How many incidents which involve fireworks have been reported to the police in each year since 1995; and if he will make a statement. [94990]

Separate figures are not kept on firework incidents reported to the police. Most such incidents will be reported to the ambulance service in the first instance. In 1998, 831 people were reported as treated by hospitals for injuries caused by accidents with fireworks. That compares with 908 people in 1997, 1,233 in 1996 and 1,530 in 1995.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Obviously, the figures are pointing in the right direction, although 800-odd too many people were injured last year.

Let me say first that I am not anti-fireworks; I want people to enjoy them, but I am concerned at the number of injuries that they cause. Does my hon. Friend have any figures for incidents reported to the police involving fireworks thrown in the street? My concerns are heightened because of the millennium celebrations that will be taking place. The regulations on fireworks safety must be strengthened, and people must adhere to them. Will the Minister assure my constituents that those regulations will be observed?

I am sure that the whole House would endorse the sentiments behind my hon. Friend's remarks. All fireworks intended for use by the public, whether made here or imported, must meet the requirements of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997, which are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, the Home Office takes very seriously any infringement of the regulations and criminal activities. Bonfire night should be enjoyed, but enjoyed peacefully and safely.

I do not know whether the Minister knows that I have a retail business in Swansea. We have been selling fireworks for many years, and it is not always easy to guess someone's age. Will the hon. Lady remind shopkeepers that they should never gamble when it comes to the sale of such explosives? It is best to err on the side of caution and not to sell the fireworks. Will the hon. Lady also confirm that people who may be enticed into buying fireworks for others who are under age will be pursued if they do so? In general, safety should come first and—I know that this will not make me popular with other shopkeepers—people should buy their fireworks late so that they do not hang around in the house and possibly cause damage.

I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. I know about his business interests because of my previous experience at the Department of Trade and Industry. He has spoken a great deal of common sense. I would add that there are some very good public fireworks displays to which parents can take their children. Indeed, this Saturday there is a magnificent fireworks display at Alexandra palace, in my constituency, and I will be there with my family.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Tories, led by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), talking out a private Member's fireworks Bill was an act of gross irresponsibility? If the Bill had been enacted, newspapers such as my local Bolton Evening News would not be calling today for increased safety and even a total ban on retail sales of fireworks.

It is the duty of all Members of the House to consider each piece of legislation that comes before us. That was indeed an important measure; instead of seeking to talk out Bills, Members should seriously consider their implications. Many people will echo my hon. Friend's remarks.

What was the change in the number of police officers in the Avon and Somerset constabulary between March 1996 and March 1999. [94991]

Between March 1996 and March 1999, the number of police officers in Avon and Somerset increased by 18, to 2,999. The chief constable and police authority can apply for a share of the Government's new crime-fighting fund to provide 5,000 extra police recruits over the next three years. We will publish detailed guidance on that shortly.

I am grateful to the Minister. Does he know that, as long as 10 years ago, I went with the then chief constable to the then Home Secretary to argue for an extra 300 officers for Avon and Somerset, simply to bring us back to the point where we should have been? Does he accept that the change from limiting numbers to limiting cash has produced little benefit for police authorities? Can he give me an absolute assurance that the number of police officers available to police Somerset and the streets of Bristol at the end of this Parliament will be greater than in 1996?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman goes back 10 years. As he well knows, over the five years from March 1992 to March 1997, the number of police officers in Avon and Somerset fell by 92 under the previous Government. I confirm that money will be available for the police authority in Avon and Somerset to bid for new recruits. We hope and expect that that will lead to more police officers on the ground there.

What action he is taking to prevent the deliberate use of fireworks to cause alarm, distress and injury to people and damage to property. [94992]

The law relating to criminal damage and to offences against the person applies to deliberate damage by fireworks, as it would to damage deliberately caused in other ways. In addition, the letting off of fireworks in any public place is an offence under section 80 of the Explosives Act 1875.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but I am not satisfied that the regulations relating to fireworks are being enforced. There have been some horrific incidents in my constituency in the past few weeks. Youngsters aged nine, 10 and 11 have been putting explosives into car exhausts or down grids to blow them up. The latest trick is to put an explosive inside a traffic cone and then put the cone inside a telephone box. When it explodes, the whole telephone box goes up. That is not youngsters having fun but people terrorising the neighbourhood. I ask the Government to consider seriously the enforcement of the regulations and to ensure that magistrates take such offenders seriously.

I am well aware of the problems that my hon. Friend has experienced in her constituency and of the detailed, firm action that she has taken. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has visited her constituency. Among other things, the regulations prohibit the sale of aerial shells, bangers and mini-rockets to the general public and place restrictions on the size of fireworks that can be sold generally. I know that she has been in contact with my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry. I undertake to liaise with them to see what can be done. We are talking about criminality and it will be dealt with by the police. I hope that it will be investigated and arrests made.

I am grateful for the Minister's initial response to the question, and agree fervently with it. However, in view of the parliamentary answer provided by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on 25 March, and of the 23 per cent. and 12 per cent. reductions in accidents caused by firework hooliganism in 1997 and 1998 respectively, will she confirm that the Government have no further plans for additional restrictions on the use of fireworks?

I have made it clear that the regulations are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), we are talking about criminal activity. We do not want the enjoyment of the many spoiled by the reckless and criminal activity of the few. The Government must keep the position under constant review. The House would expect no less.

I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is liaising with the DTI. In those discussions, will she raise the fact that fireworks are on sale for so long before 5 November that that in itself contributes to much of the harm and damage that is done? Will she consider the possibility of restricting sales of fireworks to individuals to a short period before 5 November, to minimise the chances of crimes occurring?

My hon. Friend's point is well made and I will make it to the DTI. It is important that the DTI has regular detailed discussions with the industry and representative bodies to ensure that such points are taken on board.

What representations he has received on retirement rates of police officers over the next three years. [94993]

What estimate he has made of the number of police officers who will leave the police service over the next three years. [94999]

While I am not aware of receiving any formal representations on the retirement rates of police officers over the next three years, I frequently discuss aspects of this issue with the police associations.

Given the uncertainty as to the number of officers who take early retirement on medical grounds, or who leave the service before normal retirement age for other reasons, precise projections of wastage of police officers in the future are very difficult to make. The number of officers who left the service during the past three years for any reason was about 17,000.

Hon. Members will want to be aware of papers and calculations that I presented to the Select Committee on Home Affairs on Tuesday last. Those suggest that the police service was likely to recruit 15,000 officers over the next three years, to which the 5,000 recruits to be funded from the crime-fighting fund would be additional.

When the Home Secretary announced 5,000 extra recruits, despite contrary advice from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, why did he not even touch on the subject of the retirement of police officers, so that the general public could receive an accurate picture? Is the Home Secretary aware that the residents of my constituency of Southend, West think that he is soft on crime because he does not provide enough police officers to fight crime?

What happened to Basildon?

It was a Labour gain. I wish the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) well in my home county.

My speech to the Labour party conference was entirely accurate as to the effect of the 5,000 officers being additional—the inaccuracy was that the baseline information that I provided was 4,000 too low. [Interruption.] I understand why Conservative Members are laughing—their fox has been shot. The simple truth is that, during the past three years, wastage has been running at 17,000, and the overall effect of the figures that I have now accurately presented is that there should be 20,000 additional recruits over the next three years. The effect of that should be that overall police numbers increase.

I acknowledge that, for reasons related to the police funding formula, Essex police have done less well than have some other forces. However, I hope that—not least because of that—the chief constable and the police authority of Essex will apply for the additional new money that is available under the crimefighting fund.

Let us have it straight from the Home Secretary. By the end of this Parliament, will there be more or fewer police officers than there were at its beginning?

I hope very much that there will be more. However, I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman, and all on the Conservative Benches who were Members of the House before 2 May 1997, that under an Act for which they voted, but which we voted against, the power of the Home Secretary to set police numbers was removed by law.

I further remind the hon. and learned Gentleman—I hope that he makes this point in his constituency—that we are providing extra new money, next year: £35 million over and above the comprehensive spending review. We shall provide further new money in the following year. The money on which those sums are based was money that he and his colleagues damned as being reckless and irresponsible. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways—saying in their constituencies that expenditure on the police should rise, while voting in the House for lower police expenditure.

What progress has my right hon. Friend made to prevent the early retirement of police officers who face disciplinary charges?

