. The increase in legitimacy could lead to an increased use of the powers currently available to the Lords.
  If the Lords in the transitional House really wanted to get their way on a specific issue, they would not necessarily be bound by any convention—Salisbury or otherwise—that was acceptable in a wholly unjustifiable House. The current Lords are constrained because they realise that it is illegitimate to use the powers they have, but once they decide that their legitimacy is that little bit greater, they are likely to use those powers far more frequently in future than they have in the past. They might go even further: it might already have occurred to them that they could filibuster on controversial Bills so as to get their way. That would be even easier if there were some public support for the stance that they adopted.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I can see that the right hon. Gentleman is nearing the end of his speech. I am following his argument closely and wonder whether he has concluded that he would prefer the total abolition of the second Chamber.
  Mr. Sheldon: The main reason for keeping the other Chamber is the quinquennial Act. Under that Act, Parliament sits for five years and this House—this House alone, were the House of Lords to be abolished—can overturn that Act at a throw, if it so desires. There has to be some method of providing for that eventuality. As far as the principle of abolition is concerned, if the House of Commons behaved as a proper House of Commons and acted where it thought fit, the need for that second Chamber would be greatly reduced.
  Mr. Benn: I have followed my right hon. Friend's argument and agree with it. However, he spoke about the dangers of new-found legitimacy in the transitional House of Lords: would he go so far as to argue, as I would, that the one point where the Lords are likely use that legitimacy is to frustrate the second stage, for if the second stage were to be at all radical, they would be committing suicide by accepting it? With their new-found legitimacy, would they not frustrate the second stage to save life peers, the remaining hereditary peers and everyone else in that Chamber?
  Mr. Sheldon: In my idle moments, I have pictured some of the matters on which the transitional House of Lords might use its powers, and the one that my right hon. Friend suggests is undoubtedly one that has occurred to me. It would be easier for the Lords to use those powers on the not infrequent occasions where there was some support for their position.
  Mr. David Winnick: My right hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way. It is true that, in stage 1 when the hereditary Lords—other than the 91 remaining—have gone, the Lords might have a feeling of greater legitimacy, but surely, if stage 2 were to produce an entirely directly elected House, such action to frustrate it would be a direct challenge to the House of Commons?
  Mr. Sheldon: There is no doubt about that, but I am not currently concerned with stage 2. Lord Cranborne might yet see his dream come true, and that is what frightens me.
  796
  Once we start to alter the balance of the two Houses, we must not think that the long-standing conventions will continue to apply. Once change begins, we cannot know the use to which such reform will be put. What we can be sure of is that, even without changes to the Lords' powers, far greater use will be made of them. In addition, the 91 hereditaries might come into their own. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, in answer to me, that the powers would remain unaltered, she did so on the basis that stage 1 would last for only a limited time. The longer stage 1 remains, the more problems will be caused to this Parliament and the next. That has to be dealt with during the Committee stage of the Bill before us.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, I remind the House that time is getting on and many hon. Members have been in the Chamber all day yesterday and all day today. It is only fair to point out that, if speeches are shorter, some of those hon. Members will be called.
  8 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and I once travelled together to China. He will remember the Yeats poem "Lapis Lazuli":

  "Two Chinamen, behind them a third …

  Above them flies a long-legged bird

  The symbol of longevity".

  The right hon. Gentleman and I are not young, and it is a happy conceit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you should have yoked me with him in this debate.
  The debate yesterday, almost all of which I attended, was perfectly relevant to the topic and therefore worthy of it. However, the response of the House to the Government's intentions could have risen higher and been more worthy of the great history of the other place if the Government had not been so preoccupied to descry it and so little to praise it.
  I do not blame the Government for using statistics to make their points, although, in his account of the popular vote for the two major parties at the previous general election, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) was more accurate in the last Back-Bench speech made for the Government last night in column 684 of yesterday's Hansard than was the Leader of the House in the first Front-Bench speech in column 613. I appreciate that I myself am more literate than numerate, but I can plead to having done advanced applied statistics at postgraduate level at Harvard, so my criticism of the Government for a high concentration on the numerical and a compensating aversion to the verbal is not the product of statistical unfamiliarity but due to a preference of taste.
  Of course I understand why the Government have preferred the statistical route, and I am not gainsaying the particular arguments that they sustain, other than referring to the curious inaccuracy of the Leader of the House. Nor am I criticising the Government for wishing to reverse what they see as a perceived party political disadvantage. I could not blame any Government, let alone one so sensitive to party political advantage as this one, for wanting to redress an honest disadvantage under which they felt they were suffering. I am only sorry that they

  797
  should have felt it necessary to overdo the immediate arguments against the hereditary peers to justify their lack of preparedness for comprehensive reform.
  The Brookes are a smallish family—they run nowadays to more than 5,000 individuals worldwide but fewer than 10,000—but they spread into eight or 10 county branches in this kingdom. All the branches have a badger as their crest on the grounds that brock equals brooke, and the Gaelic for badger is broc. I have found a badger as far back as 1558 on a tomb in a church in Shropshire, while in Colebrooke in County Fermanagh, in a church of which it has been accurately remarked that most churches are dedicated to the glory of God but Colebrooke is dedicated to the Brookes, there are 18. Despite that longevity, my own county branch, which is in County Cavan via Cheshire, has never produced an hereditary peer under our name, although Holbein's drawing of Brooke Lord Cobham has a distinct look of my father.
  I remark in parentheses, and as a declaration of interest, that the County Fermanagh branch in the next-door county produced in the last war Lord Alanbrooke and Lord Brookeborough, whose banners as knights of the garter hang from the beams of Colebrooke church and whose hereditary heirs still sit in the other House. My noble late father was a life peer and, at 91, my noble mother still is a life peer.
  In a certain personal respect, I speak for my parents, who served directly in the other place for 36 years between them, which, by coincidence, was precisely the same number of years that they served between them on the old Hampstead borough council. I shall draw on that coincidence in a moment, but, before that, I want to record with pride that, in seven centuries of our parliamentary history, my parents were the first married couple to sit simultaneously on the Front Bench of either House, an achievement that anticipated by a single year the same one in this House when it was accomplished by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and Dr. John Dunwoody in the then Government.
  The coincidence to which I referred is that both the bodies of which my parents were members for 36 years—Hampstead borough council and the House of Lords—have been the subject of drastic reform. The merger of Hampstead borough council with St. Pancras and Holborn into Camden chronologically followed the Herbert commission, which my late father established in the late 1950s and which in due course gave rise to the subsuming of the London county council into the Greater London council in 1965. It was, in short, the measured product of long deliberation and prudent preparation and in that respect wholly worthy of this great city.
  The reform of the House of Lords—an institution at least 10 times older than the LCC and the old London boroughs when they were reformed—is being passed at a breakneck and seemingly unpremeditated pace. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) modestly took the credit for the royal commission, but the credit for that happening at all belongs to her Majesty's loyal Opposition for their campaign against the haphazard and ramshackle way in which the Government are handling the reform. Because they took no thought for the morrow, the Government now have to introduce the reform much faster than would have been necessary if there had been greater forethought—a charge that can be laid at the door
  798
  of their whole constitutional project. As I remarked at an earlier stage, if you do not know where you are trying to get to, any road will get you there. After more than seven centuries, that is not worthy of this Parliament.
  The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) referred to bricklayers. I have a criticism of the royal commission other than that it has an excessively short life due to the Government's unthinking folly. I served in the Whips Office and the Cabinet with my noble Friend Lord Wakeham. He has a considerable reputation as a fixer in the eyes of political journalists and, although historians will determine its eventual validity, the profession of fixer owes more to the role of a plumber than to that of an architect. Lord Wakeham's principal credential for the chairmanship seems to be that he belongs to the right union. The future House of Lords is in more than a little need of architecture, and in that I am saying more brutally what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said gently.
  The Government may justify their acquiescence in the Weatherill amendment on grounds of pragmatism, but it owes nothing to principle. The House of Lords has a great national past. In 1975, the Brussels Commission confessed that, for the first time, it had been outwitted, defeated and perplexed by a delegation from a national legislature. That was a scientific delegation consisting of Lord Ashby, Lord Hinton and Lord Zuckerman. When representatives of the Commission rang No. 10 the following day, they asked, "Why are you proposing to abolish the House of Lords?" Those were life peers, but the late Launcelot Fleming, who was successively Bishops of Portsmouth and Norwich, was a scientist of sufficient distinction to serve on the royal commission on environmental pollution in his own right.
  On the hereditary side, the noble Earl Russell has all his father's genes and he is not alone among the hereditary peers. There are plenty of hereditary peers who sit as fellows of the Royal Society. Able Ministers from this place who have gone to the other place report that, when they speak in that massively knowledgeable forum, they experience the same nervousness that they experienced as small boys before going out to bat. Of course I acknowledge those who are lightly called working peers, but I see no significantly greater fault in a peer who sits in the other place because his ancestor gave money to Charles I than in one who sits there now because he has given money to the governing party of the day.
  I fear that I am more sure that the Bill is not worthy of the Government's constitutional project—perhaps it is—because of the arguments that were deployed yesterday on its behalf. I cannot blame Back Benchers, because a lead is always given by the Front Bench, and I regard it as a trivialisation of what we are about that the Leader of the House spent so much time discussing taxpayer support for the 62 hereditary peers who live abroad when this Government have not even tried to answer the West Lothian question, the fault line of which still lies beneath their constitutional structures.
  I am no great believer in focus groups, because I recall Dean Acheson's account in his great post-war book about a wartime episode when Cordell Hull said to President Roosevelt:
  "Mr. President, this is not one of those occasions when we have enough time for you to wait while you learn where we want to be led."

  799
  It was clear from Labour Members' speeches yesterday that they have gone into the highways and byways of their constituencies—either spontaneously or under bleeper control—to verify opinion on the House of Lords. I cite the speeches of the hon Members for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) and for Gillingham. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) referred to his constituents. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) more spaciously told us what people wanted.
  Although I am personally glad that the Labour Members are so close to their constituents, I have a different impression. It is contained in a wartime cartoon by Pont of Punch, in a series called "The British Character", in which two or three solid rustics are sitting silently in a public bar where a German radio broadcast is reporting,
  "In England the people have been thrown into the wildest panic."
  Much has been made of the inactivity in the House of Lords in the 88 years since 1911. I attribute that inactivity, beyond peradventure, to Pont's picture of the public bar and the fact that, over the past nine decades, there has been no public pressure for reform.
  I offer the House two verses from the poem that G. K. Chesterton wrote after F. E. Smith had claimed that the Bill on Welsh disestablishment had shocked the conscience of every Christian community in Europe. It states:

  "Are they clinging to their crosses, F. E. Smith,

  Where the Breton boat-fleet tosses, are they Smith?

  Do they, fasting, trembling, breeding,

  Wait the news from this our city?

  Groaning 'That's the Second Reading!'

  Hissing 'There is still Committee!'

  If the voice of Cecil falters,

  If McKenna's point has pith,

  Do they tremble for their altars? Do they Smith?

  In the lands where Christians were, F. E. Smith,

  In the little lands laid bare, Smith, O Smith,

  Where the Turkish bands are busy

  And the Tory name is blessed

  Since they hailed the Cross of Dizzy

  On the banners from the West!

  Men don't think it half so hard if

  Islam burns their kin and kith,

  Since a curate lives in Cardiff saved by Smith."

  The same perception of people's attitude to the House of Lords applies.
  I do not resist the burial of the hereditary principle, but I insist that we do it decently, properly and honourably, and that we honour the most remarkable contribution made by hereditary peers to our constitution and our law making by the quality of whom we put in their place—more sensibly than the Government have so far started to do.
  Professor Cannadine ended his notable book on the decline and fall of the British aristocracy with Lord Peter Wimsey's self-composed epitaph:
  "Here lies an anachronism in the vague expectation of eternity".
  800
  I prefer, filially, to close my speech with another quotation of Lord Peter Wimsey:
  "I have a cursed hankering after certain musty old values."
  8.12 pm
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: This very important debate is about the basic issues of government, accountability and representation. Over the past two days, the Opposition have painted a picture of confusion and disarray. Numerous Opposition Members have told us that they reject the principle that the rights of heredity are superior to those of democratic accountability, yet, in addressing that issue, they have described the Bill using adjectives such as "sinister" and "vindictive". They have said that they want to hear what the detailed proposals for change might be, yet appear to reject the proposition that a royal commission should be—indeed, already is being—set up to consider such details.
  The Bill is part of a proposal that shows the Government's determination to deal very positively with an issue which, until now, has proved intractable. It is extremely important that we all recognise the momentous opportunities that the Bill, and the process that it begins, puts in front of us. We have the opportunity to look again at our constitution, give a voice to people who have been denied a democratic voice and the right to be listened to, and reconsider issues of accountability and the representation of interests and people who, for far too long, have been excluded.
  The issue of devolution in the United Kingdom and beyond has been mentioned by many hon. Members. I welcome devolution; it is about accountability, the need to give a focus to decisions that are often taken in a fragmented way, and identity. Those different aspects of devolution assume different importance in different parts of the United Kingdom. We are to have a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly, a Northern Ireland Assembly, a Greater London authority and a Council of the Isles.
  In England, with the formation of regional development agencies—we shall have, at long last, a focus for economic activity in the regions—and in regional chambers, we see at last an attempt to bring together, on an indirectly elected basis for the moment, a forum in which issues to do with social structure, the economy and the environment can be debated, and in which strategies can be addressed and delivered. In the House only yesterday, the Leader of the House confirmed that it is proposed to restore the Standing Committee on the Regions.
  We have therefore reached a position from which an elected base—even if only indirectly elected—could nominate members of a second Chamber, whatever we decide to call it. Regional chambers in England comprise elected representatives. They are appropriate bodies to nominate people for a reformed House of Lords. In that way, the voice of the regions would be heard, not just in the House of Commons, where it absolutely essential, but in a reformed second House. Such views could not only be heard but considered and acted on. That could be done in the context of the United Kingdom and, indeed, of Europe. We would no longer have to face the situation, which the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs described last week when referring to the fact that the promise of regional rail links with Europe had not been delivered, of the regions of England being "cheated".

  801
  Such a system would provide an opportunity to consider the impact of proposed legislation on regions. It would provide a forum in which to consider the impact of spending policies on the regions and of wider European issues and the way in which the regions should influence those wider European policies.
  Discussions in the reformed second Chamber would, of course, be only a part of the review of our constitution. There should be room, too, for the voice of the regions to be heard in this directly elected House of Commons. Indeed, I hope that, soon, regional chambers in England will be directly elected.
  The regions of England are at different stages of readiness to move forward. The north-west is particularly well prepared, having worked with the public, private and voluntary sectors over the past eight years, in the North West Regional Association and the North West Partnership—and now, the north-west assembly—to put together strategies for training, economic development, transport and the environment, and to work with Europe. Indeed, such strategies are being enacted.
  Mr. Graham Brady: I have been listening to the hon. Lady's speech with interest; she has obviously given considerably deeper thought to this matter than the Government appear to have done. I am intrigued by one aspect of her remarks. Why does she appear to hold the view that a second Chamber nominated by regional assemblies would better represent the interests of the regions than a directly elected second Chamber?
  Mrs. Ellman: The constitution of the second Chamber, its membership, role and functions will be the subject of consideration by the royal commission that is being set up. I believe that part of the revised second Chamber should comprise elected representation. It is vital that the voice of the English regions should be heard in that Chamber, and regional chambers or assemblies, which are indirectly elected, would be appropriate bodies to nominate such representatives.
  The proposition that I have advanced is a contribution to a major debate on which we are embarking. The Bill is of momentous importance. It begins to tackle an issue that has troubled so many people for so long, and it opens up new opportunities. I want to ensure that those will include an opportunity for the voice of the English regions to be heard and acted on. I hope that the royal commission will consider the proposal, and that the House will give it due consideration. I also hope that, when hon. Members speak about devolution, they will view it not as a weakness, but as a great strength for the United Kingdom and for every region of the country.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: We can all agree that the debate has been of a particularly high standard. The House is always at its best when our more senior Members take part and give us the benefit of their collective memory and collective wisdom.
  Although I was ready to attack the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) for starting her speech by somewhat misrepresenting the position of the
  802
  Conservative party, she made an important contribution to the debate, as she was willing to say how she thought a second Chamber could contribute towards the better governance of the United Kingdom. That is exactly the approach of the Conservative party.
  I should state at the outset that, whenever I have been asked whether I accepted the hereditary principle, I have replied that I would never be on the barricades trying to defend a principle that is clearly indefensible, but that we in this place must defend a second Chamber that works rather well. When we replace it, we must replace it with something better.
  I am, perhaps, fortunate to be in this place because of the hereditary principle—not because I have any claims on that basis, but because, in its great wisdom, my constituency has elected as two of its past four Members of Parliament a member of one of the hereditary families who, on the death of his father, has had to give up the seat. When Victor Montague moved from South Dorset, the seat was, admittedly, won by the Labour party.
  My predecessor as the Member for South Dorset, Robert Cranborne, decided to go early so that he could do other things—indeed, he told us that he had to look after his acres of roofs and earn some money to maintain them. I was fortunate to be selected when one of the future hereditary peers decided to move on, so I am grateful to have gained my seat in this place as a result of the hereditary principle.
  We must find ways of improving our second Chamber. Much that has been said this evening should be considered carefully by the royal commission. We have heard some excellent suggestions. It worries me, however, that the Prime Minister does not seem to want a political balance in the second Chamber, so that, when the Conservatives are in power, the Conservatives would have control in that Chamber, as would Labour when the Labour party was in power.
  It would be daft for us to make the second Chamber more democratic and thereby to create a constant coalition where the Liberal Democrats of the day could enter a coalition with whichever party was in opposition to block the Government's plans. The Prime Minister should consider that carefully. By increasing the democratic accountability of the House of Lords, we would automatically give it more power. That is the difficulty that we all face.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: It does not necessarily follow that, if the second Chamber were democratically elected, it would be in a position to challenge the primacy of the House of Commons. That all depends on the allocation of powers between the two Chambers.
  Mr. Bruce: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the Bill does not change the powers of the other place. It puts in place a Chamber that could go on and on. We must be cautious as we proceed. Many Labour Members object strongly to the House of Lords and are convinced that it is necessary to get rid of the hereditary principle. I hope to persuade them that there should be fundamental amendments to the Bill, or that it should be thrown out.
  The second Chamber is willing to give way to the primacy of the House of Commons because the Lords know that there is no democratic basis for them to say, "We know better." Nevertheless, in a typically British

  803
  way, the institution works. When we discuss reform, especially the first stage, we must ensure that we put in its place a Chamber that works better.
  Maria Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the fact that the upper House as currently constituted works better for his party than for any radical party, whether Liberal or Labour? It is much less likely to interfere with his party's legislation because of the in-built majority and its inherent sympathy with his party.
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Lady goes on at length with her point, but there were 240 defeats of a Conservative Government. The democratic legitimacy of the House of Lords when there is a Conservative Government is much greater. If Members of the House of Lords take the Conservative Whip and behave as Conservatives most of the time, they feel happy to challenge the will of a Conservative Government, whereas if they challenge the will of a Labour Government, they would be working against the democratic mandate given to that Government. That has happened time and again.
  Mr. Hayes: Perhaps my hon. Friend will acknowledge, in answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), that the essential difference between the two Houses is that the House of Lords is less partisan. The people who take the whip in the House of Lords take a far less severe whip than Members of this Chamber. They need to prove nothing, do not need to impress their party leaders and, very often, are going nowhere. Therefore the atmosphere in the House of Lords is quite different. The issue is to do with the style, as well as the content, of that Chamber.
  Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend had made a point that I would have made. I leave it in his hands, and it was made much more eloquently than if I had made it.
  I am not defending leaving the House of Lords as it is, but we must have a plan to go forward and achieve something better. I am also keen that people who enter the House of Lords through the hereditary principle and decide to work—effectively for nothing, other than expenses—should be acknowledged for what they have done. People with enormous knowledge, who have worked for 10 or 20 years in the House of Lords, could be stripped away from us.
  I am a vice-chairman of the European Informatics Market Group, and two hereditary peers—Lord Renwick and Lord Chelmsford—are the mainstays and do all the work. I am keen that, whatever we get in place of the House of Lords, we have similar people who are willing to put that sort of dedication into doing a job of work that helps Parliament. For example, the work of the Select Committee on Science and Technology has been acknowledged.
  We also need that extra attribute, which no one has mentioned. A second Chamber slows down legislation, which is very important.
  Mr. Wareing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruce: I do not have a lot of time and I will make progress, if I may.
  804
  A second Chamber slows down legislation and allows the public to realise that something is going on. Many people realise that there will be change—for example, in their industry—only when a Bill is debated in the House of Lords or the House of Commons. The newspapers alert the public to it by reporting the opening debates. People have time to table amendments in the second Chamber, which is often where a Government realise that there is something wrong with legislation. They then table Government amendments in the second Chamber, whether the Commons or the Lords—
  Mr. Wareing: We do not need a second Chamber to do that.
  Mr. Bruce: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but Ministers are suggesting that we should have a second Chamber. He should fight for what he believes in.
  I have reached the point where Labour Members may like to think about whether they will get the deal that they were promised by Ministers—the abolition of the hereditary principle and a reformed House of Lords. The Labour party manifesto may not have said that we will achieve a reformed and more democratic House of Lords, but I know that Labour Members are keen for that to happen.
  If Labour Members are willing to let the Government off the hook in respect of the first phase by saying, "We have now fulfilled our manifesto commitment," there could be many Parliaments before any further reform takes place. If the prize, and the incentive to reform the House of Lords, is to get rid of the hereditary principle, Labour Members who want that to happen should not allow the Government to get rid of the hereditary principle one minute and say the next, "We have done the urgent thing, so things can go on and on."
  I hope that I am not giving away confidences by saying that I was in a meeting with the leader of my party the other day. He went round the 10 of us in the room, and there were about 15 different opinions about what we should have in place of the House of Lords. That does not happen only in the Conservative party; it happens in the Liberal party and the Labour party. Those who have listened to the debate know why reform of the House of Lords has not yet happened: we have not agreed what we will put in its place. Taking the pressure off the Government, by allowing them to get rid of most of the hereditary peers, will stop them having to make those difficult decisions.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) made some excellent suggestions. He went through what the House of Lords could work at, and that is the way that we should be going. We want to achieve reform in this Parliament, and it is right to do so. If the Government try to achieve reform in two stages, they will simply end up with imperfect changes in the first stage. They should be rejected by the House.
  8.34 pm
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I have been trying to catch your eye since the beginning of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I have been listening throughout to the speeches of Conservative Members. Some were interesting. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) at least gave an unequivocal

  805
  commitment to a reformed second Chamber, and we heard a moving contribution from the hon. Member for Aldridge—Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is no longer in his place, but I agreed with much of what he said. After slightly less than two years in this place, it is clear to me that all of Parliament needs some type of reform.
  Although I strongly support the Prime Minister and the work that he is doing, it is clear to me that a future Prime Minister could turn out to be Caligula, and, under our current system, could make his horse a proconsul. Unfortunately, little could be done to prevent him or her from doing so.
  The reform of Parliament is plainly necessary, but the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills should note that at least the Labour party has embarked on the process. There may be dangers in what we are beginning to do, but at least we are trying. We cannot cross oceans until we are prepared to lose sight of the shore, and that is what the Labour party is trying to do.
  Other interesting speeches have been made by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made what I considered to be a particularly good speech. I never thought that I would hear myself say this in the House, but I suggest that hon. Members read it. I am equally horrified to say that I was strangely drawn to some of the ideas advanced by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth); and there was a delightful moment when the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) seemed to be trying to convince us that Members of the other House should be neither appointed nor elected, but should somehow be caught with rod and line.
  With those exceptions, however, Opposition speeches have been uniformly depressing. Conservative Member after Conservative Member has risen to tell us that he or she supports the idea of abandoning the hereditary principle, but will not support the Bill. Conservative Member after Conservative Member has risen to claim that we need reform of the House of Lords, but not yet. Conservative Member after Conservative Member has risen to claim that there is a need for a free-thinking and independent House of Lords, yet Conservative Members are prepared to continue with a system that allows the dim and the devious to keep their place in that House as long as they are shackled to the Conservative party.
  Let me spell out what I believe to be obvious: a vote against the Bill is a vote in favour of the hereditary principle. We are discussing what is essentially a simple Bill. The Leader of the House described it as exquisite in its simplicity, and she was right. Clause 1 is the only substantive clause, and it is absolutely explicit in its meaning. All the other measures in the Bill provide for adjustments and new arrangements following from that clause.
  It is clear to me that, as clause 1 is entirely concerned with the abandoning of the hereditary principle, anyone who votes against the Bill will vote for that principle. No spinning can change that; no dressing up by the Opposition can change it. Either the Opposition are for the hereditary principle, or they are against it. By their deeds we shall know them: if they vote against the Bill, they will be voting for the hereditary principle.
  806
  I start from this premise—if Parliament is to be fair and democratic, all parliamentarians must have one quality in common: they must be replaceable. I am the Member of Parliament for South Thanet. I have many weaknesses—I am sure that my constituents know my weaknesses—but, whatever weaknesses I have, I have one quality that should commend me to my constituents: I am replaceable. My predecessor, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, was also replaceable. If my constituents had not replaced him at the last election, I suspect that they would be in the process of replacing him now; but, if he were an hereditary peer, he would still be a parliamentarian.
  At the last election, the constituents of Tatton decided to replace their Member of Parliament, because—rightly or wrongly—they considered that he did not measure up to their standards. If he were an hereditary peer, he would still be in that Chamber and would still be influencing our legislation.
  Mr. Brady: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is going to explain how it is that the gentlemen to whom he has referred would not still be part of the legislature if they were life peers. His whole argument seems to be flawed. He says that they would be here if they were hereditary peers; they would also be here under the Government's proposals.
  Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I shall deal with that point in a moment, if he will just be patient.
  The House of Commons has authority for one reason and one reason only: the people give us that authority. Because of that authority, although we are not builders, we can build houses; although we do not work as teachers, we can teach; although we are not nurses or doctors, we can cause people to be cared for and treated. People give us that authority knowing that, if we abuse it, we can be replaced. As it stands, the House of Lords cannot be replaced. Hereditary peers and their successors sit there for their lives without ever having to take responsibility for what they choose to do.
  It follows—to me at least—that any reform of the second Chamber that takes away the hereditary principle is an improvement. It is a start in the process of reform. Anyone who votes against the Bill is denying us that improvement and that start.
  The interim second Chamber is, by definition, replaceable. It will contain life peers—people who have been appointed to be there. If the Cross-Bench amendment is tabled in the upper Chamber and accepted, it may even contain people who are currently hereditary peers, but they are replaceable: when the reforms are completed, they will be replaced. I have absolute confidence in the commitment of the Government and of Labour Members to push through that second-stage reform. A vote against the Bill has to be—there can be no other interpretation—a vote for the continuance of parliamentarians who are there by right of birth.
  Other Conservative Members have tried to argue that the interim Chamber is no improvement, that the Lords is independent and that it should be left alone while the royal commission deliberates. The independence of the House

  807
  of Lords is a myth. My parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), has recently written in our local newspaper:
  "The House of Lords is eccentric, antiquated and undemocratic. It also works."
  My message to him is: three out of four is not bad. It is eccentric, antiquated and undemocratic, but it does not work. It has conducted no reasonable scrutiny of Conservative party legislation over recent decades. The Lords is politically dominated by the Conservative party, which has a majority of 3:1. It is a simple fact that, during the previous Labour Government, defeats of Government legislation as a percentage of all Divisions in the House of Lords never fell below 50 per cent. They averaged 5 per cent. during the subsequent 18 years of Conservative rule.
  A few years ago, more than 400 Tories were bussed into the House of Lords to push through the Maastricht treaty without a referendum. Those independent, free-thinking Conservatives went through the Lobby and voted for something that every one of them now says is wrong, and that the entire Front-Bench team of the Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons claims to be wrong.
  Those free thinkers allowed the poll tax on to the statute book without a whimper. They sold the railways cheap with hardly a whimper. They are not independent, free-thinking spirits, as they are made out to be. They are Conservatives root and branch. That is why the Opposition want them to stay there.
  Let me deal with why the Bill does not include a complete reform of the House of Lords. I want to raise something that has not so far been mentioned in the debate—the so-called Salisbury convention. The Salisbury convention requires, or at least expects, Members of the upper Chamber to allow legislation through that Chamber if the proposals were included in the Government's manifesto.
  The Government's manifesto is clear and unequivocal on Lords reform. It states:
  "The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute. This will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative. The legislative powers of the House of Lords will remain unaltered."
  The Bill is absolutely and explicitly tied to the manifesto. There can be no question but that the Government are doing what we said we would do in our manifesto. If we were to allow further reforms to the House of Lords to be included in the Bill, Opposition Members would today be saying that we are exceeding the authority of our mandate, and that our legislation should be opposed on that basis. In the House of Lords, the Tory hereditary peers would be saying that the Salisbury convention did not apply and that they could therefore block the legislation. The Government have done what is required tactically to ensure that the Bill is passed by the House of Lords.
  Some of my colleagues have been in the Chamber for almost 10 hours and would like to speak in the debate. I shall therefore conclude my comments. The Bill is a vital piece of reforming legislation; there is nothing to be feared in it. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have
  808
  suggested that reform may not proceed to the second stage, but they should not have such fears. All Labour Members are absolutely committed to second-stage reform. First, however, we have to take that first step. We have to lose sight of the shore if we are to cross the ocean. I commend the Bill to the House.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to follow the speech of the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). I wish that I shared his supreme conviction that stage 2 will follow stage 1. I suspect that the Government have not made detailed proposals because they do not know in detail how they will accomplish reform. Nevertheless, they have asked a royal commission to report, in only 10 months, on one of the most complex constitutional issues of our time.
  This has been a very important constitutional debate. We have had some very high-class speeches, notably from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and from two former Prime Ministers, my right hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). I want to refer to all three of their speeches.
  I should, first, mention the Government's attitude on the issue. The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, in her speech yesterday, clearly expressed her political prejudices against hereditary peers per se. She said:
  "Anything would be better"—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 614.]
  than the current system. Her statement truly demonstrates that she is introducing the legislation not because she wants to improve our current legislative structures, but purely out of political spite.
  My constituents are not writing to me in droves on this constitutional issue. However, they did elect me to this place to guard jealously the great democratic principles on which our country was founded, and to look after their welfare and interests.
  Perhaps this specific plank in our constitutional change—merely abolishing hereditary peers—is not a huge one. However, it assumes much greater importance when one considers what might follow that change. If we place the change into the overall context of the Government's constitutional changes, we begin to understand how radically the United Kingdom might be altered in only four or five years of this Labour Government.
  Let us consider the constitutional changes that the Government have made. I think that, once the people of the United Kingdom realise how the Government have sold them down the river, they will start to react against them. The Government have embarked on passing a great body of constitutional change—devolving government to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; changing how our judiciary operates; enshrining in law the European convention on human rights; encouraging judicial review—by altering profoundly the operation of our judiciary and Parliament.
  Now, the Government are reforming the House of Lords, but they do not have a clue about what they want to put in its place. They have asked a royal commission to report in just 10 months. I hope that, having considered

  809
  the issue, the royal commission will tell the Government that it is too complex to be addressed in just 10 months. I am not against change and nor is my party, but if we are to do the job properly and look at the matter in depth, as it deserves, we need longer than 10 months.
  I applaud my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon for asking that, following the constitutional change, the Joint Committee be given a locus in thoroughly investigating the royal commission and have the power to reject any part of its findings. Parliament must assert its right of supremacy over the royal commission. It would be totally intolerable to do otherwise.
  An assertion has been made that somehow the in-built Conservative majority in the House of Lords is a good reason for reforming it. I have looked at the statistics. Research paper 98/104 "Lords Reform: Background statistics" produced by the Library states:
  "The average number of defeats in the Lords is 23 per session"
  and that, from 1970 to 1998,
  "the average of Government defeats per session under Labour Governments is 63 compared with 8 for Conservative Governments."
  So, we can nail once and for all the assertion that the in-built Conservative majority needs to be addressed.
  Much has been said today about the Bill abolishing hereditary peers, the transitional arrangements contained in clause 4 and how the transition is to be handled. The White Paper deals in detail with what is envisaged during the transition and subsequently. It has already constrained the work of the royal commission because it assumes that the new House of Lords will be appointed by some system or another. If anyone does not believe that, I need only quote from chapter 1, the executive summary, which states:
  "The system of appointment of life peers to the House of Lords will be reviewed. Our objective will be to ensure that over time party appointees as life peers more accurately reflect the proportion of votes cast at the previous general election."
  It then slightly contradicts itself by saying:
  "No one political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords".
  In my mind, there is only one question to be addressed. It concerns how the power of the Executive will be held to account. I am a democrat. I do not like the power of Parliament progressively being reduced. Even under the Conservative Government—and certainly under the present Government—the power of the Executive has been increased progressively. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon referred to some of the measures that have been introduced during this Parliament—Prime Minister's questions take place in just one half-hour session and there has been an increase in secondary legislation. Indeed, under this year's Finance Bill, the entire arrangements for introducing the euro were referred to secondary legislation.
  The power of the House to scrutinise the Executive is progressively being reduced. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield was quite clear about the huge power that the Prime Minister has in his patronage. He has been delegated the power to commit the country to war, to sign treaties and to appoint commissioners and bishops. The Prime Minister already has huge power.
  810
  I come now to the Bill's potential consequences. Unlike the hon. Member for South Thanet, I doubt whether the Bill will move to phase 2 because of its complexity. The appointment system is fraught with danger. Indeed, my intervention in the Minister's speech this afternoon proved the point that the Prime Minister will still have the ultimate veto over who is appointed to the commission. That means that it cannot be truly independent.
  We have to consider alternatives. I believe that the most legitimate alternative is an elected second Chamber. I shall deal with the issue in some depth, because some of my hon. Friends might be a little surprised to hear me say that. I am concerned to ensure that the calibre of the existing Members of the House of Lords is maintained. The current system works because we have people of eminence and experience in almost every field. They are thoroughly equipped to debate and scrutinise the legislation brought forward by this House and to tell us when we are making mistakes and ask us to think again. That deliberative, delaying power is the reason for the existence of the second Chamber.
  If an appointments system will not work, we have to consider an elected system. In that case, the Members will have to be paid, which would considerably increase the cost of the House of Lords, contrary to what the notes on clauses say. The current cost of administering and running the House of Lords is about £42 million. The cost of administering the House of Commons is almost £260 million. An elected House of Lords would be likely to result in considerably greater costs.
  An elected second Chamber has one great argument in its favour. If its elections coincided with a general election to this place, the potential for political patronage would be huge because it would be likely to be of the same political colour as the Government. However, if its elections fell in the middle of the cycle of elections to the House of Commons, the situation would be entirely different and could be highly advantageous. If the Government were popular, the House of Lords would still be of the same political colour and the Government would have no difficulty in getting their manifesto commitments through both Houses. However, if, as has often been the case, the Government were unpopular, the House of Lords would be likely to be of a different political colour and would act as a check on the Executive.
  That has a great deal to commend it. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made clear, having elections in the middle of the electoral cycle of the Commons would need fixed-term Parliaments for the House of Commons. I believe that that is a good idea. It would remove one of the Prime Minister's great powers of patronage—the ability to call an election when it suits him. The Government are elected on a manifesto. They should carry out that programme in full and then go to the country at a known date after four or five years. That would allow the elections to the House of Lords to be in mid-cycle.
  There are a host of difficulties to be overcome in thinking about the possible operation of stage 2. The Government have acted with undue haste: out of pure political spite to meet their prejudices against hereditary peers, they have brought forward a Bill that will lead to a situation that they have no idea how to resolve. My constituents are more concerned about the health service, the education system, the economy, jobs, and how they are to get on in Europe. They are not concerned about the

  811
  minutiae of how democracy works. However, the issue is vital. Our history has been built on democracy. I do not want the Government to alter the balance of the country during their five-year term. I shall vote against the Bill tonight and I shall give evidence to the royal commission on how difficult coming up with an alternative might be.
  9 pm
  Caroline Flint: I congratulate all hon. Members who, like me, have been here for 13 hours over yesterday and today, waiting for a chance to speak in the debate. The debate has been interesting, and I have listened carefully. I have not intervened, and I was rather hurt that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) did not respond when I tried to intervene earlier this evening. I am glad to have the chance to speak now.
  It has been interesting to see the Conservative party in denial about the link that dare not speak its name—the link between the Conservative party in this House and the Conservatives in the other place. I must say to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton—Brown) that you got your statistics the wrong way around. Quoting from the document that you raised in your speech—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am getting rather tired of having to repeat this night after night, but I must be consistent with hon. Members. The form of address that we use in this House must be applied consistently.
  Caroline Flint: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As we enter the graveyard shift, I apologise for any tiredness that has led me to forget parliamentary etiquette.
  The document to which the hon. Member for Cotswold referred states that, from 1970–71 to 1997–98, the average number of Government defeats per Session under a Labour Government was 63, compared with eight under a Conservative Government. That makes the point.
  It is interesting that we are having this debate in a year when we celebrate two anniversaries—although "celebrate" may be the wrong word. Last weekend saw the 350th anniversary of the execution of Charles I. This year, we see the 400th anniversary of the birth of Oliver Cromwell. As I am sure hon. Members are aware, those two were the protagonists in a situation that led to the abolition of the House of Lords—the only abolition that has occurred in parliamentary history.
  When I show schoolchildren from Don Valley around the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the story that they like best—and write to me afterwards about—is that of Charles II coming back after the restoration, digging up the body of Oliver Cromwell, cutting off his head and putting it on a spike in Westminster hall. However, Charles II contributed to something else—perhaps more than many monarchs, he contributed to the providing of hereditary titles for services rendered in the bedroom.
  Mr. Evans: When the hon. Lady is talking to schoolchildren, does she talk to them about parliamentary democracy, checking the power of the Executive, the powers of the Whips, how she is dictated to by the pager from Walworth road and the spin doctors—and about how that adds to democracy in this country?
  Caroline Flint: I speak to my constituents and schoolchildren about the struggle within Parliament for
  812
  the rights of universal suffrage, and about how many centuries it took to achieve universal suffrage against the dominance of the landed gentry. I am delighted that, by abolishing the hereditary principle, we will do something to alter the balance from the two thirds of those in the House of Lords who still represent the landed gentry towards those from other, more diverse walks of life.
  It is a sad reflection that, after 18 years of government—and despite all the rhetoric that we have heard yesterday and today from all the born-again Tory reformers—the Tory party's election manifesto for 1997 said:
  "We have demonstrated we are not against change where it is practicable and beneficial. But fundamental changes which have not been fully thought through—such as opposition proposals on the House of Lords—would be extremely damaging. We will oppose change for change's sake."
  That was all the Tories had to say. They did not say that, as a point of principle, they supported the abolition of the hereditary principle. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) did himself no service by pontificating this evening on all the ways in which we could modernise and change this House, given that he had a fair opportunity to do something when he held the reins of power.
  We will not expect any executions during the passage of the Bill, or through the debate that we have started and to which the Government have given oxygen and life—something that would never have happened under a Conservative Government. We will discuss, inquire and explore the modern ways in which Parliament can work as we move into the next millennium.
  This first step is part of that process. It is a modest proposal to undo the rights of 760-odd families who believe that they have the right to be represented for time eternal in our legislative Chambers. Such job security has been afforded to no one in my constituency: not only a job for life but a job for successors for hundreds of years through an accident of birth.
  I say no one, but in fact the 12th Earl of Scarborough is my near neighbour. He is a very nice man whom I have met on several occasions. He owns considerable land in my constituency and elsewhere. I have nothing against him personally—he seemed amiable and is generally well regarded—but I note that he has not taken the oath since the general election and that the Library records show that he has not spoken in the Chamber at any time in the past 11 years.
  I have no objection to such self-restraint: in one respect, it is commendable, and I am pleased that my local lord has not taken part in the wrecking of Government legislation in the other place since the 1997 general election. I do not believe that hereditary peers should be entitled to participation in the formation of legislation.
  Like my noble earl, many Members of the House of Lords do not attend. We have had a discussion about scrutiny, and that prompts the question: who is doing the scrutiny and asking the questions in the other place? Thanks again to the Library, we find that only 508 peers out of the 1,294 have attended more than a third—76—of the sitting days. Of the 508 who do the bulk of the work—they should be respected for that—222 are hereditary peers. They represent only a third of the hereditaries, but in such numbers they have considerable sway.

  813
  As we approach the millennium, it should not be morally acceptable for our democratic process to be influenced by the self-selection of 766 people who gained their title by an accident of birth. It is an historical legacy that the Bill will rectify.
  The Opposition have asked whether we have a right to proceed in this way. I will not repeat what my hon. Friends have said about our manifesto, but I believe that, even if the manifesto did not have all the answers, it certainly set in train a series of events by which we will gain a more representative second Chamber. The starting point for that is getting rid of the hereditary principle.
  We are not creating an elected dictatorship. Our manifesto commitment is clear: to make the House of Lords more democratic and more representative. We have the first Prime Minister ever who is willing to relinquish the patronage that many other Prime Ministers have used. We are not interested in fixing the reform of the second Chamber. Some Opposition Members say that we are going too slowly and others that we are going too fast. It is clear that we have started a debate that would never have taken place under the Conservatives, had they won at the general election. They did not win, and our manifesto commitment was pretty clear to the members of the British public who voted.
  I hope that, after the Bill is enacted, we can put some of the vested interests to one side and consider how we can reach political consensus on the second Chamber. I believe that the bicameral arrangement works in most major advanced democracies. Only a few Members have suggested that a single Chamber should be the answer.
  I think that we would agree that we want a body that is free to scrutinise legislation and Government. The second Chamber, even in its present form, has sometimes excelled at scrutiny, and many refinements to legislation have been made by successive Governments following representations from the Lords. That role should be protected and maintained. Would we all not agree that such a Chamber has the potential to play an effective role and be independent of the Commons if no party has a majority in it? The Prime Minister said that that would be considered.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am very appreciative of the hon. Lady's comments about my ancestor, Oliver Cromwell.
  Is not the role of the House of Lords far more important than its constitution? It is as if we were interviewing for a job without writing the job specification. Does the hon. Lady agree that a large amount of the attention of the House has been concentrated on who should be there rather than on what they should do, but that the latter is the far more important issue? I am glad that she is coming to that subject.
  Caroline Flint: It is very important that we consider the role of the second Chamber. It may not be a first priority for the public; certainly in Don Valley people are concerned about jobs, health and education. However, underpinning the development of policies in those areas is the creation of opportunities for our constituents to have a say in how the country is run. That is true whether we are considering the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh
  814
  Assembly, regional and local government or this place. We do not yet have all the answers, but we have created a debate and that is one of the purposes of the House.
  It has been suggested that the second Chamber should be more representative, and I agree. No one denies the wealth of political, religious, diplomatic and business experience that is represented in the upper House, but I suggest that it overwhelmingly comes from the life peers. The hereditaries can claim to represent but few. If we look at the statistics, we see that they are mainly men, they mainly went to one public school, they are mainly from the landed gentry, they mainly went to Oxford or Cambridge and they represent the gentlemen's clubs and country life of the old establishment.
  One benchmark of a proper second Chamber is a more representative spread of gender, race and social class. On those criteria, the hereditaries are among the least representative of all those in our political and governmental institutions. One irony of the statistics about the hereditaries is that they have a broader age range among their number, because death leads to replacement with a younger generation. However, that on its own cannot justify their presence.
  One feature of the debate has been the Conservatives displaying synthetic outrage that we dare to remove the influence of hereditary peers before proceeding to establish the final shape of the new Chamber. The reason for doing so is simple: we should not allow 760 families, above the many millions in this country, to play a key role in determining what will replace them. [Interruption.] The history books are littered with the problems of democratically elected Governments who have sought to reform the House of Lords. It is only in the past 100 years that the House of Commons has even managed to establish any dominance. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. If the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) cannot behave himself, I shall ask him to leave.
  Caroline Flint: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Reform Act of 1832 was passed by the Lords at the third attempt, after riots nationwide provoked by the refusal to accept the reforms, and only then because the Lords feared a revolution. That Act did not even introduce universal suffrage—far from it—but it enfranchised one in five of the male population and brought about a redistribution of power that proved irreversible. The landed gentry conceded power to save their skins. What a noble principle.
  The same happened with the Parliament Act 1911. Having defeated the Asquith Government's Budgets, the Lords finally conceded the limitation of their powers to block legislation for two years only after a general election and the threat of the creation of 500 new life peers to dilute their reactionary power. Again, reform was accepted only to salvage the bulk of their power and position. Such is the influence of those 760 families that only in 1949, under a Labour Government, were their delaying powers finally limited to one year.
  The battle to defend the entrenched power of the hereditary peerage, with its inbuilt Conservative majority, is not an honourable one. As we mark its passing, history should record its finer moments. The poll tax would not

  815
  have been introduced in its final form, but for the peers' votes. Nor would rail privatisation. Those are hardly great victories of the people, nor are they the conscience of the nation holding Governments of all persuasions in check. Tory Administrations were defeated in the House of Lords just over 13 times on average per Parliament, but the Wilson-Callaghan Labour Government were defeated more than 68 times a Session. Nor do the Lords respect election mandates. This Government have a huge mandate and a manifesto of considerable detail, but that has not stopped the House of Lords defeating the Blair Government 33 times in the first Session, including halting the passage of one Bill altogether.
  It is little wonder that we believe that it would be wrong in principle and reactionary in practice to allow those 760 families unduly to influence the shape of the second Chamber. However, there is a further dimension. A composite Bill that included abolition of the hereditary principle plus consideration of the new structure would risk one element overshadowing the other or neither being given the time or detailed consideration that they both deserve. Done systematically and carefully, the two-stage approach will ensure a full and detailed debate on the merits of reform.
  The reality is today's decisive step. The boldest measure of British constitutional reform for centuries, it will free up thinking and move the debate forward. The Tories will no longer be able to call on their slumbering squirearchy to attempt to thwart an elected Labour Government. That is what they tried to do over handgun reform and the national minimum wage. They called on the same people to defend privilege as were exemplified in the assisted places scheme. There will be a more positive, forward-looking debate after the royal commission reports. Over the coming weeks, we can focus on the issue that is at the heart of this long-overdue reform.
  We sat through the debate yesterday, waiting for Conservatives to defend the rights of hereditary peers. What we witnessed was Conservatism in confusion: one after another, Conservative Members proclaimed support for clause 1, which provides for the exclusion of the hereditary peers. Nowadays, it must be compulsory for Conservatives to carry in their pockets two versions of every policy. The Tories used to be defenders of an age-old constitution which—supposedly—served the country well for centuries. Suddenly, they are ditching their allies among the landed gentry.
  What a disappointment. Where is that Conservative backbone, the stiff upper lip? Yesterday, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) talked about the Alamo; I suggest that we are witnessing Hague's last stand. The Conservatives are adrift, rudderless and leaderless. Not so long ago, they condemned the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly: suddenly, over the weekend, they began saying, "We're going to make it work, we're going to make it happen." The reason is that they are having to follow this Government's lead in supporting modern reform of our institutions.
  How many more about-turns will we see when the Government prove the Conservatives wrong and show that there will be a sincere and full debate on reform of the House of Lords? As sure as eggs is eggs, what is happening here today is what happened with the debates about the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. There is nothing like the prospect of another defeat and
  816
  the certainty of reform to make the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) break cover, ditch all principle and leave his troops to take the flak.
  On this issue, the Leader of the Opposition has already had to sack people and accept resignations. No leader has ever faced such a crisis so early in his career. It might induce pity, if the Conservative position were not so ridiculous at the outset.
  I look forward to the House of Commons giving the Bill a Second Reading tonight. I look forward joining my hon. Friends in bidding farewell to the hereditary peers. As we go through the Division Lobbies, it is possible that we shall hear a resounding cry of "Tally ho!"
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I shall take up only one point from the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). That is the suggestion that Conservatives are in deep disarray over House of Lords reform, in contrast to the complete unity displayed by other parties. In fact, today we have heard differences of opinion from all around the House. There have been both convinced unicameralist and convinced bicameralist speeches from Labour Members, and something of the same has been evident among Conservative Members as well. It is important that we, as a Parliament, grasp that the issue is not and should not be entirely party political. If possible, we must think through the matter in a somewhat bipartisan manner.
  In that respect, the White Paper is a very depressing document for all who believe in checks and balances in the constitution. It does not seek to improve the House of Lords, and pays no more than lip service to bicameralism. If we are to have a bicameral system, we must have two things.
  First, the composition of the system must be legitimate enough for it to feel able to exercise its powers. At present, we live in an age of virtual unicameralism, because the House of Lords does not feel capable of exercising the powers that it has. Secondly, a second Chamber must have sufficient powers to enable it to make the House of Commons think again on major legislation.
  The White Paper drags its feet on both. Throughout, the subtext is that stage 1 will do. Stage 1 is described as "self-contained" and not dependent on "further reform"—an echo of the wording in the Government's election manifesto.
  The White Paper goes further. On page 27, it describes the reform as a "stand-alone" change. There is little commitment to enhancing democratic legitimacy. The underlying theme is one of keeping the Lords a long way from the voters. The White Paper seems to prefer retaining the biggest possible appointed element, implying that, if there must be a democratic element, it should be elected as indirectly as possible.
  I believe that such a House of Lords would not have the confidence to take on the House of Commons. Maybe, just maybe, it would, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) suggested. To protect itself against the unlikely event of the House of Lords acquiring some legitimacy—by the removal of the hereditary peers and by more quango appointments—the Government have guarded their flank. The White Paper clearly sets out, mostly on pages 40 and 41, their determination to trim the powers of the Lords further in major ways.

