in the Chair]

I wish to inform the House that I held a meeting this morning with the Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) and for Mid—Ulster (Mr. McGuinness), at their request. I do not normally comment in public on meetings that I have with Members, but I think it appropriate to do so on this occasion, as the matter is of general interest to the House. The Members concerned made representations to me about the restrictions on the use of House of Commons services and facilities at Westminster that apply to Members who do not take their seats.

Having listened carefully to their representations, I reaffirmed my decision of 14 May that those who choose not to take their seats should not have access to the benefits and facilities available in the House without also taking up their responsibilities as Members and participating in the democratic process. I reminded them that, as Speaker, I am bound by the law. Swearing the Oath, or affirming it, is a legal requirement that cannot be set aside by whim or any administrative action. Primary legislation would be needed to change the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 or the form of the Oath. I told them that it was their refusal to swear or affirm that prevented them from taking their seats, not any action by the Speaker.

I pointed out that my decision does not discriminate against Sinn Fein: it applies equally to any Members not taking their seats for any reason. Those who do not take up their democratic responsibilities cannot have access to the facilities at Westminster that are made available to assist Members who do. I declined to allow those Members passes to the Palace of Westminster, because that would provide automatic access to many of the facilities not open to them. I told them that they were in effect asking for associate membership of this House. Such a status does not exist. There is no halfway house: they are part of the all. I reminded them that they are allowed, of course, the use of free stationery and postage, which enables them to take up issues on behalf of their constituents, and they also have access to Ministers, as we all have.

May I ask you a question arising from your statement, Madam Speaker? I appreciate the authority of the Chair, but I put it to you that, in May, the proceedings of the House were completely altered by your statement then, because the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) was previously a Member of Parliament under the rules which would have allowed him to take advantage of the facilities of the House.

The effect of the law to which you referred—the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866—is to deny people who have elected a Member of Parliament a Member who is able to use the House, and to deny us access to the views of Members who have been elected. The whole question of the Oath needs to be considered. At one time, Jews, Catholics and humanists were kept out of Parliament. There is no oath for the European Parliament. Privy Councillors take an Oath of obedience to the Queen, and then take contrary oaths when they go to the Commission and say that they take no notice of any other Government. The time has come for the matter to be looked at.

Finally, Madam Speaker, will you recognise that even your statement today is of such major constitutional importance that you would be helped if the House had a chance to debate it and to reach a decision, rather than rely solely on a statement made from the Chair?

I am not taking questions on my statement—I am simply reaffirming what I said in May. I met the two Members at their request, and it is right that I should tell the House factually about the exchanges that took place. If there are to be any changes to the Oath, that is not a matter for me. I am sure that the House has listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—I certainly have.

With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement.

As people approach old age, many become anxious about how they will be looked after, how much it will cost and who will pay. At the general election, we promised that we would establish a royal commission to work out a fair system of funding long-term care for the elderly. Today, I can announce that the Queen has agreed to the setting up of the royal commission, whose terms of reference will encompass the United Kingdom as a whole. The new Government are keeping yet another of their election promises.

The royal commission is to be chaired by Professor Sir Stewart Sutherland, principal and vice-chancellor of Edinburgh university. I am confident that he will bring to the commission the skills and experience necessary to ensure rapid and vigorous scrutiny of the issues involved and practical cost-effective proposals to deal with them.

Sir Stewart will be joined by 11 other commissioners: Professor Dame June Clark, professor of community nursing at the university of Swansea; Sir Nicholas Goodison, deputy chairman of the Lloyds TSB Group and former chairman of the stock exchange; Dr. Iona Heath, a GP in Kentish town who represents the Royal College of General Practitioners on the British Geriatrics Society; Joel Joffe, a human rights lawyer, founder director and former deputy chairman of Allied Dunbar Assurance and chairman of Oxfam; David Lipsey, political editor ofThe Economist and a public interest director on the Personal Investment Authority; Professor Mary Marshall, director of the dementia services centre at the university of Stirling; Claire Rayner, writer, broadcaster and president of the Patients Association and a former nurse; Paula Ridley, the chair of the Liverpool housing action trust; Professor Robert Stout, professor of geriatric medicine at Queen's university Belfast; Robin Wendt, the former secretary of the Association of County Councils and a former civil servant at the then Department of Health and Social Security; and Len Woodley QC, a recorder who chaired the Laudat Mental Health Act inquiry.

Briefly, the commission's terms of reference will be to examine the short and long-term options for a sustainable system of funding of long-term care for elderly people, both in their own homes and in other settings, and to recommend how, and in what circumstances, the cost of such care should be apportioned between public funds and individuals. I have placed the full terms of reference in the Library of the House.

The commission will consider the implications of its recommendations for younger people who have long-term care needs because of illness or disability, and will have regard to the Government's continuing review of pensions.

The Government want both sound and swift advice, so the commission has been asked to report within 12 months—thus it will be different from previous royal commissions. This royal commission will be different from its predecessors in other ways, too. In the past, some royal commissions have included representatives of pressure groups that were involved in the topics to be covered. This one does not. The commissioners are not supposed to be representatives. They are there to take a fresh look. However, pressure groups and representatives of users and carers should have their say, so the commission will establish a reference group of organisations to help to gather views and receive advice.

The chairman of the commission is today inviting a range of organisations to serve on that reference group. It will include charities and other groups that are involved in long-term care, the financial services sector, the health service, local government and other service providers, together with representatives of the major religious faiths in the United Kingdom. By that means, the commission will be able to draw on the most up-to-date experience of users and carers.

The commissioners will make visits throughout the country to listen to other users and carers. They plan to be "out and about," so that they can really get the full flavour of the current concerns in different parts of the country.

The task of this royal commission is neither simple nor easy, but it is important. The present situation cannot go on much longer. People are entitled to security and dignity in their old age, so we must find a way in which to fund long-term care which is fair and affordable both for the individual and for the taxpayer. With the independent advice of the royal commission, I hope that we shall be able to establish a consensus from which we can fashion a sustainable system of long-term care that will meet the needs of elderly people well into the new century.

This is a very serious problem; a long lead time is required to do anything through policy changes. Before the election, the Labour party was critical of the means test and of people being forced to sell their homes, but its only policy was to set up a royal commission. I am concerned about the use of a royal commission. It is usually a way of kicking things into the long grass for a long time.

Will the Secretary of State assure us that he will ensure that it sticks to the 12-month timetable, unlike the previous royal commission that was set up by a Labour Government, which was asked in the 1970s to examine the health service, and which succeeded in reporting two months after Labour had lost the 1979 general election—although, if that sequence of events is followed this time, we shall be happy to wait five years for it?

We also need a cast-iron guarantee on the timetable because of the Department of Health's failure to meet its timetable on the White Paper, which we expected in September, were told we would get in October and were promised in November. Will the Secretary of State assure us that we shall have it before Christmas? Is it true that the Prime Minister is so dissatisfied with the White Paper that he has taken over the drafting? Does that mean that the Secretary of State will be overruled on this, as he was on the formula one exemption? Will he assure us that his Department will not make as big a shambles of this as it has of the tobacco advertising directive? Today, his party's proposals have been contemptuously rejected at a meeting in Brussels, where he has succeeded in putting a new blocking minority in place.

Anyone who fought the election knows how important long-term residential care is for the elderly. People feel that it is desperately unfair that the present system often requires them to sell their homes before they qualify for public funding, but we all know that, without a means test, public spending would soar, and, with an aging population, the problem is getting worse.

During the previous Parliament, the previous Government raised the means test threshold substantially and, in May 1996, they published a White Paper entitled "A New Partnership for Care in Old Age". We proposed a partnership scheme to encourage people to take out insurance, enabling them to protect an additional £1·50 of assets for each £1 of insurance. Our Community Care (Residential Charges) Bill would have achieved that.

As the royal commission will take some time to report, will the Secretary of State consider bringing that Bill back before the House as a Government Bill, because it would give relief to many elderly people who will not be able to afford to wait for the royal commission to report? Will he ensure that the Bill's proposals are put before the royal commission?

We know that about 5 per cent. of 75 to 85-year-olds and 20 per cent. of people aged over 85 go into care for an average of about three years, at an average cost of £15,000 to £20,000. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is a clearly insurable risk, and that the solution in the long term must lie, at least in part, in greater private provision, via increased saving through pensions or life insurance, or some similar arrangement? Will he ensure that the royal commission examines how private savings might help to finance long-term care for the elderly, whether such provision should become a required part of people's pension packages, and, if so, how that might be encouraged?

Saving against the possibility of requiring long-term care through a working lifetime is feasible for a great many people, but it will take a generation to have a noticeable effect. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need schemes now that will enable more people to bear the costs of their care, while protecting their assets from the means test? Will he ensure that the royal commission looks carefully into possible ways to achieve that?

Will the right hon. Gentleman also ensure that the royal commission looks objectively at the relative merits of local authority and private sector provision and, in particular, at the way in which such competition is often stacked by local authorities in their own favour? Is he aware that several Labour-controlled local authorities are flying in the face of the law by giving active preference to their own homes? Will he ensure that the royal commission considers our proposals to separate the functions of commissioning care, providing care and acting as the inspector of private care homes? Does he agree that it is not right for all those functions to be in the same hands?

Finally, will the Secretary of State give the royal commission an honest estimate of the additional cost of running such homes that will arise from the imposition of a minimum wage?

The chairman of the royal commission has been asked to complete the work of the commission within 12 months, and has said that he will. I have a suspicion that he will convince the other members of the commission that they had better do what he wants, so I am confident that, subject to the usual caveats, they will do it within 12 months. I am not prepared to speculate on the conclusions that they may come to. There would be no point in appointing a group as distinguished and independent-minded as these people are, if I were to lay down the law as to what they could conclude before they had even met. We were used to the Tories as a Government of know-alls, and it appears that they are now the Opposition of know-alls and they want to tell the royal commission what to conclude. That is not our approach, even if it is that of the Tories.

We and older people in this country want a properly thought-out system—not a few spatchcocked arrangements— that will work to their advantage, will stay in place and will preferably commend the consensus support of all parties and thinking people at the end of the process. That is what we are aiming to do.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the question to be addressed by the royal commission is not whether we can afford adequate long-term care, but how it is paid for? Does he share the view of the Select Committee on Health that we do not face a demographic time bomb that requires panic measures? Does he also share the view of that Committee that nursing care is a function of the health service and ought to be provided free, no matter what setting it is provided in?

Again—forgive me for my laryngitis or whatever it is, Madam Speaker—my hon. Friend is certainly right to say that the question that has to be addressed is how we put in place arrangements for looking after elderly people properly. I am sure that that is what everyone wants. As for the demographic time bomb, it is worth pointing out that we expect an increase in the number of the very old of about 100,000 in the next decade, whereas that number has increased by 300,000 in the past decade. Therefore, in some senses at least, if one describes the next decade as the immediate future, the pressures will be declining rather than increasing. The object must be to ensure that all those who are growing old are looked after properly whatever their incomes, wherever they live and whatever their circumstances.

As distinct from the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, I welcome the creation of the royal commission and will not take issue with the Secretary of State today on matters that have nothing to do with his announcement.

First, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the commission is to consider long-term care for the elderly alone, or whether that is intended to include the care of other members of society, such as people with disabilities and the frail, who are also in need of such care? Secondly, will he say that the commission has been asked to study the needs both of present pensioners, who are in an established position in terms of what they expect, and of those who will become pensioners, as the two groups are in different situations?

Thirdly, and very important, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Commission pays particular attention to those who are being looked after at home?

That raises issues not only of domiciliary care and carers, but of the provision of care local to home. Take a constituency such as mine: many of the places to which one can go for care are in Eastbourne, which is hardly any good to someone who wants to stay with family in south London. The situation is the same in many other parts of the country.

Fourthly, will the commission have a remit to look into issues of prevention, rehabilitation and medication, which are relevant to how people can best be looked after? Is the commission to have the responsibility of ensuring that the quality of care is assured? I have been to many places that allegedly give care, but are more than grim and basically consign people to a live of inactivity—dead ends, which have nothing to do with care, loving support or attention.

Finally, I want to pick up on the question asked by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin). Will the Secretary of State make it absolutely clear that, among the options that the commission may put forward, it will be able to include the option that either national health service care or all care should be publicly funded? Will he make it clear that there will be no assumption on anyone's part—not least that of the Government—that all future care for the elderly will have to be privately funded through private insurers? Unlike the Tories, we do not think that that is an automatic solution to everything.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his general welcome. I thought that I had made it clear in my statement that, although the royal commission will focus on long-term care of the elderly, it will bear in mind the impact of any propositions that it puts forward or principles that it enunciates on other, younger people who are in need of long-term care. The commission will certainly address the needs of present pensioners and, even more certain, it will address the needs of those who, like everyone in the Chamber, have every intention of becoming a pensioner. We also want it to look at care provided either in people's homes or outside. That applies to local services that can make it possible for people to live in their own home, provided that it is just down the road and is of decent quality.

On the issues of health care and prevention, at least four people on the commission are professional experts in geriatric care and are concerned not only about the generality of provision, but about the quality of provision. I am sure that they will go into those issues. The question of funding remains open: we want the advice of these people of intelligence, who have knowledge of various spheres. It is fairly likely that, in the end, there will be a proposition that some of the funding should be paid by the individual and some by the taxpayer. I am not telling the members of the commission that they should come to that conclusion, but I would be amazed if they did not.

May I, too, give a fairly cautious welcome—but a welcome nevertheless—to the setting up of the royal commission? There are some knotty problems to be sorted out and, as long as the commission's work is not distorted into deciding how to design private insurance schemes, it might well be a valuable exercise. In the meantime, does my right hon. Friend accept the principle that there should be national standard setting and registration of those who go into people's homes to give domiciliary care? That is not currently regulated. Surely those who are vulnerable are entitled to that protection.

I can give my hon. Friend the guarantees that she requires. We have already made it clear that we intend to put in place a national setting of standards and a national enforcing of standards for domiciliary care. That will be spelled out in a White Paper, to be published next year, before the royal commission has reported.

The Secretary of State is right to recognise that the way in which we are enabled to provide for ourselves in old age is one of the great challenges of our generation. Therefore, we welcome his announcement to that extent.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise also that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently made a series of attacks on pensions and seems to threaten a series of further attacks on savings? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the royal commission's recommendations are borne carefully in mind by the Chancellor before he makes any such further attacks, lest he should weaken the opportunity of individuals to care for themselves, which the right hon. Gentleman clearly recognises is one of the solutions to a difficult problem?

I have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has attacked pensioners by giving them extra money for this Christmas. He has attacked them also by reducing the rate of value added tax on fuel. I cannot tell the royal commission what to do, and when it reports, I have no doubt that its findings will have an impact on what the Government do. If we are really fortunate, its report may influence even the Opposition's thinking.

May I commend my right hon. Friend's statement, as will 20,000 elderly residents in my constituency? May I urge the royal commission to pay particular attention to the essential component of consulting both public and private providers of housing? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to consider transitional arrangements until any recommendations that the commission may make are put into place, which could be three or four years away?

The royal commission will be putting in place, at my request, a great deal of machinery for consulting people in both the private and public sectors as well as the voluntary sector. I cannot give my hon. Friend any guarantees about putting temporary arrangements in place, because I do not know what the commission will recommend. As I have said, we believe that the present situation is so unsatisfactory that it cannot be allowed to continue for much longer.

Everyone recognises the importance of new policies and actions to deal with the new challenges that we face in these areas in the years ahead. However, there is often wide suspicion that setting up a royal commission is a means of procrastinating instead of introducing policies and actions. Can the Secretary of State possibly justify spending seven months setting up a royal commission and then asking it to report within 12 months? How can he possibly justify such a delay in setting up the commission? Given this further example of dither and delay on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, will he give an assurance that when the commission reports, he will demonstrate much more urgency than he has shown in setting it up?

I shall quote some figures. We had 18 years of the Tories doing nothing, and within seven months the Labour Government have recruited an extremely distinguished group, led by an extremely distinguished chairman, who is happy with the proposition that the work should be done within 12 months. If the work is done within 12 months, that will be 18 times better than that which the Tories did.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the constant problems of Members of this place is dealing with the complaints that we receive from our constituents whose relatives are residing in residential homes that are not run as well as they should be? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that that is a likely area to be examined, given that there is a distinction between homes that are controlled by the local authority and inspected by it and those that are controlled and inspected by the health authority, where there is no democracy?

It is my experience that I can cause inspections to be carried out much more quickly when the local authority has accountability and there is democracy than I can when the home comes under the health authority, where those responsible are either indirectly elected or not elected at all. Will the royal commission's attention be drawn to that matter, so that we can assure people in future that we in this place will be able to take up their complaints in a proper manner?

I can give my hon. Friend the guarantee that he requires. We are determined to improve the regulation of provision for old people in residential homes, whoever provides those homes, because it is not satisfactory at the moment. I shall go further and say that, because we are dissatisfied with the treatment of some old people in general hospitals, I have asked the Health Advisory Service to produce a report on the treatment of elderly people in general hospitals. The situation is simply not satisfactory, and must be changed.

I wish the commission well. Will the Secretary of State ask it to look urgently at the nightmare in Essex and some other places, whereby a huge amount of public money is wasted and a great deal of distress is caused within families because of people being retained in hospital beds for the simple reason that local authorities cannot afford to fund retirement homes? Will he ask the commission to look at that serious problem, which also existed under the previous Government, and, perhaps, consider whether the remedy might be to transfer the responsibility for paying for homes from local authorities to health authorities?

I agree that the situation is unsatisfactory. Beds in general hospitals are occupied by people who would be better off, safer, more secure and healthier at home. We took considerable steps over the summer—in preparation for this winter—to try to make it easier to get people back into their own homes or other residential care. Some of the additional £300 million that we have given to the national health service for this winter will be spent on social services. I made it clear that no one would get any of that money unless they had a joint programme with their local social services department to stop old people being taken into hospital unnecessarily or staying too long in hospital unnecessarily.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. The timetable that he has set the commission is indeed tight, but is not one reason why we are having a royal commission the political dogma of the Conservatives when they were in government? They would not let local authorities keep homes that provided good accommodation and services, and they pushed everything into the private sector and caused a great deal of concern among elderly people.

There is a great deal of truth in what my hon. Friend said.

I personally, from the Conservative Benches, warmly welcome the Secretary of State's announcement. It brings the prospect of an end to the grotesquely unfair situation today, in which many elderly people who have worked hard during their lives, who have saved and been wise and thrifty, have to spend all their savings—sometimes including the asset of their own home—on paying for residential care. That is grotesquely unfair and causes a great deal of resentment.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the very talented people whom he has appointed to the commission. Professor Robert Stout, from Belfast, is a man for whom I have great regard, and Robin Wendt was not only the secretary of the Association of County Councils but chief executive of Cheshire county council. Will the Secretary of State give me an assurance that when the royal commission reports to him and to the House, legislation will very quickly follow?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome and for his very appropriate but generous comments about the members of the royal commission, who, indeed, are very distinguished. I cannot give him a guarantee that legislation will immediately follow. He is an older hand than me, and he will know that I cannot guarantee parliamentary time, but I can say that my statement was made on behalf of the whole Government, and we believe that the present situation cannot be allowed to continue for much longer.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Is he aware of the fact that many social services departments are now under such pressure that they do not make assessments if they feel that they will be unable to meet the need? The Select Committee on Health intends to produce its report on the relationship between health and social services during the current Session. The timing of that report will ensure that it is available to the commission that he has announced. I hope that he will do his best to ensure that the commission is ready to take advantage of that thorough study of the way in which the structures could help to provide for the part of the service that should remain in public hands.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He draws on a vast depth of experience in those matters. I am sure that the royal commission will welcome the report of the Select Committee on Health as soon as it is available.

May I say in passing that one of the right hon. Gentleman's political knockabout lines was extremely unfair to the dedicated civil servants in his Department? I know from first-hand experience that they have worked hard on long-term care.

Last winter, the previous Government made a number of announcements on regulation, registration and improvements on the split between residential homes and nursing homes. The Labour party, which was then in opposition, warmly welcomed some of those moves. Why is a White Paper required next year, given that time could be made up by going ahead with some of the proposals that the Labour party welcomed?

I made it clear in reply to what was purported to be the Opposition's official response to my statement that we want a well thought out, comprehensive proposal, and not merely odd bits and pieces introduced as and when. We shall produce a White Paper that will spell out our comprehensive response on certain aspects. I expect the royal commission to do a good job, and we shall carefully consider its report. We are under an obligation to do something about this problem, which has gone on for far too long. It certainly went on for a long time under the previous Government, who may have made proposals, but they never got round to doing anything about them.

As a member of the last royal commission to be established by a Labour Government, may I say how much I welcome the announcement of this royal commission? I particularly welcome the speed with which it is to report. The commission of which I was a member spent three years working on its report. I remember the chairman saying that it would be different from all the others because it would not gather dust. That report had the misfortune to fall on the desk of an incoming Tory Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if that Government had acted on the report's recommendations, the NHS would not be in the mess that it is in today?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I shall say no more, because I need to save my voice.

I know that the Secretary of State is aware of the difficulties that occur between health services and social services, especially when it comes to care of the elderly. Will he give us an assurance that the commission will examine ways of forging permanent links between health services and community health services, because that is where the delay occurs?

I confirm that the commission will examine that issue. At the risk of falling foul of you, Madam Speaker, I predict that our forthcoming White Paper on the national health service will emphasise the importance of that issue, as will the other White Paper to which I referred.

In warmly welcoming the Secretary of State's announcement and in deploring the rather churlish and mean-minded response by the official Opposition, which shows that they have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing, may I invite my right hon. Friend to ask the commission to consider that the founding premise, indeed promise, of the national health service—our insurance system of cradle-to-grave protection—has never, through its 50 years, been properly financed? In particular, the refusal of the previous Government to oblige all citizens to pay their fair share of inter-solidarity support has undermined it.

Can he assure me that the commission will look at collective provision, tax provision, mutual provision, compulsory insurance provision, such as exists for motor cars, and voluntary private provision? Finance is the key, and it must provide the answer. Labour can provide that answer, but the previous Government, because of their hatred of the NHS and local authority provision, refused to tackle the problem.

I cannot guarantee what the royal commission's recommendations will be, but I can guarantee that it will examine all the options to which my hon. Friend refers.

Does not the Secretary of State realise that his statement will be cold comfort to one of my constituents who, at the general election, was reduced to tears at the prospect of having to sell her home to pay for residential care? Does not he realise that the Prime Minister used exactly that kind of example at the general election and said that he would do something about it? A scheme based on partnership funding through insurance was available. The Secretary of State has said nothing to show why it is not necessary and desirable to proceed with exactly that kind of scheme, which would provide assets for long-term care and give hope to people in that situation. He took seven months to initiate the commission and is allowing 12 months for it to sit. Heaven knows how long the Secretary of State will take to act.

All I can say is that the old people in the hon. Gentleman's area and in the rest of the country will not be impressed by a Tory party that apparently thinks that it can carry conviction when it shifts from being Genghis Khan to Mother Teresa in the space of seven months.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. While he is wise not to seek to prejudge the royal commission's conclusions, will he put it on the record that the terms of reference allow a thorough study of the private insurance and personal provision options? Will he take this opportunity—one that he has not been afforded to date—to acknowledge that much of what is already provided by the public and private sectors is admirable and that those who provide it should be congratulated? Does he accept that I genuinely hope that he shortly recovers from laryngitis, because we on the Conservative Benches wish him a long, healthy and happy retirement from the Front Bench?

I can guarantee few things in this world, but I can guarantee that the royal commission will look at all the options that have been mentioned and perhaps many more. I certainly pay tribute to the quality of care and treatment that are provided for the majority of old people. Sadly, not all are in that majority. There are failings, and the present regulatory system has been quite unsatisfactory for a long time. We are sorting it out before the royal commission reports.

I am sure that anyone who has had to work within the present muddle of continuing care will welcome the statement. Will the royal commission also consider day care and its quality and funding as part of the continuing care package?

I can guarantee that it is imperative that the commission looks at all aspects of care. Most people would rather stay in their own homes, where they have lived for donkeys' years and where they feel comfortable and know the neighbours, than have to be moved out because they are no longer capable of being sustained at home. The ambition of all hon. Members is to stay in their own homes, and that is what most other people want. We must provide services to people's homes and perhaps local services that they can just about toddle out to, provided crime and disorder are not at such a level that they are frightened to do that. That is a major consideration for old people. We must improve the quality and availability of those services. I expect, but I cannot guarantee, that the royal commission will make recommendations on those lines.

With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the business for next week.

MONDAY 8 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Government of Wales Bill.

TUESDAY 9 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Government of Wales Bill.

At 10 pm, the House will be asked to agree the winter supplementary estimates, the votes on account and supplementary defence vote A.

Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

WEDNESDAY 10 DECEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Remaining stages of the Social Security Bill.

THURSDAY 11 DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.

FRIDAY 12 DECEMBER—Private Members' Bills.

The provisional business for the following week is as follows.

MONDAY 15 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill.

TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the National Minimum Wage Bill.

WEDNESDAY 17 DECEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three-hour pre-recess debate.

Until 7 pm, there will be a debate on the common fisheries policy, on a Government motion.

Progress in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.

THURSDAY 18 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Public Processions etc (Northern Ireland) Bill[Lords].

FRIDAY 19 DECEMBER—Debate on welfare to work on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

MONDAY 22 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the School Standards and Framework Bill.

The House will rise for the Christmas recess.

The House will also wish to be reminded that on Tuesday 9 December there will be a debate on Agenda 2000: structural and cohesion policy, in European Standing Committee B.

On Wednesday 10 December, there will be a debate on Agenda 2000: reform of the common agricultural policy, in European Standing Committee A; and a debate on Agenda 2000: a new financial framework, in European Standing Committee B.

Details of the relevant documents will be given in theOfficial Report.

[Tuesday 9 December:

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 9984/97, Agenda 2000: Structural and Cohesion Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-vi (1997–98).

wednesday 10 December:

European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 9984/97, Agenda 2000: Reform of the CAP. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-vi (1997–98).

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 9984/97, Agenda 2000, New Financial Framework. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-vi (1997–98).]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement. I also thank her for arranging that there should be no Government statement on last Monday's Opposition day.

I note that the right hon. Lady announced provisional business for Monday 22 December. As she knows, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) expressed concerns last week, which I share, about the necessity for making the House sit on that day, causing unexpected inconvenience for those who serve the House. However, a debate on educational matters would put the day to good use, although I note that it is only provisional at this stage.

I should be grateful for information from the right hon. Lady on her proposals for handling the Welsh and Scottish devolution Bills. As she knows, the Opposition feel strongly that all stages should be taken on the Floor of the House, as they are self-evidently Bills of major constitutional importance. She has mentioned some ideas to me on the matter, and I should be grateful if she would tell the House where matters stand.

I think that the right hon. Lady was present in the House yesterday for the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who pointed out that journalists had been faxed at 3.55 pm full information on the statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Scottish Grand Committee at 4.30 pm. She will also recall that yesterday I complained to her and to you, Madam Speaker, that Opposition Members read on Ceefax that there was to be a Government statement on BSE, some 20 minutes before the Government told us about the statement.

The Government persist in treating the House, its procedures and its Members with contempt. We know that the Government have a large majority, but that should mean that they respect parliamentary democracy, not that they despise it. I continue to be saddened by the fact that the right hon. Lady does not answer straight questions on such matters from me and from others and that, unlike her distinguished predecessors, she seems to see her role as defender of the Government and not defender of the House and the interests of its Members. I hope that this afternoon the right hon. Lady will address those points and the others that I intend to raise.

Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a statement by the Paymaster General on individual savings accounts? He should have made his announcement on Tuesday to the House rather than outside it. Had he done so, he might have been able to give some helpful advice on avoiding tax to the nearly 1 million savers with savings of more than £50,000 who will be worse off as a result of his proposals. I am sure that all those savers will have been interested to hear themselves described as rich by someone who has his savings safely locked up in a £12 million offshore trust.

Will the right hon. Lady please explain to the House why the Secretary of State for Social Security is the only such Secretary of State in the past 10 years not to have bothered to make the social security uprating statement to the House? Was it because she was too busy; was it because she could not quite manage the detail; or is she merely discourteous? We should be told.

I thank the right hon. Lady for the compliments at the beginning of her comments. As I said to her hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) last week, we will try to avoid statements on Opposition days, but, as she knows from the previous Administration, sometimes situations arise in which that is unavoidable.

I am glad that the right hon. Lady thinks that we are putting Monday 22 December to good use. As she said, the business is provisional, but I do not expect it to change.

The right hon. Lady asked about the handling of the Wales and Scotland Bills. I cannot yet say anything about the Scotland Bill because it has yet to be published and we have had no discussions with the Conservative party or any other party about its handling. I said last week that we would consult other parties in the House on the handling of the Government of Wales Bill and we have done so. That is one reason why we are now providing two days for its Second Reading debate next week.

Many people in the House have strong views. The right hon. Lady has outlined her strong view that the entire Bill, in all its stages, should be completed on the Floor of the House. Others have equally strong views that better scrutiny would be achieved by using the procedure adopted for the Finance Bill and splitting consideration between Committee of the whole House and a Standing Committee, taking points of principle on the Floor and the detail upstairs.

The majority view expressed to us is that the Committee stage of the Bill should be split and that that would achieve better-quality legislation. We intend to hold discussions with other parties about how that might be achieved and what issues need to be discussed on the Floor of the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will tell the House at the opening of the Second Reading debate on Monday how we intend to proceed.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the social security statement that was made on Tuesday. Usually, such a statement is made at the time of the Budget. This year, because the Budget was at a different time, different arrangements were made. It was appropriate for a junior Minister to make that statement. He was available to make that statement on Tuesday, the day on which we thought it appropriate for the statement to be made.

The right hon. Lady also mentioned the short notice given of the statement on BSE made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday. I know from speaking to her that she understands the difficulties that can arise with that particularly difficult issue and that she understands why decisions sometimes have to be made late in the day if information becomes available, as it did yesterday.

I thank the right hon. Lady for mentioning the point of order raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). I, too, was concerned—as I know you were, Madam Speaker—by the events that he related to the House. Somehow, however, he got his facts wrong. The information that the journalist showed to him at 3.55 pm had been available to every Member since 3.30 pm—when it was distributed as a parliamentary answer and was therefore in the public domain.

On ISAs, the Chancellor intends to include enabling legislation in next spring's Finance Bill. I remind the right hon. Lady that one of her noble Friends in another place said that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General has acted as Ministers in the previous Administration had.

We are to discuss the remaining stages of the Social Security Bill on Wednesday. Even at this late stage, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will explain to Ministers how much many hon. Members hope that the Government's policy on single mothers can be changed. We do not want to be facing an undoubted dilemma. Speaking for myself, I will be faced with such a dilemma. Therefore, I trust that, even at this late stage, it will be possible for Social Security and Treasury Ministers to reconsider, and to consider the feelings of a good number of hon. Members.

As my hon. Friend knows—he is a regular attender in the Chamber and will have heard most of the exchanges in recent weeks—the simple fact is that we inherited a difficult situation and have had to make very difficult decisions. One thing is clear: under Conservative Governments, lone parents never had a choice, because training, child care and employment opportunities were not available. That is why the Government have set in train the mechanism to ensure that such a choice is a reality.

I thank the Leader of the House for acceding to some requests for minor changes in provisional business. It will help not only Liberal Democrat Members but those in other parties. Specifically, I thank her sincerely for affording two full days for the Second Reading of the Government of Wales Bill. It will be very helpful and much appreciated.

May I press the right hon. Lady on how the Bill will be handled thereafter? Does she accept that there seems to be a strong consensus on both sides of the House—which was represented fairly by the majority view in her Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons—that sensible programming at the outset of the Bill's Committee stage on the Floor of the House, followed by a sensible programme of detailed consideration in Committee upstairs of its specific points and schedules, would be a much better, mature and more intelligent way of dealing with it than to impose a guillotine halfway through its passage, with inadequate consideration in some of its latter stages?

Will the Leader of the House explain the apparent confusion over the Government's response to our request for an inquiry into BSE? Yesterday, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the Prime Minister said that no decision had been taken. This morning, No. 10 Downing street briefed the press that a decision that there would be an inquiry had been taken in principle, and that it was simply a question of what type of inquiry would be held. This afternoon, a Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said that no decision had been taken. Is she aware that there is not only confusion over the matter but pent-up anger on both sides of the House, represented by early-day motion 413?

[That this House welcomes the confirmation of the President of the Council that the Government is actively considering the case for a judicial inquiry into the decade of mishandling of BSE; and urges its early establishment to reassure both farmers and consumers that objective lessons have been learnt from this catalogue of disaster.]

The motion has been signed by hon. Members of all parties and urges that it is time to get on with the job, so that we can learn the lessons.

Will the Leader of the House give the House an undertaking that early-day motion 451—a humble prayer to the sovereign to have the council tax benefit regulations re-examined—will be discussed fully on the Floor of the House? That motion also expresses cross-party concerns and requires urgent attention in the House.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his earlier remarks. I announce business provisionally in the hope that it will not be changed, but also with a willingness to listen to representations.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been some strong feeling about how the Government of Wales Bill should be handled. Many hon. Members have said that the Bill would be better scrutinised if part of it were dealt with in Committee but the principles were clearly established on the Floor of the House. I agree that if we can pace consideration of the Bill in what the hon. Gentleman described as a mature and intelligent way that will be to the benefit of all concerned. I will certainly bear his comments in mind.

The hon. Gentleman used the word "anger" in the context of BSE. There is anger in all parties and in Government circles at the fact that the situation is so desperate and is causing so many problems for consumers, farmers and taxpayers. There is still a lot of information that has yet to see the light of day. We should all like to know more about exactly how the crisis developed in the early stages. I can say no more than my right hon. Friends have said about the timing of any decision on an inquiry.

Any debate on council tax benefits would be subject to decision through the usual channels. I will await the hon. Gentleman's representations.

Is there to be a statement on the Further Education Funding Council and on certain decisions that were made before I May? It seems that many of the qualifications that were supposed to be handed out to tertiary colleges using FEFC money were taken up by a firm called Link, which was a subsidiary of CRT, which in turn is backed by the junk bond dealer Michael Milken from across the water. Under the Tories, hours were being duplicated across the country and there was fraud on a massive scale.

I want the matter dealt with now because people such as Milken, and others, might want to get their greedy paws on the windfall tax and make a lot more money.

I cannot comment because I do not know the details of the specific allegations that my hon. Friend has made. He has had a good opportunity to voice his concerns, and I will make sure that the relevant Minister is aware of what he has said.

Allowing for the excellent way in which the right hon. Lady has enunciated the difficulties of BSE—anyone who has had anything to do with it will appreciate the difficulties faced by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday on receiving the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's advice—is it not important to have a debate in the House on the problems facing the beef industry, and on the process of decision making?

The decision taken yesterday dealt a further body blow to the beef industry. Would it not have been better—this could be discussed in such a debate—if the Secretary of State had advised consumers of SEAC's recommendations, acknowledged that the risk involved was infinitesimal, and left it to consumers to make up their own minds? Will not yesterday's announcement lead to further destruction and to many of our wonderful specialist butchers, who have had such a difficult time in the past few years, being put out of business?

The hon. Gentleman raises serious matters of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Earlier today we had Agriculture Question Time, and Madam Speaker rightly allowed yesterday's statement to run longer than usual because of its significance to so many people.

There will be opportunities in the next couple of weeks for the hon. Gentleman and others to make their points about this issue. Indeed, today we have a debate on the European Union, and next Wednesday morning there will be one on the rural economy.

Following your ruling, Madam Speaker, that the Oath for Members wishing to take their seats in the House can be changed only by legislative action, should we not have a debate on that? There is a precedent in the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to change the Royal Ulster Constabulary oath from an oath of allegiance to the Crown to an affirmation to one's duty.

Constituents' cases should be dealt with by their Member of Parliament. The rest of us should not be expected to pick up cases from West Belfast and other areas, as some of us have had to do in the past.

Your said in your statement, Madam Speaker, that the hon. Members concerned could take up case work, that stationery would be provided for that and that they would have access to Ministers. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 18 June;

"there are no plans to change the oath of allegiance."—[official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 305.]

In the light of your ruling yesterday, Madam Speaker, in answer to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), does the right hon. Lady recall that at 4.30 pm on Tuesday the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) made his statement on uprating?

Unbeknown to hon. Members, an hour before, at 3.30 pm, the Secretary of State issued a press release to journalists outlining all the uprating details, as well as a written answer to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell). As the right hon. Lady knows, no other hon. Members have access to those written answers, because many of them are not put in the House of Commons Library or on the letter board at 3.30 pm on the dot. The answer in question has not yet been published in Hansard. Does she accept that the press were given the information an hour before hon. Members on the Floor of the House? Will she apologise for what I suspect was a cock-up rather than a conspiracy?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Normal practice was followed. The full technical details were given in a parliamentary answer at 3.30 pm. A press notice was issued at the same time. In an effort to be helpful, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State circulated letters to all Members at the same time, outlining the changes. I have checked that advance copies of the statement and the letter were given to the Opposition through the usual channels at 3.30 pm.

Further to the points raised by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on behalf of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), will my right hon. Friend arrange for time—even Government time—to be made available for a debate on the misuse of the privilege of raising points of order, through the raising of points that the hon. Member concerned knows to be bogus?

The hon. Member for Woodspring is an experienced Member. He was a Minister in the last Conservative Government and he knows how the system works. I tabled a priority written question for 3 December asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to give details of his further expenditure plans for the years ahead. That was on the letter board and available to other hon. Members at 3.30 pm.

If my right hon. Friend cannot find time for a debate, the hon. Member for Woodspring should apologise to the House. The embarrassment caused to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House is clear from today's press. We require an explanation from the hon. Gentleman.

I am not sure that I shall be able to provide time for a debate. I think that the events were very unfortunate, although I do not know whether the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) knew that his point of order was bogus. However, all of us have a duty and responsibility to check with any journalists who supposedly give us facts that are not known to everyone else whether those facts are in the public domain. It is important that we try to follow procedures. Part of the problem may be that the hon. Member for Woodspring and other Conservative Members are not used to being in opposition.

With the permission of the Leader of the House, I should like us to have a proper debate on the Crown Prosecution Service. At every Attorney-General's Question Time, we hear that there are great difficulties in the CPS. My conviction is that the CPS will not recover its morale unless it is given rights of audience in the higher courts. A debate on the subject would be of great importance to the justice system.

I have heard criticisms of the Crown Prosecution Service on a number of occasions. I cannot promise the specific debate that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but I know that he has been able to raise the issue several times.

Will we have an opportunity in the near future to discuss the excellent news that after-school study clubs will be established at some of our leading football clubs? Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Pele, who is arguably the finest living footballer, on his recent award of an honorary knighthood?

The after-school care club initiative is extremely good. There are many ways in which we can encourage children to take their studies seriously. The endorsement of such activities by someone of the Pele's stature is significant; I am sure that it will have the desired effect. I understand that Pele is visiting the House today to meet some Members; I regret that I shall not be able to be there. I will not be drawn on other footballing points on this important day in the world cup competition.

May I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) for a debate on the BSE crisis as soon as possible? I will go further than my hon. Friend and say that there is a crisis facing United Kingdom agriculture as a whole, as every sector is depressed for the first time in living memory and farming incomes have been dramatically reduced. There is a crisis.

On the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), I do not want to enter the debate about the Paymaster General and offshore trusts. What concerns me is the statement that the Paymaster General made outside the House about the taxation of savings, bearing in mind the fact that that is tantamount to legislation which will affect decisions already taken by people about PEPs and TESSAs—especially PEPs.

May we have a debate on savings, because the proposed changes are critical for the way in which people plan their future? We have just had a statement on long-term care, and I believe that savings changes will have an impact on that as well.

On the hon. Gentleman's first point on BSE and farming, he is a very experienced Member of the House, and I think that he will have no difficulty in finding opportunities to participate in debates in which he can raise those concerns.

In respect of the new savings plans that have been announced, as I said earlier, the Treasury hopes to introduce the appropriate legislation next spring and there will be plenty of time to debate it then. The basic policy is extremely welcome because it will help the many and not the few.

My right hon. Friend will know that, some time ago, the Department of Trade and Industry carried out a consultation exercise on opencast mining. When will the outcome be reported? Can she promise an early debate on opencast mining, because it is critical to the deep mining industry?

I know full well, not least from my constituency interests, of the concerns that many people have about opencast mining. The consultation period finished at the end of October and I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will make a statement on the matter early in the new year. There are opportunities to raise the issue in the near future, not least during the three-hour Adjournment debate just before the recess.

:Concerns have already been expressed by my hon.Friends the Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about the conduct of Ministers. The Leader of the House will be aware that the code of conduct was reissued in June or July this year and that it is now called the ministerial code. May we have a debate on the ministerial code? Does the right hon. Lady agree that the reputation of the House is put in doubt when Treasury Ministers have tax avoidance plans for £12 million and statements are made outside before they are made in the House? Those actions may have been taken in ignorance; perhaps such matters should be included in the code. They could well be included in the debate that I have suggested.

I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that there is no need to discuss those issues.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for outlining the work of European Standing Committee B next week. Yesterday, documents on shipbuilding were listed on the Order Paper. Will that matter be debated before the recess?

Will my right hon. Friend write to Liberal Democrat Members to remind them of their membership of European Standing Committee B, given that they have been absent, to all intents and purposes, from the past six sittings?

I am pleased that a new Member has so quickly come to terms with the detail of European Standing Committee B; I recommend that to others. The only debates that have been scheduled for that Committee so far are the ones that I have announced. The debates over the next week or so are extremely important. I remind the House that European Standing Committees are open to any Member of any party.

It appears that the right hon. Lady made an illegitimate inference from the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). Has she seen this morning's leader in The Daily Telegraph which is headlined "Let them eat cake"? She should have seen early-day motion 555 on the conduct of the Paymaster General.

[That this House, mindful of Labour's pledge not to 'permit tax reliefs to millionaires in offshore tax havens', notes that the Paymaster General is simultaneouslyabolishing PEPs and TESSAs, and is a beneficiary of the offshore Orion Trust; and calls upon him to clarify why he sold his rights to £10 million of Trans Tec shares to Stenbell, and how much of the latter he owns, and why these shares were then passed to Orion, whether he holds any other of his 30·4 million shares in Trans Tec in offshore trusts, whether Orion was the family trust noted in Trans Tec's 1996 annual report in which he held 9·8 million shares, and who increased this holding to 12·7 million shares in September 1997, and whether Orion holds any other assets, why and when he made a personal loan of $1 million to Roll Centre Inc. before its purchase by Trans Tec and whether any similar loans are extant, whether he is still in receipt of pension certification or other emoluments for Trans Tec, what agreement was conducted with the late Robert Maxwell on the 1991 company merger with Trans Tec, and why the latter sold back his shares just before his death.]

A debate on the taxation of savings next spring is not soon enough. I would welcome the opportunity now to discuss the possibility of giving England the same tax status as Guernsey, so that Treasury Ministers can invest in my constituency.

The hon. Gentleman should have taken the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton.)

Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on the number and range of experiments carried out on animals? Is she aware that, according to Home Office figures, 3 million animal experiments are carried out, many of which are repetitive, unnecessary and probably unreliable? I welcome the fact that the Government have banned cosmetic testing, but that will reduce the number of experiments by only about 200, leaving a huge number.

Is the right hon. Lady also aware that at Porton Down, the Ministry of Defence has almost trebled the number of experiments carried out on animals in recent years, many of which are deeply unpleasant and very painful for the animals concerned? Is she aware that the number of animal experiments there is now at its highest since 1982? Does she understand that this is a serious matter for the public? What steps can she take to ensure that hon. Members can debate the issue?

Again, the hon. Gentleman has used his time well to make his points. I cannot promise time for a debate. Many hon. Members on both sides and members of the Government are concerned about the total number of experiments, but it is never easy to reduce the number overnight. The hon. Gentleman has pointed to some of the facts that have led to the increase in recent years. Some progress has been made by the ban on cosmetic testing and I hope that there are other ways in which we can continue to improve animal welfare.

Will the Leader of the House vouchsafe a debate on the quality and consistency of legal advice offered to the Government, especially in relation to European legislation? I understand that the reason why the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food rejected the first option under the SEAC proposals, and did not take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), was that he had received legal advice against imposing a ban on under-30-months beef from outside the UK? That seems to fly directly in the face of his earlier threat to ban beef if it did not meet our stringent health requirements. There seems to be substance for a debate on legal advice.

I do not think that that is necessary. My right hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that he would have been acting irresponsibly if he had not taken the advice that he was given yesterday. To act quickly was absolutely essential. He also had to consider the options and decide which one was most practical and which one could be easily understood and implemented. On that basis, he made the right decision, he made it quickly, and most important, he published the advice—unlike the situation under the previous Government.

First, may I make it clear to the Leader of the House that, in the comments that I made yesterday, I was not referring to the usual channels. I was referring to how, as an hon. Member, I was able to read not the written answer to which she referred—I apologise for missing that—but the text of the Minister's statement, which he was due to make in the Scottish Grand Committee later that day.

We would welcome a debate on the release of information to the House. There is a difference between a broad briefing—or even embargoed information—to journalists in advance and the ability of those outside the House to read full texts of ministerial statements before they are made.

The point is not one of Government against Opposition but of the reputation and standing of the House. I accept that embargoed pieces of information were made available to journalists when we were in government. The speed of, and the change in, the process are important. Debates are being conducted on ministerial statements outside the House before they are debated inside it. It is the standing of the House which matters. If we cannot control the release of information and defend the rights of Members of Parliament, who on earth will do so?

The hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. The simple fact is that the statement to which he referred was entirely based on the information that was available in the written answer, which was available to the public at 3.30 pm. He made a great deal of that yesterday, implying that my right hon. Friend the Minister had broken the conventions of the House. That was a serious charge, and I think that he ought to apologise for it.

On behalf of the official Opposition, may I say first, as the matter was raised during Question Time, that we are extremely grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for your clear, unambiguous statement earlier? That leads me to my next point.

Second only to you, Madam Speaker, in defending the interests of the House, is the Leader of the House. Her prime responsibility is to all of us. Will she rethink what she has just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)? Will she please take on board the very genuine concern among all parliamentarians—I use that word deliberately—at the manner in which several Government announcements have been made recently? Will the Leader of the House also clarify her comments in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on the Government of Wales Bill? She referred to consultation and a majority opinion among Opposition parties, or words to that effect. What does she mean by a majority opinion among Opposition parties? Her Majesty's official Opposition comprise the majority on the Opposition Benches, and significantly so. We are emphatically of the opinion that the traditions of the House should be maintained and that all stages of all first-class constitutional Bills should be debated on the Floor of the House. We have had no full consultation with the right hon. Lady on this point. Will she clarify her position and assure the House that no final decision has been taken on the matter?

On the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman, the vast majority of hon. Members welcomed your statement, Madam Speaker. I pointed out earlier that we have no proposals to change the legislation on oaths of allegiance. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

In respect of yesterday's statement and the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), Opposition Members ought to cast their minds back. Being in opposition is different from being in government. One cannot assume that one knows everything all the time. The procedures that have been adopted by this Government are no less respectful of the House than any previously adopted. The hon. Member for Woodspring simply made a mistake yesterday. There have been occasions when Ministers have made mistakes, and I have stood at the Dispatch Box, acknowledged that fact and apologised to the House. Yesterday was not one of those occasions.

There have been discussions on the Government of Wales Bill through the usual channels with the party of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and minority parties. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that his is the only party which has expressed reservations about taking the Bill partly on the Floor and partly in Standing Committee. All the parties that are represented in Wales are in favour of splitting the Bill.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There seems to be some discrepancy in an answer given by the Leader of the House. She seems to rest her argument on the fact that written answers are put on the board for hon. Members at 3.30 pm. That is not so. The vast majority of written answers go on the board after 3.30 pm and at any time up to early evening. So that we can get to the bottom of the issue, would you, Madam Speaker, make inquiries of the House authorities about when written answers generally go on the board and when they did yesterday—

Order. The hon. Gentleman talks about "generally go on the board" and precisely "at 3.30 pm". What is his point of order? It is either precise or general. Which is it to be?

The point that I am trying to make, however inadequately, is that the Leader of the House said that written answers go on the board for hon. Members at 3.30 pm. They do not. They might start going on the board at 3.30 pm, but they do so throughout the afternoon and early evening—

Order. This is an administrative matter, not a point of order. Of course, I always want to be helpful to the House. We have had a good exchange on this matter, and the hon. Member might leave it at that. I shall see what I can do, without any commitment. I always seek to protect the procedures of the House and to be helpful to hon. Members.

Last week, on behalf of the Government and Britain, I visited three of the larger countries in central Europe that are seeking membership of the European Union: Hungary, Czech Republic and Poland. I commend a similar experience to Conservative Members, who bring to this debate doubts about Europe, suspicion of foreigners and anxiety to have as little as possible to do with either of them. If they visit the countries that are trying to enter the EU, they will find a consensus across the major political parties, which is in no doubt about the importance of the EU and shows a determination that their country will acquire full EU membership as soon as possible. Nor do politicians alone share that ambition. The people also share that ambition.

In the relatively intimate setting of this debate, I can risk sharing with the House the news that there was an internal split in the Foreign Office on the way to Poland on to what extent I should be frank with the Polish Government about the discriminatory duty that they apply to Scotch whisky. There was a strong view that we should tell it like it was and that such duty could not survive EU membership. There was a contrary view that that would compromise our attempt to establish warm friendship with the Polish Government. I finally decided that I had to tell it to them like it was and, if they wished to join the European Union, they had to drink whisky. Therefore, at a conference on Britain and Poland attended by 400 people, I took a deep breath and said that it was wholly unacceptable that a bottle of whisky should cost twice as much in Warsaw as in Prague.

I have to report to the House that the roof caved in under thunderous applause from all 400 present. It turned out to be the most popular statement that I made in my three days in central Europe. It underlined the fact that the ordinary people also see attractions for themselves in membership of the European Union, as workers who can export to it, as travellers who can move more freely across it and as consumers who will have easier access to the goods produced within it.

Britain has an opportunity in central Europe to strengthen our standing in Europe. English is by far the second most common language of those who live in those countries, easily eclipsing German. Older residents of those countries have memories of the historic role of Britain in defeating fascism. Indeed, the Foreign Minister of Poland recalled as a child demonstrating outside the British embassy in support of our decision to enter the war as a result of the invasion of Poland. The younger people of those countries have great enthusiasm for the authentic western culture that they identify in Britain.

Britain has a strategic opportunity, especially during our presidency, to emerge as a sponsor and a patron of membership of the European Union for those countries seeking to apply. However, one condition applies—those countries must be convinced that we want them as members of the European Union to strengthen it, not to dilute it. I allow that the previous Government supported enlargement of the European Union. Unfortunately, they took little trouble to disguise that they wanted those countries in as part of a looser, wider and weaker Europe. Those countries do not want a weaker Europe: they want to be members of a stronger Europe. That is what we want too, and that is why we give priority to enlargement.

We want a bigger, stronger Union with 100 million extra consumers, who will make even larger what is already the wealthiest single market in the world and give us a bigger voice in the world and in trade talks. A bigger, stronger Union will end the unacceptable model of a fortress Europe in which affluent countries are within and poorer countries are outside. That model is unacceptable and, as we are discovering, unsustainable, as organised crime, money laundering and drugs trafficking undermine the walls we build around the fortress.

It is because we want those countries to join, to create that stronger Union, that repeatedly those whom I met in central Europe welcomed the fact that Britain is now back in Europe, playing the part that they want us to play as a leading partner in Europe—with influence, not isolation in Brussels and with respect, not resentment in other member states.[Interruption.]

As usual, the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) is making boorish remarks from a sedentary position, but if he does not believe what I am saying he should read what the European papers say about the new Labour Government in Britain. Let us review what has been written in those papers in the past six months. Those six months began with the Amsterdam summit. At that summit, Britain retained the legal right to retain border controls; we stopped the merger of the Western European Union with the European Union and prevented the European Union from becoming a defence organisation; and we secured new treaty language on our priorities of employment, the environment and fraud against the Union. On the Monday after the summit,la Repubblica ran the headline "Britain 4—Continent 0".

The past six months have drawn to a close with the special jobs summit in Luxembourg. Britain secured at that summit guidelines that fully reflect our economic priorities of raising skills, improving the labour market and raising competitiveness. On the Monday after that summit,Le Monde ran an editorial under the headline "Tony Blair's summit".

I know that it is too much to hope that Conservative Members read the leading newspapers of Europe. Probably they are right in suspecting that they are written by foreigners. However, Conservative Members are alone in Europe in representing the outcome of those two major summits as defeats for Britain. I know that Tories are in opposition, but they claim to be the great backers of Britain and the British national interest. Therefore, it is odd that they persist in seeing failure for Britain where the rest of Europe sees success for Britain.

A spirit of reciprocity is appropriate in foreign relations and I hope that that spirit will inform this debate. If we review the events of the past six months, I hope that it is legitimate to roam over what they have meant for the debate on Europe in the Tory party. Those six months started with the general election and finished with the Winchester and Beckenham by-elections. In those six months, the Conservative party lost 21,000 electors in those two constituencies.

You lost your deposit.

If the hon. Gentleman consults the results, he will find that we substantially increased our vote in Beckenham and reduced the Conservative majority. The magnificent response to the loss of 21,000 votes in the country by the leadership of the Conservatives was to dismiss one of the voters that they have at Westminster and to oblige the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) to cross the Floor. We are grateful for the hon. Gentleman's presence and we appreciate the generosity of spirit with which the Conservatives have lent him to us.

You are welcome to him.

Such generosity of spirit is the hallmark of the modern Conservative party. Indeed, it has resulted in its support narrowing to the size of that of a sect, instead of a centre party, and is accurately reflected in the comments by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). We could probably have got by without the vote of the hon. Member for Leominster. We now have a majority of 177, but we could possibly have scraped through with the majority of 175 that we had before. However, the hon. Gentleman's dismissal has sent a signal to all the sane people in the centre of British politics—who share his moderate views on Europe and know that Britain must have sensible relations with its neighbours—that they are not welcome in the Tory party, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge made clear a moment ago. I offer those moderate people a message today—they are all welcome as supporters of new Labour and we invite them to support us in building a modern Britain and a people's Europe.

I am beginning to believe that some Conservative Members—possibly even the shadow Foreign Secretary—suspect that the majority of the population are on our side over Europe. The shadow Foreign Secretary spent the summer roaming the land and loudly demanding a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty. Now that the House has returned, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has tabled many questions to me, but he has not once asked me to put the Amsterdam treaty to the vote of the people in a referendum.

As amendments to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill poured in, we mounted a Howard watch. We scoured the amendments for one from him to require us to hold a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty. I have to tell the House that none has come in. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is rescued from his indecision by the courage and vigour of the Euro-rebels on the Conservative Back Benches, who have tabled new clause 47 which calls for a referendum. Those hon. Members belong to the same party and share, as yet, the same Whip as the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Those colleagues deserve to know how much support they will get for their new clause and I hope that, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman responds to my speech, he will tell the House whether he will vote for a referendum and recommend it to all his colleagues. I hope that he will tell us whether Conservative Front Benchers have the courage to demand a referendum on the treaty. However, the reality is that the Conservative party is now terrified of another drubbing in any test of electoral opinion and does not dare risk a referendum that would expose it as split from top to bottom. As Lord Howe wrote last month, Europe now presents a crucial litmus test of the Conservatives' capacity to act as a serious alternative party of government. So far, he added, it looked like a test that they were determined to fail.

By contrast, this Government will pursue a European policy that is in the interests of the British nation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear in his recent statement on a single currency that we will judge whether we are to join on the basis of a hard-headed assessment of what is in the economic interests of the British people.

We will assess that by the five tests that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out: whether there is sustainable convergence; whether the single currency has sufficient flexibility; what its effect will be on investment; what its impact will be on financial services; and whether it will be good for employment. It is right that we should assess whether we join the single currency on those tests, which are in the real interests of the British people, not by the prejudice and dogma that obsess the Conservative party.

Why do the five criteria that the Chancellor is using not include the vital criterion of the currency of denomination of trade? Is that unimportant? I should have thought that the currency in which we trade is a vital element in making objective decisions on economic and monetary union. The currency in which we trade is as important as whom we trade with.

The hon. Gentleman has a perfectly fair point, but it is adequately covered by our five points, particularly the test of whether the single currency will offer sufficient flexibility. If he looks at trade, he will see that the fact is that the majority of our visible trade goes to Europe.

Yes, visible trade.

We have been here before. If we include invisible trade, visible trade still accounts for 47 per cent.—not a pass mark, I grant you—of our trade. For the Conservatives to pretend that 47 per cent. of trade is meaningless and can be passed over demonstrates the extent to which they are out of touch with reality.

Before the Foreign Secretary leaves his five tests—one of which is the effect of the single currency on unemployment—will he remind all his right hon. and hon. Friends of the effect on unemployment of fixed exchange rates in the past? Will he tell his supporters in the country that, when we joined the exchange rate mechanism in 1990, unemployment was at 1·67 million and rose to 2·85 million within 23 months?

If they do not believe that, will he remind them of what happened when we were on the gold standard between 1925 and 1931, when unemployment rose from 1·25 million to 2·9 million? Will he—

Order. Interventions must be brief, and not speeches.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would have been quite happy to let the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) continue, because he was referring to two miserable and unhappy experiences of two miserable and unhappy Conservative Governments, neither of which has any bearing on anything done by the present Government. Nor does a fixed exchange rate have anything to do with what one does within a single currency.

The right hon. Gentleman does not understand what he is doing.

I fully understand—the great shame is that the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member did not understand what they were doing.

If, at a future stage, we should resolve to join a single currency, we will put that to a referendum of the British people and let them have the last veto. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear, that is not likely to happen in the next six months, or even in the next four years. There is quite enough to occupy us in our European debates in the next six months.

In the foreground is next week's summit in Luxembourg. The key issue at the summit must be to obtain a mandate to take forward during the British presidency the Commission's proposals under Agenda 2000. What we require from the Luxembourg summit is a practical railway timetable towards enlargement which will enable the British presidency to start the train on 31 March.

My right hon. Friend has talked about enlargement and the countries that are on the so-called fast track. Does he recognise that countries such as Romania are anxious—and have overwhelming public support—to get into the strong European Union to which he referred as soon as possible?

I very much understand that. We must be sensitive and recognise the strong ambitions in those countries not yet identified by the Commission as yet ready for negotiation. I am strongly of the view that the way forward towards enlargement is to commence detailed negotiations with those five central and eastern European countries, plus Cyprus, that have been identified by the Commission as ready for negotiation. Any other course would not be fair to those identified as ready for negotiation, as they would need to wait for others to catch up—a point strongly made to me when I visited the countries. Nor would it be fair to those countries that have been identified as not ready for negotiation, because membership of the EU will be a challenging and tough discipline.

We do not do any favours to countries that are not ready to withstand the market pressures of membership of the EU by prematurely bringing them in, with the disruption to their economies that that could entail. To be positive to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), we must make sure that the enlargement process is seen to be inclusive and that those countries such as Romania that look to Europe for membership are given every possible encouragement, incentive and assistance to tackle the obstacles that still stand between them and detailed negotiations.

That is why the Labour Government, during the British presidency, will wish to create a permanent European conference to bring together all the applicants—including those that have not set out on detailed negotiations—and to hold political dialogue with them. Such a conference must be one of substance; it cannot fall into the popular model of a not-very-good family photograph followed by a rather good lunch. It must have real business and substance to it.

There are issues that we could discuss with those countries—organised crime and the drugs trade are obvious and relevant topics. The issue of the environmental problems and the pollution which we share is another that we could address without getting into negotiations about accession. There may be areas of common foreign policy that we could explore with those that are not in the front rank for membership of the EU. We need to make sure that those countries are given a real sense of belonging and welcome to the European family of nations.

The Foreign Secretary said that the European Union had to be inclusive. Will he say a few words about Cyprus, which is divided? I understand that that may not be a barrier to Cyprus entering the EU. If that is the case, what will be done to ensure that the population of the northern part of Cyprus will be consulted about joining the EU?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important part of the enlargement debate. The Government strongly support the right of the Government of Cyprus to apply for membership. We recognise that Cyprus has done a large amount over the past three years to prepare itself for membership. Were it not for the division of the island, Cyprus would be a foremost candidate for membership. It would be immensely helpful to the debate if that division could be resolved within the context of the enlargement talks.

Enlargement may provide a catalyst to bring about the solution to the division of the island. Those who live in the northern occupied sector would benefit more than anybody else in Cyprus from membership of the EU, because their income is a quarter the level in the Greek Cypriot sector. However, if it is not possible to resolve the issue of the division of the island, it is the position of this Government that it would be unfair to the majority of the people of Cyprus if its Government were to be excluded because of the continuing division. I regret that the Turkish authorities in the northern sector have refused the recent approaches by Commissioner van den Broek to include them in the negotiating team from Cyprus. It would have been good both for the division of the island and the negotiation if they had taken up the offer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, if this country enters the single currency at some point, its democratically elected Government would be legally prohibited from making representations to the European central bank about its conduct of monetary policy and that a democratically elected Government who sought to do so would potentially be subject to fines?

I am not sure how that naturally arose from the discussion of Cyprus, but of course the principle established in the Maastricht treaty is that the central bank will be independent and will not be subject to political interference. In that regard, it will stand in relation to the Governments of the European Union in precisely the same way that the independent central banks of Germany and of other countries stand in relation to their Governments.

Enlargement is the prime objective that we seek to achieve at the Luxembourg summit. We must not be distracted from that No. 1 goal, but, if enlargement is to be a realistic prospect, other elements of the Agenda 2000 package must be supported and will need to be approved at Luxembourg. We will go to Luxembourg determined to maintain the budget ceiling of 1·27 per cent. of gross domestic product of the European Union. Britain comes 11 th in terms of per capita income in Europe and is the fifth largest net contributor, even after the rebate. It is plainly in our interest to maintain realism in the European budget.

Retaining that ceiling has consequences. Enlargement will cost money. The countries coming in are poorer than the present member states—typically, their income is one third that of member states. They will require some major industrial restructuring and economic recovery. If the European Union retains the same budget and if that budget is spent in more member states as we enlarge, it arithmetically follows that less will be spent among the existing member states. If we are not willing to face that, we should not pretend that we are serious about enlargement.

That is why we will seek a mandate from the Luxembourg summit to take forward the Commission proposals on reform of the common agricultural policy and of the structural funds, which together make up some three quarters of the European budget. In any event, reform of the CAP is long overdue. It cannot be sustainable to continue to spend 50 per cent. of Europe's budget on an industry in which 4 per cent. of the work force are employed.

It is especially important that we achieve such mandates at Luxembourg because the British presidency will start the work to carry them out. That offers Britain a rich and exciting opportunity. Next April, for instance, London will host the Asia-Europe summit, at which countries representing half the GDP of the entire globe will be present. It is a great opportunity to take further the co-operation for stable growth throughout the globe and to tackle the environmental issues that are of mutual concern throughout the globe. The summit is a great opportunity for Britain to show skill and imagination in brokering global agreements. At summits during its presidency, Britain will also represent Europe in dialogue with Latin America, the United States and Japan.

I am indebted to theDaily Express for revealing that a Liberal Democrat had tabled questions that revealed that I had spent more on foreign travel than any other Minister. I appreciate the newspaper's understanding remark that, as Foreign Secretary, I have at least some excuse for foreign travel, but I warn both the Daily Express and the Liberal Democrats that there will be even more excuses for foreign travel as we take over the EU presidency next year. I hope that the House will appreciate the validity of that.

The British presidency presents another opportunity much closer to home. It provides us with a clear opportunity to demonstrate that Europe can deliver on the concerns of our people. On jobs, at the Cardiff summit, we will review the action plans that will flow from the guidelines approved in Luxembourg. On the environment, we will take forward what action Europe needs to take to fulfil the commitments that we took to Kyoto. On crime and drugs, we will launch the customs convention and see through European initiatives to interdict the drugs trade in central Asia and in the Caribbean.

Tomorrow, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will launch the British presidency and reveal its themes and objectives. They will confirm that we have one clear determination during our presidency: to make Europe work for the people. That will be our contribution to building the Europe of the next century—a Europe that has learnt the lessons of this century.

Last week, I laid a wreath in the Warsaw ghetto at the site of the station from which tens of thousands of people went to their death. This week, I started a conference to establish the truth about the gold that was looted by the Nazis. Truth is the least that we owe in justice to the people who perished under Nazi persecution. Recording and remembering what happened in those atrocities are the best protections against them ever happening again in our continent.

Putting the record straight about what happened 50 years ago has proved challenging. It has reminded me of how different the world was only 50 years ago. While I was in Poland and in Prague in the Czech Republic, the Foreign Ministers of both countries welcomed the ethical dimension to Britain's foreign policy. They said that countries that have been the victim of realpolitik welcome a foreign policy that includes the values of human rights and democracy and is not based just on the interests of power politics.