What steps she is taking to achieve full compatibility between the IT systems of Government Departments. [101542]

Compatible IT systems can make a real difference to people. We are using the Government secure intranet to link up public servants. We are well advanced with the first phase pilot system to allow members of the public to notify Government of a change of address and we are publishing frameworks for call centres, websites, digital television, smartcards and authentication, which are the building blocks of a world-class Government IT environment.

I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has taken on the job of sorting out computers. The House recognises that he has the qualities and toughness needed to knock heads together and to get the job done right. However, we currently have two big computer systems—for the Inland Revenue and for the Contributions Agency—that were inherited from the previous Government; and we are commissioning new systems for Customs and Excise and for the Department of Social Security. The Government's objectives require all the systems to work together. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that happens, with the result that we have joined-up computers as well as joined-up government?

I give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that the problems with the previous Government's legacy and the range of computer systems will be resolved. As important is that the Government are drawing up an IT strategy for the future that covers procurement, objectives, positive outcomes and value for money. When I answer Question 4 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) I shall set out more detail of that strategy. However, I assure the House that the quality and standards objectives of the current Government are greatly different from those of the previous Government.

How does the Minister reconcile his IT policy with the fact that 11 of 17 Home Office IT projects are way behind schedule? Will he undertake, as a matter of principle and priority, to publish before the Christmas recess a list of all the IT projects currently under way in every Department and the success rate of those projects, including how many are late and how many are on time?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have risen to apologise for the legacy of the previous Government. Their approach to IT procurement was shambolic: no Minister took any interest in the projects, in delays, in safeguarding the public purse, or in ensuring successful outcomes. The result is that the current Government have a big job of work before them. I give the hon. Gentleman the same assurance as I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins): the current Government will get it right and we are on course to do so. In the next few months, to spring of next year, we shall review both current and previous projects to learn from mistakes made by the public and private sectors and to ensure that they are not made again.

What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the anti-drugs strategy at local level. [101543]

There is clear evidence that drug action teams—ATs—in some areas are producing good results. In other areas there are more difficulties. We have many good examples of DATs working successfully with more than 300 voluntary organisations throughout the country on all aspects of Government policy, from rehabilitation centres to prevention work in schools. We need a fuller picture, so we have a comprehensive programme of research in place; by April, we will have a full regional breakdown of the statistics.

Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that it is difficult for a single drugs action co-ordinator to drive the fight against drugs throughout a large shire county? We in Suffolk have more localised drugs and alcohol forums, but they tend to consist of the usual busy people who receive little support in their locality. Will my right hon. Friend consider establishing more localised drugs action co-ordinators in the towns where the worst drugs problems are found, so that they can more effectively spearhead the fight against drugs and eradicate that menace from communities?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. In some rural areas, such as Suffolk, implementing his suggestions might help. Some areas have already established such a co-ordinator by using some of the money made available by central Government, and we are in the process of consulting DATs so that we can learn from the best practice employed by those that have already done that. It is important both to share good practice and to build flexibility into the system, so that we do not dictate to big city areas, many of which already cope well on the drugs front. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall return in the new year with fresh proposals, if we believe that they will help.

The Government have set ambitious targets for reducing drug abuse, especially among the young. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the most effective way to prevent young people from taking drugs is to stifle the supply entering the country and available on the streets? Although seizures have increased, availability has not declined—in fact, quite the opposite is true. Therefore, is she confident that, within the budgets available, sufficient resources are being devoted, through Customs and Excise and the police, to curtailing both supplies and the activities of dealers?

The hon. Lady should remember the cuts that the Conservative Government made to Customs and Excise—[Interruption.] To answer her question, we have provided an extra £50 million to the Department of Health and £60 million for treatment. Those are only two examples of extra money being given, out of a total of £250 million across Departments.

What about supply?

The issue of supply is crucial to solving the problem. The police and Customs and Excise are working hard and I commend the actions that are taking place. It is crucial that the work is done. The money that has come in from Customs and Excise will be recycled and used to fight the problem. That is extremely helpful.

In addition, we are addressing the question of how drugs come into the country and how to cut supply. That is crucial to making progress. Alongside that, we are trying to work at the underlying causes of drug addiction. We are working with the Prison Service so that when people leave prison they do not come out to nothing—they come out trained and have the chance of not reoffending. We are working with social services to ensure that when people come out of care the most vulnerable are not open to abuse.

We are dealing with the problem in many different areas. We hope that over 10 years, when we have the strategy set out—it is not a problem that can be solved overnight—we shall make the necessary progress.

What plans she has to change the designation, role and employment conditions of permanent secretaries. [101544]

I have no plans to do so but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in his answer to a parliamentary question today, the permanent secretary heads of Department are themselves driving forward a radical programme of civil service reform. That will involve them adopting a corporate leadership role and participating in a management board for the civil service under the chairmanship of Sir Richard Wilson. That represents a major programme of change that will affect staff at all levels, including permanent secretaries.

I take it from my right hon. Friend's answer that Sir Humphrey Appleby is dead and buried. If we are to have a new breed of civil servants delivering on the targets on which new Labour places such great store, surely there must be absolute transparency. Those who criticise us for politicising the civil service should get short shrift because new Labour would never do that.

There have been suggestions that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to keep a grip on Whitehall, wants to establish a Prime Minister's Department, perhaps allied with the Cabinet Office. Has my right hon. Friend any comments to make on that speculation?

My hon. Friend referred to Sir Humphrey. I had my trouble when I started working with the civil service and I did not find it easy. However, over the years of working with members of it, I have come to respect the work that they do and the impartiality and propriety that they bring to the job. I am not sure that my hon. Friend's initial comments are in any way helpful or constructive.

We support my hon. Friend's point about transparency. When he has had the chance to read all of "Modernising government", which relates to the public service, he will recognise that transparency is a crucial part of it.

The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question is no.

Does the Minister recognise that there is a remarkable coincidence, because the report to which she has referred appears just two days before the end of the evidence-taking sessions of the Phillips inquiry into BSE? Sir Richard Wilson's report on behalf of the permanent secretaries is apparently suggesting an extension of performance-related pay. Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that if there is any repetition of the bungles that were obviously characteristic of the previous Government over BSE, there will be reductions in the pay of higher civil servants?

I get the gist of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making but the nature of the report is for the civil service. It is implementing it and it is in consultation over it. I am sure that those responsible have heard the hon. Gentleman's point.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that as a result of today's report from the head of the home civil service to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the permanent secretaries of the future will have experience of front-line delivery of services, experience of operational management and experience outside Whitehall?

Obviously, I cannot give such a guarantee, but I can say that the appointments will be open and transparent. One of the objects of the report is to encourage greater exchange between the public and private sectors, and between the voluntary sector and both, so that best practice and good experience are shared. The process will be open and transparent. There will be some secondees—there are at present more than 100— from the private to the public sector. I hope, as does the head of the civil service, that that arrangement will continue. It is a two-way street, which can only promote the efficient use of taxpayers' money and more effective services.

Will the right hon. Lady confirm that Sir Richard Wilson's report includes among the core values of the civil service its political impartiality? Will she therefore give the House two assurances—first, that the performance measures for which permanent secretaries will be held responsible will be in relation to targets for which they are directly responsible as administrators, not targets derived from the policy decisions of Ministers, for which Ministers should be held accountable?

Secondly, given the undermining of political impartiality by political appointments such as the Prime Minister's chief press spokesman and the chief economic adviser to the Treasury, will the right hon. Lady guarantee that no further appointments in the senior civil service will be made on a political, rather than an independent, basis?

To deal with the final point first, unfounded accusations are not helpful to either party in government. I could stand at the Dispatch Box and list appointments under the previous Government, such as that of the then Mr. Burns, but that would get us nowhere. We do not make political appointments to civil service posts. The political advisers are a valuable asset because they provide a political dimension alongside the civil service. Impartiality is crucial; it exists and will continue.

On performance targets, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the report. They are Department-linked, and I believe that that will continue.

What steps have been taken to improve the delivery of Government IT projects. [101545]

A major review of the handling of Government IT projects is under way, to identify the pillars that support successful IT projects and make sure that those are put in place in the future. Early work shows that those factors include a full assessment of the risks involved in a project, and clear plans for managing them; strong contingency plans; keeping the scale of a project manageable; making sure that both the supplier and the purchaser clearly understand the aims of the project, and their respective responsibilities; and building capacity for learning lessons from previous projects, both good and bad.