  817
  First, there is a clear statement of the Government's intention to put into a more legal form some conventions by which the peers have traditionally operated self-limitation of their powers. The most important of those is the Salisbury doctrine, but no reference is made to the fact that that doctrine was devised as a response to the inbuilt Tory majority that Labour is committed to removing. Once rough parity is achieved between the parties, logic says that the Salisbury doctrine should fall away. To set it in legal form, therefore, would be not to continue as we are, and greatly to circumscribe what the Lords may do. That would gravely weaken the Lords, whatever that House's composition.
  The power of delay, too, is crucial. It is not commonly appreciated that the delaying power may already be under threat from the proposal of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to enable legislation to be carried over from one Session to another. At present, that proposal will be implemented only with the agreement of both Houses. However, if over time the presumption is established that Bills can normally be carried over, and if that presumption finds its way into Standing Orders, the one-year delaying power of the Lords will have its teeth drawn almost completely.
  At present, the Lords can impose an obligation on the Government to move legislation from one session to the next. That power, with all the consequent problems for rearrangement of the next Session that it entails, is the one serious power of the House of Lords. It would go.
  Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there is nothing to prevent the Government from introducing further legislation to limit the powers of the House of Lords. However, anyone who assumes that stage 1 and stage 2 will be followed by further legislation on the powers of the House of Lords is assuming that there will be a terrific amount of legislation.
  Mr. Tyrie: The right hon. Gentleman seems to imply that the powers of the House of Lords can only be reduced. I am suggesting that that may not be so. It may be sensible to remain in a bicameral world in which there is a balance of power between the two Houses. The House of Commons should have the last word, but the House of Lords might retain substantial powers. I do not see the strength of the right hon. Gentleman's point.
  Even if I am wrong, and the Modernisation Committee's proposal does not develop as I have suggested, the Government do not want to take any risks. They do not rely on the Modernisation Committee's proposal alone to weaken the House of Lords. They have made it clear that they are contemplating reducing the delaying power to less than a year in any case. That would draw the teeth of the remaining powers of the House of Lords virtually completely.
  I do not know whether Labour Members think that sensible. Do they think that the Lords should be left with no practical delaying power at all?
  Mr. John Cryer: Yes.
  Mr. Tyrie: A voice, probably a unicameralist voice, is saying yes, highlighting the divisions on the Labour
  818
  Benches of which I have already spoken. The White Paper sometimes argues for bicameralism, but it slips occasionally into unicameralism, paying lip service to the mutterings that we can hear from some Labour Members.
  Just in case the combination of removing the hereditaries and creating a quango, plus a reduction in the powers of the House of Lords, might lead the royal commission to speak up, suggesting that the Lords' powers should be preserved or even enhanced—which I would favour—the Government have virtually removed the question of powers from the remit of the commission. The last thing that Labour wants is any public debate about Lords' powers. You do not need to take my word for it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In an interview just the other day, Baroness Jay said that reforming the powers of the Lords
  "is not the kind of discussion that is most appropriately held in public."
  Lest we be in any doubt about the Government's approach to powers, Baroness Jay made it clear in her answer to Lord Rodgers in the other place on the day of the statement—I went to another place to hear it. Referring to the text of the White Paper, she said of the royal commission's remit:
  "we were careful not to open up the rather difficult area of powers".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 1999; Vol. 596, c. 591.]
  In other words, when it comes to Lords' powers, the royal commission should keep out.
  It is becoming clearer now—if it was not before—that Labour never intended to do anything more than abolish the hereditaries. It has been forced away from that course and into establishing a royal commission. However, the Government have no idea what they want in stage 2—in fact, they would rather not have stage 2. If they go any further than stage 1, they will want just a "little Bill" to reduce the powers of the Lords further.
  An important choice of fundamental constitutional significance is now facing the House. It is about the balance between the Executive and Parliament. I favour a strong Executive: I do not want checks and balances to lead to immobilism. However, I want an Executive that is subject to thorough scrutiny by Parliament. I believe that, for a country such as ours, bicameralism offers the best chance of delivering that scrutiny.
  It would be all too easy to allow Labour's proposals to pass through under the guise of Labour doublespeak about increased democracy. The subtext of this debate is that many Commoners—including some of my hon. Friends—quietly like the idea of weakening the power of the Lords. Some hon. Members are convinced abolitionists and unicameralists, as Labour has been for so much of its history. However, I urge my fellow parliamentarians not to lose sight of the bigger picture. Britain is being governed by an over-mighty Executive and a supine Parliament. I have not met any new Members of Parliament on either side of the House who believe that serious scrutiny of the Government—
  Dr. George Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyrie: I am sorry, but there are only a few minutes left.

  819
  I have not met anyone on either side who thinks that serious scrutiny of the Government is occurring in Standing Committees—still less on the Floor of the House. Secondary legislation floods through on the nod. The Government do not bother to announce anything in the Chamber: it is all done beforehand in the media. They did not even bother to announce the establishment of the royal commission here: that was done via a leak to The Observer. Some Ministers do not bother to answer letters for months at a time. I have kept a record of them—although one of the worst miscreants has lost his job. I sometimes get the impression that the Prime Minister can barely contain his disdain for this place: he believes it to be completely irrelevant.
  However, I do not want to make an entirely party political point. The power of this place over the Executive has been declining for a long time, with the more than doubling in the payroll vote since the war; with the changes in party structure that have left the Whips dominant and all but wiped out the independent Back Bencher; and, above all, with the development of Standing Orders that give precedence to Government business over all other business.
  As parliamentarians, we should have an interest in ensuring that some scrutiny takes place. Even if keeping the Whips happy and the hope of promotion to the Front Bench is a deterrent at times, we owe it to our constituents to make the effort to act as parliamentarians have acted before us. I believe that it would be a terrible mistake for this place to derive too much satisfaction from the emasculation of the other place which this Bill threatens.
  As a debating Chamber, we must not try to go it alone. That is pretty much what Labour is proposing under the guise of this White Paper, which uses words such as "modern" and "new". We may be left without a second Chamber worthy of the name whose composition gives it little or no legitimacy and whose powers have been eroded and further eroded. That is why the Bill is so pernicious and why I will vote against it tonight.
  9.29 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: We have had a remarkable two days of debate, with 37 speeches from Back Benchers. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will forgive me if I decline to give way during my speech: I apologise for that, but the need to refer to many of the speeches made gives me little time for anything else, and the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office and I cut down our time so that as many Back Benchers as possible could speak.
  As I listened to the 37 speeches, I thought of the Heinz 57 varieties, for we have heard 37 different accounts of how the second Chamber should be reformed. There have been some magical moments: for me, one of the most magical occurred less than half an hour ago, when the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) announced in an intervention that he was a descendant of Oliver Cromwell—the first hereditary Lord Protector.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the Father of the House, made an extraordinary, splendid and spirited speech, in which he explained that he had not really been a lord of creation, having created only 48 peers, compared with the 715 created by his successors. Perhaps that explains a great deal. We heard the re-maiden speech of the right
  820
  hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who announced that he had been the father of the royal commission. He made the immortal remark that, because of what had been done to the constitution by the Government's ill-thought-out devolution proposals, we had to find some much-needed glue; and perhaps that could be provided by a reconstituted House of Lords.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), another former Prime Minister, made a fine speech in which he expressed his concern about the fact that 700 years of parliamentary evolution should be dispatched in only a few months under the unrealistically tight timetable given to the royal commission. An interesting aspect of his speech is that it was the speech of a true parliamentarian, as was the magnificent speech made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I might not agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman says, but every time he speaks in the House, by Jove, he is worth listening to.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) saw virtue in simplicity—well, I suppose that is appropriate sometimes. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was somewhat dismissive of the House of Lords, but pleasantly eloquent about some of its Members. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) was introduced, in a memorable bon mot, as Mr. Marshall Hall. In a remarkable speech, he suggested that what was needed were bricklayers down the Corridor. Having read my papers, I know that the hon. Gentleman is a great expert on building—no doubt he wants to leave that remarkable underground edifice to someone when he goes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made a moving speech—indeed, he always speaks with considerable passion and great conviction. Announcing himself—perhaps slightly improbably—as a disciple of Tom Payne, he declared that it was essential that we should have an effective second Chamber, and that that meant an elected second Chamber. I must apologise to the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), for hers is the only one of today's speeches that I did not hear. She was enthusiastic in her support for the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) made a fine speech, in which he quoted Baroness Jay on the modernisation of Government and pointed out that, in saying that, she gave the game away. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who was an opponent of the previous scheme for Lords reform, explained that that measure was defeated in 14 days—only twice as long as it took the Almighty to create the world. He argued effectively for a longer time span for the royal commission to do its work.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) took us on a Cook's tour of his own lineage. With the inimitable wit that he always brings to his speeches, he contrasted the deliberation that took place on the reform of local government in part of London with the breakneck speech with which the Government propose to force through this constitutional reform.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) wants the second Chamber to be constituted as a large regional assembly. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) is opposed to the hereditary principle, but pointed out, also with

  821
  considerable eloquence, that the House of Lords works. He wants to be persuaded that whatever replaces it will be effective.
  The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) made an effective speech, but seemed to spend half his time attacking arguments that had not been made by Conservative Members. He was trying to suggest that there had been a passionate defence of the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. I have yet to hear that defence made in this debate.
  That point certainly was not made by, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who pointed out that he has received few letters from his constituents about House of Lords reform. I ask any hon. Member present who has received more than 100 letters about that in the past two years to put up his or her hand. I do not think that a single hand will go up. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) raised his hand. By Jove, they talk of little else in Pendle. Most of our constituents—I am sure that yours are no exception, Mr. Deputy Speaker—are interested in schools, hospitals and jobs, and are not moved to write to us to demand House of Lords reform.
  The hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) waited a long time to speak and gave a long speech, which she ended with an extraordinary peroration on what she called the "slumbering squirearchy". I have not seen any of them around recently.
  The starting point for any discussion about the future of the second Chamber should not be the composition of the Chamber or even its powers, but the type of constitution that we want in the United Kingdom. With all its many imperfections, our system, more than any other on offer, delivers accountability on the part of Government. One identifiable body—the party in government—is responsible for public policy, and electors can hold it to account at the next general election. We have to accept that that core attribute would be challenged if power were fragmented among other bodies. An inevitable consequence of electing more layers of government is what Lord Norton has called the paradox of accountability: the more elected bodies there are, the less accountable each becomes, because electors do not know whom to hold to account.
  It can be convincingly argued that, if we are to retain that core attribute of our Westminster system, this Chamber must remain the sole directly elected Chamber. The role of the second Chamber in our present system is to be complementary to this Chamber, not competing and not subservient. The present House of Lords has proved, as the White Paper rather grudgingly admits, a diligent body of scrutiny, revision and debate. Those features surely need to be retained and, if possible, strengthened.
  That should be the starting point for any discussion about the future of the House of Lords. The Government are looking down the wrong end of the telescope. The constitution has to be looked at in the round. We have to consider how the different parts relate to one another, and appreciate that simply changing one part without seeing it in the context of the whole damages all the other parts and can thus undermine the whole.
  The White Paper is called "Modernising Parliament: Reforming the House of Lords", but it is not about modernising Parliament. Parliament, as an institution, gets
  822
  only a cursory mention at the beginning. The White Paper has merits as a scene-setting options paper, but nowhere does it explain the Government's constitutional aims. No one, least of all the Government, seems to know what those are. The Bill contains a simple proposition to remove, but there is no suggestion of what should replace what is being removed. We should examine the Bill's effects, and consider what they are likely to be on the working of Parliament.
  According to the Government, hereditary peers rarely turn up in the House of Lords, and the House of Lords can do very well without them. The noble Baroness Jay said:
  "The Government have always made it clear that they appreciate the contribution which individual hereditary peers can make to the work of the House of Lords. However, the Government are also clear that much of the work of the House is done by life peers, and that the House will continue to function perfectly well after the hereditary peers have left."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 December 1998; Vol. 595, c. 171.]
  Paragraph 27 of the explanatory notes to the Bill states that the financial effects of the Bill "will be negligible". It says:
  "The Bill would reduce the size of the House of Lords, but since many of those who will be removed attend very rarely, there will not be any significant savings on Peers' expenses and daily allowances."
  According to the White Paper,
  "Only 40 per cent. of Life Peers attended more than two thirds of the House's sessions and 34 per cent. attended less than one third. The equivalent figures for Hereditary Peers are 20 per cent. and 67 per cent."
  Those statements reveal a very odd attitude towards the contribution of hereditary peers. Given the number of hereditary peers, 20 per cent. of them amounts to 150 peers, and 40 per cent. of life peers is approximately 200. In other words, hereditary peers comprise more than 40 per cent. of the frequent attenders. The present House of Lords is effective as a scrutinising and debating Chamber because most life peers, and a fair number of the hereditaries, are experts and have experience in their respective fields. If almost half the very active membership were removed, a notable burden of extra work would have to be carried by life peers.
  There is no way round such a problem, other than the Weatherill amendment, which should be put on the face of the Bill immediately. However, the fact remains that the Government have given no sustained thought to the consequences of removing hereditary peers. If they have given no thought to the consequences of stage 1, it is hardly surprising that they have given less to stage 2.
  Let us be clear; we are not debating the hereditary principle as such. [Interruption.] All those who support a constitutional monarchy accept that. We are debating the practice of allowing hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. We, as a party, do not seek to defend that automatic right. For my part, I sought to introduce a private Member's Bill 15 years ago to limit that right and to do away with the built-in majority in the upper House. We are content to accept the Weatherill proposals, but object most strongly to the way in which the Government have lurched from slogan to expedient, motivated by vindictiveness and a wilful refusal to recognise that there are men and women in the House of Lords who have given of their time and talents in the public service.
  Having stated their aim to remove such people, the Government should have at that point produced a White Paper and established a royal commission.

  823
  We should—and could—have had this debate 18 months ago. The royal commission, without being unduly rushed, could have reported by now. There is a story of Churchill contemptuously dismissing the pudding presented to him at a great banquet by saying,
  "Take it away; it has no theme."
  The Government's constitutional policy has no theme. Even now, let us try to get things right rather than playing ducks and drakes with the constitution. What we decide over the next couple of years must be able to stand the test of time. So, whatever proposals emerge from the royal commission must be subject to proper and detailed scrutiny.
  I shall propose a constructive programme of sensible reform. If the Government accept a Weatherill-type amendment in this place, consider carefully other amendments that we shall table in a constructive spirit, give the royal commission until summer 2000 to report, and allow proper time for consideration of the proposals in both Houses and in the country, there is no reason why we should not be able to agree on a form of second Chamber, which could come into being at the beginning of the next Parliament.
  However, if we are to reach the desired conclusion, the Government must take particular care over the appointment of that commission. I urge the Minister to say this evening that the commission will be appointed on the basis of consultation, and that it will include representatives from both sides of this House, nominated by the parties to which they belong.
  If we can find that basis of consensus, all is perhaps not lost. At present, this is a rag-bag of a mean little Bill, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I am delighted that we have been able to discuss the Bill over two days. We have had more than 11 hours of speeches in the debate and a total of 45 speakers, counting those who spoke from the Front Benches. I am sorry that a number of hon. Members who have been present for a large part of the debate have not had the opportunity to participate because of lack of time.
  The discussion has been wide ranging, covering the Bill and the underlying White Paper. There will be an opportunity during the Committee stage, which will be taken soon on the Floor of the House, for all hon. Members to pursue in detail issues and points raised in the debate.
  The debate has been good-humoured in the main, thoughtful at times, and occasionally passionate. Some criticisms have been made of the fact that no thanks have been given to the Lords for their services over the years. At the risk of offending one or two—only one or two—of my colleagues, I am prepared to put that right now. Many, many Lords have given unstinting time, effort and commitment; I have no hesitation in saying that. I value their service over a long period. That, however, does not justify the system. Those peers are making the best of a bad job.
  Many specific points were made during the debate. I am conscious of the fact that I may not be able to answer them all, but I give an undertaking to write to hon. Members before Committee.
  824
  There were several important themes to the debate. First, I am struck by the consensus across the House on the need for change. Almost without exception, hon. Members have advocated change. Some have been more radical in their approach. Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made interesting suggestions on the composition of the second Chamber. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) spelled out clearly—we heard him—his position on the hereditary peers.
  During the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) advocated the case for a single Chamber. I was interested to hear the Father of the House, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), speak tonight about the need for an elected Chamber. For him, the time had come for change.
  The overwhelming opinion of the House is that the hereditary principle cannot be defended any longer. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) for vigorously questioning hon. Members on that point. It reminded me of the accusation, "When did you last see your father?" In this case, the question was, "Do you sign up to clause 1?", which states:
  "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage."
  What is the attitude of those on the Conservative Front Bench on that matter? Do they support the hereditary principle or not? There still seems to be a slight ambiguity. The campaign guide, as we heard, stated:
  "It is important to defend the hereditary principle in its own right."
  Last night, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who leads for the Opposition on this matter, said:
  "We have made it perfectly clear that the hereditary principle in itself is not something that we challenge."—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 620.]
  The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—his co-defendant, as he had been put on the Front Bench—vacillated, but eventually conceded that
  "there is not a chance in hell of the Opposition proposing the resurrection"
  of the hereditary peers. Indeed, he continued:
  "the Opposition would not dream of proposing the hereditary principle as a way forward."
  At the end of the debate, he said quite clearly that the Opposition
  "do not oppose clause 1 in principle."—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 654–91.]
  The Opposition's position reminds me of the approach that they have taken on all constitutional issues: oppose the Scottish Parliament, oppose the Welsh Assembly and oppose the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. When change is inevitable, however, they sign up and seek electoral advantage. They are sinners who repent, just before the final judgment day.

  825
  The importance of the Bill is that it has already triggered an effective change in position by the Opposition, but what has also been an issue—
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman has honoured us with his presence. Some hon. Members in the Chamber have sat through the debate for 11 hours without being called to speak, but he has just joined us.
  The pace and scale of change have also been an issue. It is not clear at all whether the Opposition believe that the pace of change is too fast or too slow. They have criticised us for not setting up the royal commission earlier, and they have criticised us on the other constitutional issues on the agenda and on the big issues: a minimum wage and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which took priority in the first Session of this Parliament.
  What do the Opposition say about the pace of change? The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) tries to make a deal extending the life of the royal commission, but the mood—certainly in parts of today's debate—is that we have not moved quickly enough. What did the Opposition do when they were in power? They had an 18-year policy vacuum on constitutional change. They maintained the status quo; they wanted a quiet life. They did not believe in constitutional change; it was a black hole for them.
  The former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay, has been set up to lead a commission on the Opposition's behalf.
  Mr. Evans: The Minister is obviously seeking some form of consensus. Will he allow the Conservative party to appoint its own nominees to the royal commission and the appointments commission?
  Mr. Tipping: It is interesting that the Opposition spokesman, having again opposed change, now argues for a step that will give the Opposition some political advantage. That sums up their approach to this matter.
  Mr. Evans: Answer my point.
  Mr. Tipping: I will come to that point in a moment.
  Lord Mackay, a former Lord Chancellor, is setting up a commission, but none of his thinking—and none of his work—has impinged on the debate in the Chamber today. I look forward to the work done by the Opposition being put towards the royal commission.
  The royal commission has a demanding timetable. It has an independent chairman, a fact that, on 20 January, was welcomed by the Opposition. Lord Wakeham is currently consulting about the membership of the commission. I hope that we can establish a commission that meets the needs of all parties in this House.
  It is simply not true that this issue is being kicked into the long grass. We will be judged on what we achieve, but I believe that the eventual endgame will be quicker than the pessimists forecast. Our aim is to make the position clear before the general election.
  826
  I suspect, however, that the Opposition are keen not to kick the issue into the long grass, but to kick it into the jungle and put a palisade around it. That is the traditional device of those who have opposed change over the years. The idea is to ask more and more questions, to make life more difficult, to go for a one-stage solution, to argue for the big bang and, at the end of the day, to delay and delay until nothing is happening.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Tipping: No.
  This time, that simply will not work. This is a short, simple, elegant Bill, which is already acting as a catalyst for change in the thinking of Opposition Members. The debate is moving on, not with a big bang, but in the British tradition of evolutionary change, one step at a time and adapting to survive.
  The Opposition made a lot of noise about the need to hold the Executive to account. I am surprised that they cannot see for themselves that that is an implicit criticism of their own performance in the House since the general election. At least the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) recognised that. Rather than discussing a big issue and a broader vision, Opposition Members talk about the trivia—the trips and the accommodation. They are not interested in modernising Britain.
  That leads me to the Opposition's wider accusation that the second Chamber will be a quango packed with the Prime Minister's placemen and placewomen. We have been fortunate today in hearing from two former Prime Ministers. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was certainly sparing with his appointments. I thought that was due to principle, until he told us this evening that, for every appointment he made, he disappointed nine other people. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) made it clear that he, too, had made appointments—160, of whom 75 were Conservatives, 40 Labour and 17 Liberal Democrats. He packed the upper House with his own people. He argued that the life peers were not independent, but 119 Cross Benchers are life peers—more than 20 per cent. of the total number.
  The current Prime Minister has made it clear that he will establish an appointments commission on Nolan lines. He will give up power; he will not block the appointments of other party leaders. What is more, we have said in our White Paper that we will seek broad parity between parties in the other place. No one has concentrated on that. Winding up the debate, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire did not make it clear whether that principle, for which the Tories have stood since 1911, still obtained.
  Opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the President of the Council described the Bill as a simple solution, designed to remedy a state that is broken and indefensible. After 88 years of debate on the hereditary element of the House of Lords, the Bill provides an agenda for action. It constitutes another step towards the modernisation of Parliament and Britain. It is time to stop looking at the old—the past—and to fix our sights on the future.

  827
  The time has finally come to modernise the House of Lords. We have a chance to make it more representative—a chance to build a new future. After years of indecision and confusion, the Bill provides a way forward. The time has come to face the challenge; the time has come to make the change.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 383.

  Division No. 52]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Amess, David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Horam, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Bercow, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Key, Robert

  Boswell, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brady, Graham

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  Leigh, Edward

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Burns, Simon

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Butterfill, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Cash, William

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Chope, Christopher

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Madel, Sir David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Collins, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maples, John

  Cran, James

  Mates, Michael

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan, Alan

  Norman, Archie

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Ottaway, Richard

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Paterson, Owen

  Faber, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Fabricant, Michael

  Prior, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Randall, John

  Flight, Howard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gale, Roger

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Garnier, Edward

  Ruffley, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Shepherd, Richard

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Gray, James

  Soames, Nicholas

  Green, Damian

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Greenway, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spring, Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Steen, Anthony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Streeter, Gary

  Hammond, Philip

  Syms, Robert

  Hawkins, Nick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hayes, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  828

  Townend, John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Tredinnick, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Trend, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Woodward, Shaun

  Viggers, Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wardle, Charles

  Wells, Bowen

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Whittingdale, John

  Mr. Nigel Waterson.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chidgey, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Ainger, Nick

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Allan, Richard

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Allen, Graham

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clelland, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coaker, Vernon

  Austin, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Baker, Norman

  Cohen, Harry

  Ballard, Jackie

  Coleman, Iain

  Barnes, Harry

  Colman, Tony

  Barron, Kevin

  Connarty, Michael

  Battle, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beard, Nigel

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cousins, Jim

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cox, Tom

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cranston, Ross

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cummings, John

  Benton, Joe

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Best, Harold

  Betts, Clive

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Dafis, Cynog

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blizzard, Bob

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Darvill, Keith

  Boateng, Paul

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Borrow, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Brake, Tom

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Dawson, Hilton

  Breed, Colin

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dobbin, Jim

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Browne, Desmond

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Doran, Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Dowd, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Burnett, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burstow, Paul

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Efford, Clive

  Caborn, Richard

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Canavan, Dennis

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Cann, Jamie

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Casale, Roger

  Flint, Caroline

  Cawsey, Ian

  Flynn, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  829

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Foulkes, George

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Galloway, George

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Gapes, Mike

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Gardiner, Barry

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Laxton, Bob

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Lepper, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Leslie, Christopher

  Godsiff, Roger

  Levitt, Tom

  Goggins, Paul

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Linton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Livsey, Richard

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Lock, David

  Grogan, John

  Love, Andrew

  Gunnell, John

  McAllion, John

  Hain, Peter

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCabe, Steve

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Hancock, Mike

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Hanson, David

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Macdonald, Calum

  Harris, Dr Evan

  McDonnell, John

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  McIsaac, Shona

  Healey, John

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McNamara, Kevin

  Heppell, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hesford, Stephen

  McWalter, Tony

  Hill, Keith

  McWilliam, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hoey, Kate

  Mallaber, Judy

  Home Robertson, John

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hood, Jimmy

  Marek, Dr John

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hope, Phil

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Maxton, John

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Meale, Alan

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Milburn, Alan

  Hurst, Alan

  Miller, Andrew

  Hutton, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Illsley, Eric

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jenkins, Brian

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Mountford, Kali

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mudie, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Oaten, Mark

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Olner, Bill

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Keetch, Paul

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Kemp, Fraser

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Pearson, Ian

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pendry, Tom

  Khabra, Piara S

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Kidney, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  830

  Pike, Peter L

  Stevenson, George

  Plaskitt, James

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pond, Chris

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pope, Greg

  Stott, Roger

  Pound, Stephen

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stringer, Graham

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Stunell, Andrew

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Radice, Giles

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rammell, Bill

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rapson, Syd

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Raynsford, Nick

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Timms, Stephen

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rendel, David

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Touhig, Don

  Trickett, Jon

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Truswell, Paul

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Tyler, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Vaz, Keith

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Salter, Martin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sanders, Adrian

  Watts, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Webb, Steve

  Sawford, Phil

  White, Brian

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Willis, Phil

  Singh, Marsha

  Wills, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wise, Audrey

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wray, James

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

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

  Wyatt, Derek

  Snape, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 381, Noes 135.

  Division No. 53]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Ainger, Nick

  Ashton, Joe

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Allan, Richard

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Allen, Graham

  Austin, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Baker, Norman

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Ballard, Jackie

  831

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Battle, John

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dafis, Cynog

  Beard, Nigel

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Darvill, Keith

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Benton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Best, Harold

  Dawson, Hilton

  Betts, Clive

  Dismore, Andrew

  Blackman, Liz

  Dobbin, Jim

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Blizzard, Bob

  Doran, Frank

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dowd, Jim

  Boateng, Paul

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Borrow, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Efford, Clive

  Brake, Tom

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Ennis, Jeff

  Breed, Colin

  Etherington, Bill

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Browne, Desmond

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Burden, Richard

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Burgon, Colin

  Flint, Caroline

  Burnett, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Burstow, Paul

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Caborn, Richard

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gardiner, Barry

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cann, Jamie

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Casale, Roger

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Cawsey, Ian

  Godsiff, Roger

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Chidgey, David

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gorrie, Donald

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clelland, David

  Hancock, Mike

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hanson, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Cohen, Harry

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Coleman, Iain

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Colman, Tony

  Healey, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Heppell, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cox, Tom

  Hill, Keith

  Cranston, Ross

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hoey, Kate

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Home Robertson, John

  Cummings, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  832

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hope, Phil

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Maxton, John

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Meale, Alan

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Milburn, Alan

  Hurst, Alan

  Miller, Andrew

  Hutton, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Illsley, Eric

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jenkins, Brian

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Mountford, Kali

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mudie, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Oaten, Mark

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Olner, Bill

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Keetch, Paul

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pearson, Ian

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Pendry, Tom

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kidney, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Plaskitt, James

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pollard, Kerry

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Pond, Chris

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Pope, Greg

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Pound, Stephen

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Laxton, Bob

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lepper, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Leslie, Christopher

  Purchase, Ken

  Levitt, Tom

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Radice, Giles

  Linton, Martin

  Rammell, Bill

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rapson, Syd

  Livsey, Richard

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lock, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Love, Andrew

  Rendel, David

  McAllion, John

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  McCabe, Steve

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Rooker, Jeff

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rooney, Terry

  Macdonald, Calum

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McDonnell, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Salter, Martin

  McNulty, Tony

  Sanders, Adrian

  McWalter, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McWilliam, John

  Sawford, Phil

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marek, Dr John

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  833

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Touhig, Don

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Trickett, Jon

  Singh, Marsha

  Truswell, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Tyler, Paul

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Vaz, Keith

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

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Snape, Peter

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Soley, Clive

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wareing, Robert N

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Watts, David

  Stevenson, George

  Webb, Steve

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  White, Brian

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Stott, Roger

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stringer, Graham

  Willis, Phil

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wills, Michael

  Stunell, Andrew

  Winnick, David

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wise, Audrey

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wray, James

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wyatt, Derek

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Amess, David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Duncan, Alan

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Beggs, Roy

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bercow, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Faber, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Fallon, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Flight, Howard

  Brady, Graham

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Brazier, Julian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fraser, Christopher

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gale, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  Garnier, Edward

  Butterfill, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Cash, William

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Chope, Christopher

  Gray, James

  Clappison, James

  Green, Damian

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Greenway, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Collins, Tim

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Cran, James

  Hammond, Philip

  834

  Hawkins, Nick

  Prior, David

  Hayes, John

  Randall, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Horam, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Ruffley, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Key, Robert

  Soames, Nicholas

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spring, Richard

  Lansley, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Leigh, Edward

  Steen, Anthony

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Streeter, Gary

  Lidington, David

  Syms, Robert

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Townend, John

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Trend, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Madel, Sir David

  Viggers, Peter

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Wardle, Charles

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Maples, John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Mates, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Wilkinson, John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Wilshire, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Woodward, Shaun

  Norman, Archie

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Ottaway, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Paterson, Owen

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Pickles, Eric

  Mr. Nigel Waterson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Tipping.]
  Question agreed to.
  Committee tomorrow.

  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 108 (Welsh Grand Committee),
  That the Welsh Grand Committee shall meet at the County Hall, Aberaeron, on Monday 22nd February at Eleven o'clock to take questions under Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider the matter of transport policy in Wales under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)), proceedings being interrupted at Four o'clock—[Mr. Hanson.]
  Question agreed to.

  Libraries
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hanson.]
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: This is, surprisingly, the first Adjournment debate on libraries, according to the Library. That is what we think, at least, and I will claim it until told otherwise. In the light of the Evening Standard report last week, claiming that up to 20 public libraries are to close in London alone, it is a timely debate, especially as we are celebrating the national year of reading.
  Going to the library is, after visiting the pub, eating out, driving for pleasure and eating at a fast-food chain, the fifth most popular pastime in the United Kingdom. There are four types of library in use in the United Kingdom. There are our six great deposit libraries, led by the British library, which are the envy of the world; the academic libraries in our universities, hospitals and colleges, which are seriously underfunded; school libraries, on which I shall dwell at length shortly; and our public libraries, which are under threat everywhere.
  Ms Linda Perham: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. As he says, it is our first debate on libraries. I want to make a contribution as chair of the new all-party group on libraries and as a professionally qualified librarian. I welcome the Government's declared commitment—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I understand that the hon. Lady wants to contribute to the debate at a later stage. She cannot make a speech within the hon. Gentleman's speech. It will be more appropriate if she makes a short contribution when he has completed his speech.
  Mr. Wyatt: There are thousands of libraries, such as the wonderful cricket library at Lord's, the library at the British Film Institute, where I dwelt at length when I was writing my book "Wisecracks from the Movies", and the one at Windsor castle.
  Libraries come under two Departments, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education and Employment. In the joined-up government that we are constantly being told is happening, I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister's response on what initiatives he has undertaken with my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards regarding school libraries.
  The British library is one of the six legal deposit libraries in the United Kingdom and Ireland, dating back to an Act of 1911. The others are Oxford, Cambridge and the national libraries of Scotland, Wales and Ireland. The Irish national library is in Dublin, but there is no national library of Northern Ireland, which is surely an oversight. Perhaps in the new mood that exists there, the deposit library at Trinity college, Dublin, could open a digital version at Queen's university, Belfast, or simply plug itself into an on-line British library.
  The British library needs to be redefined for the 21st century. It needs to be the focus for the whole library system, not only in the United Kingdom but in our
  836
  embassies and high commissions and, most important, in our British Council offices. It needs a private finance initiative to finance the digital library of the future, so that we can all visit it from the comfort of our homes. It also needs to be the lead player in the national grid for learning and the university for industry. Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel? The British library should be the centre of our library policy, and an all-enveloping technology broad-band hub should be built at St. Pancras that lays the architecture down to link every academic library and, as important, every school and every public library.
  As for our school libraries, it is amazing that no regulations exist that lay down how much money schools should spend on library books per student. Nor is there a law that lays down how large a given school library should be. At least, that is the case in England and Wales. In Northern Ireland, the recommendation is that school libraries should have spaces of 40 sq m. How generous! In the United Kingdom, however, there is no ring-fence regulation that says that schools should spend a minimum amount on books. That is absurd.?
  I have visited 33 of the 44 school libraries in my constituency and most of the schools have no full-time librarians. Worse, two libraries are in corridors and, worse still, some of the books are 20 or 30 years old. Other schools in my constituency, thanks to parent-teacher support, have superb libraries. As libraries go on line, it will be the well-off primary and secondary schools that have suites of 60 computers and ISDN lines. The policy is exclusive, not inclusive, and it is unfair. In the information technology world, we talk of the information rich and the information poor, and some of my schools have been information poor for most of this century.
  Figures released recently show that provision for school library services fell in the United Kingdom from £2.17 per pupil in 1994–95 to £1.98 in 1996–97, with more than 30 per cent. of secondary schools no longer having a full or part-time librarian. Ofsted should be charged with providing a report on the state of information-rich and information-poor schools, especially with regard to the libraries, library books, computers, internet costs and online support.
  In public libraries, the situation is critical. I shall give a quick overview of what is happening in the United Kingdom today. Barnsley plans to close 23 branch libraries. Surrey is reported to be closing 16 branch libraries and Haringey may close two or three. Kingston upon Thames intends to cut the schools library service. Islington may cut its library service so that only five open at the weekends. However, 10 years ago, more than 200 public libraries opened for 60 hours or more. Today, the number of libraries open for 60 hours a week has declined by 49 per cent. There are none open for 60 hours a week in Wales or Northern Ireland and only 43 in Scotland. The number open for 45 to 60 hours has declined by 19 per cent.
  A Sheffield university questionnaire found that 48 per cent. of the local authorities which replied had closed libraries in the past 10 years. Some 74 per cent. had reduced opening hours and 69 per cent. had closed for financial reasons. We should compare those figures with the Government's statement of their intention to build a public library network connecting all 4,000 public, but not school, libraries by 2002. That simply does not add up to a coherent, joined-up strategy for libraries for the

  837
  21st century and I await my hon. Friend the Minister's response with much interest. I wish to persuade my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that public libraries open all day on Saturday and Sunday, so that those children from information-poor homes can have access to books and the internet.
  I am passionate about libraries because it was through them that I came to understand the value of literature. Later, I was a publishing director at William Heinemann. As a councillor in Haringey, I sat on the leisure committee and learned what a rip-off the buying procedures for library books were. That issue needs attention. if amazon.com or amazon.co.uk can produce a website with 1 million or 2 million books to buy, why can we not produce the same service off the back of the technology to buy library and school books?
  As we face the 21st century, I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a favour. Will he lean on the new opportunities fund officials to pre-select the information-poor areas in our communities to make a pre-emptive strike for the homework club funds and to insist that they are placed in local schools or public libraries?
  Finally, I shall quote from Frances Hendrix, who said:
  "If the public libraries in the UK do not act as the bridge between the new electronic information world and the language and history of print, then no one will, and we risk losing our culture heritage and education."
  10.35 pm
  Ms Linda Perham: I want to make just a brief contribution. As I said in my intervention, I am a professionally qualified librarian and I chair the recently formed all-party group on libraries. I welcome the Government's declared commitment to libraries as the cornerstones of their communities and their aim to deliver better education services and to improve reading and literacy standards. I especially welcome the plans embodied in the document "New Library: The People's Network".
  However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), I am worried about the continuing problems with libraries. Local authorities are reducing book funds and opening hours, and even closing libraries. I join my hon. Friend in urging the Minister to be alert to the anxiety about that among members of the public and of the profession.
  10.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Alan Howarth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on securing this debate. His commitment to reading, to books and to the part that books can play in the life of our society is well known in the House. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham), who spoke from her background of professional knowledge. I welcome very much holding a debate in the House on the extremely important subject of libraries.
  The Government attach great importance to libraries. They are valued institutions in their own right, and they contribute to the Government's objectives in many ways.
  838
  They underpin education by providing essential support for children, students and lifelong learners. They enhance public access to the world's store of knowledge and information. They combat social exclusion by helping to bridge the gap between those who can afford access to information and those who cannot. Increasingly, they have a role to play in the modernisation and delivery of public services.
  Above all, our libraries are highly respected and cherished by the public, who use them a great deal. I can think of few other public services to which nearly 60 per cent. of the population subscribe. More than 423 million book issues are made each year in England—nearly nine for every man, woman and child. It is that bond with individual users and communities that represents the sector's major strength, and long may it remain.
  Libraries fulfil many roles in delivering economic and social benefits to communities. They are broadly based organisations, delivering a multi-faceted range of services to their members.
  The Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 requires local authorities in England to provide comprehensive and efficient library services and makes it the duty of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ensure that they do so.
  Mr. Bob Russell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Howarth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to carry on.
  My Department takes that duty very seriously, but the key players in the delivery of public library services, as the legislation makes clear, are the local authorities that are responsible for running them. Decisions about the delivery of the library service on the ground, including decisions about opening hours, are for local authorities to make, rather than for the Government. However, I urge authorities to have proper regard to their statutory responsibilities.
  The Government's role is to provide a positive policy framework, within which the service can operate and thrive at the local level. Through the use of annual library plans, we will encourage library authorities to focus attention on various areas of their services, such as current Government initiatives, to ensure that our policy is understood and acted on nationally. We are also, of course, looking to raise standards across the board through the establishment of a new museums, libraries and archives council, and improved arrangements for library service co-ordination and representation at a regional level.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey referred to libraries in schools. He will appreciate that they are not my direct responsibility, but I take a close interest in education matters and I can assure him that I work closely with my colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment. The ministerial teams of that Department and mine are developing a shared agenda, as my hon. Friend would wish us to do. My Department played a role in ensuring that school library services were properly taken account of in the DFEE's "Fair funding" proposals.
  Libraries have a major role to play in delivering educational objectives, particularly for life-long learning. They provide ready and free access to the nation's

  839
  storehouse of knowledge and information, and they allow people of all ages the opportunity to maximise their educational opportunities. Libraries are particularly effective in providing access to learning for those who may be less comfortable in a more traditional or formal learning setting.
  Mr. Russell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Howarth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not doing so, but I have too little time.
  Libraries allow learners to set the pace and direction of their own learning. I have referred before to our public libraries as street-corner universities. To ensure that they play a central role in delivering educational services, the Government announced in April 1998 the target of connecting all public libraries to the national grid for learning by 2002 via the public library information technology network.
  The development of that IT network is a key Government priority. The new opportunities fund, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend, is providing £20 million for information and communicating technology training of library staff, and £50 million for creating digitised content. Our document, "New Links for the Lottery", published on 27 November 1998 proposes further funding to the network via a new opportunities fund stream to support lifelong learning. We are considering responses to our consultation on those proposals.
  My hon. Friend suggested that school libraries were left out of our plans for the network. I assure him that that is not the case. The public libraries network will, as he said, link to the national grid for learning by 2002, producing a network that will link schools—whose libraries will be central—with public libraries and other learning institutions. School librarians will be trained to support the use of the network as part of the new opportunities fund's provision for training teachers and library staff.
  My hon. Friend suggested that the British library should be the centre of the network. The British library is a centre of excellence, which provides a specialised service to scholars and information seekers from around the world. That is a vital service, but it is a different service from that envisaged for the public library network. The British library will have a role to play in making available its special collections and national treasures. However, it would not be right to charge it with overseeing the provision of the network.
  The Government accept that strategic leadership will be needed to ensure that the libraries sector achieves its full potential for involvement in the learning society, and to direct the creation of the public library network. That is why our recent departmental review proposed the creation of a new body—the museums, libraries and archives council—to provide strategic leadership for the whole sector. Meanwhile, we are strengthening the role of the Library and Information Commission, allowing the British library to focus better on activities more central to its role as the national library. The commission has, as my hon. Friend will know, been instrumental in suggesting how the public library network should be designed and implemented, and it will continue to play the central strategic role that my hon. Friend envisaged for the British library.
  840
  My hon. Friend mentioned the British library's digital library project. The British library is continuing to develop plans to achieve a digital capability, and I agree that that will be important in future. The private finance initiative is not the only possible route for that. The British library is exploring alternative solutions since negotiations for a public-private finance project did not produce an acceptable solution.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of the legal deposit libraries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 17 December our plans for the way forward on legal deposits in the light of our consideration of the report of the independent working group chaired by Sir Anthony Kenny. A copy of that report has been placed in the Library.
  Because of concerns about the absence from our national published archive of non-print publications, which are continuing to increase in number and importance, my right hon. Friend has commissioned a detailed voluntary code of practice for the deposit of electronic publications. However, we have accepted the report's conclusion that a statutory system will be needed in the longer term. As my right hon. Friend announced, we intend to move towards legislation on the basis of a minimum burden on publishers once some necessary additional work on definitions and regulatory impact has been carried out.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the lack of a legal deposit library in Northern Ireland and asked about a digital version. My right hon. Friend concluded in January 1998, as a result of responses to the 1997 consultation on legal deposit, that there was almost no support for a new deposit library in Northern Ireland. Therefore, he specifically asked Sir Anthony Kenny's working group to examine the scope for improved access in Northern Ireland to deposited material through IT networking. The report's conclusion was that, if an acceptable method of networking deposited electronic material could be agreed, an access point should be located in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend has therefore asked Sir Anthony Kenny to examine the scope for the voluntary code to include a basis for the secure networking of CD-ROMs between the deposit libraries in a way that will satisfy copyright holders.
  Important first steps towards the library network and an enhanced role for libraries in providing learning opportunities are already being taken. Libraries are extending the educational services that they offer and developing their appeal to those whose educational opportunities may otherwise be limited. Some 200 library learning centres have already been developed, offering services such as information on training and educational opportunities, including careers guidance; provision of basic skills training; courses aimed at women returners; NVQ training for those wanting to enhance skills; and business skills training aimed at small businesses.
  Many open learning centres have well-established links with local colleges and are able to support distance learning. Most have a wide range of informing and communicating technology—ICT—equipment and software, with staff trained to support open learning. In addition, libraries are also offering after-school clubs, homework centres, IT resource centres, local history websites, specialised facilities for disabled library users, and outreach to housebound users via the mobile library service and laptop PCs is also being offered.