Under arrangements that I announced last year, and which came into force on 1 April this year, major changes have been made in the overall disciplinary arrangements for police officers. We also expect chief officers—and they have agreed—to enforce a long-standing but rather ignored rule, which required chief officers not to allow any officer to retire through ill health if disciplinary proceedings against him were pending. I am sure that that has the approbation of the whole House.

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to review pension arrangements for officers retiring prematurely due to ill health, who, immediately or subsequently, take up alternative, full-time employment?

There is a major issue to do with the way in which the police service conducts its scrutiny of those applying for medical retirement through ill health. We all accept that some police officers who have run into problems of ill health or sickness, or—which is worse—have been injured while on duty, should be retired and should receive a generous pension. However, at present, there are also some officers, who, in each case, have passed medical scrutiny and are retired on ill-health grounds, but who bring the rules into disrepute by taking full-time, remunerative employment straight after their retirement.

We have set clear targets for police forces to reduce the proportion of officers who retire through ill health and I am pleased to say that those targets are working, as are the associated efforts being made by the police service to reduce sickness day by day. The work done in the past year by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to tackle the issue of sickness has released 500 additional officers for front-line operational duties.

May I pursue the question of police numbers and funding? When answering last week's debate, the Home Secretary said that it was his "wish, hope and expectation" that, from the end of this financial year and for the next three years, there will be more police officers on duty than there would otherwise have been next year. Is he now saying that, taking the number of police officers at the beginning of this Parliament—since when that number has decreased by more than 1,000 in England and Wales—the Government plan that there should be more police officers by the end of the Parliament? Will he also give a commitment, not only that there will be more officers, but that, in real terms and after paying pensions, the allocation of money to local forces to spend on police will increase? In short, will there be more officers and more money in real terms to pay for them?

What I said last week was a statement of fact: it is my hope and expectation that there should be more police officers at the end of the three-year period about which we are talking than at the beginning of it. The hon. Gentleman asks me to make a prediction based on the date of the next general election, but that could take place tomorrow, next year or the year after, and it is that which determines the duration of this Parliament. Because of that and because wastage rates are uncertain, I cannot make such a prediction. However, Labour's record will be infinitely better than that of the Conservatives, who, from 1992 to 1997, presided over year-by-year decreases in officer numbers, despite their promise that officer numbers would increase.

Having received from the Home Secretary no satisfactory explanation as to the lines of communication between him and his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, may I ask him to comment on the lines of communication between him and Lord Bassam, who is Under-Secretary of State at the Home Department and who has responsibility for the police? As late as last Thursday, Lord Bassam continued to claim in another place that there would be 11,000 recruits over the next three years, to which 5,000 would be added, making a total of 16,000, not 20,000 as mentioned by the Home Secretary today. What is going on in the Home Office?

It is business as usual in the Home Office—and the right hon. Lady has every reason to know about that. We did not fight the election on a manifesto promising that life would be perfect in the Home Office after 2 May 1997, but I have to say that life there is a lot better than it was before that date. If she wants to exchange numbers on occasional errors, I have to tell her that her score is already far higher than mine. As for the right hon. Lady's question, I had not caught up with the matter to which she refers. However, we all know that the other place is rather old fashioned and that news takes a little time to reach it.

Do I gather from that that the right hon. Gentleman not only failed to communicate to his Minister the correct state of affairs as he saw it, but that his Minister failed to communicate to him that he had not received that information and had made incorrect statements?

If I were at the Dispatch Box in opposition, I would make better use of it than does the right hon. Lady. I have given her an explanation.

You do not like the facts.

The right hon. Lady knows that I dislike the fact that there was an error in the original figures I gave, not least because it led to the most outrageous claims that I had tried to mislead the Labour party conference and the public, which I had not done. [Interruption.] I have given the facts. Our best estimate was that the police service would recruit at least 15,000 officers in the next five years, but we found new money to allow it to recruit 5,000 additional officers. That contrasts with the false promises of the right hon. Lady who, on 29 January 1997, promised 5,000 extra police officers while presiding over a continual decline in the number of officers. Our additional money will be ring-fenced. As the right hon. Lady has damned the current level of spending on the police service as reckless, does she welcome the additional funding that I have secured from the Treasury?

I will pass over—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will pass over the right hon. Gentleman's embarrassment about his patent failure to communicate with his Ministers regarding his own announcements, and ask the Home Secretary to comment on the statement of Sir Paul Condon, who said that he

"shared public unease in respect of policing during the state visit of the President of China".

If Sir Paul shares public unease, one must conclude that he did not issue instructions or make suggestions to the police regarding that visit. If the Metropolitan Police Commissioner did not do that, who did?

I have already explained to the right hon. Lady, as I did to the Select Committee, that neither I nor any Home Office Minister or—as I have now ascertained—Home Office official was involved in any briefing of the Metropolitan police service before the state visit and the associated demonstrations. I have also made it clear that there was briefing by Foreign Office officials.

I commend the remarks of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, as I fully support the way in which he and his officers policed a very difficult and delicate situation. Once again, the police found themselves, on the one hand, having to ensure the safety of the President of China and his party and of our royal family while, on the other hand, ensuring that they gave proper effect to the right to demonstrate peacefully. I support the Police Commissioner and his officers in their action, and I hope very much that the right hon. Lady does, too.

If he will increase the budget of the Leicestershire police authority; and if he will make a statement. [94995]

Our plans allow for police expenditure to increase by around 2.8 per cent. in 2000–01. No final decisions have been taken about the allocation of funding to individual forces for the coming financial year. We expect to announce provisional allocations towards the end of the year.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Has he had a chance to visit the Leicestershire police authority website? Is he aware that Leicestershire police report that 1998–99 was a more difficult year, that budgets were tighter and that the financial climate remains challenging? What reassurances can the Minister give people in Leicestershire—who are wondering whether existing police levels in the county will be maintained—that there will be an increase in police numbers? Given the controversy about the Home Secretary's announcement at the Labour party conference regarding the so-called 5,000 extra police, will the Minister confirm that it is really magic roundabout money for police that is being diverted from one budget to another? In the real world, we will not see anything like a proper increase in police numbers in Leicestershire.

In the real world, we have announced and allocated real money. I confess that I have not studied the Leicestershire constabulary's website as my focus has been on the "Widdyweb", which is much more interesting and entertaining for a variety of reasons.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Leicestershire constabulary saw its allocation last year increase by 3.5 per cent.—or £3.6 million—over the previous year, which was well above the national average. Leicestershire had more police officers in March 1998–99 than in March 1997–98, and the number of civilian support staff has also increased. The record in Leicestershire is good, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pay the Government some credit for that instead of launching whingeing attacks.

Of course, the 10 extra officers were paid for by the increase in funding given by the previous Conservative Government. How will the Leicestershire police pay for the new public safety radio project? What share will the authority receive from the £50 million promised by the Home Secretary a month ago? Does the Minister agree with the Labour chairman of the West Yorkshire police committee that £50 million is a drop in the ocean compared with the £1.5 billion total cost and the value to the Government of existing radio frequencies? Does he not realise that it is impossible for any police authority, including Leicestershire, sensibly to plan the recruitment of any additional police officers until it knows how the police radios will be paid for?

I am interested to note that today and last week the hon. Gentleman has focused the Conservatives' attack on this major new technological advance—the public safety radio project—which is a critical development that police forces and police authorities throughout the country want and need, and which should have been invested in before. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department announced a couple of weeks ago an extra £50 million, which had not been previously allocated, towards the project. As I said in the debate last week, it is a 15-year project that will receive £1.5 billion over that period. It is wanted, the money is committed, and we shall ensure that every police force in the country has it.

If he will make a statement on the size of the police establishment of officers. [94996]

If he will make a statement on the number of police officers in England. [94997]

I made a full statement of the position on police numbers to the Select Committee on Home Affairs and to this House on Tuesday last, 26 October.

Under legislation passed by the previous Government, the powers of the Home Secretary to set overall police numbers were removed. The Government have allocated money for a crimefighting fund which, among other things, will provide the funding for 5,000 more recruits over and above the number that forces would otherwise have recruited over the next three years, commencing in April 2000. Some £35 million of new money will be available to support this next year, and there will be further funding in the following two years. All this is additional to the comprehensive spending review settlement for policing.