The review will ensure that we learn lessons from past projects, so that future systems run effectively and deliver value for money.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that full answer. He has taken out of my mouth many of the phrases connected with successful IT management. May I commend to him the remarks of the chief executive of the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency, who also highlighted the lack of leadership skills in this area and the need to supplement IT skills in key Departments? That adds to my central point, which is that any project requires clear and accountable leadership. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

My hon. Friend is right. The points that I listed were not mere words. They describe a process that will dramatically improve the way in which the public sector, and central Government in particular, will produce IT projects in the future. One of the key areas is the skills and knowledge necessary to devise a project, to ensure that it is manageable, and to negotiate with those who will supply the project. My hon. Friend's remarks are well targeted. I give him an assurance that when the Government produce their IT projects strategy in March, what he said will be included in that strategy.

Has the Minister had a chance to look into what happened in the Home Office in relation to the IT project for passports? He will know that that was specified and ordered under the present Government, and that rather than the organisation becoming more efficient, we are told that people will have to pay 30 per cent. extra for their passports to pay for the mess that the Government created. That must surely be investigated by the Cabinet Office and the lessons learned for other projects.

We are prepared not only to learn lessons from what happened in the Passport Agency; part of my work is dealing with the previous Government's projects in 1995, 1996 and 1997, all of which I have to review. In fact, we have to go back as far as 1990 to resolve the problems left by the previous Government. I shall take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman about botched IT projects.

If she will make a statement on the work of the regulatory impact unit. [101546]

My right hon. Friend recently set out a whole new approach to cutting Government red tape. The unit has an important role in making sure that new regulations are really necessary, do not overlap and are as comprehensible as possible.

The unit also looks at existing regulations and asks the basic question, "Is there an alternative to regulation?"

Given the police's views, reported earlier this week, that their administrative burden was so great that it hampered them in their duties, and, in particular, hindered them from doing front-line work, what plans have the Government to reduce the burden of red tape, especially in the public sector, so that people can spend more time doing their jobs and less time on administration?

My hon. Friend is right; the police spend up to six hours completing initial paperwork for a simple arrest. We are worried about that, and, consequently, one of my first tasks in the new year will be to visit a police station—voluntarily—to examine the paperwork involved. We are committed to ensuring that the public sector—schools, hospitals and the police—is not overburdened with red tape. We will try to find ways in which our teachers can spend more time in the classroom, our police can spend more time dealing with crime and our health workers can spend more time improving people's health.

Will the unit have any responsibility for regulating the speed with which Cabinet Ministers write their memoirs after leaving office? The going rate is £350,000.

Cabinet Ministers' memoirs are already covered by rules, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Does my hon. Friend believe that the work of the unit, which is operating under yet another new name, will mean that, next year, new measures will come before the Select Committee on Deregulation?

As my hon. Friend knows, next year we shall introduce a regulatory reform Bill, which will ensure that his Committee has plenty of work.

The Minister refers to the announcement on 15 November as "a whole new approach". Why, only three days later, did the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), sign an inadequate regulatory impact assessment of the Representation of the People Bill? What will the regulatory impact unit do about such an assessment, which appears to ignore the credit industry's view that clause 9 of that Bill would cost industry £800 million in the first year and £600 million thereafter. Marie Curie Cancer Care told me that clause 9 would cost it between £100,000 and £150,000 a year. The regulatory impact assessment does not reflect that.

The matter is under review and a full regulatory impact assessment will be finalised.

What progress is being made in implementing the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [101548]

The Government are making good progress towards the tough targets set out in their strategy document, "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain". In June 1999, the national treatment outcome research study found that, two years after treatment, former users' drug use and related offending is significantly reduced. The study supports the strategy's aim of getting offenders into treatment. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced details of how £20 million has been set aside for the expansion of arrest referral schemes, which are designed to get drug misusers into treatment. That is in addition to the extra £217 million allocated to anti-drugs work as part of the previous spending review.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. What efforts are being made—particularly through the school system, in both urban and rural areas—to prevent young people from getting into drugs? I believe that it would be complacent to suggest that there is no drugs problem in rural areas.

The Government are deeply committed to dealing with what is, in effect, a war that is killing our young people. One 12-year-old in 12, one in three 14-year-olds and nearly half all 16-year-olds have tried drugs at least once. More than half of young homeless people use drugs regularly and one in 10 has tested positive for crack after committing an offence. The Government have set out basic targets to assess young people to prevent them from getting involved in drugs and to assist those who have become involved—both with their life style and in treatment programmes—to stop them using drugs, to sustain their education and employment and to give them and their families the space and opportunity to achieve a better, healthier life style.

Although I welcome the successes that the Government have been achieving, how successful have they been in sequestrating funds from known drug runners and dealers? Has further thought been given to marshalling world financial centres to do away with known drugs-funded bank accounts?

We are working internationally to prevent drugs from coming into this country and co-operating across international boundaries on security and intelligence issues. We are also working with developing countries to promote alternatives to growing the poppy in the killing fields. It must be made clear that the 10-year programme introduced by the Government—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members are listening because we are talking about the youth of this country: 3,000 have died in the past year alone and that could touch any one of us, so please listen. We must make it clear in the 10-year plan that no drug baron, no drug cartel and no drug dealer can feel safe in carrying on his evil activity in this country. That requires the assistance of everybody in the community working together: the people, local government, the health service, the police, Customs and Excise and, dare I say it, Members of the House.

Does the Minister agree that some of the saddest and most intractable examples of people with drug problems are those rough sleepers who are addicted to alcohol and other drugs? Are not the policies of the homelessness Tsarina a great encouragement and should not the House congratulate her on those new, pragmatic, practical and courageous policies?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making further announcements about investing in the care and social needs of those who are on the street. That includes access not only to accommodation, but to health care, education and training and a range of other measures that will help to bring them back into a sustainable life style.

Given that about half of all drug treatment and testing orders are being breached and nearly a third have been revoked by the courts, what steps are the Government planning to take to make them more effective than they seem to be at present?

Without that action there would be 100 per cent. failure: no young people would be diverted into treatment programmes; no young people would be diverted from drugs into education and training; and no young people would be directed from the street into protective environments. The programme has been successful and because of it children who would have died in the next few years will live. That should be commended by all Members of the House.

What impact proposals for Government modernisation will have on the Government's equality programme. [101549]

Our commitment to modernising the civil service includes our targets to double the representation of women and ethnic minorities in the senior civil service within the next five years. Having more women and ethnic minorities in the civil service will improve our equality programme and how we deliver it for everyone, particularly through the duty on all public authorities to promote equality of opportunity.

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the fact that there are no less than three Departments with lead responsibility for equality and tackling discrimination—the women's unit in the Cabinet Office, the race relations unit in the Home Office and the sex and race equality division in the Department for Education and Employment? Does she have any plans to join up the work of those Departments to make our attempts to tackle inequality and discrimination more efficient and effective?

In the Cabinet Office, we are looking into how we can prioritise the mainstreaming of the equality issue. We do that by working across Departments. My hon. Friend asked whether it is better to bring those units together. Our present view is that it is not, because if equality is central to every policy, it is better that the units are in the Departments to ensure that that policy is implemented. However, I hear what she says. We have discussed this matter, and as a result of her question we shall certainly think about it again.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 December.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

I thank the Prime Minister for that answer, and welcome him to the last Prime Minister's questions of the millennium.

Why will a school in London that he knows well get from the Government next year £4,446 per pupil—and it says that it is not enough—whereas the school that my children attend in Somerset is allocated by that same Government just £2,984 per pupil? That is more than £1,400 less for each and every child in the school. His Ministers admit that that inequality is wrong, but they talk about stability for three years—I call it prolonging unfairness. When will our children get a fair deal from the Government?

I shall not go into the individual allocations for each school. I shall merely point out that, under the Government, education spending is rising substantially. It will increase by about 17 per cent. in real terms. After what I accept were two difficult years, we are providing for the next three years the largest increase in education spending that this country has seen. That will help children in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as well as children in constituencies around the country. Class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds are falling and thousands of schools are getting the help that they need, as a consequence of which exam results are improving. As a result of the Government's education policies, we are once again increasing the proportion of national income that we spend on education. That stands in stark contrast with the record of the Tories.

While deservedly enjoying the forthcoming celebrations, will my right hon. Friend reflect that it would be right and proper—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Indeed, I can read—to mark the contribution of older people and pensioners to this century by eliminating pensioner poverty in the next?