  841
  Libraries are also well placed to play a key role in another of the Government's initiatives to create a learning society in Britain: the university for industry. They are among the organisations taking part in pilot projects for the UFI through the European Adapt funding scheme. The traditional strengths of the library service in promoting reading and literacy have not been neglected, with many libraries participating in imaginative ways in the national year of reading.
  Mr. Bob Russell: In the light of those wonderful pronouncements, will the Minister explain to the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), who introduced the debate, why there is a catalogue of library closures, reduced opening hours and so on? Perhaps he would also care to comment on the absence from this debate of any representatives of Her Majesty's official Opposition.
  Mr. Howarth: To an extent, it is the season of rumours and alarmism. It is a period when local authorities are setting their budgets and there is anxiety about their capacity to sustain library services of the desired extent and quality. Those matters are clearly under active consideration in a number of libraries. I counsel the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) not to rush to conclude that the rumours that we have heard are necessarily true or will prove to be well founded. We have provided a much better public expenditure settlement for local government than in previous years, and we can see no justification whatever for cutting library services in the present financial climate.
  As I reminded the House, the 1964 Act places a statutory obligation on local authorities to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State requires library authorities to produce annual library plans and we take that responsibility seriously. We shall closely examine what happens: where cuts are rumoured, my officials will inquire of the library authorities concerned what precisely
  842
  is going on and we shall not be easily satisfied. We shall rigorously require local authorities to justify alterations in strategy that appear to involve reductions in services.
  We recognise that there might be cases of library authorities finding it necessary to rationalise and restructure their services, because we look to them to provide a cost-effective service, which means that the pattern of library services cannot be frozen. Nevertheless, the statutory duty on local authorities remains and we attach great importance to it. I know that local authorities overwhelmingly want to honour their obligation to provide proper library services. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is also our desire and that we shall act in that respect with great energy, thoroughness and care. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for following my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey in drawing attention to the anxieties that have been expressed. We have all seen the press stories, but I counsel hon. Members not to rush to premature judgment or premature pessimism.
  Public libraries play a crucial role in promoting educational achievement, enhancing public access to knowledge and information, combating social exclusion and modernising the delivery of Government and local authority services. The Government have already committed an additional £80 million to develop library services. We are also considering the possibility of further funding through the lottery to encourage the development of computer technology in libraries. I trust that local authorities will remember that more than 60 per cent. of the adult population are members of public libraries and that libraries are among the most popular, widely used and valued local authority resources.
  One of my roles is to ensure that local authorities continue to meet their statutory obligation to provide a comprehensive and efficient service and I shall continue to pursue that role vigorously. The Government's requirement on local authorities to prepare library plans is a key part of the process. However, I hope that most authorities will have the vision to provide and develop services and that they will want to go beyond the legal minimum in doing so.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Air Squadrons
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the location of the University of London and Cambridge University Air Squadrons. [69144]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The basing of Cambridge University Air Squadron and the collocated No. 5 Air Cadet Air Experience Flight, at Cambridge Airport, has been the subject of review to determine whether their operations could be undertaken more effectively at another location. At the same time it has been necessary to identify a new location for the University of London Air Squadron and part of the No. 6 Air Cadet Air Experience Flight task, due to increased helicopter operations at RAF Benson, their current location.

  RAF Wyton has been identified as the most cost-effective and operationally suitable location for the two Squadrons and the Air Experience Flights. On current plans the transfer of these units will commence in September 1999.

  Infra-red Technology
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investment his Department has made in infra-red technology for use in(a) the defence industry and (b) elsewhere in each of the last 10 years. [66661]

  Mr. Spellar
  Infra-red technology has a wide spectrum of defence applications, and information on the totality of expenditure specifically involving this technology is not available.

  Service Personnel (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the aggregate total of British service personnel, including members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and RIR, who have served at least one tour of duty or have been employed for six months or more in Northern Ireland since August 1969; and how many service personnel have(a) lost their lives and (b) been injured in connection with their military duties and responsibilities in Northern Ireland. [67427]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Since August 1969, the total number of soldiers who have served or are currently serving in Northern Ireland for six months or more is 152,769. The total number of officers who have served or are currently serving in Northern Ireland is 25,098. The latter figure contains tour lengths of three to four months as well as those of six months or more.
  540
  The number of service personnel who have lost their lives since August 1969 in connection with their military duties and responsibilities in Northern Ireland is detailed in the table.

  Number

  Army1

  651

  RN2

  11

  RAF2

  4

  The number of British service personnel injured in Northern Ireland since August 1969 is detailed in the table.

  Number

  Army3

  6,076

  RN 4

  163

  RAF 4

  143

  1Figures are from August 1969 to 31 December 1998 and relate to terrorist activity.

  2Figures are from 1 January 1974 to 31 December 1998 and include injuries/deaths from all causes.

  3Figures are from August 1969 to 31 December 1998 and relate primarily to injuries which were incurred whilst on duty; however, the manner in which data have historically been compiled means some injuries incurred whilst off duty may also be included.

  4Figures are from 1 January 1976 to 31 December 1998 and relate primarily to injuries which were incurred whilst on duty; however, the manner in which data have historically been compiled means some injuries incurred whilst off duty may also be included.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of civilian casualties in Iraq caused by military action since the conclusion of Operation Desert Fox. [68352]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We believe that the only military action since the conclusion of Operation Desert Fox which could have caused civilian casualties was an incident on 25 January. Coalition aircraft patrolling the Iraqi Southern No-Fly-Zone in accordance with their humanitarian mission encountered four Iraqi MIGs who were attempting to draw them into a pre-arranged Surface to Air Missile (SAM) trap and were fired at by Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery. US aircraft responded by attacking a SAM site and related air defence and communications systems north of Basra. The US has confirmed that a rocket propelled bomb went astray and landed in a residential district several kilometres from its target. It could have caused civilian casualties, but the US is still investigating and cannot confirm. I deeply regret any civilian casualties but must stress that the US acted in self-defence responding to a serious and immediate threat to the safety of coalition aircraft.

  Aer Lingus Crash
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the documentation held by his Department on the crash of the Aer Lingus Viscount in the Irish sea on 24 March 1968, and the subsequent search and rescue operation; and if he will make this material available to the Irish Government. [67434]
  541
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Copies of the UK report on the initial surface search and rescue operation for the Aer Lingus Viscount 712, and on the subsequent sea bed search and salvage operation undertaken at the request of the Irish Government, were placed in the Library of the House and given to the Irish Government in September 1998.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the naval vessels engaged in search operations for the wreckage of the Aer Lingus Viscount in the Irish sea from 24 March 1968 until the search was abandoned and in each case the dates on which searches took place; how many bodies were(a) recovered and (b) identified; where the wreckage was taken to be examined; and where the wreckage is currently stored. [67437]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Details of British naval involvement in the search operation for the Aer Lingus wreckage are contained in the report which my department placed in the Library of the House in September last year. Although the report contains information on the recovery of bodies and wreckage, which were taken to Rosslare for examination by the Irish Authorities, it does not provide the identities of the dead. This, and the current condition and location of the wreckage, is a matter for the Irish Government.

  HMS Penelope
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the recorded version or notes of the RAF briefing given to officers of HMS Penelope on 26 March 1968; and if he will make this material available to the Irish Government. [67436]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We have no record of such a briefing having taken place. HMS Penelope played no part in the search operation after 25 March.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  PDVN and Intranet
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee how many hon. Members currently have access to(a) the PDVN and (b) the Parliamentary Intranet. [68434]

  Mr. Allan
  There are currently 227 Members registered to access the PDVN in their own name. However, many Members have connected their offices by requesting access for one or more staff members but not for themselves. Analysis of all login IDs issued in the names of Members shows that 517 Members' offices currently have access to the PDVN.

  1999 Appropriations

  3705

  Contribution to secretarial expenses and administrative expenditure of the political groups and expenses of the non-attached Members.

  £9 million (12.7 Meuro)

  3706

  Other Political activities

  £5 million (7.1 Meuro)

  3708

  Information work

  £3.9 million (5.25 Meuro)

  542
  Access to the Parliamentary Intranet is through the PDVN and is unrestricted, so the numbers are the same. All PDVN users have access to the Intranet.

  Website Addresses
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee if he will include hon. Members' website addresses in the Palace of Westminster telephone directory. [68435]

  Mr. Allan
  When the production of the existing telephone directory is changed to a print out from the Serjeant at Arms/Telecomms database at the end of this year's summer adjournment, there will be an opportunity to include details of Members' web sites and e-mail addresses in the directory provided Members indicate their wish for it to be done.

TREASURY

  Financial Services and Markets Bill
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future recognition requirements for recognised investment exchanges and clearing houses under the Financial Services and Markets Bill. [69148]

  Ms Hewitt
  The new Financial Services and Markets Bill carries forward the main features of the existing recognition and exemption regime for investment exchanges and clearing houses, which has worked well. In order to become recognised, such bodies must fulfil certain regulatory criteria. These are currently contained in the Financial Services Act 1986 and the Companies Act 1989. Under the new Bill the requirements will be set out in secondary legislation. Putting the recognition requirements in secondary legislation will make it easier to respond to any market developments in this area.

  The Treasury has today issued a consultation document on the new draft recognition requirements. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The deadline for comments is 30 April. We are consulting on these regulations well in advance so that we have the longest possible time to get them right.

  European Budget
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what categories of expenditure are legalised by Article 138a of the Treaty of the European Community; and if he will state what appropriation and what expenditure in the Budget of the Community for the year 1999 are under that Article. [67929]

  Ms Quin
  I have been asked to reply.

  Volume 2, Section 1 of the budget (Staffing, revenue and expenditure of the European Parliament) lists budget lines which cite Article 138a as a justification for spending. The lines are:
  543
  This expenditure is intended to cover activities other than those financed from budget lines 3705 and 3708, as well as the political activities of the non-attached Members.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Radio Licences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if a holder can be granted more than one concurrent radio licence; and if he will make a statement. [67684]

  Janet Anderson
  Under the terms of the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 no one person may hold more than one national analogue licence, national digital multiplex licence or national digital sound programme service licence. A person may hold one FM and one AM licence for areas which share a potential audience overlap of over 50 per cent. and may apply to hold one further licence for the same area on either waveband subject to a public interest test operated by the Radio Authority.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what questions are asked of applicants for a radio licence; and if he will make a statement; [67681]

  (2) what inquiries are made as to the background of people who apply for licences to run independent radio stations. [67680]

  Janet Anderson
  The Radio Authority is responsible for determining the process of the award of independent radio licences according to the provisions of the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996. The Authority decides the questions asked of licence applicants. I understand that the Authority's standard application form requests details of the background of licence applicants, and details of others whose involvement in the preparation of a licence application has been substantial. The Radio Authority published on 29 January details of its licensing award procedures for commercial radio.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what additional legislation, not currently before Parliament, was assumed in the production of his Department's spending allocation for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [68415]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  There is a longstanding convention that legislative proposals for each year are not announced before the Queen's Speech at the start of the relevant Session.

  Radio Authority
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he intends to reappoint the current Chairman of the Radio Authority; and if he will make a statement; [68807]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to require the Radio Authority to publish its minutes of proceedings; [68809]
  544
  (3) what assessment he has made of the accountability procedures (a) within the Radio Authority and (b) between the Radio Authority and his Department. [68808]

  Janet Anderson
  The current appointment of the Radio Authority Chairman expires on 31 December 1999. An announcement will be made in due course on the Chairmanship from 1 January 2000.

  The Radio Authority is a statutory public corporation independent of Government and is responsible for interpreting its statutory duties under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996. Radio Authority members are bound by the Authority's detailed code of best practice, a copy of which is in the Libraries of the House. My Department has no supervisory role in its day-to-day activities and has no locus to direct the Authority to make public details of its proceedings. However, I welcome the recent publication by the Authority of details of its licensing award procedures for commercial radio.

  Analogue and Digital Television
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will provide financial support to households that currently receive analogue terrestrial television, but which cannot receive digital terrestrial television to enable them to receive the digital television service(a) via digital satellite television and (b) by other means; [68588]

  (2) when the switch-off date will be announced for analogue transmissions; [68593]

  (3) if he will ensure that the proceeds from auctions of analogue spectrum are used to assist consumers and communities in the United Kingdom to receive the same quality of digital television service; [68592]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the number of households in the UK which will not be directly served by digital terrestrial television; [68589]

  (5) when he will respond to the consultations received following the publication of "Television: the Digital Future". [68587]

  Janet Anderson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave on 10 November 1998,Official Report, columns 122–23. We are still considering the wide variety of opinions expressed in the responses to the consultation paper: "Television the Digital Future" and will make an announcement in due course.

  Pop Music Industry
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans his Department has to provide support to the pop music industry. [68863]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department, in consultation with other Departments, and with advice from the Music Industry Forum, plans to continue working closely with the music industry to identify areas where Government might be able to help it. The Forum has considered such issues as copyright, the New Deal, training, and provision of venues for live music. My aim is to help create the conditions in which this highly successful business can flourish further.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Racially Motivated Offences
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of racially motivated offences there were in the last year for which figures are available. [68220]

  Mr. Boateng
  Individual forces submit their racial incidents figures to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary at the end of each year. These are incidents recorded under the Association of Chief Police Officers' definition of a racial incident:"Any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation; or any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person".
  Incidents included here are wider than the normal definition of a crime in the crime statistics and include low level harassment.

  The latest available figure for the number of racial incidents recorded by the police in England and Wales is 13,878 in 1997/98. A breakdown of the number of incidents recorded by the police by each police area in 1997/98 is given in the Home Office publication "Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System" 1998, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  The Home Office has requested all forces to provide separate recorded crime statistics for the racially aggravated offences of wounding, harassment, common assault and criminal damage (in line with the new offences contained in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998) from April 1999, and first figures will be published in January 2000.

  Parole
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to give new directions to the Parole Board following the implementation of section 103 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [69273]

  Mr. Straw
  Section 103 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was commenced on 1 January 1999. As a result, all short-term prisoners whose original offences were committed on or after that date and who are subsequently released on licence will be subject to recall by the Parole Board in the same way as those released from long-term sentences.

  I have, therefore, prepared new Directions for the Board as to the matter to be taken into account in dealing with such recalls. These Directions are being made under the powers given to me by section 32(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and are based very closely on the existing Directions in respect of long-term prisoners.

  The new Directions also make it clear that there should be a clear presumption in favour of recall in cases where a licensee is charged with an offence committed whilst subject to Home Detention Curfew (HDC). This is because the commission of an offence by a prisoner subject to HDC is clearly a breach of the trust placed in that individual.
  546
  I have written to Usha Prashar, Chairman of the Parole Board, informing her of the new Directions. Copies of the new Directions have been placed in the Library.

  Deportation Orders
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently in custody awaiting deportation. [68987]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Regrettably, reliable information on the numbers of persons in custody, or otherwise detained, who are the subject of deportation action is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people were removed from the United Kingdom as a result of the enforcement of a deportation order in each year since 1992; [68988]

  (2) how many people were removed or departed voluntarily in each year since 1992, following the initiation of deportation action against them but without a deportation order being made. [68984]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available annual information is given in the table.

  Removals and voluntary departures following deportation action, 1992 to 1997

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Deportation orders enforced

  880

  850

  670

  700

  900

  800

  Other removals and voluntary Departures1

  1,710

  1,430

  1,250

  1,200

  1,110

  1,250

  1Removals and voluntary departures following the initiation of deportation action but without a deportation order having been made. Figures are rounded.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportation orders were made in each of the first five months of 1997. [68986]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information is given in the table.

  Deportation orders made, 1 January to 31 May 1997

  Number of deportation orders made

  January

  110

  February

  90

  March

  90

  April

  130

  May

  60

  Note:

  Figures are rounded

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportation orders were made in each year from 1992 to 1996; and how many have not yet been executed. [68985]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is given in the table. It should be noted that some deportation orders may not have been executable for legal reasons.
  547

  Deportation orders made and numbers of those not executed1, 1992 to 1996

  Year

  Number of deportation orders made

  Of which: number not executed1

  1992

  890

  2—

  1993

  1,240

  2—

  1994

  1,540

  570

  1995

  1,690

  730

  1996

  1,880

  980

  1Relates to the number of deportation orders made in the year concerned which had not been executed by January 1999. The figures exclude deportation orders enforced and cases where deportation is no longer appropriate.

  2 Data not available

  Note:

  Figures are rounded

  Badgers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been for offences in relation to badgers in each of the last three years. [68728]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database is given in the table.

  Number of defendants prosecuted for offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, England and Wales, 1995–1997

  Offence

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Offences of cruelty to badgers and special protection for badgers and their setts (excluding section 13 of Act)

  41

  31

  44

  Failing to give up a dog for destruction or having custody of a dog while disqualified (section 13 of Act)

  7

  6

  7

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have resigned from the Metropolitan Police in each of the last 10 years. [68496]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that the numbers of officers who resigned from the Metropolitan Police in each of the last ten years, were:

  Year

  Number

  1989

  605

  1990

  471

  1991

  246

  1992

  132

  1993

  139

  1994

  146

  1995

  171

  1996

  183

  1997

  223

  1998

  327

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average age of police officers in the Metropolitan Police; and what has been the average age in each of the last 10 years. [68498]
  548
  Mr. Boateng
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that the average age of police officers in the Metropolitan Police is 37 years and 3 months. The average age of Metropolitan Police officers in each year since 1993 was:

  Year

  Average age

  1993

  35 years 2 months

  1994

  35 years 7 months

  1995

  35 years 5 months

  1996

  36 years 5 months

  1997

  36 years 2 months

  1998

  38 years 4 months

  Information for previous years is not readily available.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers currently serving in the Metropolitan Police have more than(a) 25 years' service and (b) 30 years' service. [68492]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that there are 3,359 officers currently serving in the Metropolitan Police who have more than 25 years' service and that 1,074 officers have more than 30 years' service.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications for early retirement on health grounds made by police officers in the Metropolitan Police were(a) approved and (b) refused in each of the last 10 years; [68493]

  (2) how many police officers retired on health grounds from the Metropolitan Police in each of the last 10 years. [68495]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that the Metropolitan Police do not keep aggregated records of refusals of applications to retire on the grounds of ill health. Once approval is given to retire on medical grounds, the officer must retire within six weeks. The number of applications by officers to retire on medical grounds which have been approved in each of the past ten years were:

  Year

  Number

  1989

  300

  1990

  224

  1991

  275

  1992

  312

  1993

  342

  1994

  380

  1995

  433

  1996

  431

  1997

  412

  1998

  549

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers currently serving in the Metropolitan Police have ill-health retirement applications outstanding; and how many such officers are(a) on full pay, (b) on half pay and (c) on no pay. [68494]
  549
  Mr. Boateng
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that, at the end of November 1998, applications from 55 officers to retire on the grounds of ill health were outstanding. Of these officers, 44 were on full pay, seven on half-pay and four off pay.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers(a) applied for transfer and (b) were transferred from the Metropolitan Police in each of the last 10 years. [68497]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that records for officers applying for transfers are not kept centrally. The numbers of officers who transferred to other forces over the last ten years were:

  Year

  Number

  1989

  249

  1990

  239

  1991

  198

  1992

  233

  1993

  179

  1994

  190

  1995

  180

  1996

  255

  1997

  285

  1998

  236

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of service of police officers currently serving in the Metropolitan Police; and what was the average length of service in each of the last 10 years. [68499]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that the average length of service of police officers currently serving in the Metropolitan Police is 14 years and 4 months, and that the average length of service in each year from 1991 was:

  Year

  Average length of service

  1991

  12 years 8 months

  1992

  12 years

  1993

  12 years 6 months

  1994

  12 years 10 months

  1995

  13 years 6 months

  1996

  13 years 8 months

  1997

  13 years 9 months

  1998

  13 years 8 months

  Information as to earlier years is not readily available.

  Prisoners (Former Armed Forces Personnel)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the proportion of the prison population who are former members of HM Armed Forces. [67430]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is not available. No information regarding an individual's professional status, prior to reception into a Prison Service establishment, is recorded centrally.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what(a) proportion and (b) number of young offenders were (i) white, (ii) black, (iii) Asian and (iv) other in each of the last five years; [68095]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the proportion of persistent young offenders who are (a) white, (b) black, (c) Asian and (d) other in the last year for which figures are available. [68093]

  Mr. Straw
  Because ethnicity is not currently recorded at the point of conviction, there are no national data on the ethnicity of young offenders, or, it follows, of persistent young offenders.

  Statistics on the ethnicity of the sentenced prison population are shown in the table. Additional research carried out in 1993 shows by ethnic origin the proportion of young persons aged 17–25 who reported they had committed offences. (Young People and Crime, Home Office Research Study No.145, 1995).

  The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, which was established on 30 September 1998 under section 41 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, has the function of monitoring the operation of the youth justice system. The Board is currently considering its data collection requirements in carrying out this function. These are likely to include information about the characteristics of young offenders and the effectiveness of intervention work with them in preventing reoffending. This information will be collected from youth offending teams, established under section 39 of the 1998 Act, which the Government expect to implement nationally in April 2000.

  Prison population Sentenced young offenders by ethnic group

  Total

  White

  Black

  South Asian

  Chinese and other

  Not recorded

  Numbers at 30 June

  1993

  4,980

  4,380

  384

  143

  25

  48

  1994

  5,202

  4,527

  459

  141

  68

  7

  1995

  5,587

  4,727

  595

  170

  85

  10

  1996

  6,600

  5,274

  954

  228

  111

  33

  1997

  7,934

  6,397

  1,088

  271

  156

  22

  19981

  8,502

  6,773

  1,257

  276

  189

  7

  Percentages

  1993

  100

  88

  8

  3

  1

  1

  1994

  100

  87

  9

  3

  1

  0

  1995

  100

  85

  11

  3

  2

  0

  1996

  100

  80

  14

  3

  2

  1

  1997

  100

  81

  14

  3

  2

  0

  19981

  100

  80

  15

  3

  2

  0

  11998 data at end September 1998

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the elements of the Government's strategy for preventing youth crime which have been specifically targeted at ethnic minorities. [68092]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government set out their strategy for preventing youth crime in the White Paper "No More Excuses—a New Approach To Tackling Youth Crime in England and Wales". The clear aim of that strategy is to prevent offending and re-offending by juveniles. This is
  551
  now the statutory principal aim of the youth justice system, as set out in section 37 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides a range of new measures designed to be effective in preventing youth crime, irrespective of the ethnic background of those who seek to break the law. The Government are currently piloting new measures in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, including the final warning scheme, new community-based court disposals, and youth offending teams, with national implementation planned for around April 2000. To date, the Government have also introduced a range of measures to speed up the youth justice system, and have established the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales which will provide advice on the operation and performance of the youth justice system.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many assaults have been committed in each of the past five years by(a) white individuals against black individuals and vice versa, (b) white individuals against Asian individuals and vice versa and (c) Asian individuals against black individuals and vice versa; [68094]

  (2) what categories of recorded crime were most frequently committed by each of the following ethnic groups (a) white, (b) black, (c) Asian and (d) others, in each of the last five years; [68065]

  (3) how many street robberies were carried out (a) in total and (b) by each ethnic group in each of the last five years; [68063]

  (4) for each of the past five years, how many and what proportion of crimes were committed by offenders who were (a) white, (b) black, (c) Asian and (d) other. [68096]

  Mr. Straw
  Data on ethnicity are currently collected by the police, prison and probation services, but not as yet by the courts. The only data on crimes committed by ethnic group would come from court convictions. It follows, therefore, that there are at present no national data on the ethnicity of offenders as a whole.

  The Home Office regularly summarises the available information on ethnicity and the criminal justice system in statistical reports published under section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The latest of these was published on 8 December 1998 and is available in the Library and on the Internet at: http:www.home office. gov uk/rds/index .htm

  It is likely that a number of the crime and disorder audits carried out by local authorities under the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 may in appropriate cases include local data of the kind which the hon. Member seeks. One such is that recently published by the London Borough of Lambeth and the relevant Divisions to the Metropolitan Police Service. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the benefits of introducing a category of racially motivated crime in crime statistics. [68064]
  552
  Mr. Straw
  All police forces collect information on racial incidents, based on the Association of Chief Police Officers definition of"Any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation; or any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person".
  Incidents included here are wider than the normal definition of a crime in the crime statistics and include general threatening behaviour. These statistics are regularly published under section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  The Home Office, police and Crown Prosecution Service monitor the provisions covering racially aggravated offences established by sections 28–32 and 82 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. These findings will first be published under section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 in January 2000.

  Given the widespread concern about racially motivated crimes, and the recent approval of Parliament for specific racially aggravated offences in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 it is essential that such data should be collected. The benefits are clear.

  Millennium Compliance (Hampshire)
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of progress on millennium compliance for the emergency services in Hampshire. [68131]

  Mr. Straw
  Fire and police services provide quarterly reports to Cabinet Office about progress towards Year 2000 compliance. These reports are published in summary in the Library and in detail on the Internet. The NHS Executive also publishes details of ambulance service quarterly progress reports on the Internet.

  My Department monitors the progress reports from fire and police services. It is working with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Fire Services, and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Association of Chief Police Officers respectively to encourage fire brigades and police forces to take the necessary action. I understand that the NHS Executive works with ambulance trusts to ensure that their Year 2000 preparations are on course.

  The latest reports from the emergency services in Hampshire give the following dates for Year 2000 compliance:

  Constabulary: March 1999

  Fire service: June 1999

  Ambulance service: Now compliant.

  A programme of independent assessment of the Year 2000 preparations being made by key elements of the national infrastructure is taking place under the auspices of the National Infrastructure Forum. This is facilitated by Action 2000 and the Cabinet Office. The outcome of the assessment of the emergency services should be published in the Summer.

  Electro-shock Batons
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the company that was responsible for
  553
  handling, storing and distributing the electro-shock batons that were trans-shipped from the United States to Saudi Arabia via the United Kingdom under the 1993 trans-shipment licence granted by the Department of Trade and Industry had been issued with the relevant licences under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968; [68190]

  (2) if the companies that were granted export licences by the Department of Trade and Industry for the export of electro-shock batons from the United Kingdom between 1989 and 1994 had been granted the relevant licence under section 5 of the Firearms Act to (a) handle, (b) store, (c) distribute and (d) manufacture such weapons; [68191]

  (3) what actions his Department has taken against (a) companies and (b) individuals that were not in possession of the relevant firearms licences for the handling, storage, distribution or manufacture of electro-shock batons. [68240]

  Mr. Boateng
  Two of the four companies in question had authority to deal in weapons prohibited by section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968, which would include electro-shock weapons as well as other types of weapons capable of discharging a noxious liquid, gas or other things. The other two companies, one of which was the company granted the trans-shipment licence, did not have such authority.

  The investigation of possible offences under the Firearms Acts is a matter for the police, who will consider whether there are grounds to bring criminal charges. The decision as to whether or not to prosecute in an individual case rests with the Crown Prosecution Service. The Home Office have no powers to intervene. However, information about the two companies that did not have authority to deal in prohibited weapons was forwarded by the Home Office to the relevant police forces for their consideration. I understand that, in both cases, the police have decided to take no further action.

  Police Officers (Criminal Proceedings)
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the guidance in Home Office Circular 4/1998, relating to the payment of money to officers, either former or serving, involved in criminal proceedings, applies(a) to officers who have retired on health grounds with outstanding disciplinary charges against them and (b) to officers against whom outstanding disciplinary charges have been dropped because of a retirement on health grounds of another officer. [68225]

  Mr. Boateng
  There is no express statutory provision enabling police authorities to provide financial assistance to officers involved in criminal proceedings. The circular makes it clear that it is entirely for individual police authorities to decide in the particular circumstances of a case and, on the basis of legal advice, whether to make financial assistance available to officers, either former or serving, in criminal proceedings. It does not seek to offer guidance on the specific circumstances of a case.

  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review Home 554
  Office Circular 4/1998 relating to the payment of money to officers, either former or serving, involved in criminal proceedings in respect of the payment of the defence costs of officers from the police budget. [68845]

  Mr. Boateng
  Home Office Circular 4/1998 was issued after full consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Superintendents Association, the Police Federation and the Association of Police Authorities. We have no plans at present to review it.

  South Yorkshire Police Authority
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average annual cost in the South Yorkshire Police Authority area of keeping a police constable on the beat. [68224]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand from the South Yorkshire Police Authority that the full average annual cost of a beat constable is around £41,300. This includes pay, pensions, and running costs.

  Ethnic Minorities (Crime)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has(a) undertaken and (b) commissioned in the past year into crime among ethnic minorities; and when the results of any such research will be made available to the public. [68111]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 28 January 1999]: Since 1 January 1998, the Home Office has undertaken or commissioned a number of pieces of research which have included consideration of issues of ethnicity in the criminal justice system, patterns of offending between different ethnic groups, patterns of ethnic minority victimisation, and the operation of the criminal justice system in relation to ethnic minorities as suspects, offenders and victims of crime.

  All commissioned research is published as a matter of course. I have strengthened the procedures for securing the integrity of regular statistical services by ensuring that they are published by the Director of the Research and Statistical Directorate and not Ministers, and on dates set well in advance.

  I receive regular advice from my officials in the form of submissions and briefing papers about the research and statistical data available in the Department.

  The current list, with dates of publication in brackets, is as follows:
  Tackling Street Robbery: a Comparative Evaluation of Operation Eagle Eye
  Stockdale J. E. and Gresham P. J.
  PRG Crime Detection and Prevention Series 1998
  (March 1998)
  Ethnicity and Victimisation: findings from the 1996 British Crime Survey
  Home Office Statistical Bulletin 6/98 (April 1998)
  Sentencing Practice: an examination of decisions in magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in the mid-1990s
  Flood-Page C and Mackie A
  Home Office Research Study 180 (July 1998)

  555
  Prison Statistics, England and Wales (July 1998)
  Entry into the criminal justice system: a survey of police arrests and their outcome
  Phillips C and Brown D
  Home Office and Research Study 185 (August 1998)
  Probation Statistics, England and Wales (October 1998)
  Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System
  Published under section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (December 1998)
  Young Offenders from Different Ethnic Groups
  Miller J
  Home Office, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate (Spring 1999)
  Evaluation of the Racially Aggravated Offences in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
  Fitzgerald M
  Home Office, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate (Spring 2001)

  and, possibly:
  1998 Youth Lifestyles Survey
  Flood-Page C
  Home Office, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate (Spring 2000),

  which is expected to provide information on many aspects of young people's lifestyles including fear of crime, victimisation and self-reported offending.

  Burials
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the provisions of the Local Authorities Cemeteries Order 1977 relating to the sale of exclusive right of burial to individual families. [68560]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No. Burial authorities have a wide discretion under the 1977 Order as to the length of time for which they may grant an exclusive right of burial, up to a maximum of 100 years. We understand that these arrangements generally work satisfactorily.

  Struck-out Court Cases
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines exist for striking out court cases on the basis that they are an abuse of process; and if he will make a statement. [68242]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  Any application to stay proceedings on the grounds that they are an abuse of process is for the court to determine in accordance with the principles established in case law.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration has been given to the financial cost to local authorities of provision for the educational needs of school-age children of asylum seekers in the assessment of any special grant settlement. [67728]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  1 have been asked to reply.
  556
  Through the Local Government Finance Settlement, Local Education Authorities are funded to provide education for school aged children of asylum seekers on school roll, in the same way as they are for other children on school roll. This arrangement will not be affected by the current review of the asylum seeking process, or any changes to the funding of other costs incurred by Local Authorities in meeting the needs of asylum seekers.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were on the waiting list in each health and social services board for fracture operations in(a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997 and (d) at the latest available date. [67859]

  Mr. McFall
  Patients requiring fracture operations are treated on an emergency basis and therefore are not, routinely, placed on waiting lists for surgery. From time to time a small number of patients may have to wait for treatment. On 29 January, 31 patients were awaiting fracture operations, and 19 operations were scheduled for that day.

  RUC Stations (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the Royal Ulster Constabulary stations to which she has paid a visit since 1 May 1997, indicating the date and the time spent at each such police station. [67658]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The location, date and duration of each such visit are shown in the table.

  Location

  Date

  Duration (minutes)

  Strand road

  9 May 1997

  30

  Lurgan

  17 June 1997

  30

  Newtownabbey

  26 September 1997

  40

  Dungannon

  8 October 1997

  30

  Musgrave street, Belfast

  24 October 1997

  30

  Ballymoney

  7 November 1997

  30

  Enniskillen

  13 February 1998

  30

  Waterside

  13 March 1998

  30

  Strand road

  12 May 1998

  45

  Antrim

  18 May 1998

  30

  Mahon road

  10 July 1998

  30

  It should be noted that the durations above have been taken from the programme schedules arranged prior to each visit, as opposed to exact times on the day (which are not readily available). Visits of this kind regularly exceed the arranged times.

  Prisoners (Early Release)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons given early release from prison under the Belfast agreement have been charged with an offence since their release. [68867]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

WALES

  Departmental Papers (Access for Visually Impaired)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for departmental(a) White and (b) Green Papers to be made available on floppy disk format in a form which facilitates access for the visually impaired. [67850]

  Mr. Michael
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 27 January 1999,Official Report, column 296. In considering the changes in IT needed in preparation for the arrival of the National Assembly for Wales, I have asked my officials to make provisions for making documents and information accessible to people for whom the standard printed form is not appropriate. This will include floppy disk versions which are in a format which facilitates access for the visually impaired. Guidance on how to reach the largest possible target audience when producing documents for use by people outside the Department, including White and Green Papers, has been issued to staff at the Welsh Office. The Guidance will also be incorporated into a revised Equal Opportunities Handbook.

  Tourism
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policies for the tourism industry in North East Wales. [68361]

  Mr. Hain
  The development of regional policies is an operational matter for the Wales Tourist Board within the Wales Tourism Strategy published in 1994 and endorsed by Ministers.

  It is currently working with the Regional Tourism Company, local authorities and local businesses to implement a number of initiatives including growth in the short break/additional holiday market and development of business travel markets. North East Wales is particularly well placed to benefit from these matters.

  I have asked the Board's Chief Executive to provide my hon. Friend with more details. A copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Rural Transport
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by how much he has increased spending on rural transport in real terms between 1998–99 and 1999–2000. [68356]

  Mr. Hain
  The bus subsidy grant scheme will make £5 million available to local authorities in 1999–2000, of which £3 million must be spent on rural bus services and the remaining £2 million may be spent on either rural or urban services. In 1998–99 £2.25 million was made available exclusively for rural services. This means that direct support for rural bus services in 1999–2000 will increase by at least 30 per cent. in real terms, and probably significantly more than that.
  558
  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Health Service Salaries
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost of salaries for(a) nurses and (b) general practitioners in Wales in the last year for which figures are available. [68365]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  (a) In 1997–98 the total cost of salaries for nursing, midwifery, health visiting was £448.846 million.

  (b) General practitioners are independent contractors to the NHS and information on their salaries is not collected centrally.

  Source:

  Annual accounts of NHS trusts and health authorities 1997–98.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Numeracy and Literacy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his assessment of the scale of improvements in numeracy and literacy in schools in Wales in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [68355]

  Mr. Hain
  As the following table illustrates there has been an underlying improvement in the standards achieved in English, Welsh and mathematics. In all cases we are well on course to achieve the targets we have set for 2000 and 2002. Without exception we have already started making inroads into the year 2000 targets.

  Percentage of pupils achieving the expected level1

  Key Stage 1 (7-year-olds)

  Key Stage 2 (11-year-olds)

  Key Stage 3 (14-year-olds)

  English

  1996

  78

  56

  56

  1997

  80

  64

  59

  1998

  80

  64

  62

  Welsh

  1996

  83

  54

  69

  1997

  85

  56

  69

  1998

  86

  65

  71

  Mathematics

  1996

  82

  56

  55

  1997

  83

  64

  59

  1998

  84

  61

  60

  1 Level 2 for 7-year-olds; level 4 for 1l-year-olds; and level 5 for 14-year-olds

  Targets: By 2000 between 60 and 70 per cent. of 11 and 14-year-olds should achieve the level expected for their age. By 2002 the target is between 70 and 80 per cent. achieving the expected levels.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current acreage of genetically modified crops under cultivation in Wales. [68357]
  559
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  There are no genetically modified crops under commercial cultivation in Wales nor in the rest of the UK.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Economic Prospects (North-East Wales)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new measures he is implementing to improve economic prospects in North-east Wales. [68354]

  Mr. Hain
  "Pathway to Prosperity—An Economic Agenda for Wales" was published last July. It contained a wide range of measures for modernising and raising the competitiveness of the Welsh economy including North East Wales. These include:

  An Entrepreneurship Action Plan

  Know How Wales

  Millennium Bug Support

  Strengthening Business Connect.

  Numerous measures have been announced since that time, including:

  A Business and Environment Challenge Scheme

  Connect for a Better Business.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  School Pupils
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children attend(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each of the county authorities in Wales. [68358]

  Mr. Hain
  The information is as follows:

  Full and part time pupils in LEA maintained and grant-maintained schools by unitary authority: numbers at January 1998

  Unitary authority

  Primary

  Secondary

  Blaenau Gwent

  7,923

  4,538

  Bridgend

  13,188

  9,262

  Caerphilly

  18,978

  12,746

  Cardiff

  31,191

  20,884

  Carmarthenshire

  15,767

  12,085

  Ceredigion

  5,934

  4,977

  Conwy

  10,084

  6,888

  Denbighshire

  9,098

  6,713

  Flintshire

  15,331

  10,076

  Gwynedd

  10,965

  7,220

  Isle of Anglesey

  6,469

  4,878

  Merthyr Tydfil

  6,567

  4,673

  Monmouthshire

  7,656

  5,326

  Neath Port Talbot

  14,347

  9,194

  Newport

  15,015

  9,685

  Pembrokeshire

  11,220

  7,966

  Powys

  11,755

  8,289

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  24,931

  18,308

  Swansea

  22,524

  15,432

  Torfaen

  9,711

  7,382

  Vale of Glamorgan

  12,413

  8,312

  Wrexham

  12,624

  7,018

  Wales

  293,691

  201,852

  Source:

  Schools' Census
  560
  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Housing Policy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy for housing in Wales. [68600]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Government's objectives for housing in Wales are to offer everyone in Wales the opportunity of a decent home, to achieve clear improvements in all housing tenures and to do so in the context of the promotion of sustainable development. The 1999–2000 Government's Expenditure Plans: Departmental Report by the Welsh Office which will be published in April, and which takes into account the outcome of the public consultation on the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review: Spending Plans 1999–2002, will set out the mechanisms by which this objective will be met. Copies of the Departmental Report will be placed in the Library of the House.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Alyn and Deeside (WDA Strategy)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he has given to the North Wales region of the WDA with regards to a strategy for inward investment, job creation and infrastructure in Alyn and Deeside; and if he will make a statement. [68583]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend announced on 26 January 1999,Official Report, column 172 that he had issued Strategic Guidance to the Welsh Development Agency for the period to March 2000.

  This sets out the broad operational priorities which we want the Agency to follow, with the objectives of spreading economic success to every part of Wales including the North Wales region and the Alyn and Deeside area; and bringing each area's local economy nearer to the level of the best.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Teachers
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many whole-time equivalent teachers are currently employed in Wales; and how many were employed in May 1997. [68519]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: Information on employment of teachers is collected annually in January. At January 1997 and 1998 there were respectively 26,500 and 26,135 whole-time equivalent qualified teachers employed in Wales.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

PRIME MINISTER

  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Prime Minister if an official history of the Development of North Sea Oil and Gas is being commissioned. [69212]

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. I have appointed Professor Alexander Kemp of Aberdeen University as an official historian to write the official history of the Development of North Sea Oil and Gas.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Office for the Supervision of Solicitors
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he has taken to monitor the work of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors; and if he will make a statement. [68320]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors is an independent body, and the Government do not have a role in monitoring the work of the Office. However, the Legal Services Ombudsman oversees the handling of complaints against members of the legal profession. She stated in her last annual report that, although the Office

  £million

  Closed case 1997–98

  Gross payments

  Costs received

  Damages retained

  Contributions retained

  Net costs

  All Personal Injury Litigation

  307.7

  234.3

  6.0

  2.3

  65.6

  Medical Negligence

  63.0

  32.6

  1.3

  0.7

  28.5

  Personal Injury (excl. medical negligence)

  224.7

  201.7

  4.7

  1.5

  37.1

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what additional legislation, not currently before Parliament, was assumed in the production of his Department's spending allocation for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [68419]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is a longstanding convention that legislative proposals for each year are not announced before the Queen's Speech at the start of the relevant Session. My Department's spending allocation does take account of the Access to Justice Bill.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what responsibilities which his Department had prior to the Comprehensive Spending Review are to be(a) discontinued by his Department, (b) transferred to another department, (c) transferred to an executive agency and (d) added to his Department over the period 1998–99 to 2001–02. [68403]

  Mr. Hoon
  No responsibilities held by this Department prior to the Comprehensive Spending Review are to be discontinued or transferred, either to another department or to an executive agency. From October 2000, this Department will take over from the Home Office
  562
  had made some improvements since it started operating in September 1996, there was still a long way to go. When the Ombudsman publishes her next annual report this summer, I will consider whether any further action is necessary.

  Personal Injury Litigation
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what was, for personal injury litigation,(a) the cost of legal aid before cost recovery and retention of contributions, (b) the amount of costs recovered, (c) the amount of damages retained, (d) the amount of contributions retained and (e) the net cost after deduction of costs recovered, damages retained and contributions retained for (i) all personal injury litigation, (ii) medical negligence cases and (iii) personal injury cases excluding medical negligence in 1997–98. [68228]

  Mr. Hoon
  Closed case data for 1997–98 are incomplete and will not include five months' data for Nottingham and six weeks for Chester. This is due to the implementation in these two area offices of the Legal Aid Board's new Corporate Information System, which is temporarily unable to access closed case information. A breakdown of the available legal aid expenditure and receipts in respect of personal injury litigation and medical negligence cases for cases closed in 1997–98 was as follows:

  responsibility for the enforcement of financial penalties. Responsibility for non-financial penalties could be transferred at the same time, or at a later date.

  The Comprehensive Spending Review also provided an opportunity to reappraise spending plans and initiatives, and to reprioritise initiatives so as to provide properly for the needs of a modern and efficient justice system.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions in each of the last 10 years abuse of process was used by a judge to dismiss a case concerning child abuse. [68241]

  Mr. Hoon
  This information is not collected.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  State Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect of linking the basic state pension for those aged over 75 years to earnings rather than prices on(a) gross expenditure on NI benefits, (b) expenditure on means-tested benefits and (c) income tax revenues in (i) 2005 and (ii) 2010. [67976]
  563
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 28 January 1999]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  £ billion in 1999–2000 benefit rates

  Expenditure

  2005–06

  2010–11

  Basic Retirement Pension

  2.2

  3.9

  Means-tested benefit offsets

  -0.7

  -1.2

  Notes:

  1. Inland Revenue is not able to provide estimates for tax effects in the years in question.

  2. Retirement Pension estimates have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  3. Increased rates are assumed payable to pensioners aged 75 and over at each of the given dates. Category BL rates were increased where the recipient is 75 or over, including cases where the spouse whose contribution record provides entitlement is under 75. Adult Dependency Increases paid in respect of women aged under 75 were not increased.

  4. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £0.1 billion, but are not necessarily accurate to that degree.

  5. Estimates of means-tested benefit offsets are illustrative and assume price uprating of Income Support. They are based on the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey and the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry. Possible future increases in income, other than the proposed increases in Basic Retirement Pension, have not been taken into account.

  Mr. John Farren
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to update the National Insurance Contributions records of Mr. John Farren, a constituent. [68234]

  Mr. Timms
  The National Insurance account for the hon. Member's constituent, Mr. Farren, will be updated by the 15 March 1999.

  Forecast Expenditure
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list his latest estimates and forecast expenditure in cash terms for cyclical social security for (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001–02. [68385]

  Mr. Darling
  Government expenditure is no longer classified as being Cyclical or as part of the Control Total. Major reforms to tighten the control and to improve the long term planning of public spending were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report (published June 1998). Spending plans across the public sector is known as Total Managed Expenditure (TME). Large demand-led programmes, such as DSS benefits expenditure, are brought together in Annually Managed Expenditure (AME). The latest forecasts for DSS benefits expenditure were published in the November 1998 Pre-Budget Report.

  Departmental Papers (Access for Visually Impaired)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for departmental(a) White and (b) Green Papers to be made available on floppy disk format in a form which facilitates access for the visually impaired. [67846]
  564
  Mr. Bayley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Written Answer that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, gave on 27 January 1999,Official Report, column 296.

  It is the practice of this Department to facilitate access for the visually impaired by producing all White and Green Papers in braille and audio versions and they are made available from The Stationery Office at the same price as the print version. Free summary versions, also available in braille and audio, can be ordered by calling 0181 867 3201.