The Home Secretary gave the Labour party conference the impression that there would be more police officers whereas, in fact, numbers are falling. If the right hon. Gentleman did not set out to mislead people, can he explain to us why so many people were misled?

What I said at the Labour party conference was entirely accurate. Moreover, if I had failed to provide a baseline—as it turned out a baseline 4,000 too few, which was hardly to my advantage, and very much to my disadvantage—I could justly have been criticised for failing to provide the whole story. I provided a baseline and provided the additional numbers over and above which that baseline would add. The figures for wastage for the previous three years were well known and, as it happens, it is matter of record that the then Liberal Democrat spokesman on the subject, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), pointed that out on the very same day. The only people who were misled were those who—frankly—wanted to be misled, but that was certainly not as a result of what I had said.

The point that the hon. Gentleman needs to bear in mind—I hope that he does and that he tells his constituents about it—is that under his Government, whom he supported in the Lobbies, from 1992–97, despite promises of more police made not least by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald here in January 1997, police numbers fell by 1,500 over that period. It is precisely because of such falls that I was able to negotiate with my very good friends in Her Majesty's Treasury and secure this additional funding, for which I hope that Hampshire, among other forces, will apply.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the last general election the West Chelmsford Labour party mouthed the slogan, "Everybody wants more bobbies on the beat"? As a fellow Essex man, has he noticed that in the last full year for which figures are available the number of police officers in Essex fell by 37, from 2,928 to 2,891? Could he tell me and my constituents in which year he expects the number of police officers in Essex to be the same as it was when we left office, and when he expects it to be higher than when we left office?

I understand why the hon. Gentleman is asking the question, but, for reasons that he fully understands, I cannot give him that answer. He voted in 1994 to take away the power of the Home Secretary to set overall police establishments. As it happens, I voted against that. The matter—genuinely within available resources—is one for chief constables and the police authorities.

As I said to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), I accept that, for no other reason but the way in which the formula operates—it grieves me, as it concerns my home county—Essex has done less well than the average. As a result, I very much hope that Essex makes a good bid for additional funding from the crime-fighting fund for next year and the year after.

I should make another point about the West Chelmsford Labour party, although I do not carry all its incantations in my head—despite my affection for the constituents of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). Yes, we said that we would take measures to release more officers for operational duties, and that is precisely what we are doing through, for example, efficiency savings in early retirement and sickness arrangements, and the management of back-office arrangements. As a result of very good work by police authorities and chief constables, many more officers, in a great many forces, within the total, which may remain level, have been released for front-line operational duties.

Am I right in recalling that when the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was a member of the previous Government, crime doubled? Does the Home Secretary share my view that she and her colleagues give the impression that they will not be satisfied until half the population are in prison and the other half are in the police force? Although police numbers are important, do not members of the public want a success made of crime partnerships, which involve councils, the police and community and business organisations, so that crime can be tackled from the streets where they live and not from some police service headquarters?

As ever, my hon. Friend's memory is perfect. He is entirely right to recall a fact that Opposition Members are trying to excise from the national memory: under the Conservatives, crime doubled.

Crime fell.

The way in which the Conservatives produce such smoke and mirrors—if I may coin a phrase—is by picking on different dates. Crime doubled under the Conservatives, and it is one of the many reasons why it will be decades before the British public ever show the confidence to vote for them again.

My hon. Friend is right about the importance of the crime partnerships. Many police chiefs say to me that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is one of the best ever pieces of legislation to come their way. In the west midlands, where I was this morning, there is tangible evidence of the effectiveness of such partnerships—in Sandwell, Dudley, Wolverhampton, Coventry, of course, and Birmingham. The best evidence of how an imaginative chief constable has been able to put more officers on front-line operational duties is in the west midlands, where Ted Crewe, the chief constable, has released 700 officers from back-office headquarters jobs for front-line operational duties. I wish that Opposition Members would start applauding such innovation.

My right hon. Friend's constituency is just a few miles away from mine, and is served by the same Lancashire constabulary. I am sure that he will know that the Burnley Express is running a campaign—"More Bobbies for Burnley"—based on what it calls my right hon. Friend's impressive speech, which it was, at the Labour party conference. Will he respond positively to that? Will he give an assurance that the Dordrecht initiative, which has been supported by the Home Office in Burnley and has had a massive effect in reducing the level of burglaries and robberies, will continue to enjoy his Department's support?

I am always anxious to satisfy my friends from Burnley—both my hon. Friend and, of course, Mr. Alastair Campbell—not least because of what my hon. Friend would say about a certain football team if I did not. I am aware of the importance of the Dordrecht initiative. Such matters must be decided on objective criteria rather than on simply who is, as it were, one's old pal. However, I shall ensure that that application is given very careful consideration.

Will the Home Secretary join me in paying tribute to the work of the Sussex police, who continue to do a fine job, albeit with fewer and decreasing resources? Will he acknowledge that, although there are difficulties in calculating exact numbers because of the number of police at Gatwick airport, there is widespread anxiety in the villages, particularly those of Mid-Sussex, that the number of police who are assigned to look after them is gradually falling? Will he give my constituents some hope that that number will increase?

I acknowledge the concern of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. It is a truth at all times that there will never be sufficient police officers to satisfy everyone and chief constables have difficult decisions to make about where to put them.

I am aware of what has happened to police numbers in Sussex. I take one period. Between 1995 and 1998, Sussex received a 12.5 per cent. increase in its budget and numbers went down, but numbers have gone up in some forces that had either the same or a lower increase. That is where chief constables' decisions on how to allocate resources make a difference. [HON. MEMBERS: "Blame them."] It is not a question of blaming chief constables, but it is a fact that, since 1994, it is chief constables—of course, within the overall money—who have set the number of officers and the number of civilians, and have made decisions on the use of and expenditure on equipment. If one looks down the table—I would be happy to provide it to the hon. Gentleman—one finds that there are significant variations in how chief officers have used their discretion within the same level of resources.

The pot of money from the crime-fighting fund is not unlimited, but I hope that Sussex, along with other forces, will make an application for additional officers.

What plans he has to ensure the effective dispersal of illegal encampments by travellers. [94998]

The police and local authorities have, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, all the powers necessary to ensure effective dispersal of illegal encampments by travellers. Those are in addition to the rights of landowners to take civil action through the courts. However, the exercise of those powers is subject to operational guidelines that are issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

The use of such powers in any individual case is an operational matter to be determined by the senior police officer at the scene, but Home Office and Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions guidance makes it clear that such powers can be used at an early stage, where necessary, and recommends an inter-agency approach to deal with problems.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that this summer's remarks by the Home Secretary regarding the behaviour of some travellers were met with a chorus of approval in my constituency, especially in the communities of Beccles and Bungay, where a group of travellers spent four weeks in one public open space? Just when the council was about to complete the civil procedures, they moved and spent another four weeks on a school playing field, leaving piles of rubbish and filth on both sites.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the public want illegal encampments to be dispersed quickly, and that the civil remedy is not effective in that respect? Will he issue even stronger guidance to the police to ensure that they use all available legislation to disperse illegal encampments because Suffolk police have said to me that their policy is hardly to use such powers?

The Home Secretary's remarks did strike a chord throughout the country. It is important that everyone should understand that criminal and disorderly behaviour cannot be tolerated, from whatever source it comes. The DETR and the Home Office have made it clear that they expect the powers that are available to the police to be used in a way that reflects that public concern. The Crime and Disorder Act gives the police additional powers.

We are examining whether it is necessary to review the guidance that has been issued by the DETR and the Home Office to strengthen the hand of local authorities and the police. Such anti-social behaviour simply cannot be tolerated; the Government will not tolerate it.

Does the Minister agree that one of the Metropolitan police's problems in dealing with such illegal encampments in the constituency of Uxbridge is the continuing reduction in the resources and manpower of the Metropolitan police Hillingdon division? Therefore, is it not time that the Home Office did something to reassure the law-abiding citizens of the suburbs?

The very reverse is true. Under the previous Administration, the Metropolitan police lost 2,000 police officers. The current Government, however, have made available to the Metropolitan police the resources necessary to cope with illegal encampments. We should recognise the importance of backing police and local authorities in firm action against that type of illegal activity, and the Government have provided that backing across the United Kingdom with a series of seminars promoting good practice. We shall continue to do that, and to provide the police with the resources that they need to tackle the problem. We are providing to the police more resources than they ever received under the previous, Conservative Administration.