We are doing a lot to reduce pensioner poverty. Millions of pensioner households receive the £100 winter fuel payment. From autumn 2000, more than 3 million pensioner households will benefit from free television licences for pensioners aged 75 or over. The minimum income guarantee will help many of the poorest pensioners. It is this Government who have cut the VAT on fuel that was imposed by the previous Government, and have restored free eye tests for pensioners, which were taken away by the previous Government. As we now know from the speech made recently by the shadow Social Security Secretary, the £100 and all the other things we have done for pensioners would be taken away by a future Conservative Government.

Since 1999 was meant to be the year of delivery, will the Prime Minister tell us the latest figure for the fall in the number of police since the last election?

I have accepted that the number of police has fallen since the last election—as, indeed, it was falling for the two and three years before the election. However, as a result of what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has now announced, the number of recruits will rise again, and police numbers will rise again. They fell in the first two years because we implemented, as we said we would, the published plans of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member.

The number rose by 16,000 under the last Government. Why does the Prime Minister not read out the number? It must be there, in his folder. It is in the Home Office annual police statistics. The number of police has fallen by 1,062 since the last election, and this was meant to be the year of delivery. So much for delivering on the Prime Minister's promise to be tough on crime.

If the Prime Minister does not want to give that number, will he now tell us how many more people are waiting to see hospital consultants than at the time of the last election?

Actually, the waiting list figures have fallen. It is true that the out-patient figures have risen, as they have been rising for 10 years. The in-patient waiting lists, however, are coming down, as a result of the additional money that we have put in.

If I may return to police numbers for a moment—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked. He said that the last Government had increased the number of police. That is correct if we take the entire period between 1979 and 1997, but, during the years when the right hon. Gentleman was a Cabinet member of the last Government, police numbers actually fell. As I have said, as a result of the additional money that the Home Secretary has allocated, those numbers will now rise.

I can give the right hon. Gentleman the figures for the Metropolitan police. Yes, numbers fell in the first two years, but there are now over 500 more officers appointed on probation who can then take their place in the Metropolitan police, and numbers will start to rise again. I accept that during the first two years it was difficult, because we had to clear the public financial deficit and sort out the situation that we had inherited; but more investment is now going into schools, hospitals and dealing with crime. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that is the extra spending that he described as reckless and irresponsible.

What all that waffle means is that the number of police has fallen in the year of delivery, and the plain fact that the Prime Minister does not want to read out what is in his folder. It is all there: according to the Department of Health's statistical bulletin, the number of people waiting to see hospital consultants has risen from 248,000 to 512,000. That is the fact—actually.

Those are people who, because of the Prime Minister, are being made to wait to be on a waiting list. The number of people waiting for two and a half years to hear him tell the truth about this has risen to 55 million. So much for delivering on waiting lists.

If the Prime Minister does not want to give the facts about that, however, will he tell us the truth about this? Will he tell us by how much the tax burden has risen since the last election?

Let me first deal with what the right hon. Gentleman said about health. He is wrong. We have actually treated an extra 175,000 out-patients this year, and we shall treat an extra 300,000 next year. It is true that waiting lists were rising for years before we came to office, but we have reduced in-patient waiting lists by more than 70,000 from the level that we inherited. As for tax, as I told the right hon. Gentleman a couple of weeks ago, in the first two years we cleared the financial deficit, but next year—or, rather, in the current financial year—the tax burden is falling, not rising.

Actually—[Laughter.] This is important. I now have the figures for the Conservative plans published just before the last election by the Cabinet of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. They show that the tax burden this year and next year will be lower than under the plans that he endorsed before the election.

We are asking the Prime Minister about his year of delivery, which he announced 1999 was going to be. It is no good saying that our figures are wrong, because they are the Government's figures. I have quoted the Home Office annual police statistics and figures from the Department of Health statistical bulletin. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that the tax burden in this country has grown from 35.6 per cent. to 37.7 per cent. of gross domestic product since he came to office, yet he said that there would be no tax increases. So that people know where their increased taxes are going, will he confirm that the cost of Government administration has risen by £1,100 million since the election—enough to pay for thousands of police and tens of thousands of hospital operations?

I do not confirm that. On tax, the same figures that the right hon. Gentleman quoted show that this year the tax burden is falling. This year, which I said was the year of delivery, the tax burden is falling, in-patient waiting lists are falling, class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds are falling and unemployment is falling. That is precisely what we said we would do.

As for the number of police, I have accepted that for the first two years we adhered to the plans that we inherited when we came into office, but now, thanks to the extra 5,000 recruits, those numbers will rise. Those are the facts about how we are delivering for people in this country. The right hon. Gentleman cannot actually dispute any one of them.

The figures that I have given on the vastly increased spending on Government administration come from the Treasury's public expenditure statistical analysis. Actually, that is where they come from. What is the point of spending an extra £1 billion on bureaucrats and advisers when the Prime Minister is not prepared to read out the facts that they put in front of him? The only way to get the truth about this Government from a Prime Minister is to ask the Prime Minister of France. [Interruption.] It is true.

Is it not true that one of the Prime Minister's aides said to the Independent on Sunday:

"Did we say 1999 was the year of delivery? It was always going to be next year when things really started to happen."?

The figures show that his year of delivery has been a year of fewer police, longer waiting lists, higher taxes and more bureaucracy. Should not his new year's resolution be to keep the promises that he has been breaking over the past year?

If I could go back through the issues, on health, the in-patient waiting lists were actually rising for years and years. They have now started to fall and are nearly 80,000 below the level that we inherited. That is the fact. Class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds are 300,000 below what we inherited. Crime is below the level that we inherited. I have already made the position on police officers clear. The tax burden is falling this year. If we are going to debate the respective positions of the two parties, it is worth saying—[Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order on both sides.

We accepted that we were going to have two difficult years. [HON. MEMBERS: "The microphones are off!"] That is probably because the people operating them thought that the Conservatives had stopped listening, so there was no point in turning them on any more.

When we came to office we had a £28 billion borrowing requirement and the national debt had doubled. As a result of the measures that we have taken, unemployment is falling, we have 700,000 extra jobs and we have got through a downturn without a recession for the first time in decades. Since someone is holding up our pledge card, let me go through it. We promised that we would keep inflation and interest rates under control—a promise kept. We promised that we would cut youth unemployment—a promise kept. We promised that in-patient hospital waiting lists would fall—they are falling. We promised that we would ensure that class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds would fall—they have fallen.

If we adopted the right hon. Gentleman's position of opposing all the spending increases that we have proposed, where would hospital waiting lists and class sizes be then? The right hon. Gentleman also opposed the new deal that has reduced unemployment. In the end, the right hon. Gentleman can use whatever lines he likes. Yes, we had two difficult years, but we are delivering for the people of this country and their choice is between higher employment and stability under this Government or spending cuts and boom and bust under a Government led by the right hon. Gentleman.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the Government's greatest success stories has been the year-on-year improvement in primary school performance? Will he join me in congratulating teachers throughout the United Kingdom on delivering yet another improvement in the key stage 2 results published last week? However, will he accept that there are still problems in the presentation of the league tables in that schools representing the poorest communities can never get to the top of the tables as currently constituted? Will he assure the House that the Government will modernise the system of league tables and recognise the value added by primary schools to their pupils' performance?

We are always looking at ways to improve the information provided by the league tables. We must take account of the fact that social factors will play some part. I have two points to make. First, as a result of the measures that we have taken for primary schools there has been an astonishing increase in literacy and numeracy. Those proposals were opposed by the Conservative party. Secondly, on secondary schools, the new specialist and beacon schools are already showing a big lift in GCSE results. That is good news for the future and it shows the difference between the two main political parties.

Leaving to one side—the House will be relieved to know—the year of delivery, will the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the House join me in acknowledging that, in terms of human progress and despite the terrible ravages of war along the way, it has been an unbelievable century of delivery in terms of prosperity, education, health, communications and so on? [Interruption.] The Conservatives seem to have difficulty with that notion. I do not know why, as they helped to contribute to it.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that all that welcome progress has been purchased with one terrible toll, which is the effect on our planet's natural environment? Will he rethink his recent changes in Government policy on road building and concreting over substantial swathes of the green belt in southern England for house-building programmes? That can hardly be the right way to begin a commitment to the environment in the next century.

The amount of greenbelt land is increasing, not diminishing. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has increased the amount that must be built on brownfield sites to a 60 per cent. target from the 40 per cent. target of the Conservatives. Therefore, those criticisms are not justified. On road maintenance, many of the things such as bypasses that have been announced by the Deputy Prime Minister are important for communities. On the environment as a whole, thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister, we have delivered through the Kyoto summit probably the biggest and best step forward in environmental standards that the world has seen for a long time.