  In addition, we produce an electronic version for publishing on the Internet and we are able to make floppy disk versions available on request.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce new ways of detecting and combating Disability Living Allowance fraud following the abolition of the Benefit Integrity Project. [67760]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) gathered up to date information about the care and mobility needs of disabled people with the highest awards of Disability Living Allowance (DLA), to check that they were receiving the right amount of DLA. The Benefit Integrity Project will end on 31 March 1999, to be replaced by a new and fairer system. No new cases will be selected for the project after this date. Cases where action has already started will continue to be processed through the remaining stages of adjudication, including review and appeal, in the normal way.

  We are determined to ensure that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit. But there is currently no automatic review mechanism within DLA. Therefore, from April a new system of periodic review will be introduced. It will incorporate the lessons already learned and will be continually evaluated and refined as it develops. Staff involved in the new processes will receive full training before commencing this new work.

  We are already talking to disability groups about ways to ensure the new system is sensitive to people's circumstances, and that it is both fair and effective.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of family credit there are in the(a) Maidstone area and (b) Medway area. [67468]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of Family Credit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jonathan Shaw, dated 1 February 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many recipients of Family Credit there are in the (a) Maidstone and (b) Medway areas.
  The Family Credit Unit produces statistics which show the number of recipients within the area covered by Benefits Agency (BA) offices. The area of Medway is covered by the BA Chatham office.
  565
  The number of Family Credit recipients for the Maidstone and Chatham areas are shown in the table.

  Number of family credit recipients in the Maidstone and Chatham benefits agency offices areas

  Office

  Number of recipients

  Maidstone

  1,146

  Chatham

  2,318

  Notes:

  Figures as at October 1998

  Figures are provisional and subject to change

  Source:

  Family Credit Unit.

  I hope you find this reply useful.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received about the creation of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency; and how many representations opposed setting up the new body. [68058]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Following the announcement of the creation of a new Marine Agency on 19 August 1997 to combine the work of the Coastguard Agency and the Marine Safety Agency from 1 April 1998, several letters were received, mainly referring to the HM Coastguard 5 year Strategy. Of these received 7 made mention of the merger, of which four expressed concern but none opposed the setting up of a new body. Since the launch of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency there have been a number of letters from industry and others endorsing the benefits of the merged agency.

  Freight Flights (Heathrow)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many air freight flights representing what freight tonnage were recorded(a) to and (b) from (i) Heathrow, (ii) Gatwick and (iii) Stansted in each of the last five years. [68575]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  What information is available is shown in the table.

  Freight movements at Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted: 1994–98

  Number

  Gatwick

  Heathrow

  Stansted

  Freight flights 1994

  Arrivals

  2,741

  1,951

  4,445

  Departures

  2,456

  2,023

  5,152

  1995

  Arrivals

  2,635

  1,548

  4,688

  Departures

  2,470

  1,994

  4,928

  1996

  Arrivals

  2,783

  1,655

  4,683

  Departures

  2,497

  2,023

  4,946

  566

  Freight movements at Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted: 1994–98

  Number

  Gatwick

  Heathrow

  Stansted

  1997

  Arrivals

  2,274

  1,734

  5,034

  Departures

  2,085

  1,853

  5,228

  1998

  Arrivals

  2,035

  1,604

  6,587

  Departures

  1,723

  1,714

  6,509

  Tonnes

  Gatwick

  Heathrow

  Stansted

  Freight 1994

  Set Down

  15,292

  41,904

  39,206

  Picked Up

  18,838

  47,348

  44,004

  1995

  Set Down

  22,521

  43,151

  42,811

  Picked Up

  28,014

  51,267

  45,403

  1996

  Set Down

  32,219

  44,983

  50,513

  Picked Up

  33,540

  49,521

  51,440

  1997

  Set Down

  14,316

  58,536

  64,020

  Picked Up

  19,258

  56,022

  60,748

  1998

  Set Down

  6,944

  55,527

  94,312

  Picked Up

  10,896

  51,353

  82,818

  Fly-tipping
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce further measures to discourage fly-tipping. [68627]

  Mr. Meale
  Stringent controls and severe penalties are in place to discourage the illegal disposal of waste (fly-tipping) and the Environment Agency has made clear its commitment to taking firm enforcement action. The main controls and the maximum penalties were set out in my reply to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), on 8 December 1998,Official Report, columns 120–21. We have no plans to introduce further measures.

  Sewerage
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his Department's programme of investment in cleaning up water and sewage will provide assistance to local authorities wishing to transfer Housing Act sewage works water companies. [68586]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department does not offer financial assistance to help bring Housing Act sewage works up to the required standard to enable them to be adopted by the sewerage undertaker. There are provisions in the Water Industry Act 1991 which enable these works to be adopted but the financial implications are a matter for the sewerage undertaker and local authority. Under section
  567
  105 of the 1991 Act, an owner of any sewerage works may appeal to the Director General of Water Services in the event of a dispute with the sewerage undertaker over an agreement to adopt.

  Direct Labour Organisations
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his Department will conduct a review of the bodies which a direct labour organisation of a district council is permitted to enter into contracts with as specified in the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970; and if he will make a statement. [68567]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My officials are reviewing the way the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 works. Any changes to its administration have to be considered in the context of the Local Government Bill, now before Parliament, which would allow the Secretary of State to modify existing legislation so as to facilitate local authorities achieving best value. It would be premature to discuss how this power might be exercised in advance of Parliament discussing the relevant provisions of the Bill.

  Private Playing Fields
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to control development on private playing fields. [68566]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Planning Policy Guidance note 17: "Sport and Recreation" provides advice on this issue. It emphasises the special significance of playing fields, including those that are privately owned and that they should normally be protected from development, taking into account the long-term needs of the community for recreation and amenity open space.

  Last month, my Department issued Circular 9/98: the Town and Country Planning (Playing Fields) (England) Direction 1998. This applies to any application for developing private land which is currently or has at any time in the five years before the application been used as a playing field by an educational institution.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people are currently registered as homeless; and how many were so registered in May 1997. [68607]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local authorities in England report in their quarterly P1(E) returns the number of households accepted as homeless and in priority need under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts.

  The latest available estimates are for the quarter ending September 1998, when local authorities accepted some 27,500 households. The corresponding figure for the quarter ending June 1997 was 24,930 households.

  Groundwater Regulations 1998
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the Groundwater Regulations. [68967]
  568
  Mr. Meacher
  The Groundwater Regulations 1998 were laid before Parliament on 11 November 1998. Transitional arrangements under the Regulations came into force on 1 January, and the main provisions come into force on 1 April 1999.

  Minerals Extraction
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in response to public consultation on the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats (Extraction of Minerals by Marine Dredging) Regulations 1999; and if he will make a statement. [69213]

  Mr. Caborn
  Public consultation on the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats (Extraction of Minerals by Marine Dredging) Regulations was carried out for a six week period in the autumn of last year. 46 responses were received from official bodies, from fishing interests, local authorities and environmental organisations. A list of the responses has been placed in the Library of the House and copies of all responses have been placed in the DETR Library. The Government are considering the responses.

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what statutory authority exists for costs to be incurred by him in preparation for the establishment of the Greater London Authority and its functional and other associated bodies. [69214]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill provides authority for preparations for the Greater London Authority itself. Authority for preparations for the remaining bodies will be provided by the Greater London Authority Bill once enacted. Parliamentary approval for expenditure on these remaining bodies will be sought as soon as practicable following enactment. This is likely to be through a Winter Supplementary Estimate for Class III Vote 4 (local government, England) for 1999–2000. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure in 1998–99 estimated at £320,000 will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the total number of people on NHS waiting lists in England since April 1998; and if he will make a statement on progress made in reducing waiting lists. [67172]

  Mr. Denham
  The total number of people on National Health Service waiting lists in England has fallen by over 150,000 since April 1998. By next April, we will deliver a record reduction in waiting lists to below the 1.16 million patients inherited from the previous Government. This will be the first step in delivering our pledge to bring down the waiting lists by 100,000 from the level we inherited in the lifetime of this Parliament.
  569
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the total number of people waiting over 12 months for treatment on NHS waiting lists in England since May 1998. [67188]

  Mr. Denham
  Over 12 months waiters have fallen by over 16,000, 22 per cent. since June 1998, to stand at 56,000 at the end of November 1998.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients need to be treated in the Essex Rivers health authority to meet his Department's waiting list target at 31 March 1999. [67191]

  Mr. Denham
  The position as at November 1998 was that Essex Rivers Healthcare National Health Service Trust will need to achieve a reduction of 2,324 in order to achieve its 31 March 1999 waiting list target. North Essex Health Authority will need to achieve a reduction of 3,362 in order to achieve its 31 March 1999 waiting list target.

  Renal Services
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision, per head of population, of renal services in(a) the South Lancashire health authority and (b) the rest of England. [67174]

  Mr. Hutton
  The actual take-up figure in the area covered by South Lancashire Health Authority was 50 patients per million population in the most recent year for which figures are available, that is, the year ended September 1997. The most recent national figures available are from a survey of service provision in 1995. The number of new patients in England accepted on to treatment (dialysis or kidney transplant) for end stage renal failure in 1995 was 82 per million population.

  Investing in Dentistry Initiative
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of grant applications under the Investing in Dentistry initiative. [67175]

  Mr. Denham
  To date, we have received over 600 Investing in Dentistry funding requests, 242 of which have been approved, and 236 refused. Decisions on the remaining applications will be made as soon as possible.

  Out-patient Waiting Lists
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the total number of patients waiting more than 13 weeks for an out-patient consultation as of(a) the first quarter of 1997 and (b) the last quarter for which figures are available. [67177]

  Mr. Denham
  In the first quarter of 1997–98, 2,690,000 first outpatient attendances were provided, with 290,000 patients waiting over 13 weeks at 30 June. In the second quarter of 1998–99 (the latest available),570
  2,740,000 first outpatient attendances were provided, with 437,000 patients waiting over 13 weeks at 30 September 1998.

  Winter Schemes
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many winter schemes were supported by his Department through his Department's targeted winter schemes money. [67178]

  Mr. Hutton
  Over 2,000. These have enabled health and social services to work together to manage the very high emergency pressures we have seen over the past month.

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many schemes were funded by his Department through targeted winter schemes money. [67198]

  Mr. Denham
  Over 2,000 schemes have been funded through this money. These have enabled health and social services to work together to manage the very high emergency pressures we have seen over the past month.

  Nurses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the percentage increase in nurses on trainee schemes was for 1997 over the previous year; and what proportion of this increase was made up of graduate nurses. [67179]

  Mr. Denham
  The English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting collects statistical information on students on nurse trainee schemes and publishes the figures in their annual reports, but not in the format requested.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the training of nurses. [67180]

  Mr. Denham
  We have already said that we must reform the system of nurse education and training.

  We want to see more flexible, modular nurse education that has far stronger links with the NHS at all levels. We want student nurses to have more work-based learning in the NHS and see an NHS committed to preparing the next generation of nurses.

  We will be discussing how we achieve this with representatives of the professions, the UK General Council and the universities.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses were registered with the UK Central Council for England and Wales on (i) 1 May 1997 and (ii) 1 January 1999; and if he will make a statement. [67183]

  Mr. Denham
  For the information requested, I refer the hon. Member to the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many extra nurse trainees would have entered
  571
  training in the years 1992 to 1997 if the level of intake matched expected levels for 1998 to 2001. [67186]

  Mr. Denham
  If the previous Government had matched our commitment to nurse training over their last five years of office, over 14,000 extra nurse trainees would have entered training.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what improvements he is making to nurse education and training. [67195]

  Mr. Denham
  We wish to see nurse education become more accessible and provide nurses with the practical skills they need when they enter the National Health Service. We will be discussing how we achieve this with representatives of the professions and the universities, and with Sir Len Peach, Chair of the United Kingdom Central Council Commission for Education. The commission is reviewing nurse education and will report in the summer.

  The NHS is already working to improve nurse education, for example by encouraging the use of longer practice placements and by working closely with universities to encourage more joint NHS/University-funded nurse teacher posts.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new student nurse trainees were forecast to start training in the year 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1997; and how many new student nurse trainees started training during that year. [67196]

  Mr. Denham
  From April 1997 to April 1998 the number of nurse training places was increased by just under 1,500 against a planned increase of 1,300.

  Commission for Health Improvement
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers will be available to the Commission for Health Improvement for supporting the local development of health care and spot-checking new arrangements. [67181]

  Mr. Denham
  Forthcoming legislation will set out powers to enable the Commission to obtain access to information for the purposes of conducting reviews of the implementation and adequacy of arrangements to monitor and improve the quality of healthcare provided by National Health Service Trusts and Primary Care Trusts.

  NHS Staff (Retention)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the retention of NHS staff. [67182]

  Mr. Denham
  "Working Together—Securing a quality workforce for the NHS", published in September 1998, sets targets for local employers to demonstrate year-on-year improvement in retention rates for all health professional staff.

  Viagra
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding making Viagra available on the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [67184]
  572
  Mr. Denham
  Since September we have received some 490 written representations from Members of Parliament, professional representative bodies, patient groups and the public about the availability of Viagra on the National Health Service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 21 January the start of a six-week public consultation on substantive policy proposals about the treatment of impotence on the NHS.

  Equality of Provision
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he is making toward equality of provision in the national health service; and when he expects to achieve it. [67185]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are producing National Service Frameworks, establishing the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and introducing a National Performance Assessment Framework, which will challenge and address variations in the provision of clinically and cost-effective treatments not based on the health needs and wishes of local people.

  Cervical Screening
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure equality of provision for cervical screening; and if he will make a statement. [67189]

  Mr. Hutton
  Tackling health inequalities is one of two key aims in "Our Healthier Nation" and it is a priority for health and social services. We are committed to ensuring that all women aged 20–64 have access to cervical screening at least every five years. In those health authorities areas which are not achieving 80 per cent. coverage, targeted initiatives are underway to improve coverage. At a national level, a new Inner Cities Action Group is identifying and disseminating good practice in increasing coverage among ethnic minority and lower socio-economic groups.

  NHS Morale
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has put into effect with the aim of increasing morale in the NHS. [67192]

  Mr. Denham
  "Working Together: Securing a quality workforce for the NHS", a framework for managing human resources in the National Health Service, was circulated to the NHS on 22 September 1998 and is a major step forward in our drive to meeting the aspirations of both staff and employers. The pay review bodies have welcomed the initiatives that we announced to improve the quality of the working lives of staff.

  By April 2000 employers will, among other measures, have to:
  have systems in place to record and monitor workplace accidents and violence against staff, and have published strategies in place to achieve a reduction in such incidents;
  have policies and procedures in place to tackle harassment by staff and service users, supported by monitoring and reporting arrangements to measure progress;
  have in place occupational health services and counselling available for staff;

  573
  have in place training and development plans in place for the majority of health professionals;
  have developed and reviewed their mechanisms for involving staff in planning and delivering health care;
  achieve year-on-year improvement in sick absence rates and, where applicable, targeted progress towards national minimum benchmarks;
  demonstrate year-on-year improvement in retention rates for all health professional staff and, where applicable, targeted progress towards national benchmarks;
  have undertaken an annual staff attitude survey to act as a benchmark against which improvements to the quality of working life can be measured.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his target for investment in the modernisation of accident and emergency departments during 1999. [67193]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government have announced an extra £30 million to modernise some 50 accident and emergency departments in the coming year.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many primary care groups he expects to commence during 1999. [67194]

  Mr. Denham
  481 primary care groups will commence on 1 April 1999.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if primary care groups may commission services. [671761

  Mr. Denham
  Primary care groups will have the capacity to commission services from 1 April 1999. The degree of responsibility for commissioning services will be agreed between the primary care group and the health authority.

  NHS Wages and Salaries
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the total NHS budget is taken up by the wages and salaries of(a) doctors, (b) nurses and (c) ancillary workers. [67197]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Paybill costs as a percentage of National Health Service expenditure: England 1997–98

  Percentage of NHS expenditure

  £ million

  NHS Total Expenditure

  —

  37,650

  Doctors and dentists paybill

  16.1

  6,070

  Nurses and midwives paybill

  17.6

  6,630

  Ancillary staff paybill

  2.6

  970

  Notes:

  Paybill data for 1997–98 are provisional.

  Figures for doctors and dentists include general practitioners and general dental practitioners.

  Salaries for practice nurses, directly employed by GPs, are not included.

  The figures for ancillary staff include directly employed staff.

  Ancillary staff are defined as support staff and classified through the new system of occupation coding for NHS non-medical staff, introduced in 1995.

  Hospital Admissions (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on reducing pressure on hospital admissions in Leicestershire. [67190]

  Mr. Denham
  None. We understand that Leicestershire Health Authority has produced a comprehensive action plan agreed with the local authority social services department for managing the pressures on emergency services during the winter period.

  An extra £250 million was announced in November 1998 to help the National Health Service and social services manage this winter's pressures. £2.6 million of this was allocated to Leicestershire Health Authority.

  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people received specialist treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome at the Havering Hospital NHS Trust broken down by those treated as(a) out-patients and (b) in-patients in each of the last three years. [67009]

  Ms Jowell
  The figures available for chronic/postviral fatigue syndrome in Havering Hospital National Health Service Trust, for financial years 1995–96 to 1997–98 are shown in the table.

  Chronic fatigue syndrome in Havering Hospital NHS Trust1

  Year

  FCEs2

  1995–96

  100

  1996–973

  83

  1997–983

  85

  1 Ordinary Admissions and Daycase combined: Finished Consultant Episodes (FCEs) by primary diagnosis for chronic/post viral fatigue syndrome in Havering Hospital NHS

  2 An FCE represents a complete period of inpatient treatment under the care of an individual hospital consultant, and in about 95 per cent. of cases, represents a complete spell in hospital.

  3 Figures for 1996–97 and 1997–98 are provisional—no adjustments have yet been made for shortfalls in data (the data are ungrossed)

  Note:

  ICD1 10 code used is G93.3

  Source:

  Department of Health. Hospital Episodes Statistics

  The Department does not collect information on outpatients treated for chronic fatigue syndrome. The information that is available is contained in "Outpatients and Ward Attenders, England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Health Inequalities
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the cost of implementing the Acheson report on Inequalities in Health. [67605]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 18 January 1999,Official Report, column 378.

  The terms of reference of the independent inquiry into inequalities in health (the Acheson report) required the review to be conducted within the broad framework of the Government's overall financial strategy. The whole

  575
  Government are firmly committed to reducing health inequalities. A range of initiatives is already helping to carry forward Sir Donald Acheson's recommendations. Modernising the health service and ensuring fair access to services is a vital component of that effort—backed up with a £21 billion boost over the next three years.

  Drugs Prescriptions
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the savings which the NHS would have made in 1997–98 had equivalent generic drugs been prescribed in place of non-generics. [68450]

  Mr. Denham
  We estimate that, had equivalent generic drugs been prescribed in the community in place of proprietary items in the National Health Service in 1997–98, in all cases where equivalent generic drugs were available, then savings of some £66 million could in theory have been made. However, there are circumstances in which generic prescribing is inappropriate.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the average income in 1997–98 in(a) a prescribing GP and (b) a dispensing GP; [68446]

  (2) what is the average income supplement earned by a GP through dispensing. [68447]

  Mr. Denham
  The level of fees and allowances payable to general practitioners are set by the independent pay review body to deliver and distribute their recommended level of net incomes for GPs, taking account of the costs, pressures and workload of practice in different areas. Earnings from practice dispensing are an integral part of the overall recommendations of the Review Body.

  Spending from the NHS research and development levy, by region

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Budget 1

  Budget 2

  Budget 1

  Budget 2

  Budget 1

  Budget 2

  Northern and Yorkshire

  12,794

  6,707

  16,094

  6,125

  16,060

  5,595

  North West

  18,019

  5,867

  20,413

  7,085

  20,479

  7,109

  Trent

  18,040

  4,257

  20,512

  4,359

  20,830

  4,560

  West Midlands

  6,313

  5,125

  9,734

  4,717

  10,091

  4,592

  Anglia and Oxford

  8,838

  9,310

  17,829

  10,040

  18,345

  10,130

  South West

  11,605

  8,024

  15,552

  7,408

  16,193

  6,518

  North Thames

  260,294

  7,300

  198,996

  6,949

  196,643

  6,334

  South Thames

  22,705

  5,197

  50,889

  6,078

  51,712

  5,477

  Totals

  358,608

  51,787

  350,019

  52,761

  350,353

  50,315

  Notes:

  Figures are outturn (provisional for 1998–99) in £000 at price level prevailing at the time.

  There is a discontinuity in budget 1 allocations between 1996–97 and 1997–98 because accounting for research in postgraduate teaching hospitals was transferred from North Thames to the host regional office.

  The table excludes national research and development programmes expenditure in budget 2 and £675,000 on budget 1 funds allocated during 1998–99 to cover the unforeseen costs incurred by providers hosting externally-funded non commercial research and development which qualifies for NHS support.

  From 1 April 2000 the distribution of budget 2 funding to regional offices will be in proportion to the distribution of revenue allocations to health authorities.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list his latest estimates and forecast expenditure
  576
  The information requested is not available. However, the average net income of dispensing and non-dispensing general medical practitioners1 in Great Britain in 1995–96 and 1996–972,3 was as follows:

  £000

  1995–96 and 1996–97 average 2,3

  All general medical practitioners1 (GMPs)

  47,000

  Dispensing GMPs

  53,400

  Non-dispensing GMPs

  45,800

  1 Unrestricted principals in Great Britain excluding salaried partners and GMPs with zero list size.

  2 Separate data for each year are not available.

  3 Based on a sample survey; figures are approximate and subject to sampling variation.

  Source:

  Joint Health Departments/British Medical Association (General Practitioners Committee) Technical Steering Committee

  Research and Development
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the expenditure on research and development by each NHS region in each year since 1992. [68226]

  Ms Jowell
  The expenditure of funds from the National Health Service research and development levy by and through the NHS Executive's regional offices since the establishment of the levy on 1 April 1996 is shown in the table.

  Comparable data are not available for earlier years. The levy includes funding allocated through national competition to enable NHS trusts and other providers of NHS services to carry out, commission and host research and development of potential benefit to the health service (budget 1), as well as funding allocated to the NHS Executive headquarters and regional offices to commission research and development activity on behalf of the NHS as a whole (budget 2). Other government funded research also takes place in, and benefits, the NHS.

  in cash terms for the element of NHS trusts' charges to health authorities which trusts use to remunerate their debt to central Government for (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001–02. [68382]
  577
  Mr. Denham
  The amounts included in health authorities' allocations to cover National Health Service trust debt remuneration are as follows:

  Year

  Amount (£)

  1997–981

  1,206,750,000

  1998–991

  1,236,110,000

  1999–20001

  1,306,544,000

  2000–012

  1,306,544,000

  2001–022

  1,306,544,000

  1 Actual

  2 Forecast

  Forde Park, Newton Abbot
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if public immunity indemnity certificates have been signed in connection with Forde Park, Newton Abbot. [68864]

  Mr. Hutton
  No.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what files his Department retains on individuals who attended Forde Park, Newton Abbot. [68865]

  Mr. Hutton
  None.

  Smoking
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the figures for the incidence of cigarette smoking among adults in 1998. [67399]

  Ms Jowell
  The Office for National Statistics plans to publish headline results from the 1998–99 General Household Survey (GHS) late this year. These will include figures for the prevalence of cigarette smoking among adults aged 16 and over in Great Britain.

  It is also planned that the main report for the 1998–99 GHS will be published in February 2000, which will include more detailed analyses.

  Telecommunications Base Stations
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the biological effects of emissions from telecommunications base stations. [68343]

  Ms Jowell
  In 1996, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) evaluated an epidemiological study by the small area health statistics unit. This study, undertaken on behalf of this and five other Government Departments, investigated the incidence of leukaemia near 20 high power Television/FM transmitters in Great Britain. The study found that living close to a transmitter was not associated with an increased risk of leukaemia. In their statement—copies of which are available in the Library—COMARE reiterated their previous advice that is no firm evidence of a carcinogenic hazard from exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) from television and radio masts emissions.

  The Department is currently contributing to the World Health Organisation International Electromagnetic Fields Project which includes health effects of electromagnetic fields and is funding studies investigating possible biological effects from EMF generally.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Domestic Gas
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the annual financial benefit to the average three-bedroomed household of using domestic gas for heating and hot water relative to other forms of heating. [68376]

  Mr. Battle
  The Building Research Establishment estimate that during a year of average weather, based on average energy prices over the period 1996–1998, the typical costs of using different fuels for heating and hot water are as follows:

  Estimated average annual energy consumption and costs for heating and hot water: 3 bedroom semi detached house, United Kingdom

  Fuel used

  Energy consumed 1 GJ

  Cost per year 2£

  Difference compared to gas £

  Difference compared to gas Percentage

  Gas3,4

  100.5

  452

  —

  —

  Oil3

  92.6

  369

  ?84

  ?18

  Solid fuel3,5

  111.2

  540

  +88

  +20

  Electric off-peak6

  67

  630

  +178

  +39

  Electric on-peak7

  53.3

  1,171

  +719

  +159

  1 Energy consumed for domestic heating and hot water during a year of average weather (based on weather over last 20 years). It is assumed in the model that all of the house is heated so that the living area reaches a temperature of 21? C, with the following heating pattern: weekdays 2 hours in the morning, 7 hours in the evening. Weekends 16 hours.

  2 Based on average fuel prices (including VAT) over the 3 years 1996–1998. Connection to mains electricity for other uses, such as appliances, has been assumed and the standing charge associated with this supply has therefore been excluded from the estimated costs. The figures reflect the overall efficiency of typical heating systems for each fuel (eg a standard gas or oil boiler with room thermostat or individual electric heaters with their own thermostats). More efficient systems are available for oil and gas, but not widely installed and they would obviously reduce energy consumption and the corresponding costs further.

  3 Central heating and hot water.

  4 Includes a standing charge for gas of £36 per year.

  5 Based on anthracite used in closed room heaters and radiators.

  6 Storage heating and hot water (dual immersion heater). The annual cost includes an additional standing charge for the off-peak tariff of £14 per year.

  7 Heating and hot water.

  Source:

  Building Research Establishment Domestic Energy Model (BREDEM)

  It should be noted that these estimates do not take account of all the factors that are relevant to such comparisons. For example, the lower capital costs of on-peak electricity installation can allow investment in higher insulation levels.

  Right Hon. Member for Hartlepool
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) made the decision to have no involvement in the Department of Trade and Industry investigation into the dealings of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). [65637]

  Mr. Byers
  On 23 September 1998.
  579
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what papers relating to his Department's inquiry into dealings of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) were shown to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson); [65636]

  (2) on what date the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), withdrew from any involvement in or influence over investigations conducted by the Department of Trade and Industry into the dealings of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West, (Mr. Robinson); [65638]

  (3) whether the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), minuted the Permanent Secretary in order to record his decision to have no involvement in the inquiry into alleged accounting offences by Hollis Industries plc; [65596]

  (4) by what means the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), informed the Permanent Secretary of his decision to have no involvement in the inquiry into alleged accounting offences by Hollis Industries plc. [65597]

  Mr. Byers
  The decision was taken in discussion with the Permanent Secretary at a meeting on 23 September 1998.

  US-UK Import Tariffs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what rates of tariff are currently applicable to United Kingdom imports of catering tableware from the United States of America, and of similar United Kingdom exports into the USA; what action he is taking to reduce the difference; and if he will make a statement. [68369]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: The current customs tariffs on imports of catering tableware into the UK from the United States of America are 12 per cent. for articles of porcelain or china, and 5 per cent., 5.5 per cent. or 9 per cent. for articles other than porcelain or china. The US tariffs for similar products are 30 per cent. and 31.5 per cent. respectively. The UK is committed to further multilateral liberalisation of trade including significant reductions in US peak tariffs on catering tableware. The issue will be addressed as part of a comprehensive, cross-sectoral multilateral World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiation on industrial tariffs. To date WTO member countries have still to commit themselves to such a negotiation. However, I am hopeful that the WTO Ministerial Conference in the USA next November will be able to agree on the need to make preparations for further multilateral negotiations on liberalising industrial tariffs. I do not, therefore, propose to make a statement.

  End-of-life Vehicles
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government supported the amendment to the draft EU Directive on end-of-life vehicles which was approved at the Environment Council meeting on 21 December and which added £73 million extra annual costs on business. [68983]
  580
  Dr. Howells
  Ministers reached only a preliminary view on the main issues of the Directive at the Environment Council meeting in December, and decisions on the Council's Common Position are expected to be taken at the Environment Council in March.

  The latest update of the Regulatory Impact Assessment includes a provision for a specific recycling target for 2015. The previous RIA could not contain a figure for this provision because it was based on an unquantified target for 2015 which would have been set by review in 2005. The difference between the two figures should not therefore simply be regarded as an increase.

  Company Rescue Mechanism
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the terms of reference of the joint DTI/Treasury review of company rescue mechanisms announced in the recent Competitiveness White Paper. [69143]

  Mr. Byers
  The terms of reference of the review have now been agreed as follows:

  To review aspects of company and insolvency law and practice in the United Kingdom and elsewhere relating to the opportunities for, and means by which, businesses can resolve short to medium term financial difficulties, so as to preserve maximum economic value; and to make recommendations.

  The principal areas of focus for the review should be:
  the further development of the rescue culture;
  a re-assessment of the relative rights and remedies of secured and unsecured creditors in insolvencies to include the position of the Crown as a preferential creditor; and,
  consideration of the duties of directors in relation to companies experiencing financial difficulties.

  The Review will be led jointly by the Department of Trade and Industry (Insolvency Service) and HM Treasury and will seek and welcome views from all sources, particularly those with experience of business and business failure, from those who have studied company rescue regimes both in the UK and elsewhere and from those involved in the practice of rescuing companies, again both in the UK and elsewhere.

  To ensure that its conclusions/recommendations can make an early contribution to debate in this area the Review Team will report to Ministers by the end of July 1999.

  Officials from the Department of Trade and Industry, The Insolvency Service and HM Treasury will lead the review with contributions from a number of individuals from the academic, professional and business world.

  Electro-shock Batons
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if companies granted export licences for the export of electro-shock batons between 1989 and 1994 had been granted the relevant licence under firearms legislation to(a) handle, (b) store, (c) distribute and (d) manufacture such weapons. [68192]
  581
  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  Two of the four companies in question had authority to deal in weapons prohibited by section 5(1)(b) of the Firemans Act 1968, which would include electro-shock weapons as well as other types of weapons capable of discharging a noxious liquid, gas or other thing. The other two companies, one of which was the company granted the trans-shipment licence, did not have such authority.

  The investigation of possible offences under the Firemans Acts is a matter for the police, who will consider whether there are grounds to bring criminal charges. The decision as to whether or not to prosecute in an individual case rests with the Crown Prosecution Service. The Home Office has no powers to intervene. However, information about the two companies that did not have authority to deal in prohibited weapons was forwarded by the Home Office to the relevant police forces for their consideration. I understand that, in both cases, the police have decided to take no further action.

  Domestic Gas (Mains Connection)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many households in the United Kingdom were not connected to the mains domestic gas supply in (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96, (iii) 1996–97 and (iv) 1997–98. [68375]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: I regret that this information is not available from official sources. Unofficial estimates suggest that some 6 million households in Great Britain may not be connected to mains gas supply, including premises where it would not be safe to install gas.

  Digital Economy (Special Representative)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to announce the name of the Government's Special Representative on the Digital Economy. [68167]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: The selection process for the Special Representative on the Digital Economy is in hand, and we will announce the name of the successful candidate as soon as possible.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what amount of money, underwritten by the ECGD for defence and other equipment entered in Part HI of Schedule I to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 has been claimed by manufacturers, but not recovered from the Governments of(a) Indonesia, (b) Jordan, (c) Kenya, (d) Egypt and (e) Algeria. [67897]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: ECGD does not categorise the sales of defence or other equipment which it supports by reference to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994.

  I can however advise my hon. Friend that, on the basis of records available, the balance of claims paid by ECGD which are outstanding for recovery in respect of sales of
  582
  defence and other equipment (including non-lethal goods and services) to defence buyers in the named countries currently stands at:-

  £ million

  Country

  Number

  (a) Indonesia

  11

  (b) Jordan

  253

  (c) Kenya

  16

  (d) Egypt

  46

  (e) Algeria

  98

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the amount of money underwritten by the ECGD for defence and other equipment entered in Part III of Schedule I to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 claimed by manufacturers, but not recovered from the Governments of(a) Indonesia, (b) Jordan, (c) Kenya, (d) Egypt and (e) Algeria, has been outstanding for (i) five years or more, (ii) two to five years, (iii) one to two years, (iv) six months to one year and (v) less than six months. [67894]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: ECGD does not maintain its records on a basis which would enable it to answer this question other than at disproportionate cost.

  Renewable Energy Sources
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government are taking to encourage electricity companies to supply electricity from renewable energy sources beyond their obligations under the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation. [67965]

  Mr. Battle
  In September last year, I announced the fifth and largest Order to date under the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO-5). Under that Order, the electricity supply companies in England and Wales contracted collectively with 261 projects with a combined capacity of 1,177 Mega Watts (MW).

  I have also reversed the planned cuts in the renewable programme budget, so that the budget for this year (1998–99) has been maintained at £11 million. The programme supports both Research and Development (R&D) and market enablement projects. Of the latter, among the projects supported this year was the Renewable Generators Consortium (RGC), which brought together the majority of generators with contracts under NFF0-1 and NFF0-2—contracts which subsequently ended on 31 December 1998—in order to negotiate new, post-NFFO contracts collectively with the electricity supply companies.

  Many of those generators, now trading successfully in the open electricity market, are supplying electricity companies which are either already offering or which are about to offer, green electricity tariffs or products of some kind. The programme has also been supporting work on accrediting such tariffs and I hope to see an accreditation scheme launched later this year, with substantial support from my Department.

  We are also considering wider renewable policy as part of our review of renewable energy, the results of which will announce shortly.

  SMEs (Internet)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what publicity his Department has given to its internet web sites dedicated to Trade UK for small and medium-sized enterprises; and if he will list the web sites. [68463]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: My Department is promoting the TradeUK internet service at www.tradeuk.com to two main audiences: first, as a service for UK exporters and potential exporters and, second, as a service for buyers abroad wishing to source goods and services from the UK. For the UK audience the main links to TradeUK now in place are via the Overseas Trade Services (www.dti.gov.uk/ots/) and Enterprise Zone (www.enterprisezone.org.uk) websites. We are also giving publicity to the TradeUK web site in its own right and working with other Departments, agencies and trade associations to develop reciprocal links to and from TradeUK. We are signposting foreign buyers to TradeUK from websites of British Embassies and Consulates around the world.

  Intellectual Property Rights
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that the procedure for registering and protecting intellectual property rights for patents is harmonised across the European Union. [68551]

  Dr. Howells
  There is already substantial harmonisation of procedures for acquiring patent rights in Europe. Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), an intergovernmental agreement to which 19 European States belong (including the United Kingdom), applications can be filed with the European Patent Office. This offers a single procedure for obtaining patent rights. Applicants designate those States in which protection is required, and rights become valid in those States upon filing of a translation into their official languages.

  Once validated in each designated State the system provides a bundle of national patents which have to be separately maintained and enforced under respective national laws.

  Following consultation on its Green Paper on patents in Europe, the European Commission is expected to make a proposal for a Council Regulations for a Community patent providing a unitary right across the Member States. Costs of translation into official languages of all Member States and absence of harmonisation in post grant litigation could reduce the effectiveness of such a system. As stated in the Competitiveness White Paper, the Government will push for a Community patent which is affordable and easy to enforce.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what responsibilities which his Department had prior to the Comprehensive Spending Review are to be(a) discontinued by his Department, (b) transferred to another department, (c) transferred to an executive agency and (d) added to his Department over the period 1998–99 to 2001–02. [68395]
  584
  Mr. Byers
  No responsibilities are to be discontinued, transferred or added over this period as a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what additional legislation, not currently before Parliament, was assumed in the production of his Department's spending allocation for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [68411]

  Mr. Byers
  There is a longstanding convention that legislative proposals for each year are not announced before the Queen's Speech at the start of the relevant Session.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the determination by the Council of Ministers of the guidelines and conditions to be adopted by Member States and the Community in order to ensure balanced progress towards the internal market. [67934]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Vienna European Council on 11–12 December concluded that continued progress had been made to modernise, extend and simplify the Single Market, and welcomed the continued monitoring which the Commission would carry out through the Single Market Scoreboard. The Council also concluded that full and correct implementation of single market rules at national level was essential and that there were still some gaps in this which needed to be corrected without delay.

  The Internal Market Council was asked to produce a report on the working of Single Market, and proposing further action on a number of priorities.

  The Austrian and German Presidencies have been taking forward the important agenda of work in economic reform of product and capital markets to enhance competitiveness, economic growth and employment in which my noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe has played a very active role.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what change in the proportion of the working population covered by assisted areas status is now anticipated under the European guidelines on regional aid published in March 1998. [66151]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The European Commission has stated that up to 28.7 per cent. of the UK's population may be covered by areas eligible for regional aid under Articles 92(3)a and 92(3)c of the EC Treaty.

  Lucas Varity
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the bid by a US company for Lucas Varity and its potential effects on the West Midlands. [68522]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: In the first instance it would be necessary to determine whether any proposed acquisition fell for consideration by the

  585
  European Commission under the EC Merger Regulation, or by the UK authorities under the Fair Trading Act 1973. If a proposed acquisition fell to the EC Merger Regulation, it would be for the parties to notify it to the European Commission. If it fell to the UK authorities, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would decide whether or not to refer it to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the light of the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. Each case is considered on its own merits.

  Renewable Energy Advisory Committee
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the(a) role, (b) recent work and (c) membership of the Renewable Energy Advisory Committee. [68855]

  Mr. Battle
  The terms of reference of the Renewable Energy Advisory Committee (REAC) are:to advise the Head of Energy Technologies Directorate (ENT), DTI on the aims, content, environmental appropriateness and economic applicability of the Department's market enablement programme and policy on new and renewable energy;
  to advise on the merits, relative priorities and value for money of those proposed projects within the above programme that the Head of ENT may place before it;
  to take particular responsibility for advice on strategic and other pan-technology issues associated with the development of new and renewable energy sources;
  to monitor and review the programme's progress against the DTI's agreed plans, and to evaluate the programme's effectiveness in achieving its agreed objectives; and to provide advice on such other matters as may be required.
  At its meeting on 20 January 1999 REAC discussed:
  the renewable energy programme;
  the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation and my Department's recent consultation exercise on offshore wind; and new Cabinet Office guidance on Non-Departmental Public Bodies.

  Members of REAC

  Mr. G. Bevan, ENT, DTI—Chairman

  Dr. G. J. K. Acres, Johnson Matthey Technology Centre (retired)

  Mr. J. Boags, Bank of Scotland

  Mr. R. Booth, Consultant

  Ms A. Cook OBE, Neighbourhood Energy Action

  Mr. G. Leach. Stockholm Environment Institute

  Prof. P. O'Sullivan, University College London

  Mr. J. Parry, Chief Planning Officer, Shropshire County Council

  Mr. D. Porter, Association of Electricity Producers

  Mr. D. Shah, BP Exploration

  Mr. M. Trinick, Bond Pearce Solicitors

  Dr. G. Walker, CCLRC

  Mr. H. West, Hyder Industrial Ltd

  Mr. J. P. White, NORWEB

  Mr. J. Worth, Countryside Commission.

  In addition, a number of central Government officials attend REAC meetings in their official capacity, together with representatives of DTI's programme management contractor.

  Cashmere Goods
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from UK businesses in respect of the US Government proposal to 586
  impose tariffs on UK cashmere goods; what was the total value of UK cashmere goods exported (a) in total and (b) to the US in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [68172]

  Mr. Wilson
  I met with a delegation of manufacturers of Cashmere products led by the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) on 20 January. I share their concerns on this issue. I have also had representation from companies involved in the cashmere industry, throughout the UK.

  Based on statistics published by US International Trade Commission, UK exports of cashmere goods to the US were approximately £17.5 million in 1997. There is no UK tariff heading directly equivalent to this particular US tariff code. However, UK Customs and Excise data indicate that UK exports to the US of cashmere sweaters under the most closely corresponding UK tariff codes (61101035 and 61101095) were £3.2 million in 1997. Total UK exports of cashmere sweaters under these codes were £30.8 million.

  Tidal Energy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if provision for the support of electricity generation from tidal energy sources will be included in his next scheme for non-fossil fuel obligations. [68827]

  Mr. Battle
  What further measures the Government might introduce to encourage electricity generation from renewable energy sources is an issue being considered as part of the current policy review on renewable energy, in which tidal energy sources are included.

SCOTLAND

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to include Irish as a category in his Department's ethnic monitoring of staff recruitment. [63876]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 11 January 1999]: The over-riding principle of Civil Service recruitment procedures is that they should be fair, and selection should be on merit at each stage.

  Monitoring in this area is based on ethnic origin and not nationality. The nine ethnic minority origin categories monitored by my Department are based on those used in the 1991 census, which did not include an Irish category. They will be reviewed in the light of any suggested changes for the 2001 census.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what parts of the Representation of the People Acts apply to the Scottish Parliament elections for the purpose of broadcasting in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [66180]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: The conduct of elections for the Scottish Parliament will be governed by an Order which will be made under section

  587
  12(1) of the Scotland Act, which will be laid before the House next month. In relation to broadcasting, we intend that the Order will make similar provision to section 92 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. We are currently seeking comments on whether or not a provision modelled on section 93 of that Act should also be included.

  Waiting Lists (Orthodontic Treatment)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the size of the waiting list and (b) the average waiting time for orthodontic treatment in each health board area in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [66607]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 20 January 1999]: Most orthodontic treatments carried out within the Hospital and Community Health Service settings are undertaken on an outpatient basis. The latest available information on the mean waiting time for a first orthodontic outpatient appointment, by area of residence, is given in the table. Information on the number of patients waiting for outpatient appointments on a given date is not collected centrally.

  A major proportion of orthodontic treatment is undertaken in general dental practice, rather than in hospitals or the Community Health Service and no information is held centrally on patient waiting times for such treatment.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  NHS in Scotland: mean waiting times for a first orthodontic outpatient appointment during year ended 30 September 1998 1 by area of residence2

  Area of residence

  Mean wait (days)

  Argyll and Clyde

  146

  Ayrshire and Arran

  65

  Borders

  130

  Dumfries and Galloway

  93

  Fife

  127

  Forth Valley

  56

  Grampian

  170

  Greater Glasgow

  100

  Highland

  194

  Lanarkshire

  98

  Lothian

  94

  Tayside

  85

  Western Isles

  293

  1 Provisional

  2 A consultant orthodontist from the mainland visits Orkney and Shetland on a regular basis to hold first outpatient consultation clinics. Patients are seen at the first clinic following GP/GDP referral.

  Source:

  ISD, Scotland

  Red Squirrel Conservation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, when he last met officials of the Forestry Commission, they discussed matters relating to the Red Squirrel Biodiversity Action Plan and Forest Enterprise's national plan for red squirrel conservation; and if he will make a statement. [66994]
  588
  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: My right hon. Friend has not discussed these matters with officials of the Forestry Commission. However, as part of Red Squirrel Week in September last year, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for fisheries and the countryside at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food launched the Forestry Commission's Practice Note on Red Squirrel Conservation. The Practice Note offers advice to woodland managers and conservationists which is based on the latest scientific research. It was prepared on behalf of the UK Red Squirrel Group which is the lead partner for the Red Squirrel Species Action Plan under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

  Ceulan Forest
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer on 16 November 1998,Official Report, column 582, on woodland areas, if the Ceulan forest has been offered for sale; and if he will make a statement. [68152]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its Chief Executive, Dr. Bob McIntosh, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Bob McIntosh to Mr. Christopher Gill, dated 2 February 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply to your Question No 68152 asking if Esgair Ceulan (Ceulan Forest) has been offered for sale.
  Ceulan Forest was offered for sale on the open market on 4 November 1998 through local agents, Strutt & Parker. A closing date of 15 December was set, four offers were received and the highest was accepted. The matter is in the hands of the Commission's lawyers and completion is expected by the end of March.
  The wood has a number of public footpaths and bridleways but you will be pleased to learn that a Public Access Agreement has been signed with Powys County Council. Public access to the whole wood will therefore be protected after the sale is completed.
  I hope this answers your question.

  Research and Development
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the research and development expenditure by(a) his Department and (b) the NHS, indicating separately that on health technology assessment in each year since 1992. [68208]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Chief Scientist Office (CSO) within The Scottish Office Department of Health (SODoH) has responsibility for managing funds which support research activity to further the development of patient care and health services within the NHS in Scotland. CSO expenditure on research and development (R&D) for each year since 1992–93 is given in column(a) of the following table. CSO R&D expenditure on health technology assessment cannot be identified separately for each year since 1992–93 except at disproportionate cost. For 1998–99, it is expected to be about £1.9 million.

  Up to and including 1995–96, Additional Cost of Teaching (ACT) was an element of the SODoH revenue allocations to Health Boards to protect the NHS support for both clinical teaching and clinical research costs. It is not possible to identify NHS R&D expenditure separately

  589
  until 1996–97, when those within the NHS who were delivering R&D support services were invited to bid for costs incurred from the R&D Support Fund. NHS expenditure on R&D since 1996–97 is shown in column (b) of the following table.