Is not effective co-operation between the police, local authorities and county councils one important aspect in how we might more effectively resolve the problem? Since the previous Conservative Government withdrew legislation ensuring the availability of legal campsites on which travellers could camp, the problem of illegal encampments has simply grown worse. Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary take the opportunity to re-examine the guidance, to ensure that local authorities and the police work effectively together on the problem, and that the policy of neighbouring police services is consistent, so that encampments do not move from one county to another?

The previous Conservative Government certainly did nothing to improve the situation. We are ensuring, however, that the type of partnerships that deliver results are encouraged. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 encourages such partnerships. We are also spreading good practice. We have to ensure not only that local authorities and the police work together, but that that work is underpinned by work with the community and local business. Together, we can beat the problem.

What recent representations he has received on the Government's proposals for freedom of information. [95000]

The consultation document on freedom of information, published on 24 May 1999, invited comments on the draft legislation. We received a total of 2,248 submissions—all but 400 of which were part of an organised petition on scientific experimentation on animals. None the less, copies of the submissions have been placed in the Library. On 22 October, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the changes that we propose to make to the draft Bill after the consultation period. We shall introduce a Freedom of Information Bill as soon as the legislative timetable allows.

Why does the proposed Bill still allow for facts on which policy decisions have been based to remain secret, given, first, that the United Kingdom code of conduct, which the Bill seeks to replace, allows disclosure; secondly, that the Republic of Ireland, in 1997, introduced its own freedom of information legislation allowing disclosure; and, thirdly, and perhaps most extraordinarily of all, that the Home Secretary himself—on 21 July, when he appeared before the Select Committee on Public Administration—said that, on balance, he thought that it was probably right that background and factual information should be made available? Is it not wholly inadequate that we should merely rely on encouraging authorities to use their discretion to make such essential information available?

Much factual information is already available. The Government have considered with great care the various submissions that have been made, and have introduced a draft Bill that we believe strikes the right balance. Although it is correct to say that, in the past, Governments have been too secretive, the Bill will open up government.

Nevertheless, freedom of information cannot be absolute—there is a tension between balancing interests, such as the individual's right to privacy and the confidentiality of some commercial information that is given to Government. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that up to 60 per cent. of requests for information under United States freedom of information legislation are made by companies seeking to elicit confidential information held by the Government about other companies.

We also have to ensure the good and effective administration of Government, which entails that discussions are held properly within Government. In many cases, however, the background factual information may already be in the public arena or—because of the legislation and the culture of openness that we seek to introduce—may be placed in the public arena by Ministers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been a jealous clinging to secrecy by every Government this century, and that it is essential that this Government should prove themselves conclusively different? Will he, please, remember that the Home Secretary has an endearing personal habit of telling the truth, frequently to his own disadvantage, and that that might be an example that it would be very useful for the rest of the Government to follow?

As my hon. Friend says, my right hon. Friend has a record for being open with the House and bringing forward legislation that makes substantial changes. Nothing in the Bill will prevent the disclosure of any information. We must be clear about that. Exemptions do not necessarily prevent the publication of information. Ministers can decide to publish material covered by an exemption if appropriate. We intend to create a new culture of openness in government. The Bill must be seen in the context of the new statutory right of access to information, the new requirement to consider exercising discretion, new publication schemes and a new information commissioner, who will have strong powers to elicit information from the Government and from other public authorities.

Despite the 21 exemptions in the Bill, does the Minister agree that its purpose is to ensure openness and clarity in government? Does he agree that episodes such as that which happened this morning, when the Home Secretary told a BBC reporter in Birmingham that the chief constable of Staffordshire had his figures wrong, demonstrate that there is no clarity in government? Does not backing the police force mean backing chief constables and not calling them liars?

Staffordshire had the biggest increase of any constabulary between 1995 and 1998. The hon. Gentleman must be sure of his ground when he starts talking about freedom of information, because when he stood for election, the Tory campaign guide—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has quoted from it before, but it is worth hearing again—said that the party's view on freedom of information legislation was:

"The only group in Britain who are seriously interested in a freedom of information Act are inquisitive left-wing busy bodies."

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman includes himself in that category.

As an inquisitive left-wing busybody, may I ask how Home Office Ministers fancy the idea of their Bill being contrasted with a Bill, which would be the dream of Mr. Maurice Frankel, put forward by the Edinburgh Parliament? Would that create problems?

We will ensure that the Bill that comes before this House deals with matters for Britain as a whole. We want to ensure a change in the legislation and a new code of practice to make it effective, as well as a change of culture in government. We have a manifesto commitment to introduce effective freedom of information legislation. We shall have to wait and see what proposals come forward in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament may decide to do things differently; that is the prerogative of devolution. Our freedom of information legislation will substantially change the way in which the Government operate. For 18 years, the previous Government did nothing. We shall deliver freedom of information legislation.

What is the current average processing time for an application for the extension of a student visa by the immigration and nationality directorate. [95002]

The time taken to process an application for variation of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom will vary according to complexity. In many cases, straightforward applications from overseas students are being processed within about six weeks, but applications requiring further inquiries will take longer to process.

I hope that the Minister accepts that international students make a huge economic and cultural contribution to my city of Sheffield and to the nation as a whole. I hope that she agrees that it should be an aim of public policy to place as few administrative burdens as possible in their way, consistent with the proper operation of immigration policy. Does she understand that it is distressing for international students to be left without their travel documents, even for only six weeks, although in many cases it runs to months? Will she further consider that more use should be made of local immigration officers, such as we have at Sheffield airport, for processing claims and stamping passports so that students can keep their passports while their claims are being dealt with?

The hon. Gentleman talks a great deal of sense. I agree that, in the main, overseas students bring great benefit to the UK—principally the reputation of the UK that they take home with them after their time here. About 1,500 applications a week from overseas students are being decided within six weeks of receipt, and applications received since 11 October are being processed within two weeks of receipt. I know of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in the matter, and I will undertake to look at all his constructive suggestions.

I suspect that some of the more problematic applications for extensions are those where students are trying to switch from one course to another. Will the Home Office do all that it can to ensure that, whenever possible, students applying for courses lasting two or three years are given visas for the whole of that period, which would cut the need for repeat applications for extensions?

I understand my hon. Friend's point, and we do look at this matter. This is one of the areas of difficulty that take a little longer to process.

May I welcome the hon. Lady to the Front Bench in her new Home Office capacity? Does she agree that the problems over the extension of visas for students represent just one detail of what appears to be the increasingly chaotic handling by the Government of the immigration and nationality directorate? British citizens are having to wait up to three months for their post to be opened, and the backlog of immigration and asylum cases amounts to 149,000—it has risen by nearly two and a half times during 1999 alone. Does she agree that this contrasts with the honeyed words of the Home Office's annual report, which talks about the IND and says:

"The situation has now settled, and the majority of problems have been resolved"?

Will the hon. Lady get a grip on her Department's handling of immigration matters? Can she start by telling the House today what date she has given the IND by which it is to comply with the Government's target of processing all asylum applications within six months?

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courteous welcome, which is much appreciated. I must then depart from that to say that I do not agree with a word he had to say. I am amazed that he had the gall to come to this House and say what he said when the Government of whom he was a supporter left the system in such a shambles. He and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) are adding to the problem following a vote that took place in the other House. The Opposition amendment would drive a coach and horses through the Government's legislation and would cost the taxpayer—including people in the right hon. Lady's own Kent constituency—£500 million. In a letter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the day after the vote in the Lords, the right hon. Lady described the amendment as "sensible" and "common sense". What nonsense she talks.

If he will ensure that deaths on the road caused by negligence are treated the same as any other death caused by negligence. [95003]

A driver who is grossly negligent and causes death may be charged with gross negligence manslaughter, just as he might if death occurred elsewhere than on the road. In other circumstances, deaths on the road can lead to convictions for causing death by dangerous driving or by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs.

Where death results from carelessness, there is no separate offence of "causing death". This is the same as in other situations where negligence falls short of gross negligence.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the case in Sheffield only last week when a 16-year-old girl's life was valued at a paltry £1,000 in fines and a three-year driving ban for the driver whose actions directly caused her death? Does he agree with me and many other hon. Members that that is yet another tragic example of why the Government must take decisive action as soon as possible?

As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot comment on specific legal cases, but I am aware of cases of the type that she has described; they give great cause for concern in many ways. She brought a delegation from her constituency to see me and discuss these issues in great detail. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the proportion of those convicted going into custody, the average sentence length and the number of people sentenced to five years or more are all increasing year on year. That is a trend in the right direction.

With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community Documents.

We come now to motion 7 on record copies of Acts. It is for the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) to move the Lords message.

I beg to move that this House agrees with the Lords in their resolution.

May I give the hon. Gentleman a little guidance? I require him to move the first motion, which is that the Lords message be now considered. Once that is formally moved, we can make a start.

I am grateful for that guidance. I beg to move

Objection.

If the hon. Gentleman objects, he must divide the House.

I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I misunderstood when the Division was due.

Ordered,

That the Lords Message of 19th October, communicating a resolution relating to record copies of Acts of Parliament, be now considered.—[Dr. Palmer.]

I beg to move,

That this House agrees with the Lords in their resolution.

I convey to the House apologies from the Chairman of the Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). I know that she has already written to you, Madam Speaker, but she had a long-standing prior engagement that she could not break.

The Lords message contains the recommendations made by the Administration Committee in its second report. In effect, if not in fact, the House is being asked to approve our report. As it was unanimous, I can speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Broxbourne and all my Committee colleagues. I thank the Clerk of the House for detailed way in which he put his case and the Administration and Works Sub-Committee in another place and the Clerk of the Parliaments. As the matter was of equal interest to both Houses, the Committee was pleased that the other place kept us informed fully of progress on the parallel proposals there.

Although I support the modernisation of Parliament's procedures and practices, I am not an iconoclast. I do not advocate or support change for its own sake. I had to be convinced that the proposal to keep record copies on paper rather than vellum was justifiable and that it would be appropriate both in terms of practicality and of what I might call the dignity of the House.

There are two strands to our report. The first would end the deposition of duplicate record copies of both public and private Acts at the Public Record Office. That appears to serve no useful purpose and the Committee received no representations against the proposals from hon. Members, the PRO, the Master of the Rolls or anyone else. My short speech will therefore concentrate on our other proposal that, from next year, record copies of Acts should be preserved on archival paper rather than on vellum goatskin.

The proposal has generated some interest among hon. Members and others, including the impressively powerful campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), who has fought hard on behalf of his constituents who work for William Cowley's, the company that produces vellum. The proprietor of Cowley's and his relatives have vigorously mobilised opposition; they have inspired letters from, among others, the British Library, the National Library of Wales, the National Library of Scotland and Trinity college, Dublin. All those bodies claim that vellum is best for maintaining record copies; they have expressed various concerns and have made arguments about why that should be so. I shall address those concerns, and hope to convince the House that they are groundless. I shall add a—perhaps—more fundamental reason why those libraries have made those objections.

It has been pointed out that vellum is less susceptible than paper to fire damage. However, the problem with that argument is that vellum and paper are both flammable, so security cannot depend only on the document's material. If there is a serious fire, a document will burn whether it is of vellum or paper. I remind the House that all the records of the House of Commons were destroyed in the fire of 1834, whereas most of the records of the House of Lords survived. That was not because the House of Lords documents were recorded on a different material, but because officials, policemen and soldiers braved the flames and were able to save many of the documents by throwing them out of the window. We depend partly on that type of physical security; the Administration Committee and other Committees are anxious to maximise it. However, to rely only on the fact that the paper itself will not burn is not adequate.

Let us suppose that the record copy of an Act was destroyed or damaged. That would not be such a disaster as it would at first appear. One possible course of action would be the issue of a new, authenticated version by the Clerk of the Parliaments of the day. The Stationery Office has helpfully offered to provide a CD-Rom of the authenticated text for the Public Record Office. That would be much easier for hon. Members and for the Library to consult than a paper or vellum record, so the paper copy would be requested less often, and would be less likely to be damaged in the first place.

It has been claimed that electronic documents cease to be readable after a few years, unless constantly upgraded. That is a misunderstanding based on the fact that people who work with different versions of Word, for example, are aware that they may not stay current after several years. However, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East will agree, the computing industry met that concern with the introduction of portable document format and other formats that are designed to last and can be supported by future documents.

I am slightly confused. Is my hon. Friend saying that internet technology and CD-Rom are incompatible with the storage of records on vellum? I would have thought that both could occur at the same time. Why is that technology an objection to the continued use of vellum?

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that the fact that we now have additional ways of providing secure copies is not an argument against vellum; it is merely that the fact that it is possible to set fire to a piece of paper is not a conclusive argument against paper.

It was claimed that the Committee was biased against the use of animal products—because vellum is goatskin and paper is not. The idea that we should not use animal products unnecessarily is an attractive one. However, we did not advance that argument either in our report, or in the memorandum appended to it by the Clerk of the House. Neither sentiment nor animal welfare considerations affected our judgment. We reached our conclusion for practical—even prosaic—reasons.

The crucial matter is the durability of paper as a suitable medium for record copies of Acts. That is confirmed in the memorandum from the Clerk of the House, which forms the appendix to our report. The memorandum states:

"British Library Conservation Department laboratory tests have proven a life expectancy of 250 years and indicate that archival paper can have a life expectancy exceeding 500 years."

If the Clerk's memorandum has a fault, it is there—it is far too conservative, although I hate to label the Clerk as one of the dark forces of conservatism. The House should consider how paper can last and, indeed, has lasted—I am talking about true paper, as invented by the Chinese in the first century AD, rather than about papyrus, which was invented even earlier.

The British Library contains paper documents from the Han dynasty; although they bear no specific date, they can be dated by association to between 25 AD and 220 AD, but let us be conservative and assume that they date from the end of that period. The documents are almost 1,800 years old—they are twice as old as Westminster Hall, three times as old as the earliest Act of Parliament in the House of Lords Record Office and they predate Magna Carta by 1,000 years. I yield to no one in my respect for the Acts that Parliament passes, but I suggest that that is a reasonable period of time for the original paper copy to last, given that we also have electronic support these days. Those of an historical bent might be interested to learn that the earliest complete and printed book in the world, the Diamond Sutra, is more than 1,100 years old. Record copies of Acts will be kept in proper archival conditions and, as with all House documents, they will be printed on paper with an alkali reserve to ensure that a non-acid pH balance will be maintained over the years.

Another factor that influenced the Committee's decision and which has not been called into dispute is that archival paper is considerably less bulky than vellum. That is an important consideration, given that storage space is finite, especially in the Lords Record Office, which, like many other archives, is getting short of space. When hon. Members raised the matter with her, the hon. Member for Broxbourne, who is the Chairman of the Committee, organised an illustration of the difference in thickness by comparing copies of the Finance Act 1998. The House will be aware that such Acts are rarely short: the vellum copy of the 1998 Act was three times as thick as the paper version. The question of thickness will become even more important when Bills and Acts are printed in a larger typeface, as has been proposed. That welcome move will assist visually impaired Members of Parliament and others, but larger print will mean more pages—in the case of vellum, three times more.

On the question of cost, the Committee's report mentions savings of about £30,000 a year. Some hon. Members have described that as a derisory sum, but the Committee believes in principle that no sum accruing to the taxpayer is derisory and that if we can save money, we should.

Were the costs considered purely the costs to the House authorities?

The cost is the raw cost of purchasing paper compared with the cost of purchasing vellum. However, £30,000 is not all that would be saved, as that is only the savings on the cost of raw material.

Because printing on vellum is highly specialised and because only one company in Britain does it, it is costly and we do not have the opportunity to take tenders for the contract to print Acts from printers other than the Stationary Office. If we print Acts on archival paper, genuinely competitive conditions for the award of new printing contracts could result in savings. The Committee anticipates that the savings thus secured would considerably exceed £30,000. I cannot quantify those savings, but I can state that, since 1993, the House authorities have been able to make savings of about £3 million in expenditure on publishing House documents. About one third of that saving has been made since the privatisation of HMSO. Although that move is not supported universally on other grounds, it must be acknowledged that House officials have been able to use the same competitive conditions that will apply if we introduce archival paper.

I am listening with rapt attention as the hon. Gentleman develops his argument. The anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) are well understood and respected on both sides of the House. Will the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) advise the House at what point in the process the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East apprised the Administration Committee of his concerns on behalf of his constituents?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention: it is always a pleasure to have his rapt attention. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East approached the Committee as soon as he heard about the proposal and realised that it would affect a firm in his constituency. However, my hon. Friend is in a better position to answer that question.

I first heard about the proposal when I read the Committee's report.

I am sure that my hon. Friend raised his concerns at the earliest opportunity. We acknowledge that he has been fighting extremely hard on behalf of the company in his constituency.

Against the background that I have mentioned, it may seem puzzling that distinguished libraries have recommended retaining vellum. Why are they so interested? Another factor has undoubtedly influenced their views; it is a five letter word: m-o-n-e-y. With the indulgence of the House, I shall quote from a letter that the Committee received from Trinity college, Dublin, which reads:

"The availability of this material"—

that is, vellum—

"at a price and quality our libraries and archives feel they can afford depends on the efficiency and productivity of the vellum makers … The half dozen skins that we"—

that is, the libraries—

"purchase each year … will do little to sustain the craft or business … This indirect support"—

from the House—

"will do much to aid our preservation work".

I understand that argument: if I were a chief librarian, I would wish to secure an effective subsidy from the House to help meet the costs of my library. The question is: should we force the taxpayer to subsidise our national libraries so that they do not have to pay the going rate for vellum?

I have a great deal of sympathy with the view that public money should be used to preserve our national treasures and to support libraries. However, let us support the libraries directly: let us not wrap up that support in a subsidy for vellum.

In view of the hon. Gentleman's comments about libraries, can he assure the House that the conservation programme of the Public Record Office will not be adversely affected by the economic factors that he has described?

I understand that the Public Record Office accepts that this proposal will result in a significant saving to the public purse. I have not spoken to its officers directly—I am slightly handicapped in that I am acting as deputy to the hon. Member for Broxbourne—but I understand that the cost to the Public Record Office will be more than compensated for by savings to the public purse.

I apologise for not being in the Chamber to hear the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, but I am extremely interested in his concern for the public purse—it is interesting to hear a Labour Member express such a view. As the hon. Gentleman sets great store by a saving of £30,000 to the Exchequer, will he remind the House how much rooms across the road for Members of Parliament cost?

Order. That is a very interesting point and the information is available, but it is not at all relevant to this motion.

As much as I would like to answer the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), I am, alas, unable to do so.

Hon. Members may say that we are getting rid of a tradition, but it is a tradition that can no longer be justified. The printing of Acts on goatskin should go the same way as tally sticks and collapsible top hats. It is slightly ironic that the House of Lords, which one sometimes hears criticised for not being in touch with the modern world, readily accepted the proposals without a Division. Our constituents will react with total incredulity if the House rejects this motion and insists that our laws be inscribed on goatskin. That policy might be prestigious for a tribe of nomadic goatherds, but it is, frankly, bizarre for the Britain of today. To put it bluntly, such a decision would serve only to make this House look out of touch.

The Committee has carefully considered all the representations made and produced a concise, convincing report, which I commend to the House.

I shall not delay the House for long in giving the Opposition's view that the resolution should be approved. The printing of Acts on vellum is an anachronistic practice that dates back to 1849. In October 1956, Madam Speaker, one of your predecessors was wise enough to institute a partial change by suggesting that private Acts should no longer be printed on vellum and deposited in the Public Record Office.

I shall be so bold as to suggest that the Opposition regard the move as part of the common-sense revolution. It is ironic that in these days of computers and electronic data storage, we should be debating the merits or otherwise of continuing to keep the work of the House stored on vellum. The case for change has been made admirably by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) on behalf of the Committee. Vellum is very expensive, and the note by the Clerk of the House that is appended to the report suggests that printing last year's Finance Act alone on vellum cost nearly £12,000. That cost is increased by the necessity to place duplicate copies on vellum in the Public Record Office.

I do not know, and the hon. Member for Broxtowe did not mention, why, in 1985, his predecessor Committee rejected the proposal to extend the proposals to public Acts.

I understand that the then Committee included an hon. Member in whose constituency there was a vellum manufacturer. He argued very forcefully against the proposals, and the matter was not proceeded with.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments because they probably make the case exceedingly well.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. Far be it from me to interrupt the eloquence of his flow for long, but the remarks just made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe are a source of anxiety to me because I have attended closely to the letter that I received from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White). In paragraph 7 he informs me that he understands that the vellum producers nearest to those in his constituency are in France. I sense a split between Labour Members, and I would be grateful if that could be resolved as speedily as possible.

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Unfortunately, I can throw no light on the question of where the nearest alternative source of vellum is to be found other than the correspondence that I, too, have had with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White).

Perhaps I may assist the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). As I understand it, representations were made in 1985 on behalf of a firm that manufactured vellum. That firm no longer exists. The firm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) produces vellum. The impression that the House has been given that the nearest alternative supply of vellum is in France is correct.

I thank the Minister for that clarification.

I said that I would not delay the House in giving the Opposition's view. We have no objection to the motion, and shall let the matter stand there.

I apologise for the earlier confusion when I objected to the first motion.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), I was in the computer industry before I entered this House, so I have no problem with the modern techniques of recording Acts. I have supported wholeheartedly the efforts of the Modernisation Committee to modernise the processes of the House.

I oppose the motion for three reasons: first, because of the way in which the matter was handled, to which I shall return; secondly, because I disagree with the Committee's arguments, which I hope to demonstrate are wrong; and thirdly, and most importantly, because the decision means the end of an industry in which Britain leads the world. I hope that, for each of those reasons, the House will support me in what I understand is a free vote, and reject the Committee's report, so that we can find a different way forward.

Committee members did not talk to the supplier until it was too late and they had made their decision. Let us take the issue of the Finance Bill, to which the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) referred. The House authorities asked for a certain quantity of vellum; it was supplied. Then, at very short notice, they asked for a considerable quantity more, demanding it within 24 or 48 hours. Any reasonable request could have been met.

I reiterate that I understand and am sensitive to the hon. Gentleman's legitimate anxieties. Will he clarify for the benefit of the House whether the company in his constituency was given any opportunity to make representations? If it was not, that would, at the very least, count as a rank discourtesy, and the hon. Gentleman would have every reason to be dissatisfied about it.

The hon. Gentleman makes the point about the supplier's feelings more eloquently than I can. The supplier has written several letters and received replies, but in a letter to me in September, he said:

"I have tried to find out more about the reason behind the review of Vellum.

I cannot find any reason why the officials of the Public Bills Office were so 'determined' to hold the Press to its contract when there was no … reason."

It seems to him that there has been a campaign to end his contract; that it was a question of making a decision and then finding reasons for it. He is rightly upset about that. One of the things that worry me is the way in which the episode has been handled, because I do not think that it has been handled correctly. Many issues, such as those of cost, thickness and storage, could have been resolved in discussion with the supplier. There did not need to be a change of material.

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that this important debate was not important. The jobs in his constituency are very important; I accept the arguments on behalf of his miners. The supplier is very important to an old part of my constituency, so I contend that this an important debate.

Is my hon. Friend asserting that, with further consultation, it would have been possible to reduce the bulk of vellum by one third and to eliminate all the extra cost?

I am saying that it would have been possible to reduce the thickness and costs. Whether that was what the Committee had in mind would have been resolved by discussion.

One of the arguments compared vellum with archival paper. I quote from a letter that I have received from the British Library:

"my colleagues at the British Library were consulted about recommending an archival quality paper, which they were happy to do. I understand that they were not asked to compare the longevity of parchment with that of paper."

Therefore, the question that they were asked was not necessarily the one that should have been asked.

Equally, the Institute of Paper Conservation has said:

"We are concerned by the Select Committee's statement that archival paper has a proven life expectancy of 250 years, possibly more."

I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe was right to say 500 years. The institute goes on:

"It seems to ignore the more fundamental problem of finding and securing supplies of archival paper made to the high specification required."

Again, the House has been given only part of the story. It is possible to get the sort of quality from the paper to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe referred, but it comes at a cost. It is not a matter of going to the local branch of Staple's and picking up some paper. There are issues to be resolved on the question of high quality.

We have already heard that the recommendation is about achieving a saving to the House, but fundamental costs to libraries and to archives would increase, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe accepted.