Let us move the focus away from the Deputy Prime Minister and back to the Prime Minister. During his time in office the Prime Minister has not devoted exclusively a single speech to the environment. When the Prime Minister sets that mood music from the top, he can hardly be surprised that his Government are not behaving in an environmentally sustainable way. Why, for example, has he not honoured his pledge before the last election that he would publish a green book to accompany the Budget? Should he not take the opportunity of the new year to redouble his efforts on these issues to make sure that in the next century we begin to contribute to undoing the environmental damage of the last century?

The criticism on environmental matters is unfair. As a result of the Kyoto summit, countries undertook an obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and this country will hit our targets. We have a set of proposals that will enable us easily to meet the Kyoto targets, and that was the biggest step forward. We also led the way at G8. It is not true to say that I have not spoken about the environment; I have spoken about it. I mentioned the Deputy Prime Minister because the Kyoto summit would have failed without him. It is a tribute to him that it succeeded.

I was delighted to be able to welcome my right hon. Friend to Salford last week, when he opened an extension to our wonderful metrolink system—which has now carried 1 million people in the conurbation. May we have his support for the massive extension of the metrolink system across the conurbation—which would help to keep our city moving and improve our environment?

The metrolink is a great example of an integrated transport system, and its establishment has—voluntarily—reduced the number of car journeys by 2.5 million in the area. It is a great tribute to a modern transport strategy. Now, we have to ensure that we deliver that type of programme in different parts of the country.

Does the Prime Minister think that it is right that a member of his Cabinet should sell her memoirs—for untold sums, and a reported advance of £350,000—when she is still a member of the Government?

My right hon. Friend has acted entirely in accordance with the rules.

Since this is the season of good will towards all, will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Leader of the Opposition on his year of delivery? In particular, does my right hon. Friend agree that an astonishing achievement of the Leader of the Opposition has been to deliver a Conservative party that, today—

Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I must remind him that the Prime Minister is responsible only for Government policies, not for the Leader of the Opposition's achievements.

:Does the Prime Minister share my concern that—despite recent improvements, thanks to the fabulous efforts of staff—patients waiting at Kingston hospital's accident and emergency unit still face painful waiting times in an out-of-date building? Will the Prime Minister, therefore, personally intervene to ask the London region's NHS executive to confirm urgently that the new investment needed to modernise Kingston hospital's accident and emergency department will be announced? Will he give me and my constituents the assurance that the long delays in pushing ahead with the new investment will end, so that people suffering those long delays at Kingston's A and E department may, at long last, expect such waits to end?

The regional office of the NHS Executive will be receiving the capital allocations in the first week of January, and it will be able to inform Kingston hospital of the outcome in the following week. If approved, work will start as soon as possible. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some solace that there is news on the way quickly. I assure him that the executive understands why the project is regarded as a very high priority. I should also point out that—as he will know—Kingston hospital has already received £2 million from the accident and emergency modernisation fund, and that, this year, the health authority has received an extra £11 million funding.

I agree, however, that there is still an awful lot more to do in accident and emergency departments right across the country. That is why, by the end of next year, every accident and emergency department that needs it will have been refurbished—which is one step on the way to improving the national health service. Although Liberal Democrat Members support those changes, those capital allocations and that expenditure was opposed by Conservative Members.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the educational success of Wolsey school in Croydon in the New Addington education action zone, which became one of the top 30 improving schools in Britain through a combination of information technology, adding value to numeracy and literacy, providing breakfast clubs and fresh fruit at tuck shops—to add to nutrition and aid concentration—and using counselling techniques to improve the self-esteem and expectations of children, combined with business mentoring? Does he agree that the hope and opportunity provided by the school spreads a message throughout the land that we can provide pathways out of poverty through educational success in education action zones?

I understand that the percentage of year 6 pupils reaching the required standard or better at Wolsey junior school has improved by 8 per cent., taking it to 84 per cent., which is a fantastic achievement for the school. Indeed, the schools in that education action zone have raised their performance by about 8 per cent. in English and an amazing 22 per cent. in maths. For all the education action zones, the average performance in maths improved by 14 per cent. Since as my hon. Friend spoke Conservative Members were shouting derogatory remarks about how Conservative support would grow in my hon. Friend' s constituency—

Tory gain.

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman should be so arrogant as to think that. One reason why there will not be a Tory gain is that under this Government the results have improved by 14 per cent., but the Conservative party is opposed to the very changes that made that happen. When my hon. Friend's constituents realise that the Conservatives are also opposed to the minimum wage, the working families tax credit, the new deal and sound economics, there will be even more Labour voters in that Croydon constituency.

Can the Prime Minister explain why, under the Freedom of Information Bill, information on ministerial offices, staffing levels and staffing costs should not be made available for public scrutiny?

The provisions of the Freedom of Information Bill will allow more information to be disclosed than the code of practice under the previous Government. What is more, for the first time, there will be an independent commissioner who can require disclosure. I do not think that we should take lessons in freedom of information from a Conservative Government who opposed such a Bill at the last election and had 18 years in which they could have introduced one but refused to do so.

Does the Prime Minister agree that, on the eve of the 21st century, it shames this country to have so many people sleeping on the streets? Will he ensure that the Government not only provide accommodation but tackle the host of other problems to which many people who sleep rough are subject, such as alcohol dependency and mental health problems, so that some of our more unfortunate citizens can be given a real chance of a better life?

As a result of the measures that have already been taken on rough sleepers, the numbers have fallen in the past six or nine months from 2,500 to 1,600, but our desire now is to ensure that we can tackle the rest of the problem. The £200 million that has been allocated from within the existing comprehensive spending review settlement will be invested in a variety of measures: new hostel beds, new housing association homes in London and a better approach to co-ordinating measures to deal with the different problems that homeless people face. It is a scandal that so many homeless people are still on our streets. This Government at least are committed to tackling that scandal and to ending it.

Does the Prime Minister accept that his earlier answers to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will lead many people to conclude that the year of delivery that the right hon. Gentleman has promised has ended as a year of deceit? Will he at least come clean on the tax burden and admit that, whether or not he hopes that it will fall in the next three years, in the current year it is higher than the one that he inherited?

The tax burden this year is falling, not rising. I said that in the first two years of this Government we had to take some difficult decisions to clear the financial deficit. I also pointed out that our tax burden is less than that planned for by the previous Conservative Government. However, there are only two choices. Either we ensure that we get rid of the financial deficit and put the economy in the shape in which it is today—where we are delivering jobs, stability, low inflation and low interest rates—or we go back to the days of the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported and of whom he was a Minister, who saw 1 million manufacturing jobs go, had interest rates at 10 per cent. for four years or more and who wrecked this country through two big recessions and had record repossessions. Everyone remembers the days of boom and bust under the Tories. Under this Government, for the first time in years, people realise that new Labour is the party of economic competence today.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that 100 years ago, in 1899, the House of Commons was prorogued for Christmas on 27 October? [Interruption.] And people complain about the length of our recesses! Is he also aware that in that year, the key concerns of hon. Members included the situation in Ireland? Is it not the case that further important developments this week in the peace process have meant that we have more grounds for optimism for a peaceful and prosperous new year in Northern Ireland than we have had for many generations?

In respect of the recess, I hear what my hon. Friend says, as we all do, but I do not suppose that we should refer that point to the Modernisation Committee.

There could be no better present for the new millennium than a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. We have come a very long way—things are happening today in Northern Ireland that people would simply not have believed possible before. The most heartening aspect is the sense, right across the communities in Northern Ireland, that there is for the first time some confidence and hope about the future. There are many difficulties along the way, but if a new millennium and a new start mean anything—and anything that we can look forward to—it will be a lasting future and peace for the children of Northern Ireland, who deserve a future better than the past that they have had.

I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 1, line 17, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 18.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 31, in page 2, line 6, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 7.

No. 34, in page 2, line 23, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 24.

No. 36, in page 2, line 38, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 39.

The Bill extends the scope of the franchise to homeless persons through a declaration of local connection, to those remanded in custody and not yet convicted and to patients resident in mental hospitals who are not detained offenders. I support all those measures. However, if the franchise can be extended to those categories, are there not some other categories that we might consider for such an extension? My amendments would extend the franchise to overseas citizens resident in this country, in addition to the Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens who already qualify if they reside here. I understand that it would amount to about 850,000 people.

The franchise should not go to people of voting age unless they live in a society that is making legislation that affects them. There might be a limited number of exceptions to that, such as people in such a condition that they cannot exercise a vote. Later in the Bill, we will be discussing the opposition to registration of overseas electors, and the same principle will apply. I am talking about enfranchising people of qualifying age who are members of a society with a parliamentary governmental structure that makes decisions affecting their lives. That should include people from overseas who are resident in this country but are not citizens of the Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland, but exclude people from this country who go overseas and who should be subject to the same principle in the country in which they settle.

I seek to enfranchise people who are dependent on decisions made by elected representatives on laws, basic services, environmental protection, health and safety provision, taxation and economic prosperity. Those are all things dealt with by the House. They affect the lives of anyone who has settled in this country from overseas but not taken British citizenship.

Welcome though these measures are, I want the Minister to explain why the Bill goes only part of the way to overcoming the current disenfranchisement problems. Perhaps we should consider enfranchising other groups, such as prisoners. After all, the powers of the law affect them closely. Why are citizens of the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland enfranchised in this country when other overseas residents are not?

The Commonwealth has been expanding recently. In 1990, Namibia joined the Commonwealth; in 1994, South Africa re-entered; in 1995, Mozambique and the Cameroons joined; and Fiji rejoined in 1997. Therefore, people from those countries who have settled in the United Kingdom are now entitled to be enfranchised here.

If a country should leave the Commonwealth, people from that country who are settled in the United Kingdom will lose their entitlement to enfranchisement here. No great feat of logic is necessary to appreciate that consequence of a country leaving the Commonwealth.

As the Commonwealth expands, ever more people who settle in the United Kingdom will acquire the right to vote here. However, the Commonwealth will not expand indefinitely, until it comprises every country on earth. Furthermore, such a peculiar development should not be necessary to ensure that people living here receive what should be an entitlement.

I therefore ask the Committee to accept that everyone who is affected by the laws passed by this place should be able to have their say in elections, as those elections will affect their lives.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but concede that there is some intellectual force in his argument. However, is he suggesting that the right to vote should be extended to overseas persons who have been here but for a very short time, or is he saying that there should be an extended requirement of residence in the United Kingdom as a precondition to enjoying the franchise?

The arrangements for residents from places other than the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland should—as my amendments propose—be the same as those for Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman feels that the current arrangements for Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens are too easy, perhaps an appropriate amendment should be tabled.

My aim is a simple one: to clarify the principle by which the franchise is granted.

One approaches any amendment moved by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) with respect, for he has a long history of being concerned with the franchise and has given considerable thought to these matters. However, I am not entirely persuaded that, on this occasion, he is on the right lines.

In supporting his suggestion that we should extend the franchise to all United Kingdom residents, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be citing anomalous arrangements—in some respects, they are anomalous—that allow the franchise to be exercised by citizens of the Republic of Ireland and of Commonwealth countries, and suggesting that we should extend the franchise to the point at which the link between the citizen and the state ceases in any real sense to be the reason for entitlement to exercise the franchise.

Although I do not think that, in the ambit of amendment No. 29, it is necessary to consider the appropriateness of permitting Commonwealth citizens to vote here, in his reply to the debate, the Minister may want to say at least something on the issue.

The link between the citizen and the state is a reciprocal one: the state has the duty to look after its citizens, and the citizen must exercise his or her duty to be interested in how that service is provided. The notion of citizenship would be under challenge, perhaps even under threat, if that very considerable right were partly diminished by being no longer a characteristic of citizenship, but simply the happenstance of residence.

4.45 pm

The basis of the hon. Gentleman's case is that those who are affected by government should have a right to choose the Government. That is not the basis of the duty and the right to vote as I see it. Many people affected by the Government may not be resident within the United Kingdom. Many people who are not resident but who are citizens may be affected in so far as, for example, tax and inheritance laws and the ownership of property here are concerned. Their entitlement to vote rests upon their link with this state as citizens. I wish that position to be preserved.

We shall return to the subject of foreign entitlement to vote. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised an important question about the somewhat anomalous situation of those who are entitled to vote but who are not citizens. We should consider whether we should tackle that matter. It is perhaps strange that, as he put it, citizens of Namibia should be entitled to vote but not citizens of France. After all, the latter belong to a polity, if not a state, with which we have close—almost constant—exchanges and it is conceivable that, if the offer that Mr. Winston Churchill made to the French Government in 1940 had been picked up by the then Prime Minister, we would have enjoyed common citizenship. I do not know what the Conservative party feels with the benefit of hindsight about relations with France—

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is particularly important as we debate the Bill that no one either deliberately or inadvertently misrepresents the greatest Englishman of the 20th century? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the late Sir Winston Churchill said of Europe and Britain's relationship with it:

"We are with Europe but not of it. We are linked, but not comprised. We are interested and associated, but not absorbed."

I merely repeat my reminder that Mr. Churchill, as he then was, made that bold, imaginative and historically percipient offer of common citizenship to the French, which they did not choose to accept. In his view of what it was to be British, he was not exclusive, as some members of the Conservative party are today.

The question of the entitlement of European Union citizens to participate in votes in each other's countries is growing in importance. That question has already been tackled for local government elections, where somewhat different conclusions have been arrived at, and it is time that we tackled it for national elections.

The amendment weakens the significance of citizenship and would, to some extent, sever an important link in the minds of British people to what it means to be British—the duty of voting for the Government or against is something that they should value and see as a duty that stems from the fact that they enjoy the privileges associated with British citizenship. Without more argument, I could not find it within myself to support the amendment.

I support what the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has said. I respect the view of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes)—there is an intellectual case to be made for it. However, his proposal is quite a serious mistake, and I have three points on which he might like to reflect.

First, if we were starting from scratch, we probably would not extend the franchise to citizens of the Commonwealth or Ireland. Their right to vote has happened for historical reasons, but it is quite difficult, if one sets about defining why people should have the vote, to say with any great confidence that citizens of Ireland or the Commonwealth should have it. Therefore, I do not start with that fact as the working assumption of what is right and proper.

That takes me to my second point, where I am, rather unusually, largely in agreement with the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. I think that the right of voting—the duty to vote—runs with citizenship. It is part of that relationship with society that involves affinity and allegiance; it is part of being a member of a society. I do not think that the right to vote should go beyond that. I certainly do not think that it should arise simply from the fact that a person is affected by the consequences of legislation.

One has only to reflect on this fact to see the force of what I have just said: anybody who passes through the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, for even the shortest time, is affected by our criminal law. It would be absurd to say that, because anybody who passes through the jurisdiction is touched by the criminal law, such a person should, if he or she happens to be here at an appointed time, have the right to vote.

That takes me to my third point—I am putting my argument very briefly. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire when I say that his proposed qualification for the franchise is met by casual residents only. He would have a much stronger case if he argued that the overseas citizen who had been here for an extended qualifying period—we can discuss what that should be—should have a right to vote. That person then has some of the characteristics of being part of the society, although such status falls short of being a citizen.

For those three reasons, I cannot support the hon. Gentleman's amendment, although I do not say that his case is wholly without intellectual force.

I support the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), and I have a few questions for the Minister.

First, given the improving relationships between the people in Ireland, north and south of the border, do the Government have any plans, and is there any work in train, to give to United Kingdom citizens living in the Irish Republic the voting rights that Irish citizens have when they live in the United Kingdom?

When the Minister was on the working party, he must have received more papers on reciprocal voting rights than on anything else. How many other Commonwealth countries, if any, give resident United Kingdom citizens the right to vote? Do the Government have any plans for that to be rationalised? Has it been taken up in the Commonwealth conference or by the Commonwealth Secretariat?

The linked question touches on points raised by my right hon. Friend and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Do the Government believe that, no matter which other new countries might join the Commonwealth—for example, two recent new members have not been part of the usual Commonwealth tradition—the right of those citizens to vote here will be retained?

Finally, I have many Irish citizens and Commonwealth non-UK citizens in my constituency. When they reside here and go on the electoral register for the first time or when, as Commonwealth citizens, they come into the country to settle, does anyone ever tell them that they have a right to vote? When they appear for the first time on the electoral register, is any effort made to tell them their right, what the process and the methodology is, and what the implications are? Some of the people on my electoral roll who vote least are those who are entitled to do so, but are not United Kingdom citizens. That includes Irish and Commonwealth citizens—especially Commonwealth citizens—who probably do not know that they are entitled to be on the register, but who would put themselves on if they were encouraged more clearly to do so.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question can be seen from the surprised look on the faces of Australians and many others when one tells them that, if they were registered, they could vote in this country. No one ever tells them that, and it comes to all of them as a complete surprise.

That is the impression that I get. I know that we all get the form through the letter box and that the small print says, "UK, Irish or Commonwealth citizen," but, as an honest seeker after truth, I suggest to the Minister that we ought to have a system that works and that the people who have entitlements under it understand.

While I understand the force of what the hon. Gentleman says about informing people of their entitlement, I am less clear why he believes that that category of persons should be informed of, as he put it, the implications of their vote. Is it really necessary to create a different category of electors? That would be the result of the logic of what he is saying.

The hon. Gentleman misinterprets my logic. UK citizens who are born and grow up here, if our system works, should have been taught, by the time that they leave school and are entitled to vote, about voting and citizenship, and the implications of them. If people are brought up in another country and come later in life to this country, they may not have been taught about the implications of citizenship in the UK. My suggestion is not meant to be heavier than that. It seems that, when people of certain nationalities cross the border, nothing automatically tells them what coming to settle here entitles them to.

I intend to keep my comments brief, but I am bound to say that I share the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) is one with which I cannot agree. However, the hon. Gentleman is certainly right to point out the anomaly in relation to the existing law on Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Irish Republic.

Before I looked at the totality of the hon. Gentleman's amendments on the amendment paper, I wondered whether he was proposing to delete the right of Commonwealth and Irish citizens to the franchise. That is a view with which I would have been unable to agree. It is perhaps worth bearing it in mind that, certainly in my constituency, the issue tends to be raised frequently. People ask why Commonwealth and Irish citizens should have the vote.

What appears to have happened—I shall be interested if the Minister will confirm this—is that, at one time, Commonwealth or Irish citizenship virtually entitled a person as of right to a British passport once he or she was resident here. It is certainly not the case for Commonwealth citizens today although, curiously, it still applies to citizens of the Irish Republic. To all intents and purposes, Irish citizens are treated, if they so elect, as if they were British citizens. They can apply for a passport and obtain one without any difficulty. For Commonwealth citizens, the anomaly remains solely in terms of electoral law.

If the hon. Gentleman describes the right as an anomaly, is he suggesting that it should be withdrawn?

It is one with which I am perfectly happy to live, especially in relation to citizens of the Irish Republic, curiously enough, because close links exist between our two countries. They are links of both proximity and interchangeability in terms of travelling back and forth across the Irish sea. In relation to Commonwealth citizens, justification of the anomaly is much more tenuous. Nevertheless, the anomaly has been around for a long time. I am always open to persuasion on the issue from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and from my constituents, but I am happy to live with the anomaly.

5 pm

The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire would widen the issue much further. I share all the reservations that have been expressed by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). The amendment would take matters too far; it would allow casual residents to have the vote. We are happy to welcome all sorts of people to our shores, to live in this country for greater or lesser periods. However, that does not make them citizens of the United Kingdom, any more than we would be citizens of a foreign country if we chose to reside there without obtaining citizenship. Those rights should not be extended. Although, with a caveat to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I am prepared to live with the existing anomaly, I am certainly not prepared to have it extended further.

Amendments Nos. 29, 31, 34 and 36 affect the rights of people to vote and to register to vote at parliamentary and local elections. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) seems to be alone in proposing the amendments and may be alone in supporting them.

The issue was discussed by the Select Committee on Home Affairs during 1997 and 1998; the Government responded to the Committee on 26 October 1999. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) put the matter into its historical and intellectual context. Paragraph 118 of the Select Committee's report noted that the Committee did not believe that there was a compelling argument for extending the right to vote. The Government agreed.

The matter was considered by the Home Affairs Committee in the 1982–83 Session, and the then Government accepted the Committee's recommendation that there should be no change. Indeed the then Opposition spokesman on Home Affairs, a Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk—where is he now?—said:

"We agree with both the recommendation of the Select Committee and the proposal in the White Paper that there shall be no disturbing of the right held by Irish and Commonwealth citizens."—[Official Report, 27 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 1075.]

That statement holds good today.

The amendments are an attempt to widen by about 850,000 the number of people eligible to register to vote, although the working group did not consider that matter. Anyone with a main, or sole, residence in the UK would be eligible to register to vote. The legislation allows for Commonwealth and Irish citizens living here to vote; the amendment would mean that anyone from any part of the world who was living here would get a vote.

I realise that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire has given the matter considerable attention, but he has not fully thought it through. The amendment would mean that the citizenship test would be replaced by a residency test. That could be jeopardised, or further widened, by other measures in the Bill, such as the declaration of local interest. Taken with some of the hon. Gentleman's other amendments, the measure would disenfranchise British citizens who had moved abroad for a period, while enfranchising any Tom, Dick or Harry—I intend no offence to the hon. Gentleman—who had just entered the country.

The hon. Gentleman is not interested in how long such people might have been in the country. Indeed, he even offered amendments to his amendments to try to deal with the problem. At least he realises that there is a problem. However, he is not interested in the length of time that people have lived in the UK. He pays scant regard to the rights of those who were born in this country, lived most of their lives here and paid their taxes here. His later amendments would deny the vote to Mr. Ashcroft, for example, but the first amendment would give the vote to Mr. Fayed, who is not a British citizen.

What about asylum seekers—60,000 of them it is estimated this year? Under the hon. Gentleman's amendment, they would be able to vote. As we know, they tend to congregate in certain parts of the country, so they could determine the results in some key seats. They would also have power disproportionate to the time that they have been in this country. They might be bogus asylum seekers, but they could argue that they are fleeing their homes and that their main residence is in the United Kingdom. To all intents and purposes, they would be correct and they would be given the right to vote as well.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect further on his amendment. If he does not withdraw it and it goes to a vote, I hope that the Government will be consistent and stick to their original intentions.

I should explain my presence at the Dispatch Box. I am on a no-fee, one-day transfer from the Northern Ireland Office to the Home Office. Whether that transfer is extended may well depend on my performance today.

I am well aware, as is the whole House, of the interest that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) takes in electoral matters. Members have listened—some slightly more critically than others—to his arguments for his amendment, but when he speaks on electoral matters he does so with sincerity and from a background of considerable knowledge.

I wish to deal with some of the issues raised in the debate before I deal with the substance of my hon. Friend's argument. When he moved the amendment, he implied that, if a country leaves the Commonwealth, its citizens automatically lose the right to vote. Strictly speaking, that is not so. When South Africa, Fiji and Nigeria were suspended from the Commonwealth, their citizens still enjoyed that right. My hon. Friend's assertion does not stand up in those limited circumstances.

My hon. Friend will understand that I am correcting him for the sake of accuracy and not to make clever debating points. However, he suggested that the Bill will extend the franchise to remand prisoners and to mental patients. Again, that is not, strictly speaking, correct. Homeless people, remand prisoners and, for that matter, mental patients already have the right to vote. The Bill's provisions will simply make it easier for them to register and thereby gain access to the vote. I am not making a pedantic point, but it is necessary to make that distinction.

My hon. Friend may not so much have been making an argument as flying a kite when he suggested that it might be possible, or perhaps even right, to consider extending the franchise to convicted prisoners. He may not have meant that as a firm proposal, but as a suggestion it should be considered. However, there is a distinct difference between a remand prisoner and a convicted prisoner. The absence of rights, including the right to vote, is part of the punishment of a convicted prisoner. I can confirm, if any confirmation is necessary, that the Government have no intention of taking up my hon. Friend's proposal. We still believe—and I would be happy to justify this—that it should be part of a convicted prisoner's punishment that he loses rights, and one of them is the right to vote.

The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) made a characteristically interesting speech about the link between duties and rights and between citizenship and the vote. That was a useful point to make. Alongside rights—including the right to vote—always go obligations, duties and responsibilities and it is right to consider them.

The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made an important point: whatever the historical reasons for their existence, the arrangements with the Commonwealth should not necessarily be taken as a precedent for arrangements with other countries that currently do not apply. That was a good point and we should bear it in mind.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked several specific questions. I should like to take a little time responding to them. United Kingdom citizens already enjoy full voting rights in the Republic of Ireland, so the reciprocal arrangement to which he referred already exists.

I am not aware of any Commonwealth country that gives UK citizens voting rights in its national elections. Equally, I am not aware that we have ever pushed for any such arrangement. For reasons of history, the position in this country is different from that in former Commonwealth countries; the reverse situation does not apply. Any country that joins the Commonwealth will enjoy all the benefits of membership, including the right to vote in elections.

The hon. Gentleman asked about providing information to people to enable them to understand their specific rights. He will be familiar with the electoral registration form—it goes to every household and makes it clear who is entitled to be registered to vote. In addition, the Home Office conducts general election campaigns, on a non-party political basis, to raise people's awareness of their rights in respect of elections.

I recognise, however, that often not only citizens from the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland, but people who have an automatic and clear right to vote by virtue of being born and resident here, do not understand what their rights are in relation to voting. That is part of the reason why the Bill exists and was felt to be necessary. I hope that much more information will be available on who is eligible to vote and, where appropriate, information for those who have difficulty reading English to help them to understand their rights.

As regards the substance of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for North—East Derbyshire, I want to deal with some of the important points that apply. Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, those entitled to vote in parliamentary and local government elections are British citizens, other Commonwealth citizens and those from the Republic of Ireland, as we have discussed. In addition, European Union citizens are allowed to vote in local elections.

As my hon. Friend acknowledged, the amendment would remove all such nationality requirements. Anyone of any nationality would be able to register and to vote in both parliamentary and local elections, provided that they were resident, over 18 and not otherwise disqualified. It would not matter how remote their ties with this country were, or for how long or short a time they intended to stay here. That is neither a sensible nor satisfactory position. I do not think that anyone who has spoken in the debate has put forward the proposition that that is a sensible arrangement for us to consider.

I am bound to point out, as others have, that we are not alone in that view. The Select Committee on Home Affairs considered the issue in its report on electoral law and administration, which was published last year. Its conclusion was both wise and unambiguous:

"We do not think the present voting entitlements for non-UK citizens need extension".

It could not have been clearer. That report was the product of an all-party consensus and it would be folly if the House were to depart from that consensus tonight.

Unless I have misinterpreted his remarks, the Minister appears to be relatively sympathetic to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that more information should be provided to electors—especially those who are exercising their right to vote for the first time—about the elections in which they are thinking of voting. Does the Minister believe that, in due course, for the benefit of electors, detailed information should be provided explaining exactly the powers available to the respective bodies to which elections are to be held, so that voters know what are the powers of the European Parliament, the House of Commons, district councils, borough councils, county councils and so on?

The general principle is reasonable. The hon. Gentleman might recall that, immediately prior to the most recent elections to the European Parliament, the Home Office published a leaflet, available in several languages, giving those sorts of facts about the European Parliament. It is important that people have access to such information. As one who stands at the Dispatch Box on a temporary, no-fee transfer, I do not want to commit the Home Office to taking specific action in future—and even though the prospect is tempting, I shall resist doing so. However, the hon. Gentleman's general proposition should always be part of our considerations.

The working party that I chaired, which enjoyed a cross-party consensus and on whose work the Bill is based, bore in mind our responsibility, through legislation and other means, to make it as easy as possible, without compromising the integrity of the ballot, for as many people as possible to vote. Part of that requires people to understand why and for what they are being asked to vote, and the powers of the body involved. Therefore, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's plea to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will not fall on deaf ears.

There are good and historic reasons why Commonwealth and Irish citizens may vote in our elections. The Maastricht treaty, which the House endorsed, gave all European Union citizens reciprocal voting rights in local elections in EU member states. I inadvertently omitted to mention the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who referred to the voting rights of citizens of the Commonwealth and of the Republic of Ireland. During his speech, it struck me that his most illustrious predecessor is Disraeli, who incorporated in the 1867 Reform Bill the so-called fancy franchises. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that we are creating the modern equivalent of the fancy franchises, but it is appropriate that a Member representing Beaconsfield should participate in this debate.

There is no reason—good, compelling or otherwise—to extend voting facilities to those who come from countries with which we have no historical ties and who might have no affinity with Britain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire for giving us the opportunity to debate the subject. However, I hope that, having had our debate, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment, because we do not believe that it would be appropriate to incorporate in the Bill the principle expressed therein.

It is a privilege to have the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), on the Treasury Bench today. When he was at the Home Office, he carried out a great deal of work chairing the working party that helped to develop the Bill and the valuable measures it contains. My hon. Friend has always responded to me courteously and taken on board the various arguments and points that I have advanced.

A valuable feature of my hon. Friend's contribution was that I learned that at least the amendment was technically correct. Someone mentioned that when he saw it initially he thought that I was trying to get rid of enfranchisement for Commonwealth and Irish citizens resident in this country. When it was put to me that the amendment was the means by which I could achieve that objective, I was rather worried that that was the case.

My hon. Friend said that I was not quite correct in some instances about measures to extend the franchise to homeless people and people on remand. However, for homeless people it is just about impossible to become registered, although there are some who have been able to do so. Until the Bill was put before us, it was necessary to have a residence to get on to the electoral register. By definition, that virtually ruled out a homeless person, although there were often ways and means that enabled such people to find their way around the requirement. There was often a difficult set of circumstances and some registration decisions were made by magistrates courts, for example. Those decisions did not have any wider knock-on effect. That being so, the clarity of the Bill is welcome. I used some shorthand when I mentioned these points earlier. As I have introduced Bills on these matters in the past, my hon. Friend will realise that I am involved, to some extent, in these considerations.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, pointed out that I was alone in presenting the amendments. I was alone in 1988, and for a considerable period thereafter, in propounding the notion of a rolling register. We are now dealing with a Bill that contains proposals for such a register. I might be alone in presenting the idea that lies behind the amendments, but in 10 or 11 years' time others might recognise the wisdom of my arguments.

The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) stressed points about citizenship. Citizenship is relevant to our citizens who are overseas, and the rights that they are given by the British Government that are designed to protect them in the nations in which they find themselves. Whether those rights should be extended to the franchise is another matter.

The world has changed considerably since some notions were fashioned. We now have a cosmopolitan world in which people move in and out of different areas. It is not always clear to people what their nation is. However, it is clear where they are, and the Government and administration responsible for making decisions that immediately affect their lives at that time can be clearly identified. We should develop electoral registration that is based on those circumstances, while recognising that there is sense in terms of citizenship.

As we are moving towards a rolling register, it would be possible for people to spend a period overseas and, if the Government adopted the principles that I am suggesting, be registered in the other country. As soon as they returned home to the United Kingdom, they would be placed on electoral registers under the procedures that are contained within the Bill. There are alternative principles to that of citizenship, although I accept that there is significance and importance to be attached to it. Much depends on the weight that is put upon these arguments.

Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the following bizarre situation? The citizens of some countries, such as the United States, Australia and, indeed, the UK, can vote for their domestic Parliaments even when they are overseas. If the hon. Gentleman's proposal were accepted, an American citizen would be entitled to vote both in American elections and in elections for the Westminster Parliament. That is not self-evidently sensible.

It is not self-evidently sensible, but if the House adopted the principles with respect to the United Kingdom, we would have good grounds for arguing that America and other nations should operate according to the same principles. Then we would have an arrangement that allowed people to vote where they were at different times of their lives.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman was using the same technique with regard to my contribution as he used in his speech. He posed the problem of people who were just passing through. He was pushing my principle to the nth degree, in order to test it. I grant that any principle pushed to the limit will seem to create peculiar and problematic situations. It is highly unlikely that anyone would pass through just to be registered on an electoral register in order to vote in an election.

The notion that registration could be so temporary as not to matter may be correct, but it should not be allowed to destroy my general argument. There are always exceptions to principles. In general, people who are resident or who can obtain a declaration of local connection should be on registers, but I recognise that there may be some who do not qualify. The case of prisoners, which I raised, may be one of the exceptions. There are qualifications to the general principle, and awkward cases can be discovered, but that should not lead to its destruction.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out that many citizens of the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland who are resident in this country have no idea that they are entitled to vote. I have been in touch with constituents from the Commonwealth who have been in the country for 20 years and are not on the electoral register. If my proposal were adopted, it would make it more easily understood that people could register once they were UK residents. That would apply to Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens, as well as to others.

It is obvious that I am a lone voice pursuing the argument. I believe that everything that I have said is correct and needs to be pushed, even I failed to put evidence about it to the Home Affairs Committee during its investigations, although I put many other points, which will be covered later.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 1, line 19, leave out "18" and insert "16".

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 70, in page 2, line 8, leave out "18" and insert "16".

No. 71, in clause 6, page 8, line 22, leave out "18" and insert "16".

No. 83, in schedule 2, page 28, line 5, leave out "18" and insert "16".

The amendment is important and would change the voting age from 18 to 16, and alter the substantive Act—currently the Representation of the People Act 1983—to effect that.

I was between 18 and 21 when the law that reduced the voting age from 21 to 18 was passed in 1969. I became entitled to vote on 1 January 1970, and it was lucky that a general election took place in that year, when I could exercise my right to vote.

Where?

In Tanygrisiau in Meirionnydd. However, that is not terribly relevant to the debate. I remember the occasion well. We had moved away by then, but my dad and I made the long journey back and ensured that we voted.

Having the right to vote was important to me. [Interruption.] How did I vote? I voted Liberal. I do not believe that more of my biography is required for the purpose of the argument. However, it shows a consistency that is greater than that displayed by some other hon. Members in Committee. One last bit of biography: in those days, we did not win the seats in which I voted, but now we often do. That is progress.

Reconsideration of whether 18 is the right age for people to be entitled to vote has been undertaken on several occasions. In January 1985—International Youth Year—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) introduced the Youth Charter Bill under the ten-minute rule. One of its provisions was the reduction of the voting age to 16 and a reduction of the age for eligibility to stand for election to 18. Although the Bill did not make progress because it fell under the usual ten-minute rule procedure, it was quite widely supported.

Since then, the proposal to reduce the voting age to 16 has appeared on the Order Paper several times. It was tabled as an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill in 1985; it was a provision in private Members' Bills in 1991, 1992 and earlier this year. It has also appeared in several general election manifestos. The policy was included in our 1992 general election manifesto and the Scottish National party included it in its 1997 manifesto. When the Liberal Democrats were created, we adopted that policy. It has remained our policy ever since.

I was a relatively belated convert to reducing the voting age to 16. I got into trouble with some of my colleagues and some people outside the House when, a few years ago, I argued for the lowering not only of the age of consent but the age of majority to 17. There is a need to simplify the law on when people become entitled to specific rights. However, for several reasons, I have been persuaded that, just as a majority believes that the right age of homosexual consent should be 16 to bring it into line with the age of heterosexual consent, there is a growing body of opinion in favour of reducing the voting age to 16.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Of course I will give way to my erstwhile opponent.

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the considerations that apply to the age at which people have sexual relations are similar to those that apply to the age at which people can vote? They are rather different activities.

We could discuss for how long people think before doing each and the pre-planning involved; I shall have to be careful not to get into linguistic difficulties as I nearly said "foreplanning". Of course those activities are different, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will travel this road with me. In this country an enormous number of entitlements are given at 16 and some, although not many, are given at 17. Another batch is given at 18 and some are given at 21. I say to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who has almost silently substituted for the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), that I hope that the Home Office will consider the legislation as a whole and review the age of majority—or the age at which people gain rights—because it is muddled.

That brings us back to the point that I made in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow): if the people of this country are to learn about their rights, it is better for the legislation to be simple and for there to be as few ages of entitlement as possible, not as many as there are at present. The law changes every year in this respect, but the most recent briefing I have is last year's from the Children's Legal Centre, based at Essex university.

It is a great university.

Indeed it is. The briefing sets out 33 different entitlements or types of entitlement given at 16, eight entitlements or types of entitlement given at 17, and 34 entitlements or types of entitlement given at 18. To deal with the intervention of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), I shall say in a moment why my colleagues and I believe that, on balance, it is right to consider changing the voting age to 16, although I should like that to happen as part of a wider consideration of the age of entitlement for young people. I hope that the Government have that on their agenda, too.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Is he saying that the age of majority should be 16 for most purposes? Some of us might feel that, because of certain aspects of legal responsibility concerning majority, 18 may be a better age. I should be grateful for his thoughts on that.

It is proper for the Committee to consider exactly such issues and there is no theology or absolutism involved here. Other countries have different views: some use a voting age that is under 18, although the majority use 18, and I understand that it is above 18 in some countries. We should have this debate periodically.

rose—

I shall give way in a moment, but before I do so I shall list the entitlements currently given at 16 to provide the backdrop for my comments. People can leave school or stay in full-time education, which is free; they can work full-time, but not in betting shops or bars, which are exceptions; they can receive a national insurance number; they can receive income support; and they must pay prescription charges unless they are in an exempt category.

The list provided by the Children's Legal Centre carries a slightly odd description, saying:

"You can probably leave home without the consent of your parents or anyone else with parental responsibility."

I think that 16-year-olds "probably" can leave home and that word is probably otiose. They can also enter into a contract for housing—we all have constituents who are tenants from the age of 16 onwards—and are entitled to be housed on their own if they come within one of the priority categories outlined in the Housing Act 1985. Girls aged 16 can consent to heterosexual intercourse and 16-year-olds can marry, although that requires parental consent.

Furthermore, 16-year-olds can join trade unions; consent to surgical, medical or dental treatment; agree to donate organs, which was discussed yesterday in Westminster Hall; and agree to give blood. They can make the most far-reaching decisions about their medical treatment, and they are entitled to have access to their records. They can apply for a passport and get legal aid and assistance, and they have a right to an offer of training under the Government's training schemes.

Under criminal law, 16-year-olds move into a new category in respect of what they can be convicted of and the sentences that they can receive. Importantly, they can sign up for the armed services and serve our country—there is a debate about the international conventions and where they can serve. They can hold a driving licence for certain purposes, although not yet to drive a motor car on the roads. They can buy cigarettes and tobacco, and have beer, cider or perry with a meal in a restaurant. They can buy liqueur chocolates— not a law I knew about.

That is useful at Christmas.

That is true—and a reminder to 16-year-olds to do their Christmas shopping. They can buy fireworks, they have to pay full fare on trains, and they can buy premium bonds; they may take part in public performances without a local authority licence, become a street trader, sell scrap metal, be used by another person in order to beg in the street, act as a pilot in command of a glider, purchase a knife, blade, razor or axe, and, lastly and somewhat bizarrely, they are allowed to enter or live in a brothel.

That is a relief.

You may look perturbed, Mr. Winterton, but the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) said that that is a relief. The opportunity for biographical descriptions may come to him at any moment in a Committee, and we look forward to what may be sufficiently later in his life for it not to cause him any trouble now.

It seems to me that the law would benefit from a bit of revision in this area. On occasions we may not have realised the consequences of the legislation that we have introduced. Whether we like it or not, many rights come at 16, and I shall explain why I think that 16-year-olds should be given one of the most important rights.

The hon. Gentleman is making a scintillating speech. Knowing him, I feel sure that the amendment is motivated by high principle and not by any grubby popularism. Given that he is a fervent admirer of the European Union, can he tell the Committee in which member state, if any, people are entitled to vote at the age of 16?

Norway!

As far as I know, the answer is none—not even in Norway, unless Norway legislated yesterday. My speech has not been heard there—I shall remember to take it to the folketing when I next visit.

This country was one of the first to allow people to vote at 18. We do not necessarily have to wait for others to do something, or to be the last to do it. An increasing number of other countries allow voting at 16, although they are not European Union countries.

This is not intended as a light-hearted point, but the hon. Gentleman is making an interesting argument for the right to vote at 16 and I wondered whether he recalls the 1960s song "Eve of Destruction" by Barry Maguire, which came out during the Vietnam war and contained the line:

"Young enough to fight, but not for voting".

There is the rub. Some very important rights come at the age of 16: 16-year-olds can marry, have children, fight, work and pay taxes. They are old enough to kill and to pay tax. Colleagues may anticipate my next point, because the argument about no taxation without representation is the obvious consequence of that.

5.45 pm

Despite the Government's intention to retain them in education or training, many young people want to go out and work. I think that when young people are faced with choices between education and work, and between work and joining the armed services, they should be allowed to influence the policies that determine those choices and affect their citizenship.

There is another supremely important point, as well as the taxation and representation point. If we as a Parliament are involved in decisions to commit our armed services to going to war—although that may not require parliamentary approval—there is a strong case for allowing those whom we are committing a say in those decisions.

The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to "clean up" the legislation. People are allowed to view R-rated films at the age of 18; does the hon. Gentleman wish to lower that to 16? As for no taxation without representation—or no taxation without the ability to vote—a seven-year-old buying sweets will pay value added tax. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the payment of tax by seven-year-olds should therefore be the rule?

Everything that is sold is subject to indirect tax.

It is still tax.

It is, but it is not a personal tax in the sense in which income tax is a personal tax.

I have not given much thought to the question of films, but in a way the hon. Gentleman has made my point for me. There is a range of legislation relating to the age of consent which the Home Office should consider.

Attitudes change; society changes. In earlier centuries, people—monarchs as well as subjects—married at 11, 12 or 13 and had children. That was considered entirely legitimate and normal. Things have moved on, however: subjects have become citizens, and we have more democracy. We should continually re-examine issues such as this. Liberal Democrats, with the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, have concluded that it is time for us to think of making progress.