  Under the R&D Support Fund bidding procedure, bidders are asked to identify research activity areas, but these may be broad and encompass a range of subjects. It is not possible therefore to identify separately NHS R&D expenditure on health technology assessment except at disproportionate cost. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Research and development expenditure in Scotland

  £ million

  (a) SODoH: CSO

  (b) NHS

  1992–93

  8.9

  Not available1

  1993–94

  10.6

  —

  1994–95

  10.1

  —

  1995–96

  10.7

  —

  1996–97

  10.6

  24.0

  1997–98

  9.9

  28.0

  1998–99

  11.02

  28.52

  1 Additional Cost of Teaching (ACT) up to and including 1995–96 encompassed both clinical teaching and clinical research costs (no breakdown available)

  2 Estimate

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state, in respect of the original advice given by the Crown Office to the Procurator Fiscal in Dingwall over proceeding with criminal prosecutions of those people refusing to pay the Skye Bridge tolls, on what date the Procurator Fiscal requested the advice; on what date the advice was tendered; by what means; who signed the communication; and if he will make a statement. [68339]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: I am informed by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate that the Procurator Fiscal at Dingwell first wrote to the Crown Office on 17 and 26 October 1995 in connection with possible criminal proceedings against persons refusing to pay tolls on the Skye Bridge. The Deputy Crown Agent replied on 6 November conveying the Lord Advocate's instructions that the Procurator Fiscal should carry out further work before seeking instructions from Crown Counsel on whether to take proceedings.

  Thereafter there was further correspondence between the Procurator Fiscal and the Crown Office which culminated in the Deputy Crown Agent writing to the Procurator Fiscal on 5 January 1996 conveying the instructions of the then Lord Advocate about proceedings.

  The hon. Gentlemen will recall that, in a written answer of 16 January 1996, Official Report, column 546, he was advised that the Procurator Fiscal had been instructed by the Lord Advocate to institute criminal proceedings in respect of all instances where this was a sufficiency of evidence and the charges were then in course of preparation.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  General Affairs Council (Brussels)
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 25 and 26 January; and if he will make a statement. [68321]

  Ms Quin
  1. The General Affairs Council in Brussels on 25 January 1999 adopted the A points listed in document 5416/98 and noted the resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament in its sessions of 2–3 December and 14–18 December listed in documents 12779/98 and 14011/98. Copies of the documents listing the A points and resolutions will be placed in the House Libraries as soon as they become available.

  2. The Council began with the debate on the Presidency programme, introduced by the German Foreign Minister.

  3. On Agenda 2000, the Council agreed (subject to agreement on the final package) two points of detail on the Structural Funds. First, it agreed a lower performance reserve (sometimes referred to as the efficiency reserve) than that proposed by the Commission and that Member States (rather than the Commission) should have the right to allocate these funds in accordance with their own criteria and circumstances. Second, it was agreed that it was not necessary for areas designated to receive State Aids (under Article 92(3)(c) to correspond exactly with areas receiving Structural Funds, although Member States should aim to increase the level of convergence. The Council discussed the importance of achieving worthwhile CAP reform within the limits of available financial resources.

  4. The German Presidency then set out its work programme on EU enlargement. Two Deputy level accession conferences (19 April; 19 May) and a Ministerial level meeting (22 June) will be held. The Presidency plans to open negotiations on a further eight chapters, bringing the number of chapters open to a total of 15 out of 31 by the end of the Presidency.

  5. The Council noted the agenda for the EU/Russia summit on 18 February in Moscow and agreed to the Foreign Secretary's proposal that it should include nuclear waste.

  6. On Iraq, the Council considered developments in the UN Security Council and discussed a possible EU initiative aimed at enhancing the role of the EU in efforts to improve the humanitarian situation in Iraq.

  7. On Kosovo, the Council expressed outrage at the massacre of civilians in Racak and recalled the message which the EU had delivered to President Milosevic. It also condemned UCK provocations. It welcomed the results of the Contact Group meeting in London on 22 January, in particular the goal of early negotiations on a political solution, following a meeting of the Contact Group at Ministerial level, to be held as soon as possible. It repeated its support for the work of Ambassadors Hill and Petritsch towards a negotiated settlement, and for the KVM. It agreed that officials should step up work on strengthening sanctions, including measures to stop the flow of money and weapons to Kosovo armed groups. It

  591
  stressed the importance of the Kosovo Albanian leadership forming a fully representative negotiating team. It also recalled the role which the EU was ready to play in support of a future political solution, including through reconstruction. It extended the mandate of Mr. Felipe Gonzalez as EU Special Representative for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; and adopted a Regulation exempting Montenegro Airlines from the JAT flight ban.

  8. On Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Council welcomed the outcome of the Madrid Peace Implementation; reiterated its full support for the High Representative Mr. Carlos Westendorp; and urged the formation of a new Government in Republika Srpska, determined to comply with the Dayton agreement.

  9. On Albania, the Council welcomed the recent meeting between Prime Minister Majko and leader of the Democratic Party (DP), Berisha. The Council condemned the DP's continued boycott of parliament. The Council urged Albania to contribute to the efforts of the international community to bring the parties to the conflict on Kosovo to the negotiating table.

  10. Ministers endorsed and mandated follow-up action on the operational points contained in the EU' s human rights declaration of 10 December. This enables work to begin on the Anglo-German initiative of an annual EU Human Rights Report. The report will bring to public attention the EU's activities to promote human rights worldwide.

  11. The Presidency briefed the Council on the forthcoming visit to the Middle East by Foreign Minister Fischer, accompanied by the EU Special Envoy to the Middle East, Miguel Moratinos.

  12. There was no consensus on a proposal by the Presidency to adopt the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports as a Common Position under Article J.2 of the TEU.

  13. The Council reiterated its support for the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone. It reiterated that the existing Common Position does not prevent the supply outside Nigeria of military equipment for ECOMOG, and agreed that the scope for further facilitating peacekeeping efforts should be examined.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom will continue to impose an arms embargo on Afghanistan in line with the EU's Common Position of 17 December 1996. [69080]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We remain committed to the EU arms embargo against Afghanistan which the UK interprets as covering all goods and technology entered on Part III to Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended.

  Following consultations with this Department and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently issued a licence for the export of mine clearance equipment for use by the Halo Trust to aid their demining activities in Afghanistan. The grant of this licence is for humanitarian purposes, and falls outside the scope of the embargo.

  Council of the European Union
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for February and the major European Union events for the next six months. [69081]

  Ms Quin
  The information is as follows:

  Monthly forecast of business: February 1999

  City/town

  Business/event

  4–6

  Bonn

  Ministers for Labour and Social Affairs (Informal)

  8

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  8–9

  Dakar

  EU/ACP Ministerial

  8–12

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  11–12

  Berlin

  Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs (Informal)

  22

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  25

  Brussels

  Internal Market

  26

  Petersburg

  Informal meeting of the Heads of State and Government

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:
  February 4–6 Ministers for Labour/Social Affairs (Informal)
  No formal agenda

  February 8 ECOFIN
  Stability and growth pact: examination of stability and convergence programmes
  Economic situation and policy in the Community (Policy debate on macro-economic and structural policy issues)

  AGENDA 2000
  Financial framework
  Interinstitutional agreement
  Report on own resources

  February 8–9 EU/ACP Ministerial
  Ministerial negotiations on the Lomé convention

  February 8–12 European Parliament Plenary
  No agenda yet available

  February 11–12 Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs (Informal)
  No formal agenda

  February 22–23 General Affairs Council
  Agenda 2000
  Enlargement
  Amsterdam treaty
  Report from the Council General Secretariat on the Council's operating procedure in the light of an enlarged Union

  Slovenia
  preparation of the 1st Association Council (poss. "A" item)

  Latvia
  preparation of the 1st Association Council (poss. "A" point)

  Lithuania
  preparation of the 1st Association Council (poss. "A" point)

  Human Rights

  Western Balkans

  EU-Pakistan
  Cooperation agreement (poss. "A" item)

  Middle East Peace process

  Great Lakes
  593
  February 22–23 Agriculture Council
  No agenda yet available

  February 24–25 European Parliament Plenary
  No agenda yet available

  February 25 Internal Market Council
  No agenda yet available

  February 26 Informal Meeting of Heads of State and Government
  No formal agenda expected but likely to focus on Agenda 2000

  European Calendar: February-July 1999
  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.

  1999

  City/town

  Event

  February

  4–6

  Bonn

  Ministers for Labour and Social Affairs (Informal)

  8

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  8–9

  Dakar

  EU/ACP Ministerial

  8–12

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  11–12

  Berlin

  Minister for Justice and Home Affairs (Informal)

  22

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  25

  Brussels

  Internal Market

  26

  Petersburg

  Informal Meeting of Heads of State and Government

  March

  2

  Brussels

  Youth Council (possible)

  8–12

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  9

  Brussels

  Social Affairs Council

  11–12

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  12

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  13–14

  Reinhartshausen

  Foreign Ministers (Informal)

  15

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  15–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  18

  Brussels

  Education Council (possible)

  22

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  24–25

  Berlin

  Special European Council

  29

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  29–30

  Berlin

  Asia-European Foreign Ministers

  30

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  April

  13

  Luxembourg

  Consumer Affairs Council

  15–16

  Stuttgart

  Euro-Med Foreign Ministers Conference ?Barcelona III?

  16–18

  Dresden

  ECOFIN (Informal)

  19–20

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  22

  Luxembourg

  Telecommunications Council

  23–25

  Mecklenburg

  Environment Ministers (Informal)

  24–25

  Luxembourg

  NATO Summit

  26–27

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  29

  Luxembourg

  Industry Council

  May

  6

  Brussels

  EU-ACP Ministerial meeting

  7–9

  Brussels

  Environment Council (Informal)

  10

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  10

  Bremen

  WEU Council

  10–11

  Berlin

  Trade Ministers (Informal)

  11

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  18

  Brussels

  EEA Council

  18

  Brussels

  Co-operation Council with Russia

  18–19

  Weimar

  Culture Ministers (Informal)

  20

  Brussels

  Research Council

  21

  Brussels

  Development Council

  594

  1999

  City/town

  Event

  25

  Brussels

  Joint ECOFIN and Labour and Social Affairs Council

  25

  Brussels

  Social Affairs Council

  27

  Brussels

  Youth Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  31

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  30 May— 1 June

  Dresden

  Agriculture Ministers (Informal)

  June

  1

  Dresden

  Agriculture Ministers (Informal)

  3–4

  Cologne

  European Council

  7

  Luxembourg

  Education Council

  8

  Luxembourg

  Health Council

  10

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  14

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN (possible)

  14–15

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  17

  Bonn

  EU-Japan Summit

  17–18

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  18–20

  Cologne

  G8

  21

  Luxembourg

  Internal Market

  21

  Bonn

  EU-USA/Canada Summit

  21–22

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  22

  Luxembourg

  Labour and Social Affairs Council (possible)

  24–25

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  28

  Luxembourg

  Culture Council

  July

  2–3

  Oulu

  Industry and Research Ministers (Informal)

  9–10

  Oulu

  Labour/Social Affairs Ministers (Informal)

  12

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  16

  Brussels

  Budget

  16–18

  Helsinki

  Environment Ministers (Informal)

  18–20

  Savonlinna

  Culture/Audiovisual Ministers (Informal)

  19–20

  Brussels

  Agriculture

  UNHCR (Land Rovers)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the proposed export of two armoured Land Rovers to the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Belgrade in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [69082]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have granted a licence for the export to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) of two armoured vehicles based on the Land Rover Defender 110 for use by UNHCR personnel. Given the key humanitarian role played by the UNHCR in the FRY, and the obvious need for the UNHCR to be able to protect staff serving with its office in Belgrade, including against land mines, we were glad to be able to approve this licence. The UN Sanctions Committee appointed under UNSCR 1160 has raised no objection to it.

  Bosnia (Ballistic Undervest Export)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the proposed export of a ballistic undervest to the European Community Monitoring Mission in Bosnia. [69083]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have granted a licence for the export to Bosnia of a ballistic undervest for use by the
  595
  Paymaster General at the European Community Monitoring Mission (ECMM) in Sarajevo. We were glad to approve this export licence in view of the obvious need for the ECMM to be able to protect its staff involved in international peace-keeping activities in the former Yugoslavia.

  Cornish Language
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the future of the Cornish language in relation the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. [68636]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The position of the Cornish language in relation to the Council of Europe's European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages has yet to be decided. It is a matter of domestic rather than foreign policy.

  EU Languages
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and what

  Language group

  Cluster/rank

  Size

  Economic diversity

  In-migration

  Core-periphery

  Heartland

  German—New Belgium

  A/1

  68,000

  High

  Low

  Core

  No

  Luxembourgish

  A/2

  350,000

  High

  High

  Core

  Yes

  Catalan

  A/2

  4,065,000

  High

  High

  Core

  Yes

  German (It)

  A/4

  290,000

  Medium

  Low

  Semi

  No

  Galician

  B/5

  2,420,000

  Medium

  Low

  Periphery

  Yes

  German (Fr)

  B/6

  1,800,000

  High

  Medium

  Core

  No

  Catalan (Valencia)

  B/6

  1,909,000

  High

  High

  Semi

  No

  Basque (BAC)

  B/6

  544,000

  High

  High

  Semi

  Yes

  Ladin

  B/6

  56,000

  Low

  Low

  Periphery

  Yes

  Occitan (Sp)

  B/10

  3,700

  Low

  Low

  Periphery

  No

  Welsh

  B/10

  508,000

  High

  High

  Semi

  Yes

  Catalan (Is Balearic)

  B/12

  428,000

  Medium

  High

  Semi

  No

  Irish

  C/13

  1,095,000

  High

  Low

  Periphery

  Yes

  Gaelic

  C/13

  59,000

  Low

  Low

  Periphery

  Yes

  Frisian

  C/13

  400,000

  High

  High

  Semi

  Yes

  Slovenian

  C/13

  85,000

  Medium

  High

  Semi

  No

  Frilulan

  C/13

  400,000

  Medium

  Medium

  Semi

  Yes

  Sorbian

  C/18

  50,000

  Low

  High

  Periphery

  Yes

  Danish (Ger)

  C/18

  25,000

  Low

  Low

  Semi

  No

  French (It)

  C18

  50,000

  Medium

  High

  Semi

  No

  Basque (Navare)

  C/18

  53,000

  Medium

  Low

  Semi

  No

  German (Denmark)

  C/22

  15–20,000

  Low

  Low

  Semi

  No

  Catalan (Aragon)

  C/24

  48,000

  Low

  Low

  Periphery

  No

  Catalan (Fr)

  C/24

  150,000

  Medium

  High

  Semi

  No

  Turkish

  C/24

  1100,000

  Low

  Low

  Periphery

  No

  Basque (Fr)

  D/26

  86,000

  Medium

  High

  Semi

  No

  Corsican

  D/26

  125,000

  Medium

  High

  Periphery

  Yes

  Catalan (It)

  D/28

  15,000

  Medium

  High

  Periphery

  No

  Occitan (It)

  D/28

  35–80,000

  Low

  Low

  Periphery

  No

  German (Old Belg.)

  D/30

  42,000

  Medium

  Low

  Semi

  No

  Occitan

  D/30

  2,100,000

  High

  Medium

  Semi

  Yes

  Breton

  D/30

  180–250,000

  Medium

  Low

  Semi

  Yes

  Albanian (It)

  D/30

  80–135,000

  Low

  Low

  Periphery

  No

  Mirandes

  E/34

  15,000

  Low

  Low

  Periphery

  No

  N. Frisian

  E/35

  9,000

  Medium

  Medium

  Semi

  No

  Croatian (It)

  E/35

  1,700

  Medium

  Medium

  Semi

  No

  Irish (UK)

  E/37

  142,000

  Medium

  Low

  Periphery

  No

  Berber

  E/38

  25,000

  Medium

  Low

  Periphery

  No

  Slavo-Macedonian

  E/38

  175,000

  Low

  Low

  Periphery

  No

  Dutch (Fr)

  E/38

  20–40,000

  Medium

  Low

  Core

  No

  Bulgarian

  E/38

  130,000

  Low

  Low

  Periphery

  No

  E. Frisian

  E/42

  2,000

  Medium

  Low

  Semi

  No

  Sardinian

  E/42

  1,300,000

  Medium

  Medium

  Periphery

  Yes

  Portuguese (Sp)

  E/44

  3,600

  Low

  Low

  Periphery

  No

  596
  percentage of EU citizens speak English as their first language; and how many and what percentage of EU citizens have been taught or have an elementary command of the English language. [67431]

  Ms Quin
  According to the Eurobarometer survey, in November 1995 approximately 16–17 per cent. of EU citizens regarded English as their mother tongue. The same survey also shows that one EU citizen in three (of those who do not class English as their mother tongue) regarded themselves as able to hold a conversation in English. EUROSTAT's 1997 figures on foreign language teaching in the EU show that 26 per cent. of pupils in primary education and 90 per cent. of pupils in secondary school were taught English.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the recognised and minority languages of the EU in order of their estimated number of speakers. [67432]

  Ms Quin
  There is no system for formally recognising languages within the EU, beyond the 12 languages used for official business. A report prepared for the European Commission identified over 30 minority languages spoken within the EU. These are:
  597

  Language group

  Cluster/rank

  Size

  Economic diversity

  In-migration

  Core-periphery

  Heartland

  Albanian (Gr)

  E/44

  180,000

  Low

  Low

  Periphery

  No

  Aroumanian

  E/44

  150,000

  Low

  Low

  Periphery

  No

  Cornish

  E/47

  1,000

  Medium

  High

  Semi

  Yes

  Greek (It)

  E/47

  7,500

  Low

  Low

  Periphery

  No

  1ca

  Direct Voting Elections
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to seek changes to EC law to permit amendment of Annex II of the 1976 legislative measure of the EEC on direct voting elections by majority. [68729]

  Ms Quin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 26 January 1999,Official Report, column 214.

  Kosovo
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the principal points of agreement of(a) the Contact Group-endorsed framework document and (b) the Holbrooke Package for Kosovo; if he will make a statement on progress towards the full implementation of each point; and if he will place copies of the documents in the Library. [67433]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As the statement issued at the end of the Contact Group Ministerial meeting in London on 29 January made clear, the Contact Group framework document is being further refined in advance of the planned meeting at Rambouillet. Putting the text as it stands into the public domain at this time would not help the search for a political settlement in Kosovo.

  Copies of the agreements with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for the setting up of the OSCE ground verification mission and the NATO air verification mission have already been placed in the House Library. It is for NATO and the OSCE to assess compliance with these agreements and with the relevant Security Council Resolutions. To date, neither side is in full compliance.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reported to the House on 1 February 1999, Official Report, columns 597–608, on the latest moves towards a negotiated settlement following the 29 January Contact Group meeting.

  Chile
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the four reports dispatched by the British Embassy in Madrid to his Department relating to Judge Garzon's investigations into Chile. [67956]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  No. The four reports dispatched by the British Embassy in Madrid relating to Judge Garzon's investigation into Chile were internal communications between the Embassy and the Foreign and Commonwealth 598
  Office and also covered wider issues. On the specific question of Judge Garzon's investigations into Chile the reports were as follows:
  12 November 1997: in the context of reporting developments in the case of Adolfo Scilingo a reference to the fact that Garzon's next step might be to issue warrants against Chileans (unnamed).
  23 January 1998: a further report on actions against Scilingo, where the Public Prosecutor of the Audiencia Nacional had ordered Garzon to close the file. The report mentioned that investigations of Chileans, including Pinochet, continued.
  15 October 1998: a report indicating that Garzon wished the Commission Rogatoire to be processed quickly and that what he had in mind was issuing an international arrest warrant. The report says nothing on timing of the warrant.
  16 October 1998: a comment on the previous day's report, clarifying that the intention was possibly to issue a warrant while Pinochet was in the UK, but without specifying timing.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Pupil Registration Regulations
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to amend the Pupil Registration Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [68624]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to amend the regulations. Advice on registration issues is however included in our new guidance on "Social Inclusion: Pupil Support", which was issued for consultation on 22 January 1999. We shall of course consider the case for any amendments in the context of responses to that document.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will(a) account for the difference between outturn departmental spending in Table A1 of the Comprehensive Spending Review and outturn departmental spending in Table 1.2 of the 1998–99 Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis for his Department for (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95, (iii) 1995–96 and (iv) 1996–97 and (b) provide forecast figures for departmental spending for his Department in (1) 1997–98, (2) 1998–99, (3) 1999–2000, (4) 2000–01 and (5) 2001–02 on a comparable basis to Table 1.2 of the 1998–99 Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis. [68380]

  Mr. Mudie
  The figures in Table 1.2 in the Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis relating to DfEE include net lending to students but exclude subsidy payments and an element for bad debt. The equivalent figures in Table A 1 of the Comprehensive Spending Review White paper exclude net lending to students but include subsidy payments and an element for bad debt.
  599
  It is not possible to provide forecast figures for departmental spending for DfEE for 1998–99, 1999– 2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 on a comparable basis to Table 1.2 of the 1998–99 Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis. The data in PESA give each Department's Control Total for the years in question. That method of controlling expenditure has been replaced with Departmental Expenditure Limits. Control Total data and Departmental Expenditure Limits data are not comparable. With that caveat, the information requested is shown in the following table:

  DfEE Spending plans

  Year

  £ million

  1997–981

  14,622

  1998–992

  14,166

  1999–20002

  15,473

  2000–012

  17,295

  2001–022

  18,612

  1estimated outturn

  2plans

  Note:

  1 The figure for 1997–98 is the Control Total for DfEE in Table 1.2 of the Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 1998–99.

  2 The figures for other years are the Department's Expenditure Limits in Table 6.1 of the Comprehensive Spending Review White Paper, Cm 4011.

  TECs (North-east)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the cash balances held by each of the training and enterprise councils in the north-east Region, as at December 1998. [68317]

  Mr. Mudie
  The following table provides the cash balances held by each of the Training and Enterprise Councils in the north-east as at March 1998. Information as at December 1998 is not available.

  £

  TEC

  Cash balance as at March 1998

  County Durham

  8,919,543

  Northumberland

  3,145,209

  Tees Valley

  8,101,000

  Tyneside

  6,696,000

  Sunderland City

  3,357,671

  Total

  30,219,423

  Disability Rights Commission
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 January 1999,Official Report, column 97, if he will set out his Department's estimate of the associated costs of the proposals for the Disability Rights Commission to undertake (a) working towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled persons, (b) promoting the equalisation of opportunities for disabled persons in all fields of activity and (c) reviewing the working of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [68532]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: A provisional annual allocation of £ll million has been made for the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) in 2000–01 and 2001–02. It will be for the Commission when it is established to decide how to allocate its resources.
  600
  Meanwhile interim estimates indicate some 10 per cent. of that annual budget may be devoted to administrative costs; 40 per cent. to advice and information, conciliation, assistance to individuals and formal investigations; 30 per cent. to promotional work, and 20 per cent. to policy work. Estimates are not available in the precise form requested by the hon. Member.

  The Government will keep the annual allocations under view in the light of operational experience of the Commission.

  Hospitality Industry
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many New Deal places have been offered by the United Kingdom hospitality industry; and how many have been taken up. [68862]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Foster to Mr. Peter Ainsworth, dated 2 February 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked Leigh Lewis to reply direct to your question regarding the number of New Deal places offered by the United Kingdom hospitality industry; and how many have been taken up. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying in his absence.
  Up to the end of December some 57,000 young people between the ages of 18 and 24 had entered jobs after having started the New Deal. Of these the available data indicates that around 8 per cent. had entered jobs in the hospitality sector. No similar information is available specifically in respect of job offers or, as yet in relation to entrants to job under the New Deal for those aged over 25 and for lone parents.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Highcliffe School
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his oral statement of 27 January 1999,Official Report, column 307, on Highcliffe School, what is the basis of the calculation that Dorset has been allocated a 7.3 per cent. increase in standard spending assessment for education in 1999–2000; and if he will express the increased allocation as a percentage per pupil. [68990]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Dorset's provisional education standard spending assessment for 1999–2000 represents an underlying increase of £9.2 million or 7.3 per cent.. These figures illustrate the effect of allowing for local authority changes of function and taking account of new arrangements for funding music and student support. The allocation represents a year-on-year increase in overall education SSA funding per pupil of 4.3 per cent..

  Millennium Compliance
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many millennium bug-busters have successfully completed their training to date. [68727]
  601
  Mr. Mudie
  The latest figures show that 8,916 trainees have started Bug Buster courses, and of these 7,209 have completed. A further 9,011 are booked.

  Education Action Zones
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines his Department has issued on the calculation of the value of gifts in kind donated by businesses to Education Action Zones. [68937]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We issued guidance in September 1998, and supplemented this in January 1999. I have placed copies of the guidance in the Library.

  Teacher Training
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the targets set by his Department for the number of students entering teacher training in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000, by phase. [68936]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the target intake to initial teacher training for the years 1997–98 to 1999–2000, by phase.

  Target recruitment to initial teacher training (ITT) courses in England, 1997–98 to 1999–2000

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  1997–98

  11,050

  19,500

  30,550

  1998–99

  11,500

  19,100

  30,600

  1999–2000

  12,000

  17,210

  29,210

  Source:

  DfEE

  Infant Class Sizes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effects of his decision to cap the amount allowed per teacher in local education authority bids to reduce infant class sizes on(a) employment of classroom assistants and (b) junior class sizes. [68813]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have made it clear that we will provide sufficient funding to enable all LEAs to reduce class sizes without adversely affecting the employment of classroom assistants or the size of junior classes.

  Employment Service (Commercial Agency Vacancies)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is his Department's policy on the acceptance by the Employment Service of job vacancies for public display from commercial employment agencies; [67989]

  (2) if he intends to require the Employment Service to charge a fee to commercial employment agencies for advertising job vacancies on their behalf; [67990]

  (3) if he will estimate the marginal costs annually to the Employment Service of processing requests from commercial employment agencies for advertising job vacancies. [67991]
  602
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. David Kidney, dated 2 February 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply direct to your questions concerning the relationship that exists between the Employment Service and private employment agencies. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Employment Service.
  The Employment Service has an agreement with the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services (FRES) that Jobcentres will accept individual vacancies for display from employment agencies and businesses, provided they are satisfied that a real vacancy exists. The agreement makes clear that this is at the discretion of the Jobcentre Manager who will take into account the needs of the local labour market and priorities for display space. This agreement was set up to help the Employment Service to fulfil its responsibility to unemployed jobseekers to provide the most opportunities possible for them to find work, and has been instrumental in helping unemployed people into jobs. However, the Employment Service will not handle generic vacancies from employment agencies that seek simply to build up a list of potential jobseekers for the future.
  There are currently no plans for the Employment Service to charge a fee to commercial employment agencies for advertising their vacancies. This is because we view such vacancies as a valuable source of jobs to help unemployed jobseekers improve their prospects of gaining work. We would, therefore, wish to avoid deterring agencies from placing vacancies by charging fees which could in turn deny jobseekers the best possible chance of securing a job.
  I am afraid that we do not collect information on the marginal costs of processing requests from commercial employment agencies for advertising job vacancies.
  I hope this is helpful in clarifying the position.

CABINET OFFICE

  Constituency Visits
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make it his policy to ensure the co-ordination of the advice provided to Ministers in respect of informing hon. Members prior to visits to their constituencies. [68933]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Guidance to Ministers on their responsibilities in relation to informing hon. Members of visits to their constituencies is set out in paragraph 79 of the Ministerial Code.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Badger Culling Scheme
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to appoint external auditors for the Government's badger culling scheme. [64836]

  Mr. Rooker
  Following the issue of invitations to tender, an external auditor was selected in November 1998 to carry out, during 1999, a detailed audit of culling
  603
  trial field operations. A contract is being finalised. We also intend to appoint an external assessor to evaluate the method of despatch used for badgers.

  Animal Slaughter
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement regarding(a) the slaughter of animals outside slaughterhouses without pre-stunning and (b) the operation of EC Directive 93/119; [68621]

  (2) if he will review UK legislation in relation to the implementation of Directive 93/119 regarding the slaughter of animals. [68622]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: EU Directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing requires that animals must be stunned before slaughter, but permits Member States not to apply that rule when animals are killed without stunning for reasons of religion. The United Kingdom has provided such an exception, and the Government fully respect the right of Jews and Muslims to carry out religious slaughter in accordance with their religious beliefs.

  The European Commission is of the view that Directive 93/119 requires religious slaughter to take place only in a slaughterhouse. The Government wish to bring our national implementing regulations into line with this view, and on 7 December 1998 circulated proposals to change the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 to require religious slaughter to be carried out only in licensed red meat slaughterhouses or licensed or officially regulated poultry slaughterhouses. We are considering the results of that consultation and of meetings with organisations representing the Jewish and Muslim communities.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the increased distance meat animals travel to slaughter as a result of the closure of smaller abattoirs. [68126]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department receives many letters covering a range of animal welfare issues. Some of our correspondents have, amongst other things, expressed their concern that abattoir closures may affect the distance animals travel to slaughter.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional legislation, not currently before Parliament, was assumed in the production of his Department's spending allocation for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [68416]

  Mr. Morley
  There is a long-standing convention that legislative proposals for each year are not announced before the Queen's Speech at the start of the relevant session.

  Farm Produce Markets
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to provide funding for the establishment of regional farm produce markets; [68069]
  604
  (2) what representations he has received on the establishment of a regional farm produce market for the North West; [68070]

  (3) if he will list the regional farm produce markets in the United Kingdom. [68071]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 January 1999]: The Ministry does not keep lists of farmers' markets held in the UK and has not received representations on the establishment of a regional farm produce market for the North West. I have no plans to fund the establishment of farmers markets but am keen to encourage them. The Ministry will be holding a seminar in March to promote the concept of farmers' markets.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the risks genetically modified animal feeds pose to humans. [68774]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes rigorously assesses all genetically modified feed material from the point of view of the impact that such feed may have on human health.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list his Department's responsibilities and policies in relation to genetically modified crops and the departments with which he liaises on this issue; and where the lead departmental responsibility rests for each issue. [67663]

  Mr. Rooker
  My Department's policy is that public health and environmental safety are the fundamental priorities on genetically modified (GM) crops. We believe that the UK agriculture industry should not be denied access to the benefits of GM technology, but that all justified concerns about it must be addressed.

  MAFF shares responsibility with the Department of Health for the safety of GM foods. It also shares responsibility with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (who take the lead) on the approval of the release of GM crops into the environment. MAFF takes the lead in a number of areas relevant to GM crops; the agricultural implications of the introduction of GM crops into UK agriculture; plant breeders rights and National Listing and seed certification for all varieties of the main agricultural and vegetable species; and the approval of pesticides, including those to be used on GM herbicide tolerant crops, and GM micro-organisms to be used for plant protection purposes.

  Government policy on biotechnology, including GM crops, is co-ordinated by the Ministerial Group on Biotechnology, which is chaired by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 October 1998, Official Report, column 1134. In addition, officials across Government are in regular contact on biotechnology issues.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 19 January 1999,
  605
  Official Report, column 454, on fisheries, if he will list those EU countries with which he has discussed the decentralisation of fisheries control to zonal committees within member states; which states indicated their support in principle; and if he will make a statement. [68149]

  Mr. Morley
  I have not yet discussed with other Member States the ideas of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation concerning zonal committees. However, the NFFO and SFF have themselves been discussing their ideas with their counterparts in other Member States and I shall be interested to see the outcome of these contacts.

  Departmental Papers (Access for Visually Impaired)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for departmental(a) White and (b) Green Papers to be made available on floppy disk format in a form which facilitates access for the visually impaired. [67836]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 27 January 1999,Official Report, column 296. I confirm that future White and Green Papers issued by MAFF will be made available on standard floppy disk in a suitable form, on request.

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

Melksham Hospital
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to take any action following the employment tribunal case relating to Melksham Hospital in Wiltshire, won by Christine Clunie and Alison Hale.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Government are taking a range of measures to ensure that the NHS offers its staff more family-friendly working arrangements. This case related specifically to the particular circumstances of the NHS trust involved. Individual employers have a responsibility to ensure their decisions are in accordance with employment law.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, does the Minister accept that after yesterday's very disappointing award for senior nursing grades, the retention of experienced nurses remains a key issue for the National Health Service and that the encouragement of family-friendly employment practices will continue to be essential? Does she also accept that it is vital that the pay award is covered in full by the department, failing which other cases such as that of Melksham Hospital will occur, where hospital trusts will attempt to cut their costs and reduce the flexible working arrangements now in place?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, first, the case of Melksham Hospital was a specific one about the introduction of internal rostering to nursing shifts and the effect that that had on women with family responsibilities.
I am rather surprised to hear the noble Lord describe yesterday's settlement as "disappointing". It is the biggest real terms pay increase for 10 years for all nurses and members of professions allied to medicine; and for the first time in five years the award is to be paid nationally, in full, with no staging. Besides the very generous increases for people at the beginning of their nursing careers we are also ensuring that those within the profession are given financial incentives to stay in terms of additional discretionary points. We are also committed to modernising the pay and grading system so that experienced nurses are fairly rewarded for skills and responsibilities.
On the funding, £100 million from the modernisation fund has already been earmarked centrally for staff. Sufficient money is included in the £21 billion
1412
settlement for the next three years to meet staffing requirements and to make the additional investment that we want to see.
Lord Winston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, with regard to nursing recruitment, a great deal of evidence shows that it is not merely salary that counts in terms of the attractiveness of the nursing profession?
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords, I agree with that. That is why in my initial response I said that we were taking a range of measures to ensure that we invest in staff development, that we give people who have left the service the opportunity to retrain and return, and that we provide flexible conditions—conditions that recognise family responsibilities—so that many more of those thousands of nurses currently not employed by the NHS will be attracted to return to medicine.

British-Russian Relations
2.41 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there have been improvements in British-Russian relations since May 1997, and what plans they have for such relations in the medium term, including joint initiatives with other European countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we co-operate on a wide range of issues bilaterally. Our G8 presidency in 1988 saw the first full inclusion of Russia in a G8 summit. Our EU presidency last year improved Russia's relations with the union. We have encouraged the development of NATO's relationship with Russia, including through the Permanent Joint Council. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have close working relations with their counterparts. In the medium term, we hope to agree a common strategy on Russia setting out EU policy, comprehensively, at the Cologne European Council in June.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Can she confirm that the following will be firmly on the diplomatic agenda for the next few years: Russian membership of NATO, nuclear safety in the Arctic Ocean, faster decommissioning of weapons of mass destruction and the reduction of Russia's external debts?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has covered the agenda pretty comprehensively. I assure him that all the issues that he has raised come up from time to time.
Perhaps I can say something briefly about debt. Any re-scheduling must, of course, depend on Russia reaching an agreed programme with the IMF. The key is Russia implementing rapid fiscal and economic

1413
reform. Her Majesty's Government are doing what they can through technical assistance, both bilaterally through the know-how fund and through TACIS.
On nuclear safety, concern about the disposal of nuclear weapons is very much on our agenda. There has been an exchange of experts from the UK to Russia and from Russia to the UK. There is also the question of nuclear waste in the polar peninsula and in north-west Russia. I give the noble Lord the assurance that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has taken steps to ensure that that does appear on the summit agenda for the EU/Russia summit this month. The Government's position overall on the decommissioning of nuclear weapons is a matter that I hope I do not have to remind your Lordships is very much on our agenda and was clearly stated in our election manifesto.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, will the Minister include on the agenda the strongest possible representations to the authorities about the recent anti-Semitic remarks, in particular on 1st November, when a Member of the Russian Parliament, Albert Makashov, called for the extermination of the country's Jews and for the introduction of quotas on the immigration of members of the Jewish population? As that followed an attack on a Jewish cemetery, a bomb attack on a synagogue, and the failure of the Russian Parliament to condemn one of its Members for those remarks inciting racial hatred, will the Minister ensure that the view of many of us that those remarks are completely unacceptable is made clear to the authorities?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance. We are very concerned about the anti-Semitism in Russia, and particularly about the comments made in the Duma not only by Mr. Makashov, but also by Mr. Ilyukhin. We are monitoring the situation closely. We welcome President Yeltsin's clear statement which condemned racial intolerance, and the consideration of charges against Makashov by the Interior Minister, Mr. Stepashin. Moreover, the British Ambassador in Moscow has also made representations to the chief of the presidential administration and to the leader of the Communist Party about the comments made by the Duma Members in question.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that one joint practical means of co-operation between the European nations and the Russian Federation would be to build a third bridge over the River Narva, thereby linking the Baltic states and Russia? That would also show to the world that Western Europe and, indeed, the Russian Federation are committed to peace and security within the Baltic states. Does the Minister realise that the Baltic states are currently unable to fund that valuable project alone?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, your Lordships have discussed the relationship between the Baltic states and the Russian Federation on a number
1414
of occasions. We expect Estonia and Latvia to implement the recommendation made by the OSCE High Commissioner, Max Van Der Stoel, on the rights of, for example, the Russian minorities. I am not entirely sure that pressing for a third bridge at the moment is necessarily one of the priorities that we would pinpoint, given that there are other matters with which we hope the Russian Federation will deal; notably, on the economic front and with regard to fiscal reorganisation. We believe that they are the real priorities at the moment.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in view of the Minister's reference to better relations with the Russian Federation, are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that no further help is going from Russia to Iran in relation to Iran's nuclear ambitions?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have raised the question of the help that has allegedly been given by Russia to Iran. We are monitoring the position closely. We are very concerned about the movements of conventional weapons. Again, that is a matter that Ministers raise with their Russian counterparts from time to time.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there have been extremely disturbing reports of nuclear safety workers not being paid in Russia for up to six months? As we are trying to help financially, can the Minister say whether we are doing anything about that specific and extreme danger?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are disturbing reports about many different public servants in Russia not being paid. I refer not only to those working in the nuclear industry, but also to some members of the armed forces and to school teachers. Steps are being taken to try to safeguard the position with regard to nuclear weapons. We have been discussing with our counterparts in Europe the steps that we can take to help the Russians to make their nuclear installations safer. The payment of public servants in Russia is a very much more widespread problem. The Russian Federation must address it by having a far better organisation in the future in terms of economic stability and fiscal programmes.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, can the Minister say whether in the light of the improvements that she has described, Russia would now support military action by NATO against Serbia in the event of a failure by President Milosevic to comply with the demands of the contact group, given Russia's previous opposition to such use of force?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am unable to answer that question at the moment. As the noble Lord knows, we are concentrating now on trying to get all the parties to the discussions that are scheduled for this weekend. The Russians have been very supportive, as members of the contact group, in pressing for all sides to participate in the discussions.

1415
However, I cannot tell the noble Lord that the position has changed with regard to possible military intervention.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, will the Minister be able to encourage the Russians to agree that the Latvian Government have gone quite a long way, and are still doing so, in order to make the Russian minority in Latvia—a large minority—feel more at home? I have a slight interest in the matter because I am chairman of the all-party British Latvia Group. It ought to be acknowledged that the Latvian Government are continuing to go a long way towards improving the situation.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Russians have acknowledged that there has been progress in Latvia, which last year fulfilled the last two recommendations on citizenship of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities. However, Russia still claims that there is discrimination in other areas, including on the proposed new language law. We recognise that work remains to be done in ensuring that the Latvian language and labour laws conform to international law. We support Mr. Van der Stoel's efforts to help bring that about.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with the controls exercised by the Russians over exports of conventional weapons to the third world? Moreover, can she say whether there have been any discussions between the European Union and the Russian Federation about the harmonisation of codes of conduct between the two entities?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have been doing our best to discuss questions of nuclear weapons with our friends in Russia. However, at present we are particularly anxious to ensure that the Duma goes ahead with the agreement on Start II. That was meant to be ratified by the end of last year, but we hope that it will be done this spring. Our next priority is to secure agreement this year on the fissile material treaty, which we regard as the absolute priority in international terms on nuclear disarmament.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, if ways and means could be found of achieving full membership in NATO for Russia, does the Minister agree that many problems would be solved and that the alliance might become one which embraces the whole of the northern hemisphere?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the fact is that Russia has not applied for NATO membership. However, it would be foolish to say that Russia never will apply and that, in the right circumstances, such an application would not be considered seriously. Indeed, I believe that it would be. At present we are working hard to ensure that the Founding Act works properly, that the Permanent Joint Council works properly and that the military links we have forged with Russia can be made to work well.
1416
We shall see the establishment of a NATO commission in Moscow over the course of the next few months. This incremental, step-by-step approach is a sensible one. It is one which is building confidence between Russia and NATO. The longer-term programme is one to which we shall look forward.

State Pensions
2.53 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now raise the level of state pension for a single pensioner to £75 per week.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, we have honoured our manifesto commitment to retain the basic pension and to increase it at least in line with prices. We also said that we would give priority to the poorest pensioners. That is exactly what we are doing with our minimum income guarantee.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. However, has she stopped to compare this meagre claim of pensioners with what is happening in Ystradgynlais in South Wales where 750 jobs are to go at Lucas Varity, the very lifeline of that Welsh community? In the meantime, Mr. Victor Rice, the chief executive of Lucas SEI and the man who authorised the sackings, is due to pick up £17 million. Is that not an indication of the re-emergence of the unacceptable face of capitalism? Can my noble friend tell the House what the Government's attitude is over these issues?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, much though I might enjoy this in a different forum, it is not for me to comment on the award to an individual former chief executive or director. I believe that most people would find it excessive, to say the least. However, in terms of my noble friend's original Question, it is important to remember that, whatever excrescences there may be as regards extraordinary large awards at a time when other people are losing their jobs, the major problem facing pensioners in this country is the fact that so many of them still have incomes at or below income support level. That is why we are taking action by way of the minimum income guarantee; and that is why we are trying to ensure that this problem is not repeated for future pensioners by making sure that they have access to decent jobs through the New Deal and that, while working, they enjoy a good second pension. That is our policy.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, far from being better off under Labour, is it not true that independent figures show that after two years of Labour government pensioners are worse off when the net effect of all the tax changes is taken into account? Therefore, would it not be a start to tackling pensioner poverty to raise the measly 25 pence a week—barely enough to buy a

1417
stamp—which 80 year-old pensioners receive to at least £5 a week? Surely that would be an excellent start to tackling pensioner poverty.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I assume that the noble Baroness is quoting figures which appeared in the Daily Mail, and which, in turn, may have been mentioned by her honourable friend in another place, regarding what has been happening to pensioner incomes since the Labour Party came to power some 18 to 20 months ago. It is true—and the figures were given by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place—that poorer pensioner households have, on average, increased their income by £140 a year by virtue of the reduction of VAT on fuel and winter fuel payments. In addition, the poorest pensioners (the 20 per cent. or so eligible for income support) will see their incomes rise by £160 a year from this April, which means a total increase of £300 a year. I should have thought that the noble Baroness would have welcomed this increase in income—indeed, rejoiced over it—for the poorest pensioners in the country.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, as we on this side of the House have given a firm assurance that we will not means test the basic state pension in the next Parliament, why have this Government not done the same?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord can make whatever statement he likes about what his party would do in the next Parliament without necessarily being held to account by the British electorate. However, having said that, I should point out that the Prime Minister and the Government have made it absolutely clear that the basic state pension is a keystone of our pension policy. It will not be means tested. It will rise at least in line with prices. But—and this is a basic point—if we are to ensure that all our pensioners enjoy the prosperity that they should, they need a decent second pension. That is why we are developing a state second pension which will give to those earning between £3,500 and £9,000 a year a pension as though they were earning £9,000 a year. That would do more to lift those on lower earnings and intermittent earnings than anything we have seen since my noble friend Lady Castle introduced SERPS 20 years ago.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting this unholy alliance, but it is very difficult to acknowledge the genuine concern that everyone has for the fact that a large number of pensioners on state pensions are receiving an inadequate amount and, at the same time justify, as both Front Benches do, the £7 billion a year going to top rate taxpayers. Does the Minister agree that that is an absurdity?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not sure that I understood the noble Lord, though that may be because of my stupidity. Is he querying the tax relief that goes to top rate pensioners from the £7 billion?
Lord Marsh: No, my Lords; I am suggesting that it is absurd in this situation that state pensions are not means tested in terms of top rate taxpayers. We acknowledge that there are people who are under-provided for in the state pension scheme, while at the same time we give pension benefits to people who clearly do not need them and who are paying very high rates of tax.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, pensioners, including the highest rate pensioners, will pay tax on their basic state pension at something like 40 per cent. The commitment we have made is that the basic state pension is a universal pension available to all, which will rise in line with prices. However, as I said a moment ago, I believe we all accept that for pensioners to enjoy a comfortable standard of living to which they are entitled they need a good second pension on top of that. So far too much of our pension provision has been shaped by images of the person who has a job for 40 years, who never changes that job and who works full time with one employer.
We need to develop new, flexible pension arrangements. We need to include the self-employed. We need to look after carers and those with intermittent earnings. That is the way we are going. However, the assumption that those who pay the highest taxes do not pay tax on their state pension is simply wrong.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that over the past 18 years the basic state pension as a proportion of national earnings has consistently dropped and that if nothing is done to increase pensions beyond the retail prices index the state pension will gradually be phased out? Can my noble friend assure me that something will be done in future years to maintain the value of the state pension in relation to average earnings?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, our policy is clear. The basic state pension will rise in line with prices but that alone will not be sufficient, as my noble friend said. By the year 2050 that alone would produce a pension of only 7 per cent. of average earnings. That is why we seek a state second pension and the measures taken together will be worth about £30 or £40 a week more than the sum that a person who earns £6,000 a year would receive at present.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes,: My Lords, I accept what the Minister said; namely, that the basic state pension will not be means tested. However, she then said that people will nevertheless receive a guaranteed income. I do not know what that is if it is not another form of pension. I cannot understand how the Minister intends to give that to people without means testing it. Will she clarify that?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords. The basic state pension at the moment is £65 a week, which is below the level of what a pensioner would get if he had no capital and was therefore entitled to an income support top-up. The guaranteed minimum pension

1419
represents £75 a week as opposed to £65; that is, the basic state pension plus a premium on top which will be paid automatically to those pensioners who have no capital and no alternative earnings. That way we shall ensure that they are at, and above, income support levels.

