Lords Sitting of 24 July 1997

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Utility Regulation: Review
Lord Borrieasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to make binding the rulings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission when the commission arbitrates in disputes on prices between a utility company and a specific industry regulator.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 30th June an interdepartmental review of utility regulation. The review will look at the existing framework of regulation against guiding principles of transparency, accountability, consistency and predictability. The relationship between the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and regulators will be considered in that light.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. I welcome the review of utility regulation. That is overdue and concerns a subject that the previous government sadly neglected. Does the Minister agree with me that the present position is most unsatisfactory? I refer to recent examples of Northern Ireland Electricity and British Gas, where the regulator asked the monopolies commission for a thorough examination taking a period of six months. Witnesses were examined and a report was published. However, the regulator then seemed to want to reject the verdict of the umpire. Would it not make more sense if the conclusions of the monopolies commission were fully binding and effective?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that observation. While I am unwilling to enter the lists, as it were, with probably the most experienced umpire we have in the House on issues of this nature—I record my grateful thanks for the work the noble Lord has done in the area of competitiveness—this is precisely the issue that we think the utility review should look at; namely, the relationship between the commission and the regulator, and indeed the regulator and the licensee. I certainly would not want to invoke television replays of the umpire's decision, but we need to think carefully about where accountability lies.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I of course defer with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, as the great expert in these matters. Is it
1506
not a fact that, despite what the Minister has said, the Secretary of State could still overturn the monopolies commission ruling if he had a mind to do so?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, it is clear that the relationship between the commission and the regulator allows the regulator to apply the commission's decision in the way which is best fitted to ensure competition. As regards prices, some are already fixed, as in the case of the water industry, but others are free.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if and when there is devolution in Scotland of the kind which we understand is envisaged, what will happen if the utility company is situated in Scotland and the regulator is a nationally appointed official? In particular, which Secretary of State might have any responsibility for considering the outcome?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, we would prefer to leave the definitive answer to that question to the Statement when we shall hear about Scotland. Of course, we must all remember that we are always trying to define the relevant market here.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Minister mentioned predictability as one of the parameters of this internal investigation of the DTI into the role of the regulator. Does predictability mean that there will be a single umpire, or is that not part of the department's thinking?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, that is another matter that should be decided by the review. However, I believe that it is clear in principle from what I have said that differentiated regulation is appropriate in differently dynamic markets. As we have freed up the system for the utilities, markets are developing in different ways and therefore different regulatory decisions and processes are necessary at this stage. That is a statement of principle and approach to regulation; let us wait until we have the review.

School Teachers: Dismissal
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their proposals whereby school teachers will be liable to dismissal with four weeks' notice on the ground of lack of capability have implications for employees in other sectors.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the legal protections against unfair dismissal that are available to teachers and employees generally. The Government's aim is to put in place speedy but fair procedures to

1507
remove teachers who cannot do the job. Local authority employers will be setting up a working group to consider how that can be done.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I know nothing about education but I have sat for over 20 years on an industrial tribunal. I still cannot understand why there is to be no change in employment law, given that the Minister has said that people can be dismissed within four weeks. I tabled this Question because I am genuinely puzzled about this matter. Is the Minister saying that these people will continue in paid employment but will no longer teach children? What procedure is she suggesting? Many other sectors of the community may follow similar procedures if they wish to dispense with people they consider are not capable of doing their jobs.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we are not proposing the removal of any statutory protections for teachers or indeed for anyone else. The working group will consider what can be done within the framework of the existing statutory employment protection. During the debate in another place on the White Paper, Excellence in Schools, my honourable friend the Minister for School Standards set a target of six months to remove an incompetent teacher. That does not seem an excessively short time. He also set a target of a matter of weeks to remove a grossly incompetent teacher. We shall see what the working group can do within the framework of statutory employment protection. It is, of course, always possible for someone to appear, after dismissal, before an industrial tribunal.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if a teacher is dismissed, whatever procedures may exist for rectifying mistakes afterwards, the fact of the dismissal will be known to every member of staff, every parent and every pupil and it will not be practicable in the real world to put the clock back? Is not four weeks a little peremptory to take such an important decision?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course it may be difficult to put the clock back after an industrial tribunal. However, what the Government are concerned to do is to protect pupils, and indeed other teachers who are doing a good job, from those teachers who are clearly hopeless and utterly incompetent and are unable to control a class. Surely it is in the best interests of our education system that such teachers should be removed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister may be somewhat consoled by the fact that we agree that bad teachers should be removed from the classroom. I assume that the teacher would be dismissed within four weeks. That is what the Secretary of State said in another place. How can dismissing the teacher within four weeks be reconciled with giving appropriate notices, an opportunity to improve, putting in support systems, and so on, which is the system at present, without any change in the legislation?
1508
Is there any read across to other sector workers, or are teachers to be treated differently from all other workforces?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, no. Of course teachers will not be treated differently. I have already made it absolutely clear that the statutory requirements regarding employment law will stand. The noble Baroness shakes her head. Perhaps I could finish. No, we do not intend to change the statutory requirements in this respect. I think that the noble Baroness would agree that were a pilot to be found to be grossly incompetent we would wish to remove the pilot rather quickly. Similarly, were we to find that a brain surgeon was grossly incompetent we would wish to do the same.
The procedures laid down by ACAS must be adhered to. It is necessary to give, first, an oral warning, then a formal warning, before dismissal takes place. There would also be the right of appeal. But it is premature to jump to too many conclusions before the working group of local authority employers has had an opportunity to consider the matter.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. There is no disagreement between us about removing a surgeon from a theatre or a teacher from a classroom who is grossly incompetent. But dismissing a teacher within four weeks and complying with all the legislation seems to me incompatible.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said. We have to allow the working group led by the local authority employers to see whether it is possible to remove grossly incompetent teachers in that period. After all, they are damaging the education of children.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, my noble friend may be surprised by a conversation that I had at a social occasion last week—the question is coming. Government proposals to get rid of unsatisfactory teachers within four weeks have some support within the teaching profession. However, the question I was asked was whether that procedure will apply also to incompetent builders, solicitors or accountants.
A noble Lord: And politicians?
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the question of incompetent politicians was not raised. No doubt it would read across to that also. I hope that my noble friend can provide some succour to the teaching profession.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify. We are not talking about unsatisfactory teachers. We are talking about people who are grossly incompetent; people who are completely incapable of controlling a class. Some of us who went to school many years ago can remember such teachers. It is very difficult for much education to go on in those circumstances.

1509
We are not simply talking about those teachers who are not very good at their job. They will be offered training, support and help. There are no proposals to deal particularly with the other categories to which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, referred.
Baroness Young: My Lords, my noble friend Lady B latch raises an important point. We all agree that we should find a mechanism for removing grossly incompetent teachers. However, does the Minister agree that she is saying something contradictory? Some of us are chairmen of governors and may have to carry out the policy. The Government have said that their policy will allow the dismissal of teachers in four weeks. If I understand the Minister correctly, she says that the employment law will stand and that dismissal will take six months. Many of us would like to know which statement is true.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may explain again. The working party has been asked to look at ways in which grossly incompetent teachers can be dismissed more rapidly. Perhaps I may explain the current procedures. As the noble Baroness probably knows as she has been a chairman of governors, all schools have negotiated a set of procedures, usually at local level with the local education authority and the teachers' unions. Some of those procedures have five stages of warnings with provision for appeal at each stage, and a term for the teacher to act on each warning. It is no wonder that it often takes up to two years to remove unsatisfactory teachers.
As I said earlier, ACAS recommended a minimum of a formal oral warning, followed by a written warning, followed by dismissal. I cannot say whether it will be possible to go through those ACAS procedures within four weeks. The working group has been asked to look at the issue. It may not be possible.
On the noble Baroness's point about the difference between six months and four weeks, in general it will take at least six months to dismiss unsatisfactory teachers. But we are not talking about unsatisfactory teachers.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that no profession has faced such dramatic change in the past decade as the teaching profession, and that that has affected both recruitment and teaching morale? Can the Minister give an assurance that the latest plans will not affect recruitment and morale?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the purpose of the proposals is to improve teacher morale. There is nothing more demoralising for those teachers who are doing a good job than having to work with a tiny minority of
1510
teachers who are completely incapable of reaching the standard that we should all expect a competent teacher to reach.