When we compare longevity of 250 or 500 years with the 1,500 years of vellum, the cost of £30,000 pales into insignificance. The supplier has assured me that the thickness requirement is dictated by the House authorities. He could easily supply vellum at half the current thickness if he were asked to do so. New techniques are being developed all the time that improve the quality of vellum at a much thinner specification. Again, no one has discussed that with him. It was taken as read that the current thickness was required. No one asked whether the vellum could be thinner.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe recognised that it is not an animal welfare issue. The calf skin is from animals that are already dead, or that would be used for other purposes—it is waste material.

It has been alleged that there is a short supply of vellum. Again, the evidence that I have would dispute that. One of the most fundamental suggestions in the report is that it is difficult to print on vellum, but that seems to ignore modern developments that mean that printing on vellum is possible from a standard ink-jet printer. If that can be done, there will be no problem in continuing to use vellum. Other people are not suggesting that there are printing problems with vellum.

I have a letter from Sotheby's, which suggests an idea for the House:

"Would you like to borrow a piece of real medieval vellum? … If you were speaking about the durability of vellum and could exhibit a piece, you could virtually defy anyone in the House to tear it in half."

My notes are on vellum. Before I came into the Chamber, I offered them to the Government Whips and said, "If you want to rip them up, feel free to do so." As hon. Members can see, they were unable to tear them in half.

There is a fundamental reason for opposing the motion. Arguments in the Committee's report could be discussed. In fact, arguments on both sides could be discussed with the supplier. There is only one supplier in the country who deals with vellum; Britain leads the world in the sector. If we were to lose that supplier, an industry would be lost. The company has one major contract, on which all the others depend. It is sustained by its contract with the House—so that, in turn, it is able to supply vellum to its other clients, such as bookbinders, archives and museums. The contract also enables the firm to supply very small quantities of vellum to other clients, such as—as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said—the six pieces supplied to Trinity college.

We can save our vellum industry, and the unique skills practised in it. The National Library of Scotland stated:

"This material is more durable and long lasting than even the archival papers in common use today. Archival papers are long lasting but they do not have the life of parchment/vellum and are yet unproven … If it is the intention to preserve the original records of state for as long as possible, then parchment/vellum should be the information carrier."

Christopher Clarkson, a conservator of library and archive materials, said:

"I teach in many countries, including America, and I can in all honesty say that many workshops rely on England …

Your colleagues in Parliament may think that discontinuation of the use of parchment is an economy, but they must be made aware of the larger picture."

In the aftermath of the Florence flood disaster, the skills of many people were required. Subsequently, many of those skills have been lost. If the House cancels the contract, Britain will lose conservation, bookbinding and archival skills, and, in the years to come, we will come to rue the decision.

The National Library of Wales said:

"Vellum is essential for the conservation of historic books and manuscripts, but it is used in far smaller quantities for conservation than when it is used for printing, and in my opinion the combined purchasing power of British conservators is insufficient to sustain the sole surviving British manufacturer of vellum."

The House may decide that making a £30,000 economy justifies destroying an industry—but such a decision would be wrong. We are again in danger of being penny wise, but pound foolish. If the company loses the contract and goes out of business, we shall be putting a dozen people out of work. Although that number of jobs lost—compared with those lost in the coal, steel or shipbuilding industries—is not great, we shall be losing entirely another industry and the skills that create products that we export around the world.

I ask the House to reject the report, so that we might find another solution. If we reject the report, we shall be able to continue discussions with the supplier on finding savings. If the report is accepted, we shall damage not only the company and my constituency, but—most of all—the United Kingdom.

I refer Opposition Members to today's editorial in The Times, which urges them to treat the matter with the importance that it deserves. I tell Conservative Members that, if last week's rhetoric meant anything, they should vote today to support a British industry that depends on British agriculture. Any Conservative Member who votes today to accept the report will only be exposing as rhetoric the statements that the official Opposition made last week.

I remind my colleagues that, when we were in opposition, we were unable to save the shipbuilding industry or the coal mines—which others had resolved to destroy. If we accept the report, we too shall be destroying an industry, albeit a small one.

We should deal with the matter properly. There should be proper consultation, so that we might find the best way forward and treat people decently. The proposal would make a small saving for a small number of people, but we would lose something important for everybody else.

I ask the House to reject the report and give us time to find a different way forward that does not destroy an industry. The nearest vellum producers are in France. Whether the other business would go there remains to be seen, but we would lose it for this country. I shall be pushing for a Division. We need to have further discussions to look at the wider picture and engage in joined-up thinking rather than just saving money for the House authorities at the cost of jobs and industries and increasing costs for libraries and other parts of the public sector. Please reject the report.

I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) with considerable interest. I understand, and have some sympathy with, his legitimate constituency concerns. However, we support the Committee's recommendations and the resolution. They are in the interests of the economy and of the better running of the affairs of this House.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) may be pleased to know that he will not be the only one voting against the motion, because I—and, I believe, one or two of my colleagues—will support him. It is one of the tragedies of our time that the Government clothe every change that they make with the word "modernise". That is held to be enough to uproot our traditions and change the way in which we do many things.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. Is he aware that the proposal comes not from the Government, but from an all-party Committee chaired by his hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe)?

Yes, I can read. I understand that this is a House matter and that the Whips will not be in evidence tonight. I am glad that this is a matter for the House to debate. I preface my remarks by saying that it is one of the tragedies of our time that the Government clothe everything with the word "modernise" and believe that that is sufficient justification for their actions. Some Committees of the House do the same. This is a case in point. We are told that we must modernise. Even my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said that we have an antiquated arrangement.

I am a traditionalist. I believe in tradition, as do the people of this country. That is the first reason why I object to the conclusions of the report. The note by the Clerk of the House in the report says that the matter was considered in 1985. A similar proposal was agreed by the other place and was considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee. The note continues:

"it is believed that Members took the view that the anticipated level of savings did not justify a departure from long-standing tradition."

I take the view that, if it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change. That is the foundation of tradition. I share the view of the 1985 Committee.

As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East has said, it is not just the House that benefits from the 12 jobs in his constituency. University College Dublin has made representations to us because it derives some benefit. I thought that the Conservatives were in favour of cross-subsidisation. If the House can play a small part in helping to maintain a skill and tradition in this country that is not available elsewhere, save perhaps in France, we should take that into account. We should not lightly dispense with a skill available to this country that is of great value and practical assistance not only to University College Dublin, but to other institutions. We have long been admired for the way in which we conserve pictures and books. We need to maintain that, and should reject it only for good reasons.

The Committee and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) have referred to costs as one of the real reasons to depart from the recommendations of the Committee in 1985. It seems to be a rather small amount, worth about eight months' pay for one Member of Parliament. To use the terms of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, it is eight months of one Member for 12 of his constituents. I would not like to ask the House to anticipate which the public would see as the better deal. They would probably be prepared to dispense with any number of hon. Members for 12 of the hon. Gentleman's skilled constituents.

It is true that £30,000 is a lot of money but, set against the cost of the new building at Westminster—some £1 million per Member, I am told—£30,000 is not a lot to maintain a tradition, preserve skills and make available a service to museums and other conservators. That is a small contribution that this House could make. People might think it odd that we are prepared to spend all that money on ourselves, while taking action that would put 12 of the hon. Gentleman's constituents out of work.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Cabinet were to take a further measure of pay restraint, the savings could be found by that route instead?

My hon. Friend presupposes that the Cabinet would be prepared to do that. According to the newspapers today, the Deputy Prime Minister—the trade union shop steward on behalf of the Cabinet—takes a dim view of such pay restraint. My hon. Friend nevertheless makes a good point in comparison.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East made a strong case about the durability of vellum. I wonder how many hon. Members have taken visitors to the other place to see the showcase of significant Acts of Parliament and other parliamentary documents. One of my great delights in showing people those is to say, "That is not a facsimile, copy or replica. That is the Act of Parliament, dating back to 1497, which bears the signature of the King—and it survives to this day." I do not believe that that tradition should be tossed aside lightly.

People who see those documents are in awe. The death warrant of Charles I is there—not a copy or facsimile, but the actual document. Who is to say whether archival paper would survive for 300 or 500 years? The jury has to be out, and none of us will be here to act as the jury to find out whether it works. Therefore, we should not take a chance, and we should stick with vellum, which has proved that it can survive over time.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East is a computer specialist. I understand that computers do crash, and that they are not made from such robust material as vellum. It would be a foolish House—which has the stewardship of these matters for future generations—to entrust the records of the proceedings of our times to a bit of plastic that might not stand the test of time, and to do so in the full knowledge that vellum does stand the test of time and has lasted for 500 years.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, while it is right to be able to see the vellum next door, it is also right to be able to see the same Act of Parliament whether one is in Australia, Northumberland or wherever? The two go together; they are not incompatible.

Yes, I accept that point.

This is a House of Commons matter, not a Government matter, but what has happened has been very much in the tradition of the way in which the Government like to handle matters. I believe in tradition. I see no good reason why we should dispense with vellum. Indeed, I see grave risks in our doing so and entrusting ourselves to the world of the computer. I shall vote against the motion.

The outside world will be looking on in amazement at our debate on this issue when, for instance, the debate on agriculture was arbitrarily stopped at 7 o'clock the other night when numerous hon. Members still wanted to talk about the largest farming crisis since the 1930s.

My interests are declared in the Register: I was previously in the leather business and there is some connection with the trade in vellum. I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). I, too, believe in tradition. It is sad that we are wilfully throwing away a material that works. That is the first thing to be said in praise of vellum: it has worked since the middle ages. There is no track record of 500 or 1,000 years to let us know whether archival paper will work.

Why not leave matters where they stand? A few technical criticisms were thrown at vellum. As I understand it from the leather conservation centre in Northampton, vellum can be taken down to 0.4 mm to 0.5 mm. That is as thin as archival paper and would do the job just as well. There are no practical problems.

Cost has been spoken of, but let us consider the £30,000 against the £1 billion that the Government are spending on extra government in organisations, spin doctors and general hangers-on. It would probably not cover half the expense account for six months of one of the Government's more glossy and glamorous spin doctors. The easiest way of reducing the bill of £11,000 on the Finance Bill is to have a shorter Bill; it is far too long and far too much government is enacted in the House without enough scrutiny. I regret the fact that we are considering this issue rather than welfare, for example.

I shall vote for tradition and for keeping a material with a splendid track record going back to the middle ages, and one that keeps a tiny business in the constituency of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North—East (Mr. White) going. If the contract is withdrawn, I suspect that several of the 10 or a dozen people involved will be on the dole and the British taxpayer will pick up a larger bill than the £30,000 that this stingy, miserable, petty report says that we will save.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) for so ably moving the motion and to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) for his spirited contribution.

This is clearly a matter for the House to decide. Last week, the House had the opportunity to discuss the history, tradition and precedence of parliamentary privilege. Today, we have the opportunity to discuss parliamentary history again. Many of our practices date from experience in the 19th century. Altering an 1849 resolution about the record copies of Acts is not something that we would want to do without mature consideration, and we have had some of that this afternoon.

I am aware of some hon. Members' concerns that this may not be the best use of parliamentary time, but it is essential that the legislation be enacted by the end of the Session if it is to take effect in time for the first Act of 2000. On 16 June, the other place approved the second report from the House of Lords Offices Committee, which recommended that the record copies of Acts of Parliament kept in the House of Lords Record Office should he printed on archival paper instead of vellum, with effect from the first Act of 2000.

It was also agreed that the supply of a duplicate copy for the Public Record Office should cease. The Public Record Office consented to that and believes that its services will not be affected.

We are indebted to the Administration Committee for looking into the matter, and it recommended that record copies of Acts should be preserved on archival paper rather than vellum. As we have heard, substantial cost savings can be made.

In the other place a fortnight ago, one peer said that he thought that the records should go straight to CD-Rom. Such is the pace of technological change that I imagine that—unlike its predecessor, the 1849 Act—any new resolution agreed in 1999 will not survive unamended for 150 years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North—East referred to the effect of the change on a small firm in his constituency. I understand that it is the only firm in the United Kingdom with the necessary skills, and it is important to acknowledge the craftsmanship with which that firm has preserved our legislative work over all those years, and to thank it for that work. We should also acknowledge the service done by my hon. Friend over recent weeks in pursuing his constituents' case so vigorously.

Despite my hon. Friend's comments, and the concerns that he raised, it seems sensible to make the change in time for the first Act of Parliament of the next millennium. That would be a modest piece of modernisation in line with the Government's objective of improving the quality as well as the form of legislation, and I commend the report to the House.

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond briefly to a couple of the points made during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) made a passionate and effective defence of the interests of his local company. I have resolved that, if I am ever defeated in Broxtowe, I shall move to Milton Keynes, so as to get the benefit of my hon. Friend's advocacy.

On the specific issue of consultation, I can tell my hon. Friend that the Administration Committee tries to abide by the terms of the Ibbs report, which means that we rarely take evidence in open session. We ask the Officers of the House to make inquiries, to discuss matters and to correspond with companies, as was done in the case in question.

I confirm that members of the Administration Committee were apprised of the contents of the letters from William Cowley, and had the opportunity to bring the issue back to the Committee before the decision was published. We decided that we were still satisfied with the case.

How many times did the Committee discuss with the supplier the issues of substance in the report?

As I said, the Committee does not normally take direct evidence in session from companies or individuals, but our officers corresponded with the supplier; as my hon. Friend will know, there was a substantial correspondence on the subject.

How long has the firm been under contract to the House?

I am afraid that I do not have that information, but I shall be happy to supply the hon. Gentleman with it when I get hold of it after the debate.

As for durability, several hon. Members drew attention to the fact that, in principle, vellum will last for perhaps 1,500 years, and archival paper for between 500 and 1,000 years, or even, perhaps, 2,000 years. They argued that that was the crucial element. However, as I said earlier, the important question is not only the survival of the original documents but the security with which documents are kept, and the availability of computer back-up.

The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said that that was not a viable argument because computers crash. However, Members who work more actively with computers will agree that storage, especially storage of documents available on the internet, is not affected by the crash of any individual personal computer such as the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members may own. We are talking about long-term storage with thorough back-up facilities, as thorough as those used by the Bank of England or other established bodies to secure the long-term viability of data.

Several hon. Members suggested that £30,000 is not a very large sum. Opposition Members attempted to ride with the hounds and run with the fox by attacking the Government for alleged overspending while recognising that the report is from an all-party Committee. I pointed out earlier that the availability of many more firms able to work with archival paper is likely to produce substantial savings of a kind that will be familiar to Opposition Members. It is unfortunate that they have presented their case as a partisan attack on the Government, and that approach will not benefit them in the vote.

It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East and the hon. Member for Aldershot that it would be a shame to lose our foothold in an industry in which Britain is a leader in the world. Valuable though it may be to be the leader in the world in printing on goatskin, if we are unable to sustain the industry except by subsidising it with unnecessary orders from Parliament, the industry is not sustainable. I believe that that is the view of Ministers and Opposition Front Benchers, and of most hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are not in the business of preserving industries merely for the sake of it.

I am concerned by my hon. Friend's reference to subsidy. Does he agree that several valuable industries have been sustained by subsidy and that Britain remains an industrial nation as a result?

My hon. Friend's point would lead us into a broader political debate, but I agree with him that key industries have effects on other industries and need to be preserved during difficult times so that they can survive in the longer term. I suggest that the printing of documents on goatskin is not one of them. I note also that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East mentioned the need to support British agriculture, but I understand that the goatskins in question come not from Britain but from Morocco.

My hon. Friend has referred to goatskin throughout the debate, but it is calfskin that is used.

I am grateful for that correction. In any event, the skins in question do not come from British cows.

The hon. Member for Aldershot, who is the authoritative voice in this House of the 19th century—and earlier centuries—noted the value of the death warrant of Charles I. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that any future royal death warrants will not be put on archival paper. The motion refers only to Acts of Parliament.

I am grateful for that explanation. However, should some measure that is not an Act of Parliament require the approval of the House, from where will we get the material?

In the event of a future royal death warrant or other matter, we might exceptionally violate the call of the Leader of the Opposition and import the material from France.

The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) argued that Finance Bills are too long. That is a non-party issue, which goes beyond the current debate, but I suggest that the way to shorten Finance Bills is not necessarily to preserve them on animal skin.

The hon. Gentleman also pleaded the case of tradition. Let me give a serious response to the arguments about preserving tradition. I do respect the traditions of the House and those of the country. I believe that we should support traditions that are in keeping with our concept of Britain today, but to preserve a tiny industry that prints on animal hide for the sake of tradition alone does not seem to me sensible, and would not be understood by our constituents as sensible.