European Union: Tax Harmonisation
3.2 p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What recent consultations they have had with other European Union governments about the harmonisation of taxes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, let me answer by drawing from the joint statement made by the German Chancellor and the Prime Minister in December which states,
"We strongly support action to combat unfair tax competition … But we will not support measures leading to a higher tax burden and jeopardising competitiveness and jobs in the EU … At no stage have we considered measures to harmonise personal income tax … We fully support the need for enhanced co-operation in the fight against tax abuse and evasion…But where tax policy is used to support wider health and environmental objectives, there may he advantages in co-ordinating action across the EU".
Lord Blaker: My Lords, the Minister and the Government set great store by the veto. If an application by the Government to join the single currency is met by the response that we may do so if we agree to a general harmonisation of taxes—which is what Herr Lafontaine wants—or that we should agree to a move towards qualified majority voting on tax matters, what would be the Government's response? Will the Minister give a unqualified assurance that no such deal would be accepted?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that question makes two presumptions, neither of which I can accept. The first one is that there is a move towards general tax harmonisation in the European Union. I have already quoted the boss of Herr Lafontaine to make it clear that that is not the case. The second assumption is that some such condition will be made on an application to join the single currency. I do not accept that proposition either.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the constitutional and economic importance of these tax harmonisation considerations, I ask the Government in the most non-controversial fashion whether they will make available to Members of this House a pack consisting of the important documents that have been issued by the Commission and by the Government and which have either been sifted or are due for scrutiny by the various Select Committees? I am quite sure the Government will agree that that would be most helpful to the detailed discussions which sooner or later will have to occur in this House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the explanatory memoranda which accompany all draft directives are available to all Members of this House.
Lord Taverne: My Lords—
Lord Higgins: My Lords, part of the so-called harmful tax practices—
Lord Carter: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, speaks and then the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, following the constructive suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will the Government continue a pragmatic approach to the question of tax harmonisation, recognising that certain kinds of harmonisation are obviously desirable—one can hardly argue against state subsidies and not oppose certain special kinds of tax incentives which have the same effect—but, on the other hand, also recognising that certain kinds of harmonisation, which would lead to the loss of business across the Atlantic or elsewhere, would be undesirable? Will the Government continue to be pragmatic in their approach?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my first Answer, which made it clear that we shall continue to be pragmatic, demonstrated that that is the policy not only of the British Government but also of the German Government.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, why is the "hit list" of so-called harmful tax practices which is being considered by the European Union Code of Conduct Group not being published when our national interests are at stake and many of our industries may wish to make representations on the subject? More specifically, last Thursday the Minister said that roll-over relief for British ships is on the list. Can he give the House an assurance that other much heavier subsidies and tax reliefs for shipping in other European countries are also on the list?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when the noble Lord uses the phrase "so-called harmful practices", he has decided that certain practices are harmful. We do not accept that the five examples that we have given to the European Union are harmful. There are 80 more such examples practised by other member states. Those are retained in confidence by ECOFIN until the Code of Conduct Group has completed its consideration.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, is the noble Lord content that taxes should be imposed on British subjects by a consortium over which we have no control?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is simply not the case. My first Answer, and every answer I have given on this point over recent weeks and months, have made it clear that we are in control of our own fiscal policies.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, in view of the interest in this matter can my noble friend tell your Lordships' House whether, should tax harmonisation be introduced, it would mean that those who receive tax free allowances would need to start paying taxes?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think my noble friend is using a wide definition of tax harmonisation. It has never been suggested that there should be any harmonisation of personal income tax.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on NHS Direct.

Trustee Delegation Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—

EFFECT OF THIS ACT ON SECTION 25 OF TRUSTEE ACT 1925
(" . The text of section 25 of the Trustee Act 1925 as amended by the Powers of Attorney Act 1971 and this Act is set out in Schedule (Text of section 25 of the Trustee Act 1925 as amended).").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 2, although I shall not detain the Committee for many minutes. Amendment No. 2 is a Keeling schedule which I tabled in order to make it easier for the reader to understand the impact of Clause 5 of the Bill on Section 25 of the Trustee Act 1925. My amendments are supported by the Law Society.
The Minister telephoned me this morning to say that he would achieve the same result by tabling an amendment for Third Reading which would put the final form of Clause 25 of the Trustee Act into Clause 5 of the Bill. This would achieve, by an alternative route, exactly the result I sought and is wholly satisfactory.
I have only one tiny niggle. When the noble and learned Lord spoke to me on the telephone this morning, he told me that he would table the amendment for Third Reading. In a letter which reached me half an hour ago there is a slight gloss on that. The letter used the words,
"at Third Reading or as soon as practicable thereafter".
1422
Can the noble and learned Lord omit the words "as soon as practicable thereafter"? All that needs to be done is to transport the wording of Amendment No. 2 into Clause 5 of the Bill. The wording is absolutely accurate; it has been in the hands of the parliamentary draftsman for a fortnight and it has never been suggested that a single word needs changing. Would it not be better to send a polished Bill down to the other place rather than one which is still in need of amendment? I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. This will be of considerable practical help to those who study the Bill—or Act, as it will become—in the course of their professional duties. I am glad that the Minister has agreed to accept it in principle. I am not sure whether this would meet with the approval of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who has taken up a considerable part of the debates on the Access to Justice Bill in trying to remove surplus words from the Bill. In this case it seems to me to be appropriate, and I welcome the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, would result in the inclusion of what is called a Keeling schedule in the Bill. Introduced in 1937, these schedules—named after a Member of another place whose inquiries of the then Prime Minister gave rise to their use—are now little used. They tend to give rise to handling difficulties during the passage of Bills and set the amended provision in aspic. Future amendments to the provision would not show up on a Keeling schedule and it might become a trap for the unwary at a later date. However, the noble and learned Lord has put a persuasive argument that the provision in this Bill, which amends Section 25 of the Trustee Act, should be treated exceptionally.
He has accurately recorded the conversation we had. I undertake to introduce a government amendment—well, I say that I undertake to introduce a government amendment, but I am not going to give him satisfaction on his last point. I undertake that an amendment will be introduced at some stage, in effect, to set out the whole of the new Section 25 in the body of the Bill, which meets his point.
I did say to him on the telephone that it would be done by Third Reading. I am now told that I am not in a position to give such a watertight undertaking and that it might have to be introduced during the Commons stage of the Bill. I appreciate the humiliation to this House of not sending a Bill to the other place in tiptop form, but I am afraid that is the best I can do, and for that I apologise.
Lord Brightman: Subject to my slight niggle, I thank the noble and learned Lord for the helpful attitude he has adopted towards my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Report received.

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Right of third party to enforce contractual term]:
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("may") to end of line 10.
The noble Lord said: I begin by apologising to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for tabling my four amendments rather late last evening. This did not give him the opportunity to study these amendments closely, and perhaps put his own name to them, as I am sure he would have been quite willing to do.
The amendments arise from a long-standing connection that I have had with the construction industry, as older Members of the House will know. I have a lifelong and continuing interest in the industry, and I declare it now. These amendments have been inspired by the Construction Industry Council. I shall begin by making a few general remarks and, in due course, deal with each amendment as briefly as I possibly can.
First, let me say that I have a feeling of having been here before. Perhaps Glen Hoddle can help me. I recall that in the 1980s, under a previous Lord Chancellor—the last but three or so, I think—we debated a Latent Damage Bill. Like this Bill, that was a law reform Bill, and is now an Act. It was a law reform Bill which impinged very heavily on the construction industry. But it did not deal with the 90 per cent. of latent damage cases connected with the construction industry as carefully as it did with the 10 per cent. of cases which were not. I feel there is something similar about this Bill.
It seems to me that the Bill ignores the nature of contracts in the construction industry. The Law Commission's proposals incorporated in the Bill take account mainly of arrangements involving one promisee and one promisor with roughly equal strength—contracts between equals, in other words—and a reasonably well-defined pattern of third parties.
The construction industry is not like that. Let us consider for a moment the building of a power station or, even more dramatic, the construction of the Channel
1424
Tunnel. Projects of that nature involve a great network of contracts. The project is never given as a whole. It is given as a series of parts. It may well be that the main contractor on one part of the work has a subcontractor and on another part of the work that subcontractor is a main contractor and the first main contractor is himself a subcontractor. Then there is the whole body of specialist subcontractors on which the construction industry depends. All of those people can be main contractors, subcontractors or indeed third parties. The position is far more complex than the Bill, if I have understood it properly, makes out.
The contractors are not equal and that goes against the grain of the Bill. A multitude of contracts is involved. Very often a main contractor is able to impose on a subcontractor fairly onerous terms, especially if he is a specialist subcontractor. Each contract will have an amalgam of third parties, which might include the general public. By its nature a piece of construction is imprecise. We all know that the Jubilee Line may or may not be finished in time for the millennium. It will probably not be finished. That is commonplace in construction contracts because unforeseen circumstances arise. There are factors such as inclement weather, the fact that foundation conditions might be different or floods might occur. There might be union strikes, as was the case in the old days. There are all kinds of factors which impinge on a contract and make the contract liable to change during its period. That change impinges on the third parties.
Let us put the position at its most simple and assume that a construction contract is expected to last for nine months. The general public will have to put up with nuisance, bother, noise and all kinds of inconveniences for nine months. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, the contract lasts for 12 months. So the public's inconvenience is extended. People are hurt far beyond their expectations. That is a totally different situation from the generalised one-to-one contracts which the Bill envisages.
All I have to say—it is a fairly draconian so I shall say it as quietly as I can—is that these complications mean that Clause 1(1)(b) is unworkable in the construction industry. My amendment seeks to remove it. I should say for the ease of mind of my noble and learned friend that I do not intend to press any of my amendments to a Division. They are probing amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I am sure the Committee is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for bringing forward these amendments which, as he said, are prompted by the Construction Industry Council, whose very interesting observations some of us, including, I suspect, the noble Lord, saw only yesterday. All of us would have preferred to have seen them at an earlier stage, perhaps before Second Reading. However, the noble Lord raises the important question of the impact of this Bill on construction contracts.
It should be said that the Bill before the Committee, as was made clear at Second Reading, is hardly rushed legislation. It has been some 50 years in the offing and comes to Parliament via the Law Commission, to which, as I understand it, the construction industry, among

1425
many others, made representations. As I read and reread the Law Commission's report in the light of the observations of the Construction Industry Council, it clearly acknowledged the impact of the proposed law reform on the complex network of contracts which typically arise in the construction situations to which the noble Lord referred.
For the most part, I think the answer will be that the construction industry, among others in the future, will have to depend on well drafted and sometimes better drafted contracts. Having said that, although I do not accept that there is particular force in the proposal to amend Clause 1 beyond the suggestion I have already made that better drafted contracts may well be required, there is some force in the proposal in Amendment No. 2 to amend Clause 2. However, as far as concerns Clause 1, I do not believe that the solution will be found in leaving out subsection (1)(b), which has to be read with Clause 1(2), which I notice the noble Lord's amendment does not seek to delete.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has not really moved Amendment No. 1 in the sense that, if accepted, it would be of wholly general effect. He has claimed that the Government have not sufficiently attended to the special nature of contracts in the construction industry. I do not accept that. The noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are of wholly general effect and go much further than to protect the supposed interests of the construction industry.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to leave out Clause 1(1)(b). The Bill certainly could have been more restrictive if it had provided for third party rights only when the contracting parties had provided in express terms that they should be entitled to enforce the terms in question. However, the Bill desires third party enforceability to cover cases where, properly construed, the contract intended a term to confer a benefit on the third party. Thus Clause 1(1)(b) provides:
"subject to subsection (2), the term purports to confer a benefit on him".
The Bill did not, however, stop there because Clause 1(2) was added which, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, the noble Lord's amendment fails to elide. Clause 1(2) provides that,
"Sub-section (1)(b) does not apply if on a proper construction of the contract it appears that the parties did not intend the term to be enforceable by the third party".
So essentially the combined effect of sub-paragraph (b) and subsection (2) is a rebuttable presumption in favour of there being an enforceable third party right where a contractual term purports to confer a benefit on a third party, but the presumption is rebutted where on a proper construction of the contract the parties did not intend to confer a right of enforcement on the third party.
Perhaps I may give a simple illustration of how the Bill, if amended in the way the noble Lord proposes, would work an injustice. An uncle transfers his business to his nephew who promises in return that, after the uncle's death, he will pay an annuity to an expressly named aunt. In such a situation, the uncle and nephew may not have included an express provision that the
1426
aunt's rights would be enforceable. But I agree with the Law Commission's view that the nephew would be unable to satisfy a burden of persuading that those were not intended to be enforceable. It would be unfortunate if the third party right should be unenforceable in cases of this description—and there could be many—just because the parties had not thought to refer expressly to enforceability. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: I thank my noble and learned friend for his comments, and I especially thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for his.
I did not suggest removing subsection (2) as it seemed to me fairly obvious that if subsection (1)(b) were removed, subsection (2) would also be removed. I did not want to hammer the provisions too hard into the ground.
I was interested in the comments about uncles, aunts and nephews. They illustrate my point. They are a long way from the complications of the construction industry and relate merely to the complications within a family.
However, I understand the weaknesses of the amendment. I tabled it in order to place this debate at the beginning of our deliberations. I am happy to withdraw it, although we may soon need to return to a provision that is not too dissimilar. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Variation and cancellation of contract]:
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 32, at end insert (", or
>(c) that his consent is being unreasonably withheld.").>
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the kind of situation in the construction industry where a contract has to be varied due to unforseen circumstances such as I described earlier. A third party might intervene in such a way as to prevent the work being carried on and cause it to be held up for an undue length of time. All I suggest is that we should add the words,
"that his consent is being unreasonably withheld".
I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: We cannot accept this amendment. The essence of the Bill is that it should give effect to the parties' intentions to confer on third parties such enforceable rights as they choose. They may choose to confer none at all. If they do choose to confer enforceable rights, they may specify by their contract the point at which the third party rights cannot be varied without the third party's consent. The Bill, however, sets out in Clauses 2(1)(a), (b) and (c) the crystallisation points which will apply if they are not specified in the contract. It also provides assistance where there is no practicable way in which they can obtain the consent of the third party to a variation to their contract which they desire to make, either because they cannot find the third party (Clause 2(4)(a)), or because he is mentally incapable of giving his consent (Clause 2(4)(b)).

1427
What the proposed amendment would achieve would be to give the court in all circumstances a power to hold that, despite crystallisation, the third party was unreasonably withholding his consent to a variation. It is not the policy of the Bill, absent an express provision in the contract, to dictate that the intended beneficiary will not be entitled to withhold his consent if that were held to be unreasonable by a court. Such a provision would in effect be conferred if the discretionary power now proposed were conferred on the court. It is Clause 2(3) which provides protection for the primary contracting parties, under which express terms of the contract can specify either the circumstances in which the contract can be cancelled or varied without the consent of the third party, or that the contract can vary the crystallisation circumstances which would otherwise apply under Clause 2(1)(a) to (c).
A provision of the kind the noble Lord proposes could lead to endless litigation as the reasonableness of a third party's refusal to agree to literally any variation of the contract affecting his entitlement. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: For those of us who are not lawyers, will my noble and learned friend give the Committee a definition of the word "crystallisation" that he has used on a number of occasions?
The Lord Chancellor: I used the expression "crystallisation circumstances" in an attempt to assist the Committee. Plainly, I have not done so. If the noble Lord examines Clause 2(1) of the Bill he will see that,
"Subject to the provisions of this section, where a third party has a right under section 1 to enforce a term of the contract, the parties to the contract may not without his consent cancel the contract, or vary it in such a way as to extinguish, or alter his entitlement under, that right, if",
the circumstances set out in either sub-paragraph (a), (b) or (c) exist. Any of those three sets of circumstances are the crystallisation circumstances to which I refer.
Lord Howie of Troon: I thank my noble and learned friend for that lengthy, detailed and crystal clear explanation of the position.
I was greatly attracted by one of his remarks when he explained that my amendment, inoffensive as it appears to me, might lead to endless litigation. This is the first time that I have ever heard a lawyer complaining about the possibilities of endless litigation. It gives me a certain amount of delight.
I shall study my noble and learned friend's reply carefully tomorrow, and possibly for two or three days thereafter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Defences etc. available to promisor]:
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) When a third party is conferred rights by more than one promisor, each promisor's liability shall he proportionate to, and limited by, that promisor's undertaking.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the complex nature of the construction industry and the fact that there is a network of contracts between people, who might often be the same people though in different guises. It seeks merely to ensure that, when a third party is the third party to two or three different first and second parties, any damages that he might accrue should be shared out equally and in proportion to the other parties. I feel that this will not be to my noble and learned friend's taste, however, I hope he will consider it. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I assure my noble friend that although, as he observed, his amendments were tabled rather late in the day, I certainly have considered them carefully.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable the contracting parties to confer enforceable rights on third parties to the extent that they themselves choose to do so and no more. They will therefore be free to place limitations on their liability as they choose under the contract to the third party. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said on an earlier occasion, it may be that the construction industry needs to look with great care at the many contracts that apply to interlocking transactions. It may do no harm to that industry if it looks with greater care at the precise obligations that it creates.
Where there is more than one promissor the parties may specify what their individual liabilities are to be, including the proportions in which they are to share any liability. The amendment, however, may convey the impression that where there is more than one promissor in order for the contract to be effective it must specify the quantum of the obligation assumed by each promissor. That is not the intention. In the ordinary way the court will construe any contractual provision to be either joint or several or joint and several according to whatever interpretation it concludes is the correct one. It is however entirely plain that if the contract quantifies the obligation of each promissor separately, that will limit the obligation of each to the third party beneficiary. The moral therefore is that there should be clear contracts. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: I thought for one moment that my noble and learned friend had accepted my amendment but once again I turned out to be mistaken. I shall read carefully what my noble and learned friend said and attempt to understand it within the next few days. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Exceptions]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 39, leave out ("contained in") and insert ("on").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 4 is a drafting amendment to make clearer exactly which contracts will be excluded from the operation of the Bill by Clause 6(1). A single document may contain provisions that set up more than one contract. It may contain a contract on a negotiable instrument in addition to what is effectively another contract that has no negotiable element. By this amendment we modify the wording slightly to make it plain that it is only the former—a contract on a negotiable instrument—that is outside the provisions of the Bill.
I understand from the Financial Law Panel that the distinction has particular significance for practices in the euro securities markets. Thus, for example, a company may issue a global note which is negotiable and deposit it with a depository institution, perhaps a bank. The parties to the negotiable instrument will be the issuer and the bank and the investor's right will be against the bank. But it may be intended that in certain events, for example, the insolvency of the depository institution, the investor should have rights against the issuer. We believe that at present this is achieved by the rather cumbersome method of the issuer executing a deed poll that confers on the investor rights against the issuer. I understand that the wish is to use this Bill to obviate the need for deed polls to confer rights on the investor against the issuer. The Government are content to respond to the Financial Law Panel on the basis that this amendment will allow the Bill to provide a useful additional facility for the London market. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I begin by declaring an interest as chairman of the Financial Law Panel. I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for moving this amendment and for the explanation he gave. The panel very much welcomes the Bill as giving rise to new rights to enforce third party obligations. Its particular concentration is the operation of the bond market. The amendment makes even clearer the fact that provided the obligation to a third party is not a contract on the bill of exchange, or whatever it may be, there is no problem.
At one point in the panel's deliberations some members took the view—no doubt they still do—that the use of deed polls to confer rights on third parties was a cumbersome procedure, as the noble and learned Lord said. There are many practising solicitors in this field who have become so used to it that they do not regard it as cumbersome in the least, although London is different from any other financial market. As far as I am aware no one has been able to point to a defect in the system apart from the fact that it is unusual. In that situation I believe that the use of deed polls remains an alternative. However, I very much welcome the fact that the Bill will provide those who have inhibitions about deed polls with the ability to proceed by a different route. That will also be available in any specialised transactions where plainly a deed poll is inappropriate,
1430
however unusual those transactions may be. I welcome the amendment and thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the way in which he moved it.
The Lord Chancellor: Before departing from the amendment, I should make plain that by my choice of language in moving the amendment I did not seek to cast any doubt whatever on the legal effectiveness of the use of deed polls.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 43, at end insert ("or under any contract falling within section 104 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.").
The noble Lord said: I am very pleased that my noble and learned friend has just made another exemption from the Bill. This amendment proposes an exemption from the Bill for the construction industry as a whole. Were the amendment to be accepted, as I believe should happen, my earlier amendments would be otiose and need not have been considered. I believe that I have already laid the ground for this argument and I shall not go over it again. To my mind—it is not a legal mind—the Bill assumes that there are two contractors of equal weight, a promissor and a promisee, who reach an agreement and all goes well. This is not so in the complicated arrangements of the construction industry. The special nature of the construction industry can be seen from the fact that in 1986 we had a lengthy debate on the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill, now an Act. Part II of the Act was devoted entirely to construction contracts because of their special nature.
The special nature of construction contracts, as already recognised in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act, should be recognised. I suggest to my noble and learned friend—I hope that he will pay some heed to the suggestion—that the best way to do that is to exempt the construction industry from this Bill and amend the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act in order to include the protection for third parties which he thinks necessary as a generality of the law so that they then become protections as regards the complex nature of the construction industry. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: The noble Lord suggests that the amendment is justified because construction contracts are special. They are certainly complex: we all agree that. He also said in effect that the Bill suggests, inaccurately, an assumption of an equal bargaining position in construction contract situations. Surely the noble Lord's amendment substitutes a sweeping assumption the other way: that there is presumed to be inequality in construction contracts. I suggest that that is equally invalid and too generalised an assumption for the purposes of the law.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord, Lord Meston, is right. The construction industry is not the only area of commercial activity in which there are

1431
contracts in sets or sequence. Complex sets of related contracts often call for consideration together—for example, in shipping or the export trade. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has much experience of the construction industry and his views are always worthy of careful consideration. On this occasion, however, I have no doubt that the Committee should not accede to what he proposes. My experience of the construction industry is that it is rarely united in its views and I do not believe that there is unanimity on this occasion either. My understanding is that the Bill is a welcome reform for many clients.
The theme of the Bill is to enable the parties to give effect to their contractual intentions. It is up to them to decide whether or not a third party should be able to enforce a contractual term in his favour. To my mind, it would be far better to do what the Bill does—to give parties to construction contracts the opportunity to make such an agreement, but not to require them to do so—than to exclude a construction contract altogether and thus make it impossible for them to confer enforceable rights on third parties. That would be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment.
I should also draw the Committee's attention to the fact that in this Bill we are bringing our law into line with that of other Commonwealth countries which have made the same changes in recent years. None of them has made particular provision excluding construction contracts and I see no reason why the United Kingdom should do so. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am not having a very successful afternoon, am I? However, I am grateful for the courtesy with which my noble and learned friend dealt with my humble proposition. I do not agree with him, and I dare to say that in public; I hope that no one is listening! The noble Lord, Lord Meston, is right. I made the assumptions about which he hinted. I did so because I know the business well. That is why I suggest the amendment.
I did more than merely move the amendment. I suggested that reference to the construction industry should be taken out of the Bill and dealt with in another way. I do not believe that the Bill deals with the construction industry with any greater certainty than does the Latent Damage Act to which I referred earlier. In the name of certainty for a small part of the legal world, the Latent Damage Act left a considerable body of uncertainty in the construction industry.
In the same way I fear—for the reputation of my noble and learned friend I hope that I am mistaken—that the Bill will leave similar uncertainties in the construction industry. We shall have to return at some stage to a revision of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act to which I referred. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and will take further advice for future occasions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Supplementary provisions relating to third party]:
Lord Borrie Lord Borrie moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I do not have an interest to declare, but some 25 years ago I was a member of the Council of the Consumers' Association, and I am indebted to that body for a certain amount of advice on the problems that would be left by Clause 7 unamended.
In the Second Reading debate, I ventured to comment on the considerable value of the Bill in a number of typical transactions. I cited an example from the 1996 report of the Law Commission where one contracts with a builder to do work on the house of one's daughter. The work is done defectively. At present, even though the daughter may be expressly identified in the contract, she cannot sue for breach of contract because she is not a party to it. That situation would be changed for the better by this Bill. When the Bill is enacted, she could sue for damages.
However, let us suppose that the contract contains, usually in small print, some exemptions clause excluding liability for personal injury or for other damage or financial loss. As regards personal injury, the clause is void by reason of Section 2(1) the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. The daughter could claim compensation for an injury arising from the defect. But somewhat inconsistently, as the Law Commission admitted, and now by reason of Clause 7(2) of this Bill, the exclusion clause would be effective against any claim for compensation by the daughter in respect of any other kind of damage arising from the defect. That is the case even though a court may consider that the clause fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness that would apply under the Unfair Contract Terms Act if the claimant was the contracting party.
At Second Reading my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor very fairly admitted that this was "A very difficult question". He felt that the balance lay in favour of preserving the rights of the parties who have chosen to bind themselves by the terms of their contract rather than enlarging the rights which they have chosen to confer on third parties. In that sentence I believe that my noble and learned friend seems to be equating the deliberate identification of the daughter in the Law Commission's example with the small print exclusion clause which is very unlikely to have been chosen by both parties or to have arisen from any clear consensus of the contracting parties.
The basic purpose of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 was to qualify the sanctity of the terms of the contract because in the real world so many contracts are made not between parties of equal strength but between a stronger and a weaker party, with the stronger one having drafted the terms and presented them to the other party on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. It is for that reason that contractual exclusions of liability for personal injury are now void and that exclusions for other kinds of damage are subject to a reasonableness test. I believe that the policy of the law should be against allowing reliance on unreasonable contract clauses whether against the contractual party or the third party such as that defined in this Bill.
I apologise for going a little further, but since Second Reading I have looked at a consultation paper entitled The Key To Easier Home Buying and Selling. It is in the name of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Welsh Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. The consultation paper was published last December. It is designed to bring proposals to assist the easier sale and purchase of houses. It includes a proposal, which many noble Lords may have seen in the press; namely, a proposal where the vendor of a house commissions a surveyor's report, which will be made available to potential buyers. The idea, as stated in paragraph 66 of the consultation paper, is that this report should,
"be something the buyer (as well as the seller) can enforce".
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon, the Minister of State in my noble and learned friend's department, in launching this consultation paper referred to the last point as something that can be achieved by the Bill which is before the Committee today. The statements and effect of what is in the surveyors' report commissioned by the seller may not be enforceable by the buyer if Clause 7 remains as it stands. That is because Clause 7(2) of the Bill as it stands disapplies Section 2(2) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act. Clause 7(4)—I am speaking now to the next amendment in my name—disapplies the Unfair Terms in Contract Regulations 1994. So the buyer, relying on the surveyor's report supplied to him by the seller, would not be able to contest the validity of a contract term which, for example, excluded liability for claims arising from a surveyor's report that failed to mention defective foundations or something of that kind.
The proposals of the four departments responsible for the consultation paper on making it easier for the buying and selling of houses, and the efficacy of their particular recommendations, including the value of the surveyor's report commissioned by the vendor, would be seriously undermined—as would the buyer's confidence in such reports if the Bill is not amended in the way that I have suggested. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall speak to both Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. He has argued, as he did at Second Reading, that the parties to a contract should not be able to exclude liability for certain types of damage to the third party and that the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act should be extended to restrict the parties' powers. I accept again that this is a very narrow and difficult issue. It is one that can be argued strongly in the sense so well expressed by my noble friend Lord Borrie. It is an issue that I have thought about carefully, as did the Law Commission.
However, my conclusion remains as it was at Second Reading. The Bill is not taking away any existing consumer rights. Third parties are not being deprived of any existing statutory protection. They are being given rights to enforce contractual terms, if the parties so choose, which third parties did not have before. So it is
1434
a matter for the parties to decide whether or not to confer rights on third parties. It is a matter for them to decide whether such rights should be limited; for example, by providing that liability for negligence causing a third party loss is to be excluded.
It is important to remember that although there may be linkages between this Bill and the Unfair Contract Terms Act, the two do not really occupy the same ground. The Unfair Contract Terms Act is not primarily about third party rights. Even if it were desirable to reform the Unfair Contract Terms Act to protect third party consumers, I do not believe that it would be possible simply to accept these amendments as achieving that aim. Perhaps I may give one example. The Unfair Contract Terms Act contains a reasonableness test. We would have to decide whether that test was to be applied as between the promisor and the promisee or as between the promisor and the third party.
That having been said, I accept and recognise that there are cogent arguments on the side of the noble Lord. I hope that he will find it helpful when I say that I am certainly not seeking to rule out further consideration of the effect of the Bill on consumer protection, if the Bill becomes law. But I believe that it would be preferable for what is a relatively straightforward Bill to be enacted and to operate for some time before considering whether to tackle rather more complex issues as regards the ambit of consumer protection. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Borrie: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. His sentiments are extremely helpful and encouraging. My only anxiety is that he speaks of making some further proposals in the future. But one might have to wait another 10 or 12 years before there is another opportunity and a suitable Bill in order to make the changes that I have suggested. I shall read carefully and take further advice on what my noble friend said. In the meantime I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 25, at end insert (", including conditional contracts which may or will be performed after the end of that period").
The noble Lord said: Clause 8(2) provides that the Bill does not apply in relation to contracts entered into before the end of six months from the day it is passed. Difficulties may arise where an option has been granted before the Act takes effect and is later exercised when the Act applies. In particular, is an option to buy something a contract to sell it conditional on the exercise of the option, or an irrevocable offer which does not become a contract until accepted by a notice which exercises the option?
That difficulty has been resolved by the courts, at least at first instance, with respect to options for the sale of land and by statute with respect to covenants between

1435
landlord and tenant. However, there are other situations in which difficulties may arise; for example, in a contract for the supply of up to a specified quantity of some bulk commodity under which the buyer is entitled to call for delivery during the contract period.
In those circumstances, and in the interests of certainty, and because the terms of the option would have been negotiated between the parties without regard to the Bill, I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord indicated that what he specifically has in mind, although not exclusively, by the expression "conditional contracts" is the grant of an irrevocable option, say, to buy land. That option might be granted before the end of the statutory six-month period referred to in Clause 8(2) and only exercised thereafter. If that option were to be characterised as a contract for the sale of land conditional on the purchaser's unilateral exercise of the option, it would qualify as a contract made before the end of the statutory period: whereas, if it were categorised as an irrevocable offer by the vendor requiring an act of acceptance by the purchaser after the statutory six-month period, the Act would apply to the contract constituted by that acceptance because the contract would have come into being after that six-month period.
The noble Lord indicated that the categorisation of such an arrangement had been addressed at first instance in the courts. It was addressed by Mr. Justice Hoffmann, now the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, in Spiro v. Glencow Properties Limited in 1991 Chancery Division Reports, page 537. He held that the former was the correct categorisation and that the arrangement constituted a contract for sale conditional on the exercise of the option. I believe, but express no view myself, that this is generally regarded as the correct categorisation. But it might be open to a higher court to hold otherwise and that the option was no more than an irrevocable offer which fructified into a contract only upon acceptance.
We have no intention in the Bill of seeking to resolve unsettled and disputed questions of contract law by a side wind. If a court holds that a contract was made prior to the expiry of the statutory six months, the Act does not apply to that contract. If the court holds that the contract was made after the period, the Act does apply. Beguiling as the invitation is, we decline to take the opportunity of the Bill to seek to resolve any other issues of controversy in contract law. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: The steeliness of the noble and learned Lord's reply deters me from pressing the point any further. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Business
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on NHS Direct, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussions on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

NHS Direct
4.16 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the development of NHS Direct; the nurse-led 24-hour helpline.
"In March last year we launched three NHS Direct pilot schemes in Milton Keynes, Preston and Newcastle upon Tyne. Between them these pilot schemes covered over 1.5 million people. They have proved a great success. Up to the end of December they had taken over 60,000 calls. Independent research has revealed that 97 per cent. of users are satisfied with the service provided, which they find prompt, friendly and professional. It has been particularly popular with young mothers and around 40 per cent. of calls have been about children.
"Callers get through at first to a call handler who takes the callers' details and deals with any requests for basic information. Those callers who have a specific health problem are then put through to a nurse.
"The nurse listens to the caller, assesses the case, using what is called an expert computer based decision support system, and then recommends what action the caller should take. This can range from immediately summoning an emergency ambulance to advising them to visit their GP or their accident and emergency department, or advice on how to treat someone at home, or just offering simple reassurance.
"A detailed survey of the three pilots showed that for the latest quarter: 80 per cent. of callers were advised to do something different from what they had intended before they rang NHS Direct; only 9 per cent. of callers had intended to look after themselves at home, but after calling NHS Direct 38 per cent. were enabled to look after themselves at home; 20 per cent. of callers were directed to more urgent care and 40 per cent. to less urgent care; and 530 people were transferred to the 999 service.
"It rapidly became clear that the pilot schemes were a success. So last summer I authorised the extension of the scheme with 13 call centres to cover 40 per cent. of the country—20 million people—by April this year. The first of these opened last month

1437
covering 1.1 million people in the Black Country. Yesterday, a further scheme covering 1.6 million people opened in Essex. A further service covering Nottinghamshire opens next week and the first service in London opens in parts of West London early in March.
"The other areas to be covered by April are in the West Country, Manchester, West Yorkshire, Hull and East Yorkshire, Hampshire, North West Lancashire, Birmingham (as well as the Black Country), Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire and Oxford, Newcastle and the North East. Most of those services will be provided by the local ambulance trust but they usually involve the local GP co-operatives, other NHS trusts and voluntary bodies. In some cases local social services are involved as well.
"The success of NHS Direct springs partly from the use of modern technology, properly managed and staffed by top quality professionals with a sympathetic ear. It also depends on commanding the support of the NHS in each locality and in particular the professions involved in providing primary care. At my personal insistence there will be a major role for GP co-operatives in the delivery of this service in many parts of the country. I am pleased to be able to report that the west London call centre to be located in Southall will be run by a local GP co-operative.
"Our original intention was to extend NHS Direct to cover 60 per cent. of the country by April next year. However in view of its growing success and my concern to help the NHS cope with the special problems it is likely to encounter over the millennium period at the turn of the year, I have decided that this programme should be brought forward to aim to cover at least 60 per cent. of the country by the beginning of December this year. In some cases this will be achieved through extensions to the existing centres where the service is well established and in others through opening new centres.
"It is intended to cover South Yorkshire, Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Liverpool and parts of London, in all of which NHS Direct could be particularly valuable next winter. To do this we will be investing from the NHS Modernisation Fund an additional £10 million on top of the £44 million from the fund already committed to the NHS Direct in the coming financial year.
"NHS Direct is proving to be a modern, additional, convenient and dependable service for the people who turn to it. It is also proving to be a very popular and professionally satisfying service with the nurses who staff it. One centre recently received over 300 applications for 50 jobs. Nurses applying for jobs with NHS Direct have been coming from other parts of the NHS, from the private sector, and others are returning to nursing. With the support of the Royal College of Nursing and Unison I am very keen to encourage applications from experienced nurses who have left nursing because of, say, a back injury which left them unable to carry out routine nursing tasks. Working in NHS Direct could give them the
1438
opportunity to continue to put their hard-won professional skills and experience to good use for the benefit of patients.
"The new schemes should provide the basic NHS Direct advice and information service which has proved so successful in the three pilot areas—Newcastle, Preston and Milton Keynes. However, I should report that from July the Newcastle centre will be working with local doctors, A&E departments and other services to provide one gateway for out-of-hours services, providing a single number for patients to call. This idea shows the huge potential for using NHS Direct to develop new and better services for patients in a way that is also popular with the professionals involved. Building on the experience of this pilot I will be prepared to consider further pilots of this kind where NHS Direct has shown it can deliver the basic service and where there is joint commitment by both NHS Direct and the local doctors and other professionals involved to deliver services in this way.
"Arrangements are now being made to set performance standards for NHS Direct call centres drawing on careful evaluation of experience so far and on best practice in other sectors. We are also determined to use the capacity of a national network we are creating to provide the most dependable service. NHS Direct is a good example of the opportunities which new technology offers to help make the best possible use of the professional skill and knowledge of NHS staff—21st century technology in place for the beginning of the new century.
"I am pleased with the success of NHS Direct; delighted that it can be funded from the extra £21 billion we have found to invest in the health service, and glad to have been able to announce today that 60 per cent. of the country should have access to NHS Direct by December this year".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.24 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall be brief. First, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. From these Benches we believe that much of what it contains is positive and we give it a general welcome. I particularly welcome the fact that so many people availed themselves of the service plus the news that, against a background of fragile morale in the nursing profession, NHS Direct is attracting nurses out of retirement and that those who staff the service find it a professionally satisfying job. Long may that continue.
The debate of my noble friend Lord Rowallan in your Lordships' House last November on health service helplines enabled the Minister to apprise us of the background to the Government's thinking on NHS Direct and I do not intend therefore to go over the same ground again. However, the Statement gives rise to a few important questions.
One of my main concerns centres around the evaluation of the service. The Government took the decision last summer to proceed with the second wave

1439
of pilots and now we learn that the third stage of the programme is to be brought forward so as to commence later this year. That seems to be a rapid roll out. The Statement referred to a survey of the first stage pilot areas during the latest quarter. I was hoping to glean from that survey something in the nature of an evidence base on which a balanced judgment could be made in relation to the scheme's success. That is not what we have been given. It is one thing to discover that 80 per cent. of callers were advised to do something different from what they had intended to do before ringing up, but a more pertinent question might be: was the advice that they were given the right advice? Of the 530 people transferred to the 999 service, how many turned out to be genuine emergencies? Only with that sort of information and evaluation can a proper assessment be made of the cost-effectiveness of NHS Direct. It was therefore a little surprising to hear that Ministers have already felt able to judge the pilot schemes a success.
My other main concern relates to nurses. The key to success for NHS Direct is thorough and appropriate nurse training. Manning a helpline is a specialist skill. Can the Minister say anything about the training that nurses receive for NHS Direct? How rigidly is a nurse dependent on the computer-based protocol? Are the Government happy that the computer-based system can be relied on with confidence by nurses and patients? Also, can the Minister say what proportion of nurses appointed to NHS Direct come from other parts of the NHS? At a time of national nurse shortages there must be a worry if NHS Direct is sucking in trained nurses from areas that are already under considerable pressure.
I strongly agree with the need for NHS Direct to command support from the wider NHS in each locality and indeed from the professionals who deliver primary care—a point that I stressed in the debate last November. Perhaps I can ask about the procedural links between NHS Direct and GP practices. If an individual receives advice from the service, is the fact of that call, and the content of that advice given to the individual, automatically notified to the patient's GP?
I understand that in the pilot schemes a number of models have been running. I am aware of anxiety that, while local schemes with nurses based in GP surgeries allow more co-ordination with other primary care services, they are also thought to be less efficient and may be subject to regional variations in standards. On the other hand, national centres, which are viewed as more efficient and lead to more uniform standards, reduce co-ordination with local GPs. Have the Government come to any conclusion as to which scheme they prefer?
NHS Direct, as I said in our debate on the subject of helplines, is a service with considerable potential and we shall follow its development during the course of this year with close interest. We wish it well.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, from these Benches I join the noble Earl in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement from the other place. We welcome regular updates about NHS Direct, the Government's commitment to bring forward the roll-out of the scheme and the commitment to provide additional
1440
resources to do so. However, it is clear that there are a number of concerns which should be expressed in relation to the development of NHS Direct. I have already expressed those concerns to the noble Baroness.
Above all, there is the question of the relationship of NHS Direct to the specialist voluntary sector helplines. Will NHS Direct work alongside those existing helplines? Will it make sure, in addition to its triage role, that optimum cross-referral to specialist services by NHS Direct takes place whether for mental health problems, cancer or asthma?
Furthermore, is the department addressing the question of the quality of service both for NHS Direct and for the voluntary sector? They must operate within the same quality framework. With the advent of NHS Direct, will the department consider some kind of kite-marking or accreditation, perhaps along the lines of the guidelines for good practice in telephone work, drawn up by The Telephone Helpline Association? Will they ensure that those helplines that are of sufficient quality will be able to enter into service-level agreements with NHS Direct to provide specialist information, support and advice on referral?
Do we yet know enough about NHS Direct's effect on primary care services? Will the service build on the primary care experience of general practitioners? Will it build on the extremely successful Wiltshire trial and the University of Southampton research which resulted in a 40 per cent. drop in patients' visits to surgeries, halved GP's out of hours workloads and cut hospital admissions and casualty visits?
Is NHS Direct currently developing draft national guidelines or protocols? Will second-phase pilots be working next year with draft national guidelines?
In a recent Statement, the former health Minister, Alan Milburn, indicated that a national telephone line might be the way of the future. However, the Statement seems to indicate that a single local line for GP surgeries and accidents and emergencies—NHS Direct itself—might be the way forward. Which way is preferred by the department?
When will software systems be rationalised? The first three pilots have used three different software systems.
Reflecting some of the comments by the noble Earl, what are the recruitment implications for NHS Direct? Some estimate that another 15,000 nurses will be needed to provide a full national service. In the face of a major recruitment crisis, with about 12,000 nursing vacancies, will there be enough experienced nurses available to start the service?
Finally, is the December 2000 deadline for the full coverage of the whole country still the department's target, or will it be earlier as a result of bringing forward implementation for 60 per cent. of the country? We welcome the implementation of NHS Direct, but it must not be an over-hasty implementation and it must take into account some of the considerations that we have put forward.
4.32 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl and the noble Lord who, overall, have welcomed the announcement today of speedier implementation of national coverage by NHS Direct.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, commented on the move towards national implementation before the results of the evaluation have been fully understood. There has always been a commitment to a national roll-out. The information that we have received so far has been so positive that we feel confident in speeding up the implementation of the next phase. Sheffield University is conducting a detailed evaluation which will give us some answers to the questions about protocols, national standards and forms of implementation. The first phase of that evaluation will be published soon.
In the developmental process it is important that we go ahead and make changes and carry out improvements to make sure that we have standardisation where appropriate as we move forward. We have clear indications that that is the right thing to do and that it is sensible to cover as much of the country as soon as possible.
I do not want to be drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on whether we will be able to bring forward the full coverage implementation date, but we are making considerable progress on the date that we have put in for the 60 per cent. coverage.
I was specifically asked about the training that those involved in providing the service receive. They receive specific and extensive training of six to eight weeks both in using the computer software available and the decision support systems. They also receive training in helpline skills, which is a separate issue. There is increasing evidence on how those skills are developed. We shall consolidate that for the national service.
The question about the quality of the service and the advice given has been raised. We have highly qualified nurses, operating expert clinical decision support systems which have been validated by local clinicians. As we move towards the national service, we shall develop national clinical standards for NHS Direct and national validation processes for the decision support systems. The nurses who give the advice also have on-line access to medical advice should they need something above and beyond their own skills or what is in the decision support mechanisms.
On the balance between national standardisation and local implementation, as with so much else in the NHS, we have to assure ourselves of the quality of the service provided throughout the country. However, we must not do that in so rigid a way that we take away any local sensitivity and the real benefit that knowledge of, for example, local voluntary organisations and local services can bring. That is not an impossible task, but we are moving towards a model with a number of centres rather than a single national centre. The phrase used by the Secretary of State is "horses for courses". There will be variety in the size and coverage of different schemes.
1442
On the nurses who will perform the important role of giving advice, as I said in the Statement, some come from other parts of the NHS, but some are returning to nursing and others come from the private sector. We believe that there will not in any way be an issue of competition with other parts of the NHS. We see valuable opportunities for retaining staff who want a different form of work from that which they have had in the past; a form that provides flexible working opportunities for those who are thinking of returning to nursing, with specific training for this particular role.
As I said earlier, there are opportunities for those who have had to leave conventional nursing because of injury. That is not an insignificant pool of people. I believe that providing a wide range of opportunities for nursing is more likely to increase retention and return-to-work rates than diminish the pool of nurses available across the NHS.
I was specifically asked about the issue of GP notification when patients call NHS Direct. Yes, GPs will be notified, but only after the patient has given his or her permission. We have to recognise the confidentiality issues that may cause some people to prefer to call a telephone helpline in some circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the inter-relationship with the specialist helplines that already exist in many areas of healthcare. In your Lordships' House we have discussed the specialist helplines in mental health and I know that the noble Lord is particularly interested in the services that BACUP (the British Association of Cancer United Patients) provides for patients with cancer. Perhaps I may repeat that it is certainly not intended that NHS Direct should take over the role of specialist helplines. We want to work with them and to work closely with voluntary sector agencies and their helplines to ensure co-operation and synergy between the two sets of services.
Rather than the two being in competition, I believe that the availability of a well-known central point for telephone inquiries will help to increase the use of specialist helplines, rather than diminish it. I believe that that will be true as long as we ensure that the protocols for referral to the specialist services are correct and that, wherever possible, the technology ensures that a patient does not have to put down the telephone and to call another number. Instead, we should "hotline" patients through to the appropriate specialist service. The Department of Health is conducting consultations with those from that sector, with the NHS Steering Group and with other telephone advice lines. This is to ensure that we work together to provide the most appropriate form of treatment, advice and help for those who call NHS Direct.
We are looking to have a single national telephone number to give people access to NHS Direct. As I said in the Statement, there are opportunities in particular localities to provide an out-of-hours service on a specific local number. As we roll out the service we shall have to work out the specific details.
4.41 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I welcome the new NHS Direct. However, perhaps I may put a number of practical questions to the Minister. First, legal liability is now becoming a major issue in the health service. Who will be legally liable if a patient is given the wrong advice? How will we be able to differentiate between whether the patient was genuinely given the wrong advice or is fraudulently claiming to have been give the wrong advice?
Will the patients be identified? If you telephone an insurance company, you are given a warning that your call is being recorded. If you telephone a bank, you have to identify yourself in some way. What will patients have to do? How can we reconcile a patient having to identify himself with the position of a patient who wants to call anonymously, perhaps with regard to HIV? Has the Minister thought about that? If not, will the Government give some thought to it? I believe that one day such a case will go wrong, just as we hear about with regard to ambulance trusts, and it will be claimed that the patient died because the wrong advice was given. Will the general practice carry that responsibility or will the responsibility be carried centrally? Exactly where will that responsibility lie?
The Minister said that it is hoped to operate national clinical standards and that nurses will be able to call for expert advice if needed. How will a nurse know when she needs expert advice? Surely that will be extremely difficult to decide when talking to a patient over the telephone as opposed to actually seeing the patient. Perhaps that is an issue for training.
I note from the Minister's answers that NHS Direct is to be a 24-hour service. The Minister mentioned the possibility of a national number. Will it be an 0800 number or an 0345 number, which means the patients will be charged at local rates? Presumably, the number will be widely publicised, but will the Minister confirm that?
As I said, I am pleased to hear about NHS Direct. My final question is: how many human beings will be available to answer telephone lines at any one time? If the Minister, like me, has tried to telephone a phone-in line, she will know that trying to get through for a long time can be very frustrating. One has very little hope of getting through, but when one does one is often greeted by an answering machine saying that there is a queuing system. Will there be a queuing system for NHS Direct?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in the interests of publicising the number widely, perhaps I may tell your Lordships that it is 0845 4647. We hope that that number will become well known and well recognised.
The noble Baroness made a number of important points. She is right that the issue of legal liability affects the whole of the NHS. NHS Direct will be staffed by employees of NHS bodies with exactly the same legal liabilities as any other NHS staff. Situations analogous to that outlined by the noble Baroness can happen with ambulance trusts or general practitioners. Such cases have to be decided on the facts. Calls will be recorded, as will decisions under the decision support systems. In
1444
fact, there is a lot more back-up in terms of hard evidence of what has been done and advised than was the case in many of the paper records that were kept—or perhaps not kept—in the past.
The noble Baroness asked about how a nurse at the end of a telephone can tell whether she needs further professional advice. That is difficult. Giving advice over the telephone, rather than face to face, is a skill. Many of the expert and specialist helplines have had to come to terms with that. Against the disadvantage of not seeing a patient face to face must be set the fact that the decision support systems and the software are very impressive in terms of prompting people to ask the right questions and to give validated advice following the answers to those questions.
I cannot give the noble Baroness any information now about the number of people answering the telephones. Perhaps I may write to her on that point. However, I do not think that there have been problems with queuing systems so far. Matching supply and demand is difficult. We shall have to consider that matter carefully over the Christmas and New Year period this year because last year calls to the pilot centres were up by nearly 100 per cent. That in itself is evidence of how valuable they have been. A large proportion of callers had 'flu symptoms and a large proportion of them were advised to stay at home and self-treat. One can see that that presents opportunities. The pilot schemes had the capacity to deal with those calls without becoming overwhelmed, but we shall have to consider that issue carefully.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we should not overlook the part of the Statement referring to simple reassurance? I know from my own experience of running helplines for carers and people with disabilities that very often that is precisely what they need. Calls are not about emergencies or practicalities, but about the need for reassurance. We should constantly emphasise that fact.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right and speaks from detailed experience in this area. This is not merely, as it has sometimes simplistically been presented, a way of persuading people not to go to hospital. Indeed, if hospital is where they should be, many have found that the process has been speeded up. Frankly, nobody is better off for taking a sick child out and waiting for several hours (because they are not high priority) in an accident and emergency department when they could instead be receiving advice and reassurance in their own home, through the telephone, and thus better and more effective care for that child.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I find this a very exciting innovation and an extra avenue into primary care. NHS Direct consists of what I call in my own mind "telephonic triage nurses". I believe that that is basically a fair analogy. I note that in the trial areas NHS Direct has resulted in a 40 per cent. drop in visits to GP surgeries. However, I have one slight niggle. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give a commitment

1445
now that when patients telephone their own surgeries, they are not asked whether they have first telephoned NHS Direct, with the result that if they have not, they will be turned down for the surgery. It is very important that the Minister and her department should express this as an extra service within the NHS rather than a replacement service.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as regards any patients in the pilot areas ringing up their general practitioners asking for consultation, it is certainly not my understanding that they would be told that there was an additional and separate loop for them to go through; namely, ringing NHS Direct. That is not my understanding of what would or should happen. However, if I am wrong in that respect I shall write to the noble Lord when I have checked the position. As the noble Lord said, it is an additional service. It may well be a substitute in that people find it a more appropriate service, but that should be a matter of their choice because they have chosen to go there.
I very much welcome what the noble Lord said about the service. The only thing on which I would semantically niggle with him is the fact that, although it is triage in one sense, it is not the classic triage because the appropriate advice will be given. There are also opportunities for the future in that other things may be accessed through NHS Direct; as, indeed, ambulances are now being accessed for those who ring up with, perhaps, chest pains thinking that they can see it through until the morning. In such a situation the NHS Direct nurse would think "no", and send an ambulance immediately.

Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill
4.51 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. When a person receives treatment at a hospital as a result of injuries sustained in a road traffic accident and subsequently makes a successful claim for compensation for personal injury against the holder of a compulsory motor vehicle insurance policy, the hospital can require the compensator to meet some of the costs of the accident victim's treatment.
The principle was first introduced in 1930, 69 years ago. At that time hospitals could recover costs of up to £25 per person. When the figures were last uprated in 1995, this had risen to £295 per person needing out-patient treatment and £2,949 per person needing in-patient treatment.
In 1934 Parliament further decided that motorists should pay a fee towards any immediately necessary treatment—in other words emergency treatment—needed by any person injured as a direct consequence of the driver's use of a motor vehicle on a road. In this case, the hospital's right to the fee did not rest on a requirement that the victim should claim compensation. When the emergency treatment fee was first introduced,
1446
it stood at twelve shillings and sixpence per person—that is about 63 pence in today's money. Today the fee is £21.30.
The continued existence of these charges was most recently confirmed during the passage of the Road Traffic Act 1988. But it was not until the early 1990s that figures were first collected to show what income was actually being generated for hospitals under the provisions. The figures showed that in England hospitals were receiving around £13 million each year. Of course, £13 million is a substantial sum of money; but it is far, far short of the amount which should be recovered. Why should this be?
Although hospitals have been empowered to collect charges and fees, they have been left on their own to do so. It must be difficult enough if you have just been involved in an accident, coping with the shock and the pain. The last thing needed is an insensitive inquiry as to whether you are going to be pursuing a claim against anyone or, worse still, within days of the accident a bill for emergency treatment dropping through your letter-box. On the hospital's part it cannot be a pleasant job to have to question patients or demand payment from drivers. Our staff in accident and emergency departments have enough to do without tasks such as those.
However, the problems do not end there. The hospital still has to track down the person or institution which may pay compensation; it still has to calculate the costs of treatment; and it still has to track the progress of the claim. I understand that the average length of time it takes to process a personal injury compensation claim is around two years, with a significant number taking very much longer. It still has to bill the insurer; and it still has to ensure that the debt is settled.
It is no wonder, when you consider that list, together with the fact that not all patients will have decided whether or not to claim compensation in the immediate aftermath of an accident, that many hospitals have not been able to recoup the amounts to which they have, by law, been entitled. We have therefore decided to act to help hospitals; to simplify the system, thereby helping insurers; and to bring charges into line with actual costs.
The Bill before the House today replaces, for NHS trusts and military hospitals, the provisions concerning hospital charges in the Road Traffic Act 1988. Clause 1 is based on the provisions of the 1988 Act and sets out the circumstances in which NHS charges are due. Those arise where someone has been injured in a road traffic accident, has received treatment in an NHS hospital, and has received compensation for his injuries from a person or institution holding compulsory motor insurance. For the first time, however, the NHS will be able to recoup charges in cases where the driver causing the accident is uninsured or untraceable and the victim receives compensation from the Motor Insurers' Bureau. We intend to make clear in regulations that payments will only be sought from the bureau in respect of accidents which happen after this Act comes into force.
I turn now to Clause 2 of the Bill. On coming to office we realised that the current system of leaving hospitals to pursue charges themselves was not working and we

1447
were faced with identifying an alternative system. Fortunately, the way forward had already been pointed out. In 1996 the Law Commission had produced, as part of a series of papers on the subject of damages, a consultation paper which suggested, among other things, that NHS charges could be collected more efficiently by following the example of a unit set up in 1990 within the Benefits Agency, the compensation recovery unit.
The unit, which is based on Tyneside, exists to recover state benefits where both benefit and a compensation payment have been paid in respect of the same accident, injury, or disease. Compensators are already required to notify the unit of claims for compensation. Therefore, we have decided that it makes sense for the work of collecting NHS charges to fall to the compensation recovery unit. The advantages are many. The unit has a track record of delivering results; it has good relations with the insurance industry, including an accepted administrative procedure for charge recovery; the insurance industry will have one point of contact for NHS charges instead of several hundred; the work can be undertaken at minimal cost; patient information necessary to assess charges remains within government; and hospitals are relieved of the burdens of collection and can concentrate on patient care.
Clause 2 provides the basis for the transfer of the administrative work of collecting NHS charges from hospitals to the compensation recovery unit. In order to extract the highest possible efficiency from this arrangement the clause introduces the concept of a certificate of NHS charges, modelled on the certificates issued for benefit recovery, so that in cases where there is both NHS and benefit recovery the two recoveries can be dealt with together.
One of the aims of the changes we are introducing is to simplify wherever possible. Rather than having hospitals calculating charges in every case, Clause 3 of the Bill enables a tariff of charges to be introduced. This will mean that for each accident the hospital, the insurer and the compensation recovery unit, which will make the final calculation, will all know from a few simple facts how much the charge will be in any particular case.
The charges will be set out in regulations. The initial calculation for the tariff has been based on average treatment profiles of road traffic accident victims. We have simplified this information to give us two costs. The first is a flat rate fee for those who are less severely injured and do not need to stay in hospital. That will include all patients from those who simply attend accident and emergency through to those who need to return on many future occasions for further treatment or checks. The flat rate fee will be initially set at £354 per patient.
Secondly, there will be a daily rate charge for those patients who need to stay in hospital as a result of their injuries. This will be initially set at £435 per day and includes the cost of any subsequent out-patient treatment which may be necessary after discharge from hospital.
We also intend to move to charges which more closely reflect the actual costs of treatment to the NHS. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the
1448
Exchequer announced the move to full costs on 2nd July 1997 and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has agreed with insurers that these new costs will apply to accidents happening on or after that date.
The new scheme will not present insurers with unlimited liability. The tariff set includes a ceiling on the costs in any one case but still ensures that, overall, the amounts raised nationally will be close to the actual cost of treatment. At the outset of the scheme this cap will be set at £3,000 for accidents happening before 2nd July 1997, reflecting the current scale of charges, and £10,000 for accidents happening after that date, reflecting the revised charges representing the actual costs of treatment.
The Bill will also allow charges to be recovered in respect of treatment received at more than one hospital, subject, of course, to the overall cap in any one case. For example, severely injured patients are often transferred between hospitals, or perhaps where the accident has happened far away from their homes patients may be transferred to a more local hospital. In these cases all hospitals will be identified and an appropriate part of the charges returned to the hospitals actually providing care.
Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill cover the arrangements for payment of the NHS charges due from the compensator to the compensation recovery unit. We have not, as an act of faith with the insurance industry, included any specific penalties for non-compliance with the scheme. The industry's record of compliance with the scheme for benefit recovery is commendable and we fully expect similar co-operation with the NHS scheme.
One benefit of starting afresh is that we are, for the first time, able to build into the system a method of review and appeal. Clause 6 of the Bill provides for a certificate of charges to be reviewed by the compensation recovery unit either as a result of its becoming aware of something being wrong with the certificate or on request by the compensator.
Given that we are opting for a simple scheme and tariff we anticipate that any problems which arise will be sorted out on review. Where, however, problems remain after review, Clause 7 offers a further avenue, that of a formal appeal. Compensators will have the right of appeal, after having paid the charges, if it seems to them that the amount asked for is wrong, the amount is in respect of treatment which was not given as a result of the road traffic accident, or the compensation payment in question is not one to which the scheme applies.
Having allied our scheme with the benefit recovery scheme we also intend, as provided for in Clause 8, that appeals against NHS charges will be heard by the same tribunals which hear appeals in cases of benefit recovery. Appeals in Scotland will, after devolution, fall to be heard by separate tribunals. After the appeal tribunal we do, however, part company with the benefit recovery scheme. Clause 9 provides that any further appeal will lie direct to the courts and not through the social security commissioners.
Clause 10 deals with procedures for payments which may be necessary following appeal.

1449
Clause 11 deals with the provision of information. While the Bill places an obligation on a list of people or bodies which could be involved it is envisaged that in the vast majority of cases the insurer will be able to give the compensation recovery unit sufficient information for the claim to be processed. In the ordinary run of events the only information about the patient's contact with the NHS which will be relevant is whether or not NHS treatment was given and, if the patient needed to stay in hospital, for how many days.
Again, because the new system is simple, no details of the accident victim's condition or treatment need routinely be supplied by the hospital. If, however, an appeal against charges is made on the grounds that part of the treatment received was not as a result of an accident it may be necessary for further information to be sought. Regulations will ensure that such information can only be sought and used in limited circumstances.
I mentioned earlier that we had specifically modelled our scheme on the existing scheme for benefit recovery so that the two schemes could be run together with maximum efficiency both for government and compensators. Clause 12 allows exchange of information further to aid this efficiency. Compensators will benefit by being able to notify the compensation recovery unit of potential cases under both schemes on a single form and the unit will then be able to use that information for the purposes of both schemes.
Clause 13 concerns the transfer of charges received by the compensation recovery unit to the relevant hospitals. We intend—and this will be set out in regulations—that hospitals will receive payment directly into their accounts on a monthly basis. Compensation payments are not always simple affairs. There can be a number of paymants over time, or a payment into court, or perhaps more than one compensator. Clause 14 provides regulation-making powers to provide specifically for these more complex cases.
Clause 15 of the Bill enables regulations to be made to allow those military hospitals which also provide services for their local civilian population to benefit from the new administrative arrangements. Provision for regulations and orders and the interpretation of terms within the Bill are covered in Clauses 16 and 17.
Clause 18 amends the Road Traffic Act 1988. One important issue which results is the removal from NHS trusts of the right to collect the emergency treatment fee. As I said, we consider it unacceptable that hard pressed hospital staff should spend time collecting the fee. At its current rate of £21.30 it must also be open to question as to whether it costs more to collect than it generates in income. We have, however, chosen to leave the fee on the statute book where it has been for more than 60 years as any doctor, be he GP, off-duty surgeon, or perhaps retired, attending the scene of an accident has the right to seek payment. It is not our intention to remove existing rights from individuals.
Clause 19 provides for any necessary financial expenditure as a result of the Bill. By coincidence the new scheme and its appeal provisions will come into force as the social security appeals system undergoes
1450
change. The provisions for appeal in Clauses 7 and 8 assume that these changes have taken place. Clause 20 providas for transitional arrangements so that any appeals falling from the NHS recovery scheme can be heard under the current appeals system, if necessary.
Clause 21 brings us to the Short Title and the end of the Bill. This is a measure which will bring a long-standing system up to date by simplifying what had become a muddle. It represents no new principles. The idea that compensators should meet hospital costs has been accepted since 1930. What we are doing is making sure that our hospitals actually receive income to which they have had a long-established right.
The Bill will simplify the system of recoveries for hospitals and insurers. It will provide for easier collection of substantial sums, well over £100 million. This money will be returned to hospitals for use in patient care. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
5.8 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill in his customary clear and concise way. As he said, this is a measure whose underlying principle has been enshrined in law for nearly 70 years, the principle being that hospitals of all kinds should be able to recover from private insurance companies the cost of treating road accident victims. It is a principle that has been endorsed over the years by successive governments, most notably the previous Conservative administration when they introduced what became the Road Traffic Act 1988. With this aspect of the Bill therefore I have absolutely no quarrel. However, listening to the Minister's speech one might be forgiven for thinking that that was all there was to it. It has been presented as a fairly straightforward administrative re-arrangement designed to streamline and improve the existing scheme to recover hospital costs. In my opinion that is a false impression. To my mind, for reasons I shall explain, this is a strange and rather revealing little Bill. It is also a Bill which raises some interesting questions which I shall discuss in a moment.
The Minister indicated that one reason for introducing the Bill is that the present arrangements for collecting hospital charges do not work properly. I certainly agree that, across the country as a whole, the sums of money recovered for the NHS are relatively small. Last year they amounted to approximately £16 million. Why this should be so is difficult to determine. There is a perception in some quarters that the current system is bureaucratic and complex.
However, it rather depends on who you talk to. While a good many hospital trusts recover nothing at all from insurance companies, others succeed in recovering significant sums. For example, in 1996–97 the Leicester Royal Infirmary raised £365,000; this compares to a figure of nil at Derby City Hospital. On the face of it, it is perfectly possible—if you have a mind to do so—to follow the procedures laid down under the present system and generate a useful contribution to hospital

1451
costs. Indeed, a Department of Health circular has advised NHS trusts to look more carefully at how they might pursue claims under the Road Traffic Act 1988 with more vigour. It will be interesting to know from the Minister the results so far of that initiative.
However, under the Bill the system is to be changed. It is proposed to use the good offices of the compensation recovery unit of the Benefits Agency to recover charges on behalf of hospitals, and to place a duty on insurance companies to initiate that process whenever a claim for compensation is made under a motor insurance policy. I have no information which leads me to doubt that the CRU is capable of undertaking this responsibility. But can the Minister say whether the Government considered any alternative mechanisms and, if so, what they were? Is this the most cost-effective way of remedying what the Government perceive as the defects in the current system? If so, on what information do the Government base that opinion?
I have described the Bill as strange but revealing. I admit that I was casting about for some mild adjectives; I could have used slightly stronger ones. The Bill is extraordinary for what it tells us about the Government's sense of priorities. With all the legislation competing for parliamentary time, it is a Bill to rejig the system of recovering hospital charges which rises to the surface. Why? An obvious reason is that the Government look upon private insurance companies as a cow whose milk has not up to now been sufficiently squeezed out of the udders. The Government have identified what appears to them a politically painless way of generating a lot more money for the health service. How could one possibly object to that?
But in order to judge this Bill in the round, one needs to understand who will suffer from it—the motorist. Since being elected to office, this Government have hardly disguised their antipathy to the private motorist. Fuel duty has been raised by 20 per cent; vehicle excise duty has also gone up. Powers are now in place to impose a registration tax on new vehicles. It is forecast that by the end of the current Parliament motorists will have paid more than £9 billion in additional taxation to the Exchequer. Here in this Bill is yet another cost they will have to bear—additional insurance premiums to finance the new and higher charges levied by NHS hospitals.
The position of the Government is that these are not new charges and that the cost of hospital treatment—or most of it—is already factored into existing insurance premiums. That would be a perfectly respectable position if it did not conflict with some inconvenient facts. The first inconvenient fact is that if the NHS is to recover 10 times as much in charges from insurance companies as before, then it is not just a question of creating a more effective collection system. The charges will have to go up by a very great deal. That is exactly what the Government are now proposing. For in-patient treatment, the ceiling on an individual charge is, we understand, to go up from £2,949 to £10,000. That sort of money does not come from thin air; someone has to fund it. The Association of British Insurers estimates that the provisions of the Bill will cost the average motorist between £6 and £9 more per annum on his
1452
insurance premium. That of course applies to the average motorist. Some will no doubt pay very little or even nothing extra; others, particularly those in higher risk categories, will pay perhaps £20 or so more.
What then are we looking at here? I find it difficult, when you strip away the wrapping paper, to see the proposals as anything other than a straightforward hike in indirect taxation—a hike aimed, quite deliberately, at one particular group in society, namely vehicle owners. Not only does this tell us a lot about the Government's attitude to vehicle owners; it is also extremely revealing about their attitude to the NHS. After years and years of arguing against levying charges on users of the health service, a newly elected Labour Government have used scarce legislative space to do what? Not to scrap a charge that was yielding very little money, but to buttress and boost it so as to make it yield substantial sums. It is perfectly clear that, contrary to all their rhetoric on the subject, Labour has conveniently put aside its supposedly principled objections to charging patients. Simultaneously, it has overtly endorsed the principle of using insurance as a means of spreading the burden of the costs of healthcare. Those two things speak volumes for new Labour. I should be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say about them. In particular, I would welcome the Minister's assurance that the charges to be prescribed in regulations will not—either now or in the future—be unfairly loaded and will be kept, in real terms, within the limits that the Government have announced.
There is a danger, if substantial sums are raised from the scheme as revised, that income from charges will slowly and imperceptibly become a substitute for Treasury funding. That would not only he undesirable in itself but would accentuate the reliance being placed on the private motorist for funding the health service. It could also disadvantage certain hospitals which, through no fault of their own, deal very little or not at all with road accident victims. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that point in his reply.
Another feature of the Bill of which your Lordships need to be aware is the way that it proposes to deal with hospital charges arising from accidents where the driver is uninsured. At the moment, any claim for compensation against an uninsured driver is met by the Motor Insurers' Bureau, the MIB, which is essentially a statutory pooled fund maintained on behalf of the motor insurance industry. That arrangement represents a necessary safety net to ensure that nobody injured by an uninsured driver is unable to secure compensation for his injury. However, the MIB cannot at present be used to reclaim the costs of NHS hospital treatment.
Under the Bill, that situation will change. For the first time, the NHS will be able to collect charges from the MIB where the claim for compensation is against a driver who is uninsured or untraceable. That means that law-abiding motorists with insurance will be paying for NHS hospital treatment in three ways: first, as ordinary taxpayers; secondly, through their insurance premiums for potential claims against themselves; and now, in a third way, again through their insurance, for any accident at all where there is a claim against an uninsured driver.

1453
The Government owe us an explanation of why they are proposing to take this step. It seems to me a step too far. The test of a new provision such as this should be one of natural justice. I do not believe that it passes that test. Indeed, it has all the appearance of a rather sneaky piece of opportunism—a nice, easy way of raising yet more money for the health service from motorists.
The more one puts up insurance premiums, the more one is bound to increase the number of drivers who do not insure. It is estimated that there are already approximately 1.5 million drivers who are uninsured and who simultaneously dodge paying the annual road fund licence at a cost to the Treasury of £170 million. The Government should be looking for ways to reduce the numbers of uninsured drivers and tax dodgers, not doing things to encourage them. I give the Minister notice that I shall be raising this issue in Committee, but it would be very helpful if he could say something in his reply which might shed a more respectable light on the rationale of this part of the Bill.
There are a number of other issues which we shall be pursuing in Committee: the retrospective elements of the Bill, which I believe are quite unnecessary and patently unfair to the insurance industry; the order-making powers; the Scottish dimension; and the practical arrangements for the Bill's implementation. There is, however, one matter I should like to cover today. As I said, the very existence of this Bill sheds a revealing light on the Government's sense of priorities. The fact that we are now considering a measure to beef up a system which involves funding the NHS from the pockets of those who are insured begs the question of where this is leading and whether there is more of the same still to come.
The motorist in this context is a sitting duck. The reason he is a sitting duck is that the insurance that he carries is compulsory. I must ask: do the Government have any intention of extending the principle underpinning the Bill to other groups of people who are obliged by law to insure themselves? Local authorities, for example, are compulsorily insured for public liability. There is no difference in principle between the hospital treatment of someone who breaks a leg tripping over an uneven pavement and who then claims compensation and the treatment of someone who makes a claim after being in a road accident. One could think of numerous other examples. So I ask: to what extent do the Government regard private insurance as a legitimate means of defraying the cost of running the NHS? As they say in a certain magazine, I think we should be told. If the principle of the Bill is to be extended, resulting in a shift in where the costs of the NHS are to lie, then it really does merit a proper public debate with the full involvement of those affected.
This Bill contains features that are roundly to be deplored as well as much that is unobjectionable. Its particular interest lies in the fact that it comes from a new Labour Government whose ideas and intentions, when they emerge, have a habit of belying their previous utterances. By the end of the passage of the Bill, I trust that the House will have shed some useful light on some of those intentions to the benefit of us all.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join in thanking the Minister for his clear exposition of the contents of the Bill. For a short Bill, it has generated a great deal of heat and not a great deal of light in the other place. On their own, we could welcome on these Benches certain aspects of the Bill such as the reduction in the bureaucracy involved for hospitals, the fact that there will be no further function for debt collectors, the more centralised system of collection through the compensation recovery unit, the new rights of appeal and also more money for the National Health Service, provided it comes into the National Health Service.
However, my party voted against the Bill at Second Reading and Third Reading in the other place on the grounds that we could not basically tell whether this was the thin end of a thin wedge or the thin end of a thick wedge. Indeed, throughout the debates in the other place, the Government refused to state whether there was an over-arching principle behind the Bill, whether indeed any wedge was involved at all, and also whether it could be extended in future. They refused even to engage in debate on these issues which could potentially have very far reaching consequences for the insured, insurance companies and the whole principle of the NHS.
The basis of the debate and the speed with which the Bill was passed through seemed to reflect rather some kind of budgetary urgency. Ministers allege that this is simply updating a system that derives from the 1930s. But there is a new dimension. It is estimated that the new charging system will collect £160 million rather than £16 million, a tenfold increase. I am by no means against increasing the finance for the health service as long as it is absolutely clear that this is additional funding and would not be clawed back by the Treasury. But if this is right for motor insurance, why is it not right for other forms of compulsory insurance, such as employers' liability insurance, product liability insurance and occupiers' liability insurance.
Let us take, for instance, the employee who suffers damage at work and who is cared for by the NHS; or the consumer who suffers damage when using a product, such as a faulty electrical piece of equipment. All these issues were looked at by the Law Commission which reported in December 1996. It looked at the whole issue of recovery of hospital charges. Will the Government be extending this scheme if it is treated as a pilot under the Bill? What kind of animal are we dealing with here? Is this a limited measure or something potentially much wider in its consequences?
In this debate we can of course distinguish the case of compulsory insurances, such as those I have mentioned, from those situations involving travel insurance where a person injured in a skiing accident claims under his own travel insurance policy. But the Government's approach to the Bill throughout adds up to a lack of a coherent framework for the Bill going forward. No wonder the debate in the other place was not very constructive. On these Benches we hope for better in this House.

1455
Perhaps I may tackle a number of other issues in the Bill. The first is the question of retrospection. Why has 2nd July 1997 been chosen? We were told that this was the Labour Budget date and that this was the key date for when the new charges would apply because the Chancellor announced then that the new system would come into effect. But insurance companies did not know until the Bill was introduced the level of charges that were contemplated. The Bill will no doubt pass in some shape in March or April. Would that not be the correct date to choose? Otherwise, motorists and insurance companies will in effect be paying a retrospective charge.
The second issue is the question of limitation on the amount of charges. There should be proper scrutiny of those charges. A large increase was mentioned during the debate. Perhaps one way of ensuring that the charges are kept in proportion would be to specify in the Bill that the tariff should reflect the average cost within the National Health Service of a particular treatment. That would encourage hospitals with higher costs to work towards the average. It would also reward the more efficient ones.
On these Benches we do not have a great brief for the motorist in this context. We have always believed that they should bear the true cost of their activities. But the impact of the Bill on premiums will bear down disproportionately on young people. In addition, as the noble Earl mentioned, the Motor Insurers' Bureau will be charged for the first time and the cost of this will also be borne by the premium payer and the insurance industry.
A number of aspects of the Bill relate to devolution. We note that under the Bill there is in Scotland the absolute right of appeal. In England, however, there is only the possibility that the right of appeal to the courts will be provided by regulation. The Bill also goes counter to all the devolution legislation passed in the previous Session. Throughout the Bill the Secretary of State is assumed to be the English Secretary of State for Health. Whatever happened to devolution? If the health service could be devolved to four separate national health services, why not the collection of revenue? The compensation recovery unit is appropriate for England and perhaps Wales, but we urge the Government to consider other options for Scotland.
The amendments we put down in Committee will reflect the comments I have made at Second Reading and some other aspects but we hope that during the Committee and Report stages the Government will engage in a much more constructive debate on the contents of the Bill than they have hitherto.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill and in doing so I take the opportunity publicly to express my appreciation of and heartfelt gratitude to the National Health Service and its staff for the way in which they cared for me over the past few months while I was ill. I have now returned in fitness to the House.
1456
I support the Bill because I believe it is a long overdue update and amendment of existing provisions. The current rules have not been properly or uniformly applied. Therefore, in practice they have increasingly proved to be unfair—and unfair to the motorist. There have been variations in the way they have been applied in different parts of the country and there have been variations within specific areas—even between one health trust and another hospital trust close by. So it is high time that the Government turned their attention to the matter and followed through on the promises made by the previous administration.
It is understandable that many of the trusts have not put too many resources into this area. The administration burdens on hard-pressed hospitals are significant under the existing rules. Yet there has been relatively little financial return for those trusts that have expended effort in attempting to comply with the present rules. That has been the case especially in relation to the £21.30 emergency treatment fee. It has been particularly unpopular with the public, because it has had to be paid by the vehicle driver involved in an accident, whether or not that individual has caused the accident. I welcome its departure. I am pleased that, in updating these provisions, the Government have used this opportunity to abolish this much disliked hospital emergency treatment fee.
I also welcome the transfer out of hospitals of most of the recovery administration. We look forward to the Benefits Agency compensation recovery unit effecting speedy and efficient delivery of the revised charges to hospitals. The funds are badly needed, notwithstanding the extra £21 billion that the Chancellor has committed to the NHS.
noted in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, in the Summary of the Regulatory Impact Assessment, that four options were considered in relation to future collection. I thought them somewhat limited for a modernising Government, and I tend to he marginally critical in this regard. We could perhaps have sought, as a fifth option, a public/private initiative, possibly on similar lines to the American approach, where it is possible to factor the debts. That would have given the trusts an immediate cash flow advantage. Instead, under the present arrangements we shall continue with a system under which recovery of costs will be delayed by the amount of time it takes for successful personal injury claim settlements. I know that those who have examined the American arrangements have understandable concerns about some of the hard-nosed business approaches adopted in the recovery of insurance money. However, our approach is different. We could have written contract specifications without compromising the trusts' integrity or our patient support culture, which we are anxious to maintain in order to ensure that patients are not subjected to hard business pressure. Had we been prepared to explore such a partnership, it could have presented a great opportunity for extending public service employee involvement and motivation opportunities. When we come to review the working arrangements further down the line, I hope the Government may return to a consideration of possible alternatives if the proposed arrangements are not

1457
working as effectively as we would wish. I emphasise, however, that I support the new arrangements. They are certainly a great improvement on matters as they stand.
I recognise that in an effort to simplify and reduce administrative costs under this scheme the Bill must of necessity introduce a tariff of charges on a daily and a flat rate basis. The Association of British Insurers advises that its members support this approach, "provided that these are calculated fairly and in a transparent way". I support that view and can understand why the association has lent its backing. The reality is that its members will still not be paying the full rate of treatment costs incurred through road traffic accidents. That must be the case if a cap is being introduced—admittedly, a revised cap. A cap of £10,000 on a single charge will mean that in many instances the full amount will not be taken into account in devising the tariff. It is still difficult within the NHS to ascertain the true cost of all patient treatment, not only in this area but in many others. Those in private sector medical care are wizard at working out these charges, and have been wizard at putting in their compensation returns. Within the NHS we do not perform in the same way. As the Minister knows, I believe that there should be more openness and transparency in relation to NHS costs. Such an approach is needed in order to raise public awareness and provide for a better understanding and appreciation of the value of the care that is being delivered by the NHS. A knowledge of costs helps to strengthen the links between rights and responsibilities. That applies equally to motorists. Their right is to free NHS services at the point of access, but responsibilities fall to them in a way that they do not fall to the non-motoring public. That must be responded to appropriately with money. Raised awareness of the link between rights and responsibilities is increasingly necessary for patients. It is also necessary in order to enable management and staff to increase efficiency and continue to drive out waste.
Major IT investment plans have recently been announced. I hope that one of the outputs from that programme will be the availability of more information on costs. Will the Minister say when we can expect to see more progress on that front, particularly as the Bill, at least temporarily, moves in the opposite direction?
Overall, I very much welcome this long-overdue measure. It offers the prospect of additional, badly needed resources for the NHS. It provides a possible model for increasing the flow of National Health Service funds from other compulsory insurance. I believe that the Government probably do not intend to embrace that approach, but the topic is rightly on the agenda and should be debated. The Bill also provides a possible model to be applied over wider fronts, even beyond the field of compulsory insurance. Those views are entirely personal; however, I believe that we shall need increasingly to examine these issues. I believe that the bulk of National Health Service funds will continue to come from taxation. But as we become wealthier, and as expectations and health demands continue to grow, and as the population ages, there will be an increasing need to explore with an open minded, commonsense,
1458
pragmatic approach all NHS income streams that are open to us. I hope that we may look increasingly to a more consensual approach in these areas. I believe that among the great British public there is an increasing recognition that we get the health service that we pay for. More and more people are coming to the view that we are not paying sufficient for the kind of services that we justly seek. We must therefore look not only to taxation, but to all the opportunities that may open up to us to ensure the stream of income for an even better health service in the future.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has proved an extremely interesting debate. It has not been over-endowed with speakers; however, that does not indicate any lack of importance attaching to the Bill's contents. I have no doubt that in Committee we shall return to many of the issues raised. I shall take this opportunity to touch on a number of key points.
First, I wish to emphasise that the Bill is designed to give support to a principle that has existed and been accepted for more than 60 years. In response to the charges made by both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, let me emphasise the point that these are not new charges. The Bill does not introduce a charge for the use of the NHS. Road traffic accident victims receive hospital treatment free of charge. There is no question that they will ever be presented with a bill. This is a method of raising income for hospitals that should have been theirs for many years but which has been lost for want of administrative support. The principle is as it always has been: road users are required to insure against third-party risks which includes the compensator reimbursing hospitals for the cost of third-party treatment.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, inquired about problems to do with the existing scheme and asked why the NHS had not been more successful in collecting money as a result of the charges. I have already explained some of the problems: hard-pressed staff of A&E departments who have to question patients or demand payment from drivers; the difficulty of tracking down the person or the institution who must pay the compensation; and ensuring that the debt is settled. As the noble Earl points out, we are aware that some hospitals have been more successful than others. This depends very much on local circumstances and the attitude of staff and management. Anyone who has been involved in the NHS for many years, as I have, will be aware that there is always a difference in priorities from hospital to hospital. Despite enunciations in circulars by the Department of Health year after year, these matters will be dealt with differently. Further, even when hospitals make a considerable effort to collect the charges they often fail to pick up all of the potential cases. For example, there is reluctance on the part of the public to inform hospitals when a claim is made. The whole history of this issue is that exhortations to the NHS to do better do not work in the long term. I believe that the proposals will both simplify the procedures and, very importantly, bring more money into the health service.

1459
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I assure him that this will be real additional money on top of the normal NHS allocation. Although, as the noble Earl says, the amount of money received by each hospital will necessarily be different, the fact is that this money will go into the NHS as a whole. Therefore, the NHS as a whole will benefit. The noble Earl also asked questions about the future revision of charges. Clearly, this will need to occur from time to time but no particular interval has been set. That is consistent with the practice that applies to other charges within the NHS.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, perhaps repeating arguments in another place, objected to the whole principle of the Bill. I have always believed that the NHS draws considerable strength from the provision of services to the whole of the public which is mostly free at the point of delivery, but I reiterate that no new principle is involved in the Bill now before the House. The Bill simply ensures that the NHS receives what is rightfully owed to it and in a way that simplifies the current administrative burdens. In addition, this must be seen in the context of the comprehensive spending review that underpins the Government's commitment to the service and its underlying principles.
Both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked whether the scheme might be extended to other potential insurance areas. One example was sportsmen and women. The primary purpose of the few compulsory insurance schemes in this country, such as motor vehicle insurance, is to protect innocent third parties. We have no plans to make individuals self-insure. It can be argued that that is counter-productive as it may dampen efforts to improve health and safety consciousness. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked whether the NHS might recoup its costs in cases where personal injury compensation was paid. The Bill we are debating today is about the provision of a better functioning system to support existing rights. The Bill does not provide a mechanism to extend those rights by stealth.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about the Motor Insurers' Bureau. Clearly, the recoupment of NHS charges predates the setting up of the Motor Insurers' Bureau, but as the MIB makes compensation payments in respect of road traffic accidents as a matter of general principle we believe that it should also meet NHS costs as do other insurers. That is the reason why we intend to bring it into the scheme in line with the recovery of benefits legislation.
A number of points were raised relating to the compensation recovery unit by both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. It is a particular pleasure to see my noble friend in his place today looking so well. The CRU has established a very good track record in dealing with similar work on a national scale. It has good relations with the insurance industry, including an accepted method of recovery. Insurers have welcomed the decision to use the CRU. We believe that it can accommodate NHS work in addition to its role in benefit recovery work at minimum additional cost. It also keeps patient information within the government family and
1460
enables us to move with speed. We shall keep the matter under review, but we believe that the CRU is the best option at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made reference to devolution and Scotland in particular. The scheme is not reserved in the Scotland Act and therefore post-devolution Scotland will do as it may wish. The powers of the Secretary of State will be transferred to Scottish Ministers on devolution. The noble Lord also asked about the tariff. To establish full cost our economists looked at detailed work undertaken by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory in which treatment profiles following road traffic accidents were produced. Those profiles were costed and, using information from the police and compensation recovery unit as to the number of accidents and the success rate of compensation claims, we arrived at the total sum that the NHS should recover. It is from that total sum that we have been able to develop the tariff.
My noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe referred correctly to the issue of rights and responsibilities generally in relation to NHS patients. He asked specifically about the availability of information in relation to the cost of treatment. I echo his concern that the information available is as accurate as possible. The more information we have the more we can compare it and the more effective the NHS can be. There is no doubt that as a whole the NHS is becoming more sophisticated in the information that is becoming available to it. The impact of all of the Government's changes which we shall debate in your Lordships' House very shortly—the development of health improvement programmes, the new role of health authorities, the development of primary care groups and trusts and the initiatives that we are taking to improve the capability and use of IT—will provide better information on which to make the judgments in the health service about priorities and whether or not treatments are cost-effective.
Much has been said about the impact of the Bill on the motorist. I believe that this has been somewhat exaggerated. The Bill means that the NHS will recover charges in all cases where compensation is paid. We are changing the amounts raised so that the NHS receives something closer to the actual costs of treatment, but the effect on the motorist will be minimal. We have estimated that if the amount that the NHS receives from this measure is averaged out across all motorists who hold compulsory insurance the effect will be to raise the average premium by between 2 and 3 per cent. or, as the noble Earl pointed out, between £6 and £9. I emphasise that the Government are not anti-motorist or anti-car. We recognise that for many people and for some journeys the car is the most sensible way to get about. We are not against people owning cars. The United Kingdom has a lower percentage of people with cars than many other European countries, although cars tend to be used less in those countries. Our integrated transport White Paper offers many comforts for motorists. We need to reflect on that before suggesting that the Bill is a gross attack on the motorist.

1461
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised the issue of retrospection. We have clearly come under some criticism for seeking to increase the charges to something like the full cost for treatment following any accident which happened on or after 2nd July 1997. That is the date of the Chancellor's Budget speech. I fully understand the position of insurers. No one would expect them to be happy to have to meet those costs. But despite what the insurers have said in the public arena, in face to face meetings with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health they have acknowledged that raising charges from 2nd July 1997 is reasonable. We believe that our decision is fair. The NHS has undeniably lost out for many years because of poor compliance with the existing statutory provisions. We should remember that NHS charges fall due when, and only when, compensation is paid. The average time taken to settle claims is around two years. Insurers knew from 2nd July 1997 that costs would increase but that it would be only from April 1999—nearly two years down the track—that full costs would start to be recouped.
My noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe asked about the general review of the system. I can confirm that we are committed to reviewing the system after about six months in operation and that the results of the review will be made public.
The Bill will simplify arrangements for all parties. Best of all, patients will benefit as the money raised will be sent back to the hospitals which need it and which can use it in whichever way they think best. NHS care is, and will remain, free to all those who need it. No one will be denied care or prevented from seeking it as a result of the Bill. The Bill puts right something that has been wrong for nearly 60 years. I commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Airports: Planning Procedure
5.52 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn Lord Gladwyn rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that current planning procedures respecting proposals for new commercial airports take adequate account of environmental considerations and national policy requirements.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the White Paper of last July, A New Deal for Transport, announces the preparation of a new UK airports policy for the next 30 years. But, apart from six regional studies exclusive of the south-east, this national policy must await the outcome of the Heathrow Terminal 5 inquiry. The timescale of the inspector's report and the subsequent Minister's decision is such that the new policy can hardly be determined within two years, and might even be postponed until after the next general election. Meanwhile civil aviation is roaring ahead, boosted by the commendable policy of open access.
Unsurprisingly, this forceful increase has provoked growing concern about aircraft noise. Despite the progressive introduction of quieter engines, aircraft noise escalates faster than with the mere number of movements, due to the introduction of larger aircraft and to airport congestion involving holding patterns in controlled airspace. Whatever the outcome of the Terminal 5 inquiry, it is clear that considerations about noise, pollution and traffic will have to be given greater weight in the delicate balance between economic expansion and environmental restraint.
As one who worked for many years in air transport, I applaud its recent success, though I feel that, for the future, an unquestioning attitude towards demand-led projections is inconsistent with the concept of sustainable development, as has been seen in the case of roads—a point recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in his debate on transport in your Lordships' House last week. I also appreciate that the Government are taking action on the question of noise, for instance, by the Noise Monitoring Advisory Committee, and that the White Paper envisages enhanced responsibilities for the CAA in noise control. But my concern today is with the actual and potential licensing of new commercial airports. In practice this relates to a number of former Ministry of Defence air bases.
Those sites, rendered redundant by the end of the Cold War, are scattered around the country in locations set by military strategy. I shall briefly summarise the position of five of them, all except one being in the south-east. I pass over the future of Northolt, except to note that in a debate about it in another place last June the Minister affirmed that, although no decision is likely in the near future, no option has been discarded. It is, of course, extensively used for civil flying.
At Manston in Kent, where the RAF has allowed civilian flights for over 10 years, the MoD is about to conclude a sale of the site to Wiggins plc. Wiggins intends to set up an airport with the most advanced systems, and is in negotiation with the CAA for a licence. But there is to be no planning application for this new airport, which will involve 24-hour operations, because the MoD has persuaded the Thanet District Council that none is needed, on the grounds that there has been no material change of use. At Farnborough, where the MoD has leased the site to TAG, business executive flights have been operating since 1990. The Rushmoor District Council expects TAG to submit a planning application which will involve a threefold increase in movements and with larger aircraft, though with a night curfew.
At Finningley near Doncaster the MoD first negotiated with non-aviation interests, including the Home Office which wanted a prison. That was fiercely opposed by the metropolitan borough council and then dropped by the present Government on coming to power. Proposals were then put forward for a commercial airport, and last year the MoD agreed to sell the site to Peel Holdings, subject to contract. Peel Holdings has yet to submit a planning application, but has made it clear that its plan will be for 24-hour operations for freight and passenger aircraft.
At Alconbury in Cambridgeshire the former USAF base is still owned by the MoD, which has formed a joint venture with a consortium called Alconbury Developments, led by BAA. This consortium originally submitted an application for a large freight distribution centre, co-ordinating road, rail and air. In March of last year the aviation element of this was dropped in the face of political pressure. Although it would accordingly necessitate a fresh application, apprehension about the aviation potential remains as strong as ever, for three reasons. First, the present application includes the phrase "retention of existing flying use". Secondly, the runway will remain unobstructed. And thirdly, the BAA is still heavily involved.
I come now to Bentwaters in Suffolk—a county in which I live, though well away from Bentwaters. This was the subject of a short debate in your Lordships House in June 1996, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. He criticised the MoD for going for the highest possible sale price without sufficient regard for environmental issues. These are especially sensitive at Bentwaters because the whole of the airport operating area lies within an area of outstanding natural beauty. The company which at that time was negotiating for purchase had no plans for aviation; indeed, it intended to dig up the runway. But in the event it withdrew, and the site was then sold to Bentwaters Investments Ltd, which, in May of last year submitted a planning application, in the name of Anglia International Airpark, for a maintenance and testing facility for all types of aircraft, together with scheduled services, charter flights, private flying and helicopters. This application, at present on hold pending a public inquiry into the Suffolk Coastal District local plan, has served to rally public opinion in defence of the inviolability of the AONB, amid enormous publicity.
In all these instances aviation protest groups have been formed. At Alconbury they scored a victory; at Bentwaters they have already obliged the local council to lower its sights and are fighting the whole principle of an airport at the local plan inquiry. At Manston they have been completely frustrated and at Finningley they represent only a small minority.
The strict democratic planning procedures may have been duly observed, but the whole system is open to criticism. First, there has been throughout a lack of transparency by the MoD in its selection of purchasers. The public have not been informed about what alternative bids might have been involved. Secondly, the question of whether previous military use establishes a precedent for future aviation use is unclear. Thirdly, although operational limits may be imposed, they can usually be breached by subsequent demand: one has only to look at Stansted. Fourthly, noise enforcement is very uneven, ranging from the strict control of the London-designated airports to no control at others. That is why several of the MoD sites are so attractive for the operation of noisy freighters or for jet engine testing, such sites not being available in neighbouring Europe. Fifthly, the planning procedures may have been made within the framework of county and local plans—though even that is very questionable at Bentwaters—but they have been made piecemeal because there is no national
1464
or south-east regional policy. Hence the provision of what are potentially major new airports in an entirely haphazard way.
A sixth criticism is that these airfields were only built on these sites in the first place as a measure of extreme national emergency without any planning considerations whatsoever. It is understandable that their relatively compact domestic and maintenance areas should be developed for civilian housing and other enterprise: it would be deplorable to have ghost towns. But their operating areas—vast expanses of as much as 1,000 acres, more grass than concrete—are, on the face of it, more suitable for environmentally friendly enterprise. To use them for a new town, as was first proposed at Upper Heyford, or for a civil airport, is quite another matter.
The stated intention of the White Paper is to maximise the use of regional airports to relieve the pressure on the congested airports of the south-east. But an integrated transport system also demands that some of that relief should come from a shift from air to rail for ultra short-haul or interlining journeys. We must therefore avoid unnecessary proliferation of regional airports whose environmental damage is less justifiable than that of the major hub airports on which the prosperity of our civil aviation, and hence of our national economy, primarily depends.
My Question, as originally tabled, asked the Government to defer the authorisation of such new airports, but I recognise that that is impracticable. So I merely ask: are they satisfied with what is happening?
6.2 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I believe that we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for enabling us to debate this important subject. I intend to confine myself to Bentwaters, to which the noble Lord has referred, and the proposal to establish there a new regional airport. In doing so I declare an interest both as a resident of East Suffolk and, more importantly, as president of the Suffolk Preservation Society.
The saga of the disposal of Bentwaters reflects little credit on either the MoD or on the previous government. The problems have arisen because no government has so far accepted that, in disposing of state-owned land, the maximisation of cash received should not be the overriding consideration. That Treasury policy leads to environmental anarchy.
It is hard to imagine a less suitable place for a new regional airport than this remote site on the Suffolk coast. It is a place of outstanding beauty and solitude where by day and by night the wide Suffolk skies are at their finest and the cry of the curlew breaks the stillness.
As the Countryside Commission put in evidence last week to the public enquiry into the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan,
"It is our view … that [the District Council plan] in supporting the re-use of RAF Bentwaters for civilian aviation purposes is attempting to support a major form of development within the AONB which is not compatible with the guidance contained in PPG7 nor with the purpose for which the Suffolk Coasts and Heaths AONB was designed".

1465
The brownland released when a military airport becomes redundant—and I do not include the greenland around the actual runways—should indeed be re-used for development especially for housing. This can make a contribution to reducing the housing pressure on greenfield sites. Businesses, too, should be encouraged; although mainly the smaller, high-tech businesses.
The new owner of Bentwaters, Mr. Mouawad, paid his £9 million for the 1,100-acre Bentwater site to provide 5,000 houses and an industrial estate. That could all have been welcomed. But then Mr. Yann Borgstedt of Anglia International Airport, suggested that a regional airport at Bentwaters could be icing on Mr. Mouawad's cake.
It is said that another regional airport is needed in the south-east. That is in addition to Stansted, Luton, City Airport, and Marshall's at Cambridge and Norwich. Taken together, those five provide a multitude of aviation services within 100 miles of Bentwaters. I doubt whether a further airport in the south-east can be justified. If it can, a more obvious location would be Alconbury near Huntingdon, which at least adjoins a major junction of Britain's trunk road and motorway network.
It is said that Bentwaters would provide jobs for local people. As at December 1998, the three local constituencies (Suffolk Coastal, Central Suffolk and South Suffolk) all have a full employment rate on the Beveridge criteria of 3 per cent. or less. Indeed an airport, because of its environmental impact, would destroy far more local jobs in the tourist industry than it could create.
There are few parts of England less well provided with transport links. Bentwaters is linked to the London-Yarmouth A.12 trunk road by winding country lanes. The Department of Transport is actually in the process of de-trunking the A.12 north of Ipswich, much of which is still single carriageway with a particularly bad fatal accident record. The rail line to Lowestoft, north of Ipswich, has long been a single-track branch line with a fragile tram-style passenger service passing about two miles from Bentwaters. There is thus none of the public infrastructure which a new regional airport would need. I doubt that the Government have the funds to provide it.
When Bentwaters was a military airfield the noise of aircraft was tolerated for the defence of the realm. It was known that one day it would end. The noise pollution, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, from a new civil airport would intrude dramatically over at least an eight-mile radius covering Aldeburgh, Saxmundham, Woodbridge and Framlingham. This would probably bring to an end the world famous musical centre at Snape, home of the Aldeburgh festival which, along with Edinburgh, is perhaps the most important in Britain. Last week 13 leading figures in the arts world publicly condemned the airport proposal. I may say that in the days of the American airbase there were special arrangements not to fly during concerts.
1466
There has been widespread cross-party local condemnation of the proposal. The Suffolk Coastal District Council, which no one party controls, is deeply divided and not on party lines. It is rumoured that independent anti-airport candidates may well stand for some of its constituencies in the May elections this year.
I understand that the developers have suggested that they were in some way misled by the officers of the local council who, in private discussions before the final sale of the property, may have indicated that they favoured a commercial airport on the Bentwaters site on the grounds that it would help to "put Suffolk Coastal on the map". To clarify that, the council should agree to the disclosure of the records of all such meetings. To the developer I would merely say "Caveat emptor".
If any unqualified encouragement was given to the developers it was inappropriate for three reasons. First, in a matter of such importance it would be wrong to pre-empt the views of councillors, and officers must not become parti pris. Secondly, such an intrusive development as a civil airport in an AONB would seem, prima facie, to be quite out of place and to be contrary to public policy. Thirdly, the council officials ought to have anticipated the considerable opposition there was bound to be to such a proposal. I understand that of 2,000 letters that the council has received on Bentwaters fewer than 50 were in favour of the airport.
I am concerned that there may be a feeling among planning officers, not just in Suffolk, that the general public's views on such matters as this should count for little. It is an attitude that was certainly echoed in some remarks made to me recently by a senior Suffolk County Council officer. I was reminded of the famous statement made in 1947:
"the gentleman in Whitehall really does know better what is good for the people than the people know themselves".
The author was Douglas Jay. While that famous name still lives in your Lordships' House, I trust I can say with confidence that that attitude has no place in the mind of New Labour!
I turn to another serious concern, which arose on a number of occasions in various counties while I was Chairman of CPRE. It is that councillors may be warned not to vote against any advice they may receive from their council officers in case in a subsequent public inquiry costs are awarded against the council.
I have consulted a number of authorities and I can say that it would only be if such a view of councillors were to be unreasonable that there would be any risk of such costs being awarded. That would not apply in this case as the proposed airport would be in an AONB, against laid down public policy.
The developers have now indicated that they would be prepared to reduce the number of flights that they would apply for. I trust councillors will see through, and reject, this toe-in-the-door tactic.
History shows that airports grow where airports are. There is a very strong presumption in favour of allocating additional capacity to existing sites rather than establishing new facilities; a principle I for one would support. If the district council does not reject a regional civil airport at Bentwaters, I believe that it

1467
would be an irreversible step to a long-term and permanent change, and indeed destruction, of the character and beauty of one of the jewels of rural England.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Gladwyn for tabling the Question and for his helpful introduction of it. Like him and the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I live close to the airport at Bentwaters and have raised the subject in the House on previous occasions. For the present, I propose to refer strictly to the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and to refer only to the matters relating to it.
First, perhaps I may say a few words about airport policy in general. The grant of permission for a new commercial airport is a significant decision in any country, but particularly so in our case, given the relatively small size of our densely populated island and the priority we now rightly accord environmental policy. Also, we are at a critical hinge in international air travel. We still enjoy, at present, the advantage of being the Clapham Junction of international civil aviation.
That is not unlike the role we had in the last century in international shipping when the best route for most cargoes crossing the wide oceans of the world to continental ports was via transhipment in the Port of London. We lost that role in the post-war years for reasons which, in Sir Thomas Browne's words, are "too sad to insist on." If we are to retain our current position in international civil aviation, we need to have an airports policy which meets the case. We also have to protect our market position from erosion by those, whether in the United States, Brussels or elsewhere, who wish to capture our existing markets. We shall have a chance to discuss those aspects when we come to debate a recent report of the EC Select Committee, printed as House of Lords Paper No. 56.
Meanwhile, I, too, welcome the promise in the Government White Paper, A New Deal for Transport, that a review of airports policy is in hand. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how the review is progressing and when it may be concluded. This is an extremely important area of policy. Most of the decisions taken in the past 40 years—some of them of great difficulty when one thinks of the controversy over Stansted and Maplin—have served us rather well and it is now time to think ahead. The point I seek to emphasise is the need for national policies on civil aviation, determined by government and communicated to Parliament, to be properly reflected in the decisions taken by individual planning authorities. As I shall now try to explain, that does not seem to be happening at present.
Let us take, for example, the fundamental question of airspace. Our local would-be airport at Bentwaters, north east of Ipswich, is close to a number of military bases, particularly RAF Woodbridge and Wattisham. We believe that Woodbridge is to be retained by the Ministry of Defence for use as a base for combined inter-service exercises and both bases are to be used to train pilots on military versions of the Apache helicopter. Therefore, it is important to know whether
1468
these activities would be compatible with plans for a resumption of flying at Bentwaters, only three miles or so from Woodbridge.
I sought information from the CAA, the DETR and the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence. All were extremely polite, but they have been unable to provide me with information. The planning authority is revising the local plan, apparently with a view to accommodating the developer's proposals, but, so far as I know, the authority lacks reliable information about the availability of airspace. I was informed by Glenda Jackson, Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, in a letter of 4th September, that:
"airspace and licensing are matters for the CAA and are not material planning considerations".
Thus, the local authority, in considering whether to permit a commercial airport in its territory, will be able to consider road and rail access; employment; economic benefits and disbenefits; noise; and the various forms of pollution. However, it is not allowed to know whether there is available airspace for aircraft to use. That comes into the frame, apparently, only after the planning authority has made its decision.
A similar situation arises over protection of the AONB. The airport site is in an AONB and thus enjoys the protection of PPG7, which specifically prohibits major commercial development within its boundary except in the case of national need and the absence of an alternative site. No evidence has been submitted by the developer on either count. The local planning authority has correctly informed the local office of the DETR, GOER in distant Bedford, that it has received a planning application which, if approved, would be a departure from the county structure plan. I suggested to the DETR that it might inform the local planning authority of its attitude while the matter was still under discussion so that the Government's views could be taken into account. But the Minister of State, Mr. Caborn, informed me in a letter of 27th January that that cannot be done as it would be contrary to the "plan-led" system. The DETR will not act until the local planning authority informs it that it is "minded to approve" a planning application contrary to policy in the AONB.
Meanwhile, the director of planning, tourism and leisure of the district council has presented his statement of case to the local planning inquiry. On the AONB, this document states the following:
"In accordance with statutory requirements, the GOER has been consulted at each of the stages throughout the preparation of the alteration to the local plan and has, at no stage, objected to the policies for Bentwaters, including the policy for the airport. It must therefore be assumed that GOER do not consider that, in taking all matters into account, the aviation polices are an unacceptable exception to the normal AONB policy".
I quote that passage verbatim as it shows, quite conclusively, I think, that the department's silence has been interpreted by the planning authority as implying approval. That has been adduced in a formal document in support of authorisation of a civil airport in the AONB in the local planning inquiry. Was that the department's intention? What, I wonder, did it say to the

1469
director of planning? No doubt the department intended to behave with its usual scrupulous impartiality. But, given the misunderstanding which has clearly occurred, I suggest that the DETR Minister should write to the chairman or chief executive of the council telling him the truth and setting the record straight. I should be glad to give the Minister a copy of the documents in question.
I find the situation deeply unsatisfactory. It surely must make better sense for the Government to form the view of the implications of a large new commercial airport in such a sensitive place, to tell the planning authority of their opinion and to give some guidance about essential matters directly relevant to the decision. Otherwise, we may well end up in the ludicrous situation of an airport having the capacity for apparently unrestricted future growth which has been approved by the planning authority contrary to the spirit of the letter in PPG7, thus permanently damaging the AONB, contravening the RAMSAR, to which we are parties—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the problem is that speakers are consistently running over time with additional questions for the Minister. My concern is that my noble friend may not have time to answer the questions unless other speakers cut short their speeches.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I understand that my noble friend Lord Colville is not going to speak, so there will be time for the Minister to reply. I shall repeat my last sentence. Otherwise, we may end up with a ludicrous situation with an airport which has apparently unrestricted future growth, approved by the local planning authority, contrary to the spirit and letter of PPG 7 thus permanently damaging the AONB; contravening the RAMSAR convention; infringing the EC habitats directive; and all that when it may ultimately appear that there is no airspace available for the aircraft.
That does not fit well with the Government's stated intentions on environmental policy. It appears to be the case that some government agencies—the CAA and even English Nature—do not submit evidence to local authorities or public inquiries on planning matters as they lack the resources and, indeed, the inclination to do so. However, we could avoid that particular sector of Cloud-cuckoo-land if the Government were to change their practice, which is simply a change in administrative procedure. I invite them to do so as a matter of some urgency. A planning system may be a fine concept but it cannot be expected to operate correctly unless supplied with accurate information. That really matters in relation to airports.
6.21 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, governments have come round to the idea that for roads, the old predict and provide approach is no longer feasible on environmental grounds. Demand for road space must be managed. But even in the bad old days of merely responding to demand, there was at least a national road plan, even if it was simply to build more.
1470
For air travel and airports, the situation is even worse than it used to be for roads. Not only is there no overall national strategic plan for airports, with each application to build or expand treated individually, as other noble Lords have pointed out, but the Government's response seems still to be to meet the demand rather than to manage it.
As a London person, I wish to move swiftly from the general to the particular in order to discuss Heathrow Terminal 5. The need for a strategic approach is amply demonstrated by its absence prior to a decision on Terminal 5. How can such a hugely significant decision be made before we all understand how it fits into a national or regional plan and the achievement of a sustainable economy and environment?
Once Terminal 5 is approved, the pressure in future to use it to full capacity by building a third runway may follow as night follows day. I should like the Minister to give a pledge that a decision on Terminal 5 must be delayed until such plans are in place and until proper studies have been undertaken to determine the real effect of Terminal 5 on health through asthma stress, sleep disturbance and pollution, including noise pollution.
It is putting the cart before the horse for the Government only to promise an airport strategy once the T5 recommendation is known. The fact is that Heathrow has already reached its environmental limit with 50 million passengers and four terminals. The capacity at Terminal 5 would be an additional 30 million passengers per year—a 60 per cent. increase. And yet that airport is in the suburbs of London, within the M.25 area. In contrast, Charles de Gaulle in Paris is limited to 55 million passengers and Schiphol outside Amsterdam is limited to 40 million passengers. The noise, air pollution and traffic congestion generated by Heathrow have long exceeded the levels which the 1 million people affected by it are prepared to tolerate. Air pollution already breaches government targets.
Local people acknowledge that Heathrow as it is today makes an economic contribution to their area, as it does to the whole London economy, providing jobs and attracting business investment. But the key is to have a sense of proportion and to know when enough is enough. Once it starts to turn from a positive force into an intolerable blot on the quality of life of 1 million people, it is time to pause.
Why should the wishes of two large companies—BAA and BA—just because they have enormous financial and lobbying clout, and even friends in high places, override the democratically expressed wish of the local community? After all, 13 local authorities of all political colours are opposed to the expansion. That degree of cohesion would not exist unless all those authorities genuinely represented the clearly expressed wish of the community. Is democracy to be beaten by corporate power?
Let us not forget the financial facts of this David and Goliath battle. BAA has been allowed by its regulator—the Civil Aviation Authority which reports to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions—to recover its £60 million costs of the Terminal 5 inquiry by charging airlines higher landing

1471
fees which are passed on to individual airline passengers. Meanwhile, the cash-strapped local authorities have to use council tax money raised from individual residents to present their case, even though it is with the democratically expressed support of those residents. Is money to be allowed to outgun democracy?
I cannot rehearse here in detail all the strong environmental and health arguments against Terminal 5. They include traffic fumes and congestion and of course focus particularly on aircraft noise, including night flights. There is a 24-hour noise climate around Heathrow. That needs to be restricted by the banning of night flights.
But a factor which goes beyond the local environmental impact is the question of safety. The skies over south-east England are the busiest in Europe and the air traffic control system is known to be at breaking point. Near misses are reported regularly. There was a record 15 in the first six months of 1998 alone. If even more flights were allowed into Heathrow, that could be extremely dangerous indeed with increased risk of mid-air collisions over a densely populated area.
I spoke earlier about the need for democracy to influence decisions such as those relating to Terminal 5. Clearly London's airports would need to continue to be included in a national transport policy and airports strategy. But the Greater London Authority also needs to have strong consultative links into the process, a part of its forthcoming strategic planning and transport responsibilities. The GLA will need to have a regional transport plan for which it is answerable to London voters. One of the factors at which it would look would be the need for balanced east-west development in London. Another would be the public transport links for passengers. I suggest that a Greater London Authority would seek to do better than the Heathrow Express which, good as it is, is "price controlled"—that is, quite expensive—to prevent overcrowding. The only alternative is the slow and very overcrowded Piccadilly Line.
A third factor which the GLA would wish to take into account would be the opportunity for rail travel to, for example, Paris and Brussels with a rail terminal at Heathrow.
The fact is that residents and local authorities around Heathrow feel betrayed and angry. Twenty years ago, the inspector, Mr. Justice Glidewell, in recommending the go-ahead for Terminal 4 said that it should be the last major expansion at the airport. The then government imposed a flight limit of 275,000 flights per year. Last year, that number was 440,000, an increase of two-thirds over 20 years. The local community is subjected now to pressure for massive expansion bigger than all the existing four terminals put together.
If trust is to be restored, a better way must be found to plan airports. Elements of that better way include a partnership between national and regional government with balanced planning to prevent over-congestion in London and the south-east; the promotion of rail travel alternatives particularly to cities on the Continent; and consideration should be given to the deregulation of
1472
landing charges to allow regional airports to compete. Until at least all that happens, Terminal 5 must not get the go-ahead.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I offer a crumb of comfort to the noble Baroness because I shall not take up all my time. I rise to speak about Manston Airport, which is about eight or nine miles from my home, and the problems there which are causing enormous concern to the people of Thanet.
Manston is designated at present as a government aerodrome with a military air traffic control unit. At present, it is not a licensed aerodrome. However, a sale is under way by the Ministry of Defence to Wiggins which is due to be completed in March or April of this year.
The plan is that the airport will be operated by Thomson, which I believe is an extremely reputable airport operator. A management plan is in the process of being produced—indeed, it should already have been produced but has not been—and an aerodrome licence will be required from the CAA. The licence will be concerned with safety factors—safety standards are set by national legislation—but it will not cover noise or pollution. Who, then, will be able to control environmental factors, specifically noise and pollution? That is of enormous concern to local people.
The east-west flight path of the aerodrome goes straight over the ancient borough of Ramsgate. The difficulty is that the Thanet District Council, rightly or wrongly (some say wrongly) issued an "existing use" certificate for the operation of Manston as a civil airport without attaching any conditions. The council now says that it has no further powers to control the operation of the airport. Indeed, Wiggins claims that the council has no further powers to control noise or pollution or to control flight times or flight patterns, and that there is an established use for 55,000 movements in and out of the airport each year.
Historically, the vast majority of those 55,000 movements were movements of Tiger Moths or today's equivalent—single-engine training aircraft—because there is a flying school there, movements of gliders and, more recently, a few substantial aircraft which came in on charter flights and with freight but in limited numbers. Wiggins is now claiming that, because a glider came in last year, it has a right to bring in a jumbo jet; indeed, 55,000 jumbo jets.
Wiggins publicly advertised that the airport is to be open 24 hours a day. It is therefore not surprising that local residents are extremely concerned, particularly in relation to noise and pollution. The local people are perfectly reasonable. They agree that a properly controlled airport at Manston would be a godsend for Thanet, particularly if it dealt largely with freight. That might bring in industry, and there is a serious unemployment problem in the area. But, as with all airports, environmental factors must be controlled. However, there seems to be nobody to control them except, possibly, the Secretary of State—to which I shall turn in a moment.

1473
Control can be effected by governing the numbers of landings and take-offs, the times of day when they take place—most major airports have a bar on landing or taking-off, except in emergencies, between midnight and 6 a.m.—and the type of aircraft. Older aircraft make more noise unless they are fitted with a "hush kit". Those will have to be supplied by the airport; the operators will not install them because they are more expensive. Apparently, one old Russian aircraft which currently lands in Manchester is known throughout Kent because it makes such an enormous amount of noise.
The Government have an obligation to establish that methods of control will be implemented. I conclude by suggesting, first, that the Ministry of Defence behaved irresponsibly in considering only the maximisation of the value of the land it is selling and not paying the slightest attention to either environmental factors or any kind of good neighbour policy. Secondly, perhaps the Minister can say whether the Thanet District Council now has or could have powers to impose any kind of restrictions? In particular, can it link restrictions of the kind I described to the granting of permissions; for example, for a new control tower which is needed or new hangars?
Finally, can the Minister indicate whether, if no other controls are available, the Secretary of State will step in and make an order under Section 5 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982?
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, not only for his powerful speech, but also for the thoughtful way in which he ranged across the United Kingdom and not simply in his own county of Suffolk.
We hear a great deal from government about integrated transport policies, national airport strategies, environmental issues—for example, noise and air pollution, congestion on the roads and in the air, environmental planning policies, economic development and environmental impact issues. Yet many policies remain to be published and government policies across Whitehall are creating rather than lessening tensions.
The specific point I want to address is co-ordination between government departments, in particular the Ministry of Defence and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Increasingly, throughout the United Kingdom, capital assets are being realised by the Ministry of Defence. That is even more critical since the Strategic Defence Review. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, ranged across the country and perhaps I too may be allowed to be parochial. I live in East Anglia and in my area the Royal Air Force Alconbury, which has already been mentioned in the debate, is actively under consideration for development. The Royal Air Force Wyton was recently declared a possible area for development. And, disturbingly, only yesterday I received from the Ministry of Defence in reply to a Written Question as to whether there were plans to relocate RAF logistics headquarters from its
1474
present site at RAF Brampton the answer that the MoD is currently looking at possible locations for its headquarters.
Those are three major Royal Air Force establishments within two or three miles of each other; two have runway facilities and the other is a logistics base. These issues are causing enormous problems locally. Again, as has been said in this debate, they are tearing apart local communities. There are tensions between the DETR—for example, about its airport strategic policy, which we have yet to see; environmental quality, about which we are continually reminded; housing needs (there is a great demand for more housing); and economic development. The MoD land agents are deeply involved with the detail of many of these projects but are not forthcoming in telling local people what is going on. It was only when I asked the question about Royal Air Force Brampton that I elicited the information that it is actively being considered for relocation.
There is tension also between the Civil Aviation Authority, whose licensing procedures act independently, the planning system, which is underpinned by guidelines which we know are being reconsidered, and the MoD, which wants the best possible return for its capital assets. The way in which it realises those assets is often in conflict with what is being said, often to the point of pontification, by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Then we have the Treasury, which has always pocketed the proceeds. That means that there is often no direct benefit to local communities and the infrastructure needed to support many of the projects is not forthcoming.
In East Anglia, if all government land and buildings were released and developed, the character of the eastern region and certainly the quality of life would change dramatically. If the Ministry of Defence proceeds are returned to the Treasury, as is the usual case, and the infrastructure is not provided to support large-scale development, the results may be extremely damaging.
There is a mismatch between many of the policies coming out of government or, worse, an absence of policy altogether in areas such as national guidelines, local planning policies, infrastructure needs, airports policy, capital receipts and their use. And the Ministry of Defence's policies versus those of the DETR is an issue that needs to be addressed. It would be helpful to know from the Minister how those two departments are talking to each other about the impact of one department's realising assets on the other, which is charged with concern for the quality for the environment.
In answer to the question posed in the Motion, I do not believe that current planning procedures respecting proposals for new commercial airports, or any other large scale developments, are adequate to take account of environmental issues. Today I have spoken to three planning officers and they say that they are in considerable difficulties about advising their local people what to do. My noble friend Lord Marlesford made the point that many local councils throughout the land feel threatened when they are told that if they do

1475
not vote in a particular way they may find themselves financially disadvantaged at a later date when funds could be sequestered should they be deemed to have voted against the project.
In less formal language, the plea that I wish to make and the point that I wish to address is for joined-up government in this area.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for giving us the opportunity to discuss new commercial airports, their environmental implications, planning, and local issues.
Too often we hear of industries merging, of plants closing and of the laying-off of staff. However, I cannot recall an incidence of that happening in terms of airports. Quite the reverse. Affluence and deregulation have done well by our airlines and their customers. In consequence, they and the airports have done well. Perhaps I may bracket both as the "aviation industry", as I did last July, and suggest that it is an outstandingly successful industry.
In airport terms, that success is across the board, be it the privately-owned heavyweights in BAA, other private operations such as the National Bus-owned Hurn airport at Bournemouth, or our municipal airports. In the context of the latter, I welcome the Government's relaxation of public sector borrowing controls in respect of soundly financed local authority projects. The success of Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle must benefit the community, the shipper and the traveller.
Where should we aim to go from here? What steps can we take to build on success? I believe that we should look at the airlines, be they scheduled or the new generation low cost or chartered airlines. With practically no subsidy for their operations, they identify demand and provide service on a commercial basis. I believe that a national airports policy would anticipate their requirements and thus customer wishes.
But there is an environmental price to pay. No one has mentioned Kyoto yet. It deserves an airing. We cannot overlook it. I sleep within 15 yards of the Bakerloo line and under a Heathrow approach, neither of which bother me much, but I appreciate that others have a much rougher time. Nonetheless, I believe that we must choose between more airports, which I am against, and greater utilisation of existing facilities, which I believe will find much sympathy among speakers in your Lordships' House.
I come down on the side of the latter. A number of airfields are potential airports. Those of the MoD have been mentioned and I believe that British Aerospace has at least half a dozen that could be developed from test airfields into commercial airports, but not yet. I would leave them unconverted; I would leave them in their present situation pro tem. I hope that a national policy will embrace them only at the far end of the 30-year view that is taken in the White Paper. Maybe that is a little too long.
Having argued for the best use of what we have, I accept that increased demand leads to what we do not have. I hope that we will encourage existing success by
1476
overhauling the planning regime—I believe that that is essential—not only to address the problems that other noble Lords have spoken about, but also to address the problems of exploiting what we already have. I hope that existing success will be encouraged.
I shall not rehearse all that was said on 21st January during the Question tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about Terminal 5, but I welcomed the trend in the Government's answers that day. Having taken the Kings Cross and other railway Bills on the Floor of this House, I believe that it is essential that the Government overhaul the planning regime, especially in respect of additional facilities rather than in respect of new airports.
I would also suggest that new infrastructure should not be looked at in purely airport terms. Access is an issue that must be addressed at all times—access for users and workers. We must not forget that much of the traffic at Heathrow is not as a result of the customers but the people who keep the airlines and the airport going.
The Heathrow Express, Manchester Airport's new station, the forthcoming Luton Airport station and the Tyne and Wear Metro's airport extension are all welcome developments. Would that the Heathrow Express served Hayes and Harlington, thus opening up access from Wales and the West of England and taking local traffic off the roads. Would that Stansted had an approach from the east, from East Anglia which might help to alleviate the needs of the Bentwaters development or anything similar. Would that Heathrow had a southern access from, say, Feltham. That was first mooted in the early 1960s and was then costed at £6 million, which is peanuts.
We cannot afford to follow the Scandinavian example of building new airports on greenfield sites, as has happened in Sweden and Norway, or on reclaimed land as in Copenhagen. Nor am I convinced, as some noble Lords have suggested, that we can follow the German plan of eliminating domestic flights in favour of surface transport. However, we can make the best use of what we have by simplifying the planning regime and by enhancing local and national access to airports by means of public transport. Those are two themes set out in the White Paper and they are objectives for the commission for integrated transport to pursue?
6.46 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I join with others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who I think may know the answer to his Question. There is a tinge of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" in the Question. "Is the Government satisfied that procedures take account of policy?". What policy?
One need only recall—to take one airport—what the inspector said at the time of the T4 inquiry, to which my noble friend, Baroness Ludford referred. At that time the Government accepted in 1979 that the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow should not go ahead. Recalling those statements one understands well the public's scepticism about the procedure and the value of undertakings given as part of them.

1477
As always, I have to declare an interest in Heathrow as a west London resident. I am well aware that arguing a particular local case does not aid the debate.
As noble Lords have said, the transport White Paper promises an airports' policy looking 30 years ahead. When will the 30 years start? Not only will we have to wait for the inspector's report on T5, but also for the Secretary of State's decision—in other words perhaps at least three years. I hope that the Minister can explain whether emerging proposals for airports, both relating to Heathrow and otherwise, can or should be put on hold. I include in the list Northolt Airport, to which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred, for which one option is as a feeder for Heathrow.
I fully support the Motion that airports and air transport policy should be integrated with other areas of transport policy and wider policies. That is a commonsense view and it is a view held by the public. I believe that the public's expectations and demands are increasing, particularly with regard to sustainability and environmental protection. One of the most serious aspects of the matter is the public's view of the difficulty of individuals making a difference, not just when dealing with a particular matter, a particular application, but also the process of creating the plan, the framework, in the first place. The concern to which noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred attaches to the application made by an organisation in the public sector, lack of transparency in those processes and the obligation on them to realise the best price. I support what the noble Baroness said on that. On this occasion she must be glad not to be in government in order to be able to say that.
It is a good idea in theory to have a plan-led system, but that requires a plan to be in place. One of the difficulties of the application for Alconbury, to which reference has been made, seems to be that the issue was not, as I understand it, considered within the Huntingdon local plan, so there was no proper analysis at the plan-making stage. In other words, it is not plan-led; it is developer-led, so it is difficult to set it in the context of, for instance, transport links, and particularly the now very full A.14. and still less to respond to it being a site which must be an obvious candidate for mixed development, including perhaps fulfilling some need for household growth.
Reference has been made to flying rights at Alconbury. Can the Minister confirm whether flying there will require a further application, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, suggested? An application such as Alconbury may be the biggest decision in any district councillor's career and unless there is a strategy in place we may be expecting decisions from people whom we have not adequately equipped to deal with them.
Integration with other policy areas is a need writ large over Heathrow. The inquiry there is taking years and I cannot possibly cover the issues in the seven minutes allowed to speakers tonight. However, perhaps I may touch on just a few. I refer first to the place of private funding. The Heathrow Express, so funded, disgorges passengers into the difficulties of Paddington without
1478
CrossRail and is to control its demand by pricing. There is also the role of the airport as a shopping centre—a big attribute of T5.
I turn next to noise and night flights. The White Paper recognises that the aviation industry imposes severe environmental costs which it should meet, but the Government do not seem to have struck the same balance in the current consultation paper on night flights. Dangerously, they do not seem to be taking the public with them in the exercise of consultation. There is a big credibility gap between research and the disturbance actually suffered. People know when their sleep is disturbed. They know that the effect of the number of movements as well as the amount of noise is relevant. The "them and us" reading is compounded by such things as redefining what is meant by "night" in order to make it shorter. Other airports have banned night flights without alarmist claims about huge amounts of business being lost or, like Schiphol, they give a weighting to night flights so that in their annual noise budget they count for more.
I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on current applications or consultation, but I hope that he can help the House on one general matter. I refer to the role of the Secretary of State, a matter on which I have written to him. The word on the street is that the current Secretary of State considers that decisions should, as often as possible, be left to local planning authorities and that he is resisting using Article 14 directions and calling in applications. I have a lot of sympathy with that although there are situations when intervention is appropriate. Has there been any change of policy or approach? If so, that should be known.
As has been said, the Government boast of their joined-up approach. I hope that they will soon join up the strands of their airports policy. A different department, MAFF, used to be reputed to defend agriculture with a disregard for public health, but now we are to have the food standards agency. I hope that the DETR will show that it is not an uncritical defender of the aviation industry, but also a defender of people's quality of life. I hope that we shall soon have passed the point when we hear, "Let us have an airports policy, but not yet".
6.53 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I have vivid boyhood memories—I think it was in 1942—of the arrival, first, of clearing equipment and then of construction equipment on five separate sites, all within close proximity to my home. Wartime airfields were constructed on a five-mile triangulation across the whole of the eastern counties wherever the terrain was in any way suitable. We should all be grateful to those who served over the years in the interests of the defence of this nation, first as a matter of survival and latterly as a matter of serious defence. I should welcome an assurance from the Minister that there are no possible residual defence considerations left which could justify continuing the maintenance of those airfields.
Almost all of those wartime airfields are long gone; most are almost completely removed. Those that have remained in use latterly have had very little impact on,

1479
or need for, the infrastructure. They were largely manned by Americans and everything was moved in and out by air. But a change of use could bring a dramatic change.
In his Unstarred Question, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asks really about the validity of the planning process. Long experience of that process leads me to say—I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for saying this—that one's satisfaction with the process is directly proportional to one's degree of agreement with its conclusions. There is simply no getting away from that. Planning is an extremely subjective matter. However, it is reasonable to suggest that in this situation, if it were not for the existence of the former wartime airfields, any planning application on any of those sites, either for airfield use or for residential use, would almost certainly be instantly rejected. I suggest that that is not perhaps an unreasonable starting point for consideration of this matter. Of course, such robust action would immediately lead to appeal—or possibly would have lead to a call-in by the Secretary of State because there would have been national policy implications. The Secretary of State wishes at present, quite properly, to get a high degree of local decision-making. But where is the national policy to guide those who are responsible for taking such decisions?
The Minister's predecessor said on 6th July 1998, at col. 956 of the Official Report:
"I hope that we can set a framework in the White Paper which will be published later this month on integrated transport policy".
The White Paper, published only a few days later, states:
"We will prepare a U.K. Airports policy looking some 30 years ahead… We will consult widely and will take account of the inspector's Report on the Heathrow Terminal 5 inquiry".
We have heard from many noble Lords tonight that that inquiry is continuing. I understand that the inspector will probably need two years to summarise the inquiry. Subsequently, the Minster will probably take another year to make up his mind on it. I do not want to go into the merits of that inquiry.
On the same day, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also said, at col. 957:
"our plans for regional planning guidance will ensure that in future a regional transport plan is included in regional planning guidance".
Can the Minister tell us where that regional planning guidance development has got to? It appears that the local authorities concerned with the applications have still not heard of it.
The planning process does not stop. It is already running. In both Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, structure and district plans are moving forward, driven by an assumption that the former military airfields are Brownfield sites, to be developed with the encouragement of the Secretary of State at the DETR. Is that a correct assumption? If it is not a correct assumption, where do we go? Moreover, if it is a correct assumption, has it been made to the exclusion of all other policy interests?
1480
These matters will be decided long before there is a national policy from the Government. Hence the policy, when it comes, will have to be made to fit the past rather than guide the future unless the Government take some action now. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for tabling this Question. It has revealed what appears to be a vacuum in the Government's thought on this matter as well as a lack of willingness to take action. That seems to be becoming a common feature as this Parliament develops.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for initiating this debate and to all noble Lords who have taken part. Indeed, they have shown a great deal of expertise in the field. I regret that part of my reply may appear unsatisfactory to some noble Lords, and I might as well make that confession at the beginning. That is partly because, in many of these areas, the quasi-judicial role of the Secretary of State means that the only line that I can possibly take is to say that, "I cannot possibly comment". However, I shall try as far as possible to pick up the points that have been made, but I am afraid that in relation to Terminal 5, and the individual planning situations, there is a role at the end of the process for the Secretary of State which I have to protect as I am his representative in this House.
The White Paper sets out some key general principles on airports policy, relating to integration with environmental policies, with regional development and with surface transport. It announced that we wished to develop an airports policy which would look 30 years ahead.
We are currently considering the precise scope and timing of that policy statement and will announce our conclusions in due course. But until the new national airports policy is in place, existing airports policies remain which we inherited largely from the previous government. They will remain valid and continue to do so until such time as they are changed or discontinued. In the meantime, development proposals involving civil airports will be considered in the first instance by local planning authorities, or, where appropriate, by planning inspectors and the Secretary of State. That will be in the light of existing airports and planning policies, including regional planning guidance to which reference has been made.
Preparing the new airports policy and following the principles set out in the transport White Paper will take time. It would not be possible to do this without taking account of the inspector's report on the Heathrow Terminal 5 inquiry. Noble Lords have quite correctly pointed out that there is an indication that the report may take two years to complete. In the meantime, we are still progressing with the existing airports policy.
I accept that there are problems with the situation, but for any development of airports policy it must be clear that an assessment of the traffic movements of the

1481
south-east is central and that the future or otherwise of Terminal 5 is central to the future allocation of such movements. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I did say that I did not wish to discuss the question of Terminal 5. However, I had always understood that, if there was justification for it, it would have nothing to do with the number of air transport movements; indeed, it would have everything to do with the increase in the size of aircraft.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is partly true. Obviously, changes in the size of aircraft would alter the situation that the inspector is considering. However, the results of that assessment must have profound implications for the siting and development of other airports within the south-east area. Indeed, the south-east area accounts for a large proportion of total air movements and, therefore, total airports development in the country as a whole.
Noble Lords will recognise that the inspector's report will therefore form an essential input to the development of a new airports policy. I believe that a number of speakers recognised that the process is unsatisfactory. We are considering modernising the planning procedures, especially for major national infrastructure. However, we are stuck with a position in relation to Terminal 5 where the airport has to follow current planning arrangements. We have to wait the outcome of that inquiry.
I move on to the actual and potential use of former MoD airfields. The Government consider that the local planning process, together with the extant planning and airports policy, provide an adequate framework for the consideration of planning applications for new commercial airports, whether or not they are on old MoD sites. From the planning point of view, a material change of use from a former military airport to that of civil airfield would normally require a planning application to the local planning authority under Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Such planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Account can also be taken of emerging development plans which are going through the statutory process.
PPG 13 advises that airport development is promoted by developers through the normal planning process. It recognises that airport development can bring economic benefits, but may also give rise to environmental and other concerns. The PPG advises that regional airports offer the opportunity to fly without the need for long surface journeys. It also advises that existing sites, including redundant military airfields and airfields, with established uses, will often present the best opportunities for providing acceptable facilities.
That is the existing position. In addition, we have a situation where the MoD is attempting to dispose of substantial parts of its land, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn pointed out. The Defence Estate exists solely to provide operational bases for our Armed Forces. It is Ministry of Defence and Government policy that the
1482
Defence Estate should not be any larger than that which is absolutely necessary to meet the operational needs of the Armed Forces. For that reason, early disposal of surplus property was identified as a priority within the recent Strategic Defence Review and within the CSR. A target of £700 million was set for receipts on Ministry of Defence land over the next four years.
It is MoD's usual policy to dispose of the freehold of surplus land on the open market by competition, with the benefit of planning permission. This is in accordance with guidelines issued by the Treasury, which have been extant for some time. However, a range of other methods may be used if professional advice indicates that such alternatives would produce a better value.
At the same time, negotiations with local planning authorities are normally undertaken by the MoD before a property is offered for sale and in the course of that sale. Indeed, it is crucial to establishing the development potential of all sites before they are offered for sale that an understanding with the local authority is established. In the current plan-led development environment, wherever possible MoD land is allocated in local and structure plans so as to optimise the planning potential and hence, from the MoD's point of view, the receipts from disposals.
Perhaps I may comment as far as I can on the individual sites which have been mentioned during the course of the debate. I shall begin with RAF Bentwaters, which is an area that I used to know well. When the American Air Force was in that area, and in various places around there, it was not just the "call of the curlew", as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, which broke the silence. It is clear that Bentwaters in particular is located in an area of outstanding natural beauty. On the other hand, it is also within a rural development area and the closure of that base did have a significant impact on the local economy. The local planning authority is keen to find a sustainable solution.
I should add that it would normally be inconsistent with the aims of designation as AONBs to permit the siting of major industrial or commercial development in such areas. Although it is appropriate for planning authorities to have regard to the economic and social well-being of those areas, only proven national interests and lack of alternative sites can normally justify an exception. Local planning authorities must take that into account in preparing their development plans.
I cannot comment in detail on the assertions of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, relating to contacts between council officers and potential developers. However, I understand that the planning application currently before Suffolk Coastal District Council for the change of use of Bentwaters essentially covers the former operational part of the airfield, and that the developers propose to convert existing buildings and to modify existing infrastructure rather than undertake any large scale new build. The application has been accompanied by an environmental statement. The council has informed the Government Office for the Eastern Region that the application could be referred to the Government Office under the terms of the Town and

1483
Country Planning Directions Act 1992. I understand that Suffolk Coastal District Council has requested that predictions of noise levels likely to occur above Aldeburgh Maltings will be taken into account. The applicants suggest that they will be prepared to enter an agreement with the council and with Snape Maltings to avoid certain kinds of operational activity when recording and other musical events are taking place.
As regards the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that the silence of the Government Office has been taken by the district council as indicating approval of the Bentwaters planning brief, that is not the case. As a matter of practice we do not comment on the content of statements placed before the local planning inspector. It is for the inspector to consider all the information before making his recommendations in a report to the district council. Therefore, if that has been asserted I wish to make it clear that that is not the case. That is where we stand in relation to Bentwaters.
As regards RAF Alconbury, that is a slightly different situation. The current proposals are different from those proposed for Bentwaters because the original application which included proposals for air freight has been withdrawn. If those proposals were to be reinstated—I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about this—a further application would be required. It is true that previously the draft regional strategy for East Anglia identified Alconbury as a possible site for the development of a regional base. The position on Alconbury at the moment, however, is that Huntingdon District Council is considering only a freight and surface transport base and not an airfield.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope the Minister can be more helpful on that point. My understanding is that the MoD is using the local planning system almost out of a sense of courtesy, and that there is not a requirement to do that because at Alconbury there is an existing use. I believe that the MoD should be required to submit at some later date an application for air freight activities. Is what has happened just a courtesy or a promise on the part of the developer; or is it genuinely a requirement under the law?
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I hope I may add a further point. I may be asking the same question slightly differently. Are military air movements transferable into the commercial sector?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, they are not covered by the same planning permissions. There is not an existing planning authority permission for military movements. Therefore, one cannot transfer one to the other in that sense. In any case there are no military movements from Alconbury at the moment. I hope I have answered the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, as I understand it the original proposition included provision for air freight. That was withdrawn. The current application does not include air freight. If it were given the go-ahead, it would require a new application if air freight were to be reinstated. We are not at that point. As far as I understand the position, Huntingdon District
1484
Council has not received any application relating to air freight. It would require a new application, were that to be the case.
With regard to RAF Manston, the position there is different again in that civil air transport has existed at Manston since 1965 and both the Isle of Thanet and Kent planning authorities are in favour of that development. We are not dealing with a single situation. The position is different in all those three sites, and I suspect that it is different in regard to the other sites too.
A number of noble Lords have referred to intervention by the Secretary of State and indeed have called for intervention by the Secretary of State. I say in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the policy has not changed in terms of intervention but we use the call-in power sparingly and exceptionally, as indeed did Secretaries of State under the previous government. The level of call-in is roughly the same as in the equivalent period before the election. But in this as in other areas we shall consider the role of the Secretary of State at the end of this process. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, also asked whether the Secretary of State would intervene in relation to noise levels. That is a complex area and I should be grateful if the noble Lord will allow me to write to him on that point.
I have gone over my allotted time, even allowing for the time spent on interventions. We believe that the planning process is essentially sound in that it allows local authorities—the democracy that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked for—to operate in the first instance. However, we believe that some substantial streamlining should be considered, particularly in relation to projects such as Terminal 5 which are of national infrastructure importance. As noble Lords will know, my honourable friend Dick Caborn is engaged in substantial consultation on the future of planning procedures in that and other areas.
As regards the specific Question that has been asked, we believe that the local planning process is a sensible one. We believe it could be improved. We have to wait for the outcome of the Terminal 5 inquiry before we can finalise any overall national airports policy. I trust noble Lords will understand that position. I trust noble Lords will also understand that as regards the specific questions that were raised, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister will need to reserve his position in case he is called upon in a quasi-judicial role at the end of that process.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, are the Government prepared to contemplate the possibility that before state-owned land, particularly military land, is disposed of, the environmental implications of what it might be used for will be considered in a disposal so that there is not the risk that developers think they will get permission for something, which they subsequently do not obtain and that that thought adds to the pressure for inappropriate environmental development?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have tried to indicate that as regards the MoD's approach to disposals—I trust this would apply to other state-owned land—while considering maximising its return on the land it should also engage with the local authority to indicate what the
1486
planning requirements ought to be in relation to development on that land. That would obviously include environmental issues, noise issues and also economic development issues.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past seven o'clock.

  Contraceptives: Free and Subsidised Provision
  Contraceptives: Free and Subsidised Provision
  Constitutional Reform
  Constitutional Reform
  Palace of Westminster: Works
  Palace of Westminster: Works
  Cambridge and London Universities: Air Squadrons
  Cambridge and London Universities: Air Squadrons
  Health Staff: Pay Recommendations
  Health Staff: Pay Recommendations
  Farmers: Family Credit
  Farmers: Family Credit
  Scotland: Public Sector Housing
  Scotland: Public Sector Housing
  Lingerbay, Harris: Superquarry Application
  Lingerbay, Harris: Superquarry Application
  Consolidation Bills
  Consolidation Bills
  Channel Islands: Fishery Enforcement Costs
  Channel Islands: Fishery Enforcement Costs
  Greater London Authority Building
  Greater London Authority Building
  The Construction Industry: Fatal Accidents
  The Construction Industry: Fatal Accidents
  Railway Bridges: Damage by Lorries
  Railway Bridges: Damage by Lorries
  Yugoslavia: Land Rovers for UNHCR
  Yugoslavia: Land Rovers for UNHCR
  Bosnia: Protective Clothing for EU Monitoring Mission
  Bosnia: Protective Clothing for EU Monitoring Mission
  European Union: Forthcoming Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Business
  Afghanistan: Arms Embargo
  Afghanistan: Arms Embargo
  Parole Board: Directions
  Parole Board: Directions
  Baggage: Searches
  Baggage: Searches
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Pharmaceutical Services: Expenditure Allocations
  Pharmaceutical Services: Expenditure Allocations
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Private Finance Initiative Hospital Development Programme
  Private Finance Initiative Hospital Development Programme