Pensions Mis-selling
3.17 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parksideasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to deal with the mis-selling of private pensions to the public.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are determined to see the case reviews completed quickly, and redress made where it is due. On 9th July, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury published details of progress towards redress, or lack of it, by the top 24 firms. The Government will continue to publish information on progress and will not hesitate to see that further action is taken, as necessary, to speed up reviews.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree with me that the risible progress of the 24 pension companies named by Treasury Minister, Helen Liddell, in compensating the victims of mis-selling of pensions is a disgrace that has besmirched the good name of the City of London? Can my noble friend confirm that some 20,000 victims of the scandal have died uncompensated since the companies began their review of the fiasco some three years ago, and that unless the Government take harsh and swift action within the next two or three months many thousands more will die uncompensated before their cases are reached?
Finally, does my noble friend agree that the Tory Government Ministers who launched this privatisation of pensions some years ago bear as much responsibility for the scandal as the pension companies?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on my noble friend's first question, the aim of the Personal Investment Authority is to see that 90 per cent. of claims are dealt with by the end of this year, and 100 per cent. by the end of next year. I am not at all convinced that it will be achieved and, even if it were, I do not think it is good enough, for the reasons that my noble friend gives.
On the second question, about the responsibility of the previous Government, I have only too good reason to agree with him since I ran a company pension scheme myself for 30 years. The previous Government weakened company pension schemes by allowing individuals to opt out; weakened SERPS by reducing the returns; and encouraged people to opt out by what might be termed the DSS short-term bribe. The result was that hundreds of thousands of people opted out, many of them losing out because of mis-selling and the lack of adequate company contributions.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister accept that no one can support the mis-selling of pensions where

1511
that existed and that resolution of the matter is long overdue—it should have been cleared up to a much greater extent and faster than it has been so far? However, will he further accept that the removal of tax credits has resulted inexorably in a large number of pensions, sold and purchased in good faith, now being clearly inappropriate for those to whom they were sold, purely and solely as a result of the Government's action?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I do not agree at all. On the contrary, the Association of British Insurers has recognised that, in the longer term, the switch to greater capital appreciation and the reduction of lower dividend streams will actually be of benefit to pension funds. In the shorter term, I hope that insurance companies and pensions sellers will not use ACT as an excuse for delaying compensation.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, while I accept the fact that some pensions have been jeopardised as a result of mis-selling, does the Minister agree that the change in the fiscal treatment of dividends in pension funds is bound to mean that those pensioners will be jeopardised as well? Will he further agree that it is quite illogical for the Government on the one hand to try to encourage people to save for their old age and, on the other, to penalise that fund when it is set up?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the first part of the noble Lord's question was the same as that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I notice that the noble Lord now acknowledges that "some" pensioners were victims of mis-selling. That is a gross under-statement.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, for the lower-paid, personal pensions were always unlikely to be a very good vehicle for retirement? Would it not be a good idea if some of these considerations were pointed out to people? Could not the financial services industry be given deadlines by which this whole fiasco should be cleared up?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to look to the future of pensions and not merely at the past. As she will know, the President of the Board of Trade announced only yesterday that there would be a new, arm's length financial services regulatory body which will be under the ministerial control of the Treasury rather than the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope she will feel that that, combined with the review announced by the Department of Social Security, shows our firm intention to see to it that in future the best kind of pension scheme is available to all, including the low-paid.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will the Minister accept that I agree with him that there was no excuse for pensions mis-selling, and there is no excuse for not putting the matter right—just as there was no excuse for the ex-Labour MP, Robert Maxwell,
1512
pillaging his members' pension funds? Nor is there any excuse, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, for Chancellor Brown taking £5.4 billion from pension funds in the future. If the Minister doubts that, will he read the comments of the National Association of Pension Funds?
On a more positive note, will the Minister agree with me that, for very many people whose employers do not provide pension funds, personal pensions are a perfectly appropriate and correct vehicle to provide income for their retirement?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall reply to the noble Lord's positive points rather than to his diversionary tactics. Yes, of course it is true that there are many people, particularly the self-employed and those who are likely to change jobs frequently, for whom personal pension schemes are more appropriate than the kind of final salary scheme which denies individuals transferability from one employer to another. However, it is also important that, where possible, there should be employer contributions, as well as a minimising of the administrative costs which are too common a feature of personal pension schemes.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as the Minister may be aware, most of us welcome the action taken by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in dealing with this very unfortunate matter. Is he also aware that, whatever we may think of the Chancellor's Budget so far as pension provision is concerned, the central question for the House is the mis-selling of pensions by disreputable salesmen working for some of those 24 companies? That is the central issue. I am sure that all of us would welcome vigorous action by the Government to deal with it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for returning to the original Question on the Order Paper. He is quite right. I suspect that he is also asking when criminal proceedings will be taken regarding some of the grosser examples of mis-selling. I can only say to him that, regrettably, it will not be possible to consider that until the redress procedure is complete or almost complete.

Indonesia: Arms Exports
3.25 p.m.
Lord Moynihanasked Her Majesty's Government:
What conclusions they have reached regarding arms sales to Indonesia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the British Government will not issue licences for the export of arms, to Indonesia or any other country, which might be used for internal repression or international aggression.

1513
We expect to announce the result of our review of the criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms shortly.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, since the gracious Speech, I have had the privilege of debating human rights issues with the Minister in this House covering Burma, Indonesia, the Sudan and many other parts of the world. If the sale does proceed, as seems likely from the Foreign Office briefing to the press, I should like to congratulate the Government on a seamless transition of policy from the previous administration. Will the Minister give the House one concrete example of circumstances where the Government believe that the much-heralded application of the human rights criteria at the centre of foreign policy decisions will result in a change of policy from that of the previous administration?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government stand by their eight-point plan on policy towards arms exports that was published before the election. We will not sell arms to regimes which might use them for internal repression or external aggression. We want an EU code of conduct governing all arms sales. We announced on 22nd May that the Government would carry out an urgent review of the criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms. Human rights will play an important part in that. As I indicated, the noble Lord and the rest of the House can expect us to announce our conclusions on this very important matter shortly.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, have the Government yet suspended deliveries of the armoured vehicles and water cannon about which evidence was supplied to them? Photographic evidence, as well as eye-witness statements, indicated that these devices exported from the United Kingdom had indeed been used in action against demonstrators. Will the Minister accept that the commitment in the mission statement is no different from that entered into by the previous government in regard to the principles governing conventional arms transfers of the OSCE in December 1993, and that what is lacking is any means of checking violations and enforcing the code of conduct, agreed not merely by the United Kingdom but by every other state in the OSCE, under which we will not sell arms that might be used for internal repression?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government are very concerned about the allegations, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred, of the past misuse of UK-supplied equipment. We have asked officials for full details. As yet, there are no firm conclusions to be drawn. We are currently studying all the information available to us in relation to allegations about use of the Hawk in East Timor; however, as yet, we have no firm conclusions. I am therefore unable to give the noble Lord the detailed answer that his Question requires. I hope that such answers will be forthcoming very shortly.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, have the Government now solved the problem which has defeated experts over
1514
the years; namely, how to distinguish between weapons that can be used for aggression and for internal repression? Is the Minister aware that there is scarcely a single weapon which, under certain circumstances, could not be used for internal repression, with the possible exception of a nuclear weapon? Is she further aware that there are very few weapons or weapon systems which cannot be used in aggressive warfare? I should be interested to know whether the Government have solved that problem.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. All such matters are far too important for rushed decisions. The review was set up barely two months ago. Many issues have to be fully considered, involving a great number of different Whitehall departments, as the noble Lord knows. The Government are determined that the issue and all the implications involved in it, such as the one to which the noble Lord has drawn our attention, are fully considered before reaching conclusions which I hope will be announced shortly.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is the Minister hopeful of avoiding a situation in which reduced sales from this country are simply made up by sales from such outlets as China and South American countries?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we would be hopeful in those circumstances of being able to persuade other countries to follow our lead in putting human rights at the heart of their policy too.

Business
3.31 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Sewel, will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on devolution for Scotland. I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement after the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen should be confined to,
"brief comments and questions for clarification".
There is a mandatory limit of 20 minutes from the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen.

Business of the House: Summer Recess
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may also be for the convenience of the House if I remind your Lordships that, subject to the progress of Business, the House will rise for the Summer Recess on Thursday 31st July. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on that day.
I am now in a position to announce for the convenience of the House and of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition that the House will return on Tuesday 14th October.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may say how grateful I am and this side of the House is for the

1515
statement that the Government Chief Whip has just made. That is particularly so regarding the date of the return of the House of Lords on 14th October. It has perhaps not been the best kept secret, since I am aware that the Refreshment Department has known of the date for some weeks and it has filtered out.
However, it would be helpful for all Members of the House if in future we have notification of the dates rather earlier than has been the case this year. I understand the difficulties in which the noble Lord found himself. Furthermore, I understand that another place is not due to return until 29th October, over two weeks after our return. That is not unwelcome because I assume that it means that there will be a number of important Bills for the House of Lords to deal with right at the start of the Session. There is a good reason for that, following the point made by my noble friend Lord Cranborne last week.
It is important for the Government to provide a balance for the legislative programme. My colleagues and I would regard it as an unhappy event if we were to find ourselves dealing with big, controversial and detailed Bills, including some that may contain items of constitutional importance, in the final months of the summer. I hope that the Government do not plan for Royal Assents to be required at the end of July or even the beginning of August when at this stage there seems to be no pressing need for it. That is particularly so since the House of Commons will return long after we do.
I hope that the noble Lord will take this in the spirit of co-operation and helpfulness with which it is intended, as has always been our direction here in Opposition.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words in the same spirit of co-operation and helpfulness as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Is the Government Chief Whip aware that on a number of occasions during the period of the Conservative Government the House of Lords was recalled before the House of Commons? There is nothing unusual in the situation.
Is the Chief Whip also aware that I very much welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said about the need to avoid a large amount of constitutional legislation coming to this House in May and June? I join implicitly with the noble Lord in the desire to avoid during Committee and Report stages of a Bill wearisome, repetitive speeches, Second Reading speeches being made in any part of the House.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest to the Government Chief Whip that once the Bills start rolling he makes every attempt to get your Lordships' House to bed before two o'clock in the morning. That became the accepted practice by the present Opposition when they were in government.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all those who have spoken. I believe that the Opposition Chief Whip is aware that the usual channels have to flow across this House and also down the corridors.
1516
I have done my best through the usual channels to make possible dates available. Any Member of the House who did not know that we were likely to come back on 14th October was misinformed.
The reason the Commons are returning after us is a matter for them. However, I should remind the House that we have a number of important items of business to be getting on with such as the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill and, of course, we should not forget the Plant Varieties Bill.
I understand entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said about the balance between the two Houses. He knows that when we are able to inform him and the House of the way in which the balance will be achieved—of which we are entirely aware—he will be told as soon as possible. We understand the point that he makes about the weight of the legislation between the two Houses.
Regarding the Summer Recess next year, it is a long way off and we shall do our best to ensure that we rise in good time. However, I can only repeat the point made by my noble friend the Leader of the House last week. I see the noble Lord, Lord Denham, in his place and he told me that one year he kept the House sitting until 12th August.

Ministerial and Other Salaries Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill; read a first time, and to be printed.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 22nd July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Bill [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill that I bring before you today is distinctly less momentous than others to which your Lordships have given consideration. It is modest but important in its effect. Its origins lay in the Efficiency Scrutiny commissioned in 1994 to examine administrative burdens on operational police officers in the context of the whole of the criminal justice system. The scrutiny team undertook a thorough investigation, encompassing every police force in England and Wales, magistrates'

1517
courts, Crown Court centres and the Crown Prosecution Service and examined research and initiatives from a wide range of interested bodies. It reported in June 1995. This is the right approach. There are rarely single culprits when our interconnected justice system fails to deliver as it should. The scrutiny considered, among other areas, fixed penalty offences, summonses and specified proceedings. I should like to describe the current process in a little detail.
At present, provisions in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 allow defendants on certain charges to be summonsed by post and to submit a guilty plea by post, if they wish. A significant number of those "guilty by post" pleas are for summary traffic offences; for example, exceeding speed limits or failing to comply with traffic light signals. Offenders who are ready to admit their guilt and accept the penalty merited by their crime can do so quickly and efficiently. They save both their own time and the time of the court. There is, of course, no question of the plea-by-post process allowing people to escape the penalty due for their offence. The Efficiency Scrutiny reported that one survey recorded that 38 per cent. of those summonsed in that way submitted guilty pleas by post. From informal consultation, that level appears to be generally representative.
Anyone summonsed in that way who wishes to plead not guilty can do so, and plead his or her case in court in the usual way. The great flaw in the present system which I have just described is that a very significant proportion of defendants simply do not respond to the summons at all. Of these, some do not respond for quite innocent reasons of error, and the law has remedies for them. But the survey to which I referred found that 35 per cent. of defendants made no reply to the summons whatsoever. The obvious truth is that, for a great many of them, ignoring the summons was nothing more than a means of delaying what is their due.
When a summons has produced no response, the court has no choice under our present arrangements but to adjourn the case. The prosecution may, perhaps, decide that there is no point in proceeding and the charge will simply be dropped. Should they proceed to trial, there are options available which seek to ensure that the defendant is in court for his or her trial. But the prosecution must be able, if necessary, to try a case in the complete absence of the defendant.
Under current legislation, a summons will usually include what is known as a "statement of facts", essentially a concise summary of the case details as recorded by the police. That information is sufficient for a defendant to acknowledge his or her guilt by post. But if they do not, the Crown Prosecution Service will take over responsibility for the prosecution. This may require written statements as described by Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which specifies the form for statements admissible in those proceedings; or witnesses may he required to attend court in person. Your Lordships will see that each summons ignored places heavy administrative duties on police, prosecutors and courts, which far outweigh those for processing a "guilty by post" plea.
1518
The Efficiency Scrutiny proposed a solution. to be evaluated through piloting by the relevant criminal justice agencies. Two pilot studies, in Gloucestershire and Lancashire, have recently been completed. Although they have not yet submitted formal reports on the pilot outcomes, both are showing most encouraging results and I hope to be able to report on these in detail at Committee stage. It is, however, worth mentioning that those who undertook the pilot schemes are all continuing to operate the procedures in question, although the actual pilot studies have been completed. At the time of the scrutiny, a comprehensive project was being undertaken in Leeds to test the very same process, and I shall return to that later.
The scrutiny suggested that the police should prepare a witness statement, as specified by Section 9 of the Act, and serve it with each summons. That would ensure that admissible statements were available to the court at the first scheduled hearing, whether or not the defendant had troubled to respond. If a defendant failed to answer the summons, the court could in most instances proceed immediately to trial, since the witness statement as served on the defendant would provide sufficient evidence to prove the case.
That is exactly what Clause 1 of the Bill will allow. It provides for an amendment to Section 12 of the Act, permitting a plea of guilty by post where either statements of fact or Section 9 witness statements have been served with the summons. When a statement of facts is served with the summons, the procedure for a guilty plea or a trial will be exactly the same as at present. When a Section 9 statement is served instead, this may be used equally as a summary of the facts, if a plea of guilty by post is received, or to prove the case, if no response is received to the summons. Further, including a Section 9 witness statement within the Section 12 procedure will not oblige the Crown Prosecution Service to take over prosecution from the police, as at present. The police will be able to continue as the de facto prosecutors and to claim the appropriate administrative costs. The amendment will not affect any other Section 12 provisions for pleas of guilty by post.
This Bill also provides one further refinement to the existing procedures for minor summary motoring offences. At present, where a defendant is convicted of a summary offence under the traffic Acts, previous endorsements on his or her driving licence may be taken into consideration by the court when sentencing. However, Section 104 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 states that, if the offender has not produced his driving licence to the court, previous endorsements on it cannot be considered until the court has served at least seven days' notice on the defendant of its intention to cite those previous summary convictions, by using a print-out of the driver's record from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
That computer print-out, which mirrors the endorsements noted on the licence, is usually available to the court at the time of sentencing. But, again, defendants who fail to respond to their summonses will delay proceedings, since the court is obliged to adjourn and notify them of its intentions. Otherwise, should it wish to pass sentence on the day in question, the court

1519
must simply, contrary to the justice of the case, ignore those previous endorsements. That should obviously be changed. The remedy to the problem is set out in Clause 2 of the Bill. It provides simply that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency print-outs may be used by the court to prove any previous summary convictions, but without any requirement to serve notice on the defendant. The remaining two clauses of the Bill are simply administrative, updating a number of references in related legislation and allowing implementation of the Bill to be delayed until the necessary changes to court and police documentation can be effected.
I mentioned earlier the extended project undertaken at Leeds from 1994 to 1996. It involved the co-operation of local police authorities, the Crown Prosecution Service and the magistrates' courts, and it gave the theories later encapsulated in Recommendation 35 as thorough a practical airing as possible without legislation. At the end of the Leeds study, the police estimated that using the new process had saved about 70 per cent. of their costs for the old process over that 18-month period. The Crown Prosecution Service estimated more modest savings of about 18 per cent. For the magistrates' courts, some 50 per cent. of the current process costs were saved. Those savings are well worth making. They are, largely, not realisable in cash terms. They represent an estimate of the manpower and other resources released for use on other work by expediting the processes in minor motoring cases. But they are every bit as valuable to the criminal justice system as new funds would be.
Perhaps the most eloquent evidence of the study's success in Leeds is the average clearance time for the cases concerned. About 13,000 cases were handled using the revised procedures, procedures which will be assisted throughout England and Wales by the Bill. In 1994, before the study began, the average time from summons issue to finalisation in court was 22 weeks. By 1995, that figure had fallen to 12 weeks. By the end of the project in 1996, the average figure for clearance times for those cases was four weeks. The time which this Bill can save in the court process is a benefit to everyone in the process. Those who are guilty receive the due sentence for their crime more promptly, reinforcing the connection between crime and punishment. And the time and resources freed for the courts, for prosecutors and for police by this modest Bill—which it is estimated will affect over 500,000 cases each year—will help to expedite the progress of all cases in the criminal justice system.
I apologise for taking a little time. These are simple and practical procedural reforms which I imagine will be uncontroversial and should therefore receive general acceptance. I commend them to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.50 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor set out with admirable and customary lucidity the contents of the Bill. His account
1520
needs no embellishment from me. It is wholeheartedly supported from the Opposition Benches. Indeed, the Opposition may claim some credit for the Bill's contents. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, the Efficiency Scrutiny survey was initiated by my right honourable friend Mr. John Major and bore fruit in its publication a year later in the form of many excellent and practical suggestions, of which this measure is only one. I am confident that the noble and learned Lord will be looking at other parts of that report to bring other measures forward in the near future.
It is a sad fact that in the magistrates' courts nowadays it often takes almost as long to bring a guilty plea to court as it does to bring a not guilty plea to court. Your Lordships will agree that in that sense this measure is a positive step forward.
It is also important to emphasise that what has been going wrong in this area is not in any way the fault of the lay magistrates; it is entirely the fault of the legislation itself. I say that because, as the Lord Chancellor will be aware, there has recently been a lot of criticism of the lay magistrature. Indeed, there are some who compare it adversely with the work of stipendiary magistrates and I have even seen it recommended that there should be a massive increase in the number of stipendiary magistrates to take over the work of lay justices.
The noble and learned Lord has already gone on record as saying that he does not accept such a development. I hope that he will, in future, take every opportunity he can to repeat that wise sentiment. It is true that there are disputes coming before lay magistrates nowadays—for example, environmental measures which flow from the Environment Act 1995—which may prove difficult for lay magistrates to deal with—simply because of their length.
But most of the problems that face the lay magistrates can be solved by better case management. After all, we have an excellent new procedure in the Crown Courts called "pleas and directions"; we have the admirable initiative of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, now enshrined in legislation, trying to do something similar—the task of case management—in civil courts. It is desirable that we pursue exactly the same objective in our magistrates' courts, where, after all, 98 per cent. of the legal business in our nation is done.
If any part of the professional world needs to play a greater role, it is not the stipendiary magistrates but the court clerks who can take away much of the administrative burden from the lay magistrates, leaving them to decide the important questions of bail, custody and sentencing.
The Efficiency Scrutiny survey, to which the noble and learned Lord addressed himself, will sort out those issues which require legislative change from those issues where better case management will improve the work of the magistrates' court. The Opposition are delighted with this piece of legislation and we trust it will be swiftly followed by measures of a similar sort.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I welcome this Bill, which the noble and learned Lord the

1521
Lord Chancellor described as "modest". He also emphasised how important it is to save the time and resources that are available to the magistrates' courts.
In my youth adjournments were the curse of the magistrates' courts. In the courts in which I practised it was customary to spend the time between 10 o'clock and 11.30—the coffee break—in simply dealing with adjournments. It was said that the clerk, a very worthy man, had turned the granting of adjournments into something of an art form. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said a moment ago, it was not the fault of the magistrates nor of the magistrates' clerks that adjournments of that sort were so necessary.
Turning to the contents of the Bill, I hope that the practice of serving written statements—Section 9 statements—is adopted generally and becomes the norm. In most cases where that procedure is followed the statements are in pro forma anyway and the police officers who are reporting the offences which are the subject of the procedure will normally fill out a form which simply complies with the Section 9 statements.
The problem with the summary of facts that is prepared by the police is that the facts are not necessarily properly stated. I recall some years ago that a friend of mine with whom I was fishing in Scotland decided to leave the river on the Thursday and return to Caernarvon to contest a speeding summons. He did that against the very best legal advice that was offered to him—by the ghillie I have to say—and went there on the basis that he had been charged with speeding on a motorcycle when in fact he had been driving a car.
As soon as my friend arrived and pointed out the error and pleaded not guilty, the written statement of facts was immediately amended to the fact that he was driving a car. He pleaded guilty. He lost two or three good fishing days. That is what can happen when the summary of facts is prepared wrongly. I hope that, if the serving of Section 9 statements becomes the norm, copies of those statements will be produced in court by the person who presents the prosecution case and handed to the magistrates' clerk while the prosecutor himself gives a brief summary of the facts to the magistrates so that they can deal with the case.
As to Section 2, dealing with print-outs from the DVLA, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor if there is any reason why such a print-out should not be sent out with the summons itself. When a person is stopped for a road traffic offence he is either required to produce a driving licence at that time or to produce it to a police station within a five-day period. At that particular moment in time such endorsements as he has upon his licence are made known to the police and are no doubt one of the reasons why they decide to prosecute rather than to caution.
It seems to me that it would be perfectly possible under the new procedure for the DVLA print-out to be sent out with the summons and for a brief check to be made, perhaps by the prosecutor or his staff, immediately before the court hearing to cover the period between the issue of the summons and the actual hearing itself. That in itself may save money.
1522
Those are some brief points that I make. We accept the need for this Bill and wish it well on its course.
3.59 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I hope it may come as something of a relief to noble Lords if I say that I only intend to speak on this matter briefly.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already said all there is to say about this short Bill and, in addition, thoughtfully and courteously circulated an explanatory note on its contents. As a serving magistrate—a claim I can make at least for the next three months if not afterwards—and therefore with an interest to declare in this subject, I hope I may be permitted to make a few observations on the contents of the Bill.
I doubt whether the earth will move in legal circles with its passage and, indeed, the attendance here this afternoon would scarcely seem to suggest that it possesses parliamentary "oomph", if I may use a show business phrase, unlike, perhaps not surprisingly, the Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Bill which is to follow. But, for all that, it is, I suggest, an important step in the right direction.
The provisions have been given a trial run in Gloucestershire and Lancashire, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already said, and, I think, with great success. Other courts have been fast-tracking as well. For example, I know that north west Hampshire has been committed to this for the past nine months and my own bench, in north east Hampshire, for the past six months. The heavens have not fallen as a result.
I hesitate to suggest that the former over-elaborate procedure dating from a time of considerably fewer minor offences is more honoured in the breach than the observance. But with perhaps 60 per cent. of the lower courts' work being taken up with road traffic offences, enshrining this streamlining procedure in the law must be welcomed by all involved with court work. It may be—I hope this will be the case—that other desirable short cuts will present themselves in a short time. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has already mentioned something which seems to me to have considerable merit in this area. For example, can we not go a little further? Perhaps a DVLA print-out can be sufficient to prove the identity of a disqualified driver.
All would acknowledge that there are defects in our legal system at the present time. Thankfully, some have been identified and remedied but others remain to be solved. Perhaps the most pernicious is delay and the time taken between the commission of an offence and the sentence. Clearly, this is particularly important in specifically criminal matters, but motorists and other lesser offenders surely have a right to swift justice as well. The reduction in the administrative burden will bring relief all round.
This Bill will help in these tasks. If it is an acorn of a Bill, we look forward in time to the oaks which will surely spring from the adoption of its principles in the

1523
execution of justice in this country. I warmly support its provisions and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward so quickly in the new Session.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, short Bills, however meritorious, deserve short speeches. Noble Lords will have observed that that rule has been carried out by my predecessors who have spoken; I intend to follow it. I am able to report, having inquired of the Law Society, the Magistrates' Association and the Automobile Association, that all those worthy bodies feel that this is an extremely wise and useful Bill.
The Bill, we hope, will save manpower. However, fellow practitioners—those who practise in the magistrates' courts—tell me that it still happens, when guilty pleas have been entered in regard to motoring offences, that a police officer is present waiting for the case to come on and that that officer departs only when the case is over. That officer should not be there at all; there is no need for him. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can tell the House that police authorities will be told in good time that the policeman responsible for the case is not required.
I wish to make only one other observation. The magistrates' courts, whether looked after by a lay bench or by a stipendiary—I welcome and concur with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about lay magistrates—are very largely the courts of little people, working people. Many of them find it difficult, even if they have a case when accused of one of these minor offences, to appear in court during the daytime when so often they are kept waiting for hours and hours and are usually deprived of a day's pay. I wonder whether the question of magistrates' courts sitting in the evening—if only on one day a week—in order to accommodate those who are inconvenienced very considerably if they have to attend during the day can be addressed.
Lay magistrates may often find it more convenient to sit in the evening than during the day time. Stipendiary magistrates, I feel sure, would not mind making that sacrifice for the sake of justice in courts which, as I say, usually look after working class people.
4.6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome given to this measure. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said quite rightly that it is something of an acorn lacking "oomph". I did not begin by over-selling it; you can of course often do good without being able to be exciting. I am ready to acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said. All this comes out of the efficiency scrutiny survey initiated by the previous Prime Minister. I shall look at the points the noble Lord made about other recommendations in the survey. However, as I understand it—although I will check—very few, in order to be implemented, require legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked why the print-out could not be sent out with the summons itself. There is an answer, but it is probably an insufficient
1524
answer. The answer is that it is not usually available at the time the summons is sent out because it is still awaited from the DVLA at Swansea. I shall certainly be asking my officials to advise me whether those working in the DVLA in that part of the Principality could do better and whether it could be automatically requisitioned before the summons is served and so accompany the summons as served.
As usual, my noble friend Lord Mishcon makes an important point. There is no legal requirement on police officers to attend court where a plea of guilty by post has been entered under the Section 12 procedure. I am sure—and I know he would agree—that most police forces must be very keen to keep officers' attendance at court to a minimum. They have much better things to do than to hang around court when nothing is required of them. In some instances, of course, they are genuinely needed in court to explain technical or other obscure aspects of the evidence before the magistrates. Clearly, however, it is preferable for all concerned that attendances are confined to those occasions which are strictly merited.
I agree with my noble friend that there may be many instances where there is a failure to notify police officers that they will not be required to attend court for guilty by post pleas. Therefore, it will be helpful to consider how to secure the necessary notification; that is to say, who will "de-warn" the police. It has to be examined administratively. Should it be the police themselves, the CPS or the court? Clearly, better communication among all the agencies involved (police, prosecutors and courts) is required. I therefore undertake to make inquiries about how to achieve the necessary changes in practice in order to give an answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which will satisfy him.
The point to which he called attention links to one of more general application across the whole of the criminal justice system. In a major speech I made this morning to the council of the Magistrates' Association, which I intended should deal with all the current concerns of the magistracy and in particular delays in the youth justice system, I said this:
"I am conscious that real improvements can only be achieved if all the agencies—the police, the CPS, Probation Services, Social Services and the defence—play their full part. There is no one culprit. The Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord. Lord Bingham, in a recent speech to the Prison Reform Trust called for the active collaboration of all the agencies involved directly or indirectly in the causes and consequences of juvenile offending. He said, and I entirely agree, that it was vital that 'lines of functional demarcation do not impede effective and harmonious co-operation"'.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, well appreciates how these observations are in line with the necessary solution to the problem to which he rightly calls attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will be pleased to hear that in the same speech this morning I nailed the false story which appeared in the Observer—followed by the story run the next day by the Daily Mail—that the Government plan to substantially destroy our 700 year-old system of lay justices. There are 30,374 of them in the country, according to the latest count. The story was that they were to be substantially replaced by stipendiary magistrates, of whom there are a mere

1525
90 across the country. Where that crackpot idea came from I know not, but it is without any substance whatever.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who spoke of what, I dare say, was a very early experience when at the Bar and of appearing at a magistrates' court, that there is of course a culture of adjournments and that it is one of the things that afflicts the youth justice system. One of my very first actions in the office which I now occupy was to send a letter to magistrates across the country urging them to think very hard before granting adjournments in these cases.
Of course, even above the elimination of delay there is a value which is higher, and that is to ensure that justice is done in these cases. But spree-offending by young offenders is one of the afflictions of our times. It is often desirable not to wait until perhaps the many offences committed by these young people can be dealt with on a single occasion by the courts. In the interests of the protection of the public and of bringing such young people to their senses at an early stage it is often wiser to deal with a single offence early in order to impose the very necessary, timely connection between the commission of crime and punishment.
I believe—I certainly hope—that I have responded to all the points raised in this short and interesting debate. As I make that large claim I realise that I have not because the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised the question of evening magistrates' courts. A further gain from this short debate today is that I will ask my officials to report to me on that possibility.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I do not want to mislead the House. I said that the Automobile Association thoroughly approved of the Bill. After I had sat down a note was passed to me. I propose only to read the paragraph and I do not ask the noble and learned Lord to reply to it, although I know that he would courteously if he wanted to and still will if he wants to. I am told that there is a problem in regard to Clause 2. The note states:
"DVLC records may be incorrect and if the defendants are not shown what is produced, it could all go badly wrong, [for example] if the print out from the DVLC shows more than I name, the wrong person may get the endorsement".
The note adds:
"DVLC's records are quite often incorrect".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall certainly seek the advice of officials on that point. At first sight it goes only to support the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. If the print-out accompanied the summons and it was seen to be inaccurate by the defendant, then he would have the opportunity, from the procedure suggested by the noble Lord, to contest the matter if he so chose.
Lord Torphichen: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that if the DVLA print-out was in front of the court, it might not be considered as evidence and, therefore, it would be immensely prejudicial before a verdict. That would not
1526
be allowed in any other court proceedings. You could not say, for instance, that there were three previous convictions for murder before a murderer came to trial.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure from where the noble Lord gets that idea. Having sat for many years as a recorder, I can assure him that judges quite often know about the previous convictions of defendants.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Scottish Parliament
4.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement on the Government's proposals for a Scottish parliament which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about our plans for the Scottish parliament. Copies of this Statement and the White Paper are now available in the Vote Office.
"On 1st May, the people of Scotland—like the people of the United Kingdom as a whole—voted for our manifesto and the comprehensive programme of constitutional change. At its heart was our commitment to create a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly giving the people of Scotland and Wales more control over their own affairs within the United Kingdom.
"Our aim is to make government more open, more accessible and more accountable to the people whom we serve, and to give the United Kingdom a modern constitution fit for the 21st century.
"The Government are losing no time in turning these commitments into reality. On Tuesday, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales published his plans for devolution to Wales. Today I am laying before the House the detailed proposals for the Scottish parliament.
"Like many others in this House and beyond, I have campaigned long and hard for a Scottish parliament over the years. Few occasions in my long parliamentary career have given me as much pleasure as coming here today to present our firm proposals for that Scottish parliament.
"In my time I have seen many devolution schemes. I genuinely believe this is the best; and right for Scotland. We have renewed, modernised and improved on the plans agreed with the broad coalition of Scottish interests in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It will provide a new, stable settlement which will serve Scotland and the United Kingdom well in the years to come.

1527
"Let me outline what we propose. The Scottish parliament will have the power to make the law of Scotland in devolved areas. Entrusting Scotland with control over her own domestic affairs will better allow the people of Scotland to benefit from and contribute to the unity of the United Kingdom. The Scottish parliament will hold to account an executive headed by a First Minister which will operate in a way similar to the United Kingdom Government. Together, the Scottish parliament and executive will be responsible for the wide range of domestic matters which affect everyone living in Scotland, including: health; education and training; local government; housing; social work; economic development; transport; the law and home affairs; the environment, including the natural and built heritage; agriculture, fisheries and forestry; and sport and the arts. The details are there in the White Paper.
"A key aspect of the Scottish parliament's role will be to create and maintain an effective oversight of other Scottish bodies, the health service and particularly local government. We expect the Scottish parliament and executive to complement and not encroach upon democratically elected local government.
"Let me tell the House why this is an advance on any scheme that has gone before and why I believe not only the time is right but the scheme is right. The parliament will have extensive law-making powers. Unlike 1978, the full range of the Scottish Office's functions will be devolved. This will provide the opportunity to make a real difference in the areas that matter. The legislation will define reserved matters, not devolved matters, and the Scottish parliament will be able to exercise its law-making powers in all areas which are not specifically reserved to Westminster. The relationships between the Scottish executive, the UK Government and the Crown will provide clarity and stability for the future. The parliament will have the discipline and responsibility of defined financial powers. The Scottish executive will be closely involved with the UK Government in European decision-making.
"Throughout the White Paper our guiding principle is to trust the Scottish people to make the right decisions on their own behalf. The detailed procedures, the working arrangements and the practical issues relating to the governance of Scotland will properly be left to the parliament and the executive, answerable as they will be to the Scottish electorate.
"The UK Parliament is and will remain sovereign in all matters: but as part of our resolve to modernise the constitution, Westminster will be choosing to exercise that sovereignty by devolving legislative responsibility to the Scottish parliament without diminishing its own powers. Those matters more appropriately dealt with on a UK basis will remain at Westminster. They will include the constitution of the United Kingdom; foreign policy; defence and national security; the stability of the United Kingdom's fiscal, economic and monetary system; common markets for
1528
UK goods and services; employment legislation; some health issues, including abortion; social security matters; and most aspects of transport safety and regulation.
"After devolution, Scotland's MPs will continue to play a full and constructive role in the proceedings of this House. This is right both for Scotland and for the United Kingdom because devolution is about strengthening the United Kingdom.
"The distribution of seats is regularly reviewed by the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions which follows criteria defined in statute. At present, special statutory provisions stipulate a minimum number of Scottish seats. This has led to Members for constituencies in Scotland representing, on average, fewer constituents than Members in other parts of the United Kingdom.
"Our devolution proposals mean that, in practice, Westminster will no longer be the forum for scrutinising much of Scotland's domestic legislation. This brings into sharper focus the imbalance in the current arrangements. The Government have decided that the requirement for a minimum number of Scottish seats should no longer apply. Primary legislation will be needed. This will be put in place before the next full Boundary Commission review.
"Other statutory requirements such as the need to give due weight to geographical considerations and local ties will continue to apply. The actual number of seats allocated to Scotland will be for the Boundary Commission to recommend exercising its judgment in accordance with the criteria laid down.
"There will continue to be a Secretary of State for Scotland who will work with the new Scottish parliament and represent Scottish interests within the United Kingdom Government.
"The staff of the Scottish executive will continue to be part of a unified Home Civil Service. The Scottish executive and the UK Government will work closely together at ministerial and official level. The stability of the system is of the utmost importance. The White Paper sets out detailed arrangements for these working relationships; and for resolving any disagreements.
"The people of Scotland will continue to benefit from the influence which the United Kingdom has as a major state within the European Union. Relations with the EU will remain the responsibility of the UK Government, with the Scottish executive making an effective and appropriate contribution to UK decision-making on Europe. Ministers in the Scottish executive will have an opportunity to participate in relevant meetings of the Council of Ministers and in appropriate cases could speak for the United Kingdom.
"There will be a Scottish representative office in Brussels; this will complement the role of UKREP and will allow the Scottish executive to operate more effectively in Europe. The Scottish executive will have an obligation to implement EU legislation on devolved matters. Our proposals are very much in line with developments across the European Union.

1529
"The financial framework for the Scottish parliament will be based on the present "block and formula" arrangements for the Scottish Office, known as the Barnett formula, adapted to match the range of the Scottish executive's future responsibilities and to maintain and improve transparency and accountability. This will give the Scottish parliament the ability and freedom to approve spending decisions which are fully in accordance with Scottish needs and priorities.
"As an integral part of these financial arrangements, the control of local government expenditure, non-domestic rates and other local taxation will also be devolved to the Scottish parliament, with appropriate safeguards to protect all UK taxpayers. The Government's objective is to ensure that Scotland's spending decisions are taken in Scotland in the light of Scottish circumstances.
"Subject to the outcome of the referendum, the Scottish parliament will be given power to increase or decrease the basic rate of income tax set by the UK Parliament by up to 3p. The parliament will have a guaranteed right to raise or to forgo up to £450 million (index-linked) irrespective of changes to the UK income tax structure. Liability will be determined by residence in Scotland, according to Inland Revenue rules. The tax-varying power will not apply to income from savings and dividends. The Inland Revenue will administer any tax variation, with the Scottish parliament meeting the administrative costs.
"Let me now turn to the arrangements for the Scottish parliament itself. The Scottish parliament will consist of 129 members, 73 directly elected on a constituency basis, plus 56 additional members (seven from each of the current eight European parliamentary constituencies) allocated to ensure that the overall result more directly reflects the share of votes cast for each party. Eligibility to vote will be based on residency.
"In the late 1970s there was, without doubt, a fear that a Scottish parliament would be dominated by one point of view. The fear was that minorities, geographical or political, would be less than fairly represented. The changes in the electoral system now proposed have ended that possibility. The composition of the parliament will fairly reflect opinion throughout Scotland.
"The Government want to see people who represent the widest possible range of interests coming forward for election to the Scottish parliament. The aim must be equal opportunities for all—women, members of ethnic minority groups and disabled people. The selection of candidates is of course a matter for individual political parties, but others hopefully will follow our lead in encouraging women representatives.
"The Government are determined to have a parliament building worthy of the new century and ready to provide working conditions which will encourage open and accessible government. It is for that reason that a number of possible sites in Edinburgh, including the old Royal High School, are under consideration.
1530
"Subject to the passage of the referendums Bill, the people of Scotland will make their historic choice in the referendum on 11th September. Theirs is the judgment that matters. I believe that they will endorse our proposals. As soon as possible following that referendum result we shall introduce the legislation to establish a Scottish parliament. Once that legislation has been enacted we can look forward to elections in the first half of 1999. The Government's target is for the Scottish parliament to assume its full responsibilities in January in the year 2000. That indeed will be a new parliament for the new millennium.
"Now is the time for Scotland to choose. Twelve weeks ago Labour was elected on a promise to deliver a parliament for Scotland. This White Paper fulfils that promise. We have delivered. All the essentials are here—modernised and improved for the next century. This settlement offers an effective voice for Scotland. It recognises Scotland's distinctive identity and the strong ties which bind us together as one United Kingdom. Reform and renewal will give strength to an enduring partnership.
"I know, none better, the strength of feeling and the intensity of argument there has been on this subject over the years. Constitutional change requires good will. I believe there will be a broad welcome for our proposals which will reach out across party lines and across the range of our communities. It is my belief that it will be so. I commend the White Paper to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement. I also thank him for giving me reasonable time to digest both the Statement and the White Paper. Although I am not the fastest reader on earth, I have managed to skip through the White Paper.
I am afraid that I cannot share the pleasure of the Secretary of State for Scotland in listening to the Statement that has just been repeated by the Minister. Rather than a day for rejoicing, I believe that this is a day of great sadness for our 300 year-old Union. I fear that this marks the beginning of what Tam Dalyell describes in his book as the end of Britain.
Every page and paragraph severs strand by strand the links that bind us in this island, just like a knife cutting through a mooring rope in order to cast a ship adrift. The knife takes out each strand until the whole is broken and the link is severed. Rather than provide a new stable settlement which will serve Scotland and the United Kingdom well in the years to come. I fear that it will lead to instability, friction and disruption and that Scotland's influence will be lessened here at Westminster and down Whitehall.
For example, how will all of the detailed discussions that those of us who have been in government know about—all the letters, minutes and meetings that take place in and between government departments, especially those whose responsibilities are to be

1531
devolved to the Scottish assembly—take account of Scottish interests? Will the Whitehall paperchase (if I may so describe it) include the Scottish executive in its Civil Service? If so, how can confidentiality be secured, especially if the Scottish executive does not like what it sees? Whether the same or different parties are in charge, I cannot believe that these papers will be circulated outside the UK Government and their ministries. I cannot therefore believe that Scotland's interests will be other than diminished within the Government of the United Kingdom. It is the relationship between London and Edinburgh that is at the very heart of the difficulties that I foresee.
I believe that Europe is a good example. In chapter 5 the Government recognise the problems of Europe and discuss the formulation of policy and co-operation. At the end of paragraph 5.4 they state:
"This will require, of course, mutual respect for the confidentiality of those discussions and adherence to the resultant UK line, without which it would be impossible to maintain such close working relationships".
I do not believe that one can ask a parliament and executive answerable separately to their people to maintain and adhere to a UK line if they do not agree with that line. We all know that we have to do that within one government. Often we have to argue with our colleagues. Sometimes we lose and we then have to accept collective responsibility. I cannot for the life of me see how that collective responsibility can be widened to include the Scottish executive. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether he has a secret answer to that.
It is said that the role of Scottish Ministers and officials in Europe will be to support and advance the single UK negotiating line which they have played a part in developing. In a previous existence I came to know a little about fishing and the common fisheries policy. Very often extremely difficult balances must be achieved between the interests of fishing communities in different parts of the United Kingdom. Sometimes Ministers have to return to Scotland to explain to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation why they have come up with the compromise that they have. It will be extremely difficult to ask a Minister responsible to an Edinburgh parliament to adhere to a UK line which is being attacked by Scottish fishermen for being too generous to the fishermen of the south west of England or Northern Ireland. It is interesting that, I understand, in Spain these matters are not delegated. The Spanish Government hold the reins and negotiate in Brussels. The Government should think again about matters such as fishing.
Will the Minister assure me that a person who is not a member of the UK Government can represent the UK at the Council of Ministers? Have the Government checked that out? Will they need to change any of the Acts relating to the Treaty of Rome or the Maastricht Treaty?
I turn to Scottish legislation. I presume, from the absence of any mention of it, that there is to be no role for this House in Scottish legislation. So I presume that the Minister will be the last in a long and distinguished line of Scottish Office Ministers in this Chamber. The Government themselves accept the need for a revising
1532
Chamber. They may not like the composition of this one, but my understanding is that they do not dispute the need for a revising Chamber. Not in Scotland, it would appear: no revising chamber there. Are the Government convinced that that is a sensible way to proceed?
If any secondary legislation arises from UK legislation which needs the attention of the Scottish parliament, will that go to the parliament or here? In the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, perhaps I may ask whether the parliament will be able to alter secondary legislation which is sent to it by the other place, or will it, like this Chamber, be under convention not to make alterations in secondary legislation?
Paragraph 3.38 in the Welsh White Paper is an interesting one. It suggests that the assembly will be able to consider and debate legislation which is being considered at Westminster. Although I had a good deal of time, I have not noticed a similar provision in the Scottish document. Am I therefore right to conclude that the Welsh assembly might be asked for its view on, say, the Social Security Bill now before the other place, but that the Scottish parliament will not be asked to comment? Is that right? The Scottish parliament will have no right to comment, although the Welsh assembly will.
In case the Minister says that the Scottish parliament will have a right to comment, let us take Clause 68 of that same Bill, which brings one-parent benefit down to the same rate as that for other parents. I can foresee the Scottish parliament not being happy about that. What happens when it is not happy and it complains about UK legislation? We need some answers on that.
In addition to fishing, which I have already mentioned, the Minister is the UK forestry Minister. I presume from reading the White Paper and seeing that forestry is to be devolved that the Forestry Commission will now be split. That is a great pity. The Minister shakes his head. Does that mean that English and Welsh forestry will be the responsibility of the Scottish parliament? The Minister is shaking his head about that as well. Will he clarify the position, because I—if I may say so—cannot see the wood for the trees in this one. If it is to be separated, which English Minister will take it over?
Paragraph 3.3 deals with some of the matters which are not to be devolved. We shall have to consider carefully those which are listed under:
"Certain other matters presently subject to UK or GB regulation or operation".
I ask with some interest why certain things such as abortion, human fertilisation and embryology are not to be trusted to the Scottish parliament. I am certain that Cardinal Winning will not be keen about that. I can understand some of the reasons, but if the general proposition is that that parliament can be trusted, why cannot it be trusted with that important legislation as well?
I turn to finance, which is largely in Chapter 7. Paragraph 7.2 clearly states:
"Scotland will continue to benefit from its appropriate share of UK public expenditure".

1533
Paragraph 7.6 talks about block arrangements. A few weeks ago we had a Statement about a fundamental expenditure review. Under questioning from me, we discovered that that was to include the Scottish Office. That review is to be the basis of the public expenditure survey in year three. Years one and two are already determined. They were laid down by us when we were in government. I was told that the Barnett formula will be in place for the next two years, but that thereafter it will not be. So I shall be interested in knowing what will happen to that Scottish block after the fundamental expenditure review, and what commitments the Government are prepared to give about that.
I notice that paragraph 7.12 states clearly that it is income tax only. I trust on that basis that the Government will not overturn the amendment your Lordships insisted upon earlier in the week.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, you have not got it yet.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall turn now to the number of MPs, which is one of the little surprises in this document, although it was not too much of a surprise because it was leaked all over the Scottish press this morning. We read what we see in the document. Is there any truth that 58 is to be the number? Will the Minister tell me? After all, that was the heavy Scottish Office briefing. Perhaps I may remind him what George Robertson, then the Shadow Secretary of State, said in January 1996:
"I think that if 72 is the right number now, then it is the right number after devolution".
What has changed, apart from the fact that poor George Robertson was sacked from his Scottish Office brief and sent to defence? What I find interesting is that that is an acknowledgement of the West Lothian question—a question whose existence has been steadfastly refuted over the past 20 years. If it is an acknowledgment, that is good. It is not an answer, because the remaining 58 Scottish MPs will still have the same dilemma: how can they vote on matters that affect England when they have no votes over similar matters which affect their own constituents to whom they are responsible? What does the Minister have to say about that? He can no longer say that it is not a problem, and that it no longer exists, because paragraph 4.5 makes it clear that the Government think that it does exist and that it is a problem.
As to the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland, to whom will he be answerable—the UK Government and Parliament or the Scottish government and parliament? Or will he be a message boy between the two? Will he be bound by the collective responsibility of the UK Parliament? To revert again to the Welsh White Paper, I noticed in that document that the Welsh Secretary will be allowed to attend and speak in the Welsh assembly. Will the same be true of the Secretary of State for Scotland? Does that mean that he will have to go there and answer for what that parliament may think are the sins of the Westminster Parliament?
I turn to the polling system in Annex C. The Welsh White Paper sets out the polling system rather better than this one does. It is rather clearer. It is helpful to see
1534
the way through. I have not had time to study this, but I think that it is different. I suspect that it ends up with the same answer. I shall be wondering to myself later today why there is a difference. What is a bit odd is that the Government, having decided that we should never again use European electoral seats to elect European MPs, will base the electoral system on European seats. In all logic, before we come to a Bill, if that is what we come to eventually, the Government should look at another way of dealing with the problem and not keep in being seats which no longer have any relevance because we will not have such a thing as European parliamentary seats.
Paragraph C.4 worried me a bit:
"The Government intend to legislate for the registration of political parties".
I am not keen on governments registering political parties. I can see why they need to do it, but we will need to look with a great deal of care and caution at the protections that will exist against a government deciding, because they do not like a party—we may all not like that party—they will refuse to register it. We have to look at that.
On page 5 of the Statement the Secretary of State says:
"The UK Parliament is and will remain sovereign in all matters".
That is a bit better than Mr. Tony Blair's statement that, "sovereignty rests with me"; but it is a statement of the truth. Can the Minister say how that squares with the Secretary of State's signing of the "claim of rights" which said that sovereignty rests with the Scottish people? It seems to me that it cannot rest with both: it is one or the other. Can the Minister say which?
I have always felt that this proposal represented a slippery slope. I have always been upheld in that view by the fact that the Scottish National Party is very keen to support devolutionary proposals. In fact, the Government are very keen to get that party on board on the "Yes, yes". Therefore, the SNP will campaign for a "Yes, yes", wanting to drive the UK apart, while the Government, in their campaign for a "Yes, yes", will say that they do not want to drive the UK apart. The lion may well lie down with the lamb in biblical terms, but I am not sure that a unionist can lie down with a separatist.
I know that the Minister and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mr. Donald Dewar, are men of honour. I know that they genuinely believe that if they do not go down this devolution road the Union will break up. I do not agree with that view. I believe that we are on far safer ground where we are at present, with Unionists among us, holding the arrangement of one United Kingdom Parliament. I believe that it would strengthen the Union if we were all to do so. The very fact that the SNP has actually gone backwards since it won 11 seats in 1974 illustrates that its threat is not nearly so great as the Minister and his party seem to fear.

1535
As I said, I know that the Government believe that what they are doing here will strengthen the Union. If this proposal comes into being, I earnestly hope that they are right. However, if I may say so in the Scots tongue, "I hae ma doots".
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, this is an historic day for Scotland and not a day for nitpicking. I believe that the White Paper will be widely welcomed and very thoroughly debated in Scotland; and, indeed, in this House, as well as the other place. We in this party have espoused the Scottish self-government cause over many decades and we are glad to have played some part in the fruition of the White Paper. The Statement made by the Secretary of State, and repeated in this House by the Minister, correctly pays tribute to the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Indeed, the whole basis of the legislation rests on that work which was painstakingly carried out over some four or five years.
It is right that the Government claim in the Statement to have improved on the proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Perhaps I may give a particular welcome to the announcement in the White Paper that there will indeed be a reduction in the number of Scottish Members in the other place. That has always seemed to me to be totally correct. However, I have to say that we lost that argument in the convention and I am delighted that wisdom has finally dawned on the Government. They have agreed that, while it is not an answer to the West Lothian question, it is a mitigation of it to reduce the number of Scottish Members in Westminster so as to be on a par with those in England and Wales.
My one point of puzzlement on the latter is, why leave the actual number to be decided by the Boundary Commission. Surely that is a matter of political judgment. I see the noble Lord the Leader of the House shaking his head, but I remind him that we had a Royal Commission on the constitution in the 1970s. It came up with a specific recommendation in that respect. Therefore, why not found on that rather than leave it to the uncertainties of a non-political body to decide on the actual number? The principle should be that the number be reduced so that, now that we will have our own Parliament, Scottish Members at Westminster will no longer have smaller constituencies than those in England and Wales. That principle is one of political judgment. It is a new and welcome one from the Government's previously espoused position, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay.
Will the Minister confirm that there are other substantial differences between what is proposed this year and what was put to the Scottish people in the legislation of 1979? In particular, the proportional representation system is, to my mind, of crucial importance. I say that because if one studies the referendum results of 1979, one finds that there was great suspicion in the outlying areas of Scotland, including the area that I represented, about the proposals. As they stood in 1979, those proposals could have led to a minority among the population capturing a majority of the seats. It was a real fear that the Scottish
1536
parliament would be dominated, to put it bluntly, by a central Scotland Labour Party. Therefore, I pay tribute to the Labour Party. During the work of the convention, they recognised that that was a legitimate fear in Scotland and that has now been put right. It is a major advance on what was on offer in 1979.
A second advance which was not mentioned in the Statement—but one I am sure the Minister will confirm—is something that, again, will make a difference. I refer to the fact that in 1979 we argued for a third tier of government in Scotland, because we had two tiers of local government. From his own experience, the Minister will know that, because we now have a single tier of local government in Scotland, we are operating against a quite different background. We do not propose to have three tiers of government; indeed, there will in fact be two in Scotland—the national parliament in Edinburgh and a single tier of local authorities.
The third difference is the taxation powers. I was not present in the Chamber for the interesting debate which took place the other day on the issue. I hope that the Government will indeed reverse the amendment passed in another place and that they will leave the question of taxation powers as open as possible within the framework of the agreements in the White Paper.
There is one further point that I would like to draw to the attention of your Lordships' House; namely, that the White Paper is extremely liberal on the question of who is eligible to stand for this parliament. Members of your Lordships' House will be able to stand and that is something of great interest. However, so also will ministers of religion and priests. That is certainly of great interest to certain ministers of religion and priests in Scotland. We do not have a state established church in Scotland. Therefore, this is a welcome and new provision.
I also noticed that European Union citizens who are resident in Scotland will also be able to stand. That means that the noble Lord's Italian waiter, of whom we have heard so much in previous debates, will certainly have that possibility conferred upon him. Indeed, I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, would have given a particular welcome to that provision in view of his obsession with that particular gentleman.
I have one particular suggestion to make to the Government. As they say that they plan to hold the elections in Scotland in the first half of 1999, it seems to me that it would make administrative and financial sense to try to hold these elections on the same day as the European elections which fall due in June of 1999.
On the question of parliamentary premises, I counsel the Government against the dangers of grandiose extravagance. The Scottish people will not want to see a new architectural exhibition in the search for some new building. The public paid for the conversion of the Old Royal High School to a parliamentary chamber back in the late 1970s. I quite accept that it is not adequate on its own as regards the provision of parliamentary offices, but I suggest that a look should be taken at the old Scottish Office across the road. Indeed, it would be

1537
cheaper to bore a tunnel between the two than to construct a new building. I recommend that as a possible solution to the Government.
One very important point of principle in the White Paper is that we are to legislate to define "reserve matters" for Westminster and not the other way around. I regard that as a very important point of departure because it means that the Scottish parliament will have a momentum of its own. "Reserve matters" will be specifically allocated to Westminster and the Scottish parliament will be left to get on with every other aspect of life. I believe that to be correct.
I do not share the gloomy view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as regards the possibility of constant unhappiness and dissention over European Union discussions. I look forward to a second visit from the President of the Catalan Government during the referendum campaign when he will visit Scotland. I believe that he will be able to enlighten people like the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as to what actually happens at present in a successful devolved parliament which has benefited greatly from its direct relations with the European Union.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, seemed to think that the Scottish parliament would, on occasions, be unhappy. I dare say that it will be; indeed, sometimes this Parliament is unhappy. The idea that this White Paper, or any legislation, can guarantee a state of perpetual bliss in the Parliament of Edinburgh is nonsensical. I believe that we shall see a state of sensible, creative political tension between Edinburgh and London which will be greatly to the benefit of the people of Scotland in particular but also to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it is rather difficult to reply in detail to the catalogue of what were not so much questions as accusations made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I have the feeling that basically his position is that if we proceed with legislation on the basis of the White Paper, we run the risk that civilisation as we know it will come to an end. I do not think that. I believe that his fears are based on a faulty analysis and his argument is flawed. In the White Paper, we have a coherent, clear and comprehensive way forward. But, above all, it is a way forward which is fair and balanced, stable and enduring. Those are extremely important objectives which we should seek to achieve.
That was one reason that we revisited the question of the number of Scottish MPs in the UK Parliament. We wanted to remove once and for all any lingering belief that somehow, the settlement itself would not be fair. It was in order to remove that doubt, to deal with that problem, that we took the view that it was right and proper to come forward with a fair and balanced proposal affecting the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, wondered what would happen if a Scottish parliament were unhappy about a matter which had been reserved to the Westminster Parliament. It is very simple. The
1538
Scottish parliament can debate any matter reserved to Westminster but cannot legislate on it. That is the point. It can debate what it likes, but on a reserved matter legislative competence rests with Westminster. Therefore, there is a clear difference of role and function which leads to clarity and stability.
The noble Lord also drew attention, as I expect will a number of other noble Lords during the course of the eventual Bill, to the fact that we do not propose anything like a second chamber. What we propose and what everybody who has been involved in the debate on a new parliament for Scotland has been advocating for the best part of 20 years is that a Scottish parliament should innovate and try to adopt new and modern procedures. Above all, it should address itself to what is seen as being some of the fundamental weaknesses of the legislative process. It should increase the amount of pre-legislative scrutiny. It should have a strong committee system, with an emphasis on pre-legislative scrutiny, and that removes the need for a formal second chamber. That can be worked into the processes.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, referred to the Forestry Commission. That is a nice one and is simple to deal with. Legislative power and competence are devolved, so a Scottish parliament would be legislatively responsible for forestry. But clearly it is open to that body to make such administrative arrangements as it thinks appropriate. Those administrative arrangements could well mean the maintenance of a GB structure such as the way in which the Forestry Commission operates in any event. It may be that the noble Lord fails to recognise the difference between devolving legislative competence, on the one hand, and from that position to have the ability to make strong and effective GB or even UK administrative arrangements, on the other. They are not incompatible. They are often very sensible indeed.
I turn to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. I recognise all that he said about the way in which the Government have moved and, I think, improved these proposals, certainly from those made in 1978. One important additional factor is that it will be remembered that in 1978 the Secretary of State for Scotland was to have considerable overriding powers. They now disappear and are not part of the procedures at all.
Yes, we have proceeded. We have given the new parliament stronger powers and a wider range of powers. Universities and higher education was not included in 1978. On the electoral system, we have moved to recognise the need to have an electoral system which makes the parliament inclusive rather than exclusive so that all the parts of Scotland can identify and accept ownership of the parliament.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the Statement indicates that the Government, in my opinion, are taking grave risks in relation to stability not only for the new proposed body but also for the workings, structures and systems of the United Kingdom.

1539
I have one particular point to raise. Almost all the functions to be allocated to the new body, including all those mentioned in the Statement, are already devolved as a result of massive administrative devolution to the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Ministers and to the Scottish Office. I should point out, as it was a long time ago, that I had the onerous duty of being in the appointment of Secretary of State for Scotland from 1970 to 1974. Indeed, no Secretary of State for Scotland before me is still alive.
Will any of the present Scottish Office functions remain with the Scottish Office? Will the Secretary of State still have any of his present functions? The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, mentioned higher education. Of course, that was transferred to Scotland about four years ago. Other functions which have been transferred in the past 20 years to Scotland—and there have been others—are now naturally included but were not included and in 1978 higher education was then with the Department of Education.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish made some penetrating comments. Your Lordships will be glad to hear that I shall not make any further comments now but I shall reserve what I have to say further about this for the debate on Wednesday.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I think perhaps unintentionally the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has actually made the case for devolution. He pointed out quite rightly that there has been substantial administrative devolution to Scotland. We are addressing the democratic deficit which administrative devolution creates. We are matching that administrative devolution with legislative devolution and democratic accountability within Scotland. That is the whole argument. Administrative devolution is not enough.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, there is one small thing I am not quite clear about—among others—that is, will the Scottish parliament be able to vote for independence or to increase its own powers in other areas?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am happy to reply to that question directly. As independence is a matter for the constitution of the United Kingdom, it is a reserve matter. The parliament could vote to express an opinion but it would have no consequence at all in legislative terms. It cannot extend its own powers; the powers are devolved from the Westminster Parliament.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, it was with great pleasure that I heard the Statement which my noble friend the Minister repeated in this House today. I look forward to discussing at greater length the contents of the White Paper which is clearly a document of considerable constitutional and historic importance. At this point I merely ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can expand just a little on how Scotland's voice will be heard in Europe. I ask that question in quite a different spirit from the questions on Europe put by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
1540
I wish in particular to know how the measures proposed compare to the proposals from the Scottish Constitutional Convention on this question.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, we have addressed the problem of relations with the European Union in chapter 5 of the White Paper. We recognise—we make no bones about it—that relations with Europe are the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament and Government. That is the starting off point. Having said that, we have made it absolutely clear that we are doing everything possible to ensure that Scotland's voice will be heard and will be heard effectively in Europe. I refer my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale to specific points in the White Paper. It states,
"The UK Government wishes to involve the Scottish Executive as directly and as fully as possible in the Government's decision making on EU matters. It is part of the Government's intention that Scottish Executive Ministers and officials should be fully involved in discussions within the UK Government about the formulation of the UK's policy position on all issues which touch on devolved matters … The Government also propose that Ministers and officials of the Scottish Executive should have a role to play in relevant Council meetings and other negotiations with our EU partners … The Scottish Parliament will be able to scrutinise EU legislative proposals to ensure that Scotland's interests are properly reflected".
We are determined that Scotland will be properly represented in Europe. We envisage that there will be a Scottish representative office in Europe. We shall build upon the regional framework which is developing in Europe to make sure there is an effective Scottish presence in Europe and that Scotland effectively contributes to the UK line in Europe.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Statement states with regard to finance,
"The tax-varying power will not apply to income from savings and dividends".
Does that mean that it will apply to everything else? Will it apply to all other income? The Statement continues,
"The Inland Revenue will administer any tax variation, with the Scottish parliament meeting the administrative costs".
Can the Minister give us any idea at all of the order of the administrative costs?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the income tax power will apply to all income that is subject to income tax except savings and dividend income. On the administrative cost of raising income tax, there is at chapter—
Lord Strathclyde: 7.19.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Opposition Chief Whip for that. The White Paper states,
"Their setting up costs are estimated to be around £50m (which could be phased) and running costs at around £6–£15m".
That refers to collection through PAYE which will generate additional cash for employers. Costs will fall upon the parliament in changing and administering the

1541
new tax system—the modification to the tax system—and there will, of course, be a compliance cost for employers.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have been advocating a Scottish parliament longer than anyone else in this House. I started to do so in the election of 1950. I am delighted that this has come about at long last. I am astonished at how good the White Paper is. I did not think the Government could be so generous. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, also advocated a Scottish parliament at one time. I am amazed that he does not praise the generosity with which the Government will throw away at least a dozen seats in Scotland and will introduce PR, which will give us a fair chance of a fair parliament in Scotland.
The White Paper is enormously promising. Of course there are difficulties, but in congratulating the Government on the White Paper which delights me, I ask them how they propose to apply the sensible provision in chapter 4.15 which might solve many of the problems referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. Paragraph 4.15 states,
"The Scottish Executive and the UK Government may from time to time take different views … There will therefore he procedures for identifying and resolving".
That is a sensible measure. Will the Minister say a little more about that?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for what he has said about the White Paper. I repeat that our guiding principle in working towards the White Paper and its publication and the policies that it contains has been to establish a fair, stable and enduring settlement. In some areas that may work against the immediate interests of my party but that is a price worth paying.
The noble Lord asked about the dispute procedures on vires. That matter would be dealt with during the progress of legislation through the Scottish parliament. It would be for the presiding officer to reach a view on the competence of any piece of legislation, whether or not it fell within the competence of the Scottish parliament. However, it would be open to the UK Government to seek to challenge the vires of an Act of the Scottish parliament. If that could not be resolved by agreement, it would be resolved through the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I refer to next steps. Legislation in this field and in the case of Welsh devolution will not necessarily be easy. Could not a series of research papers be produced which would not reflect government policy but provide ideas on how these various matters may be dealt with? It is worth looking at the Act concerning the government of Ireland which went through this Parliament in the 1920s. How did that Act deal with issues concerning Members of Parliament elected for this Parliament and Members of Parliament elected for the devolved administration? In my early days in the other place there were Unionist Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland voting on matters which affected the United Kingdom, although
1542
they had pronounced powers relating to devolution in Northern Ireland. The excellent ideas of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, for power sharing in the Province—they came to naught for other reasons—should be considered. All the papers relating to that are available. The rolling devolution of the noble Lord, Lord Prior, should be looked at.
Lastly, let us consider how Northern Ireland encompasses the European aspect. Northern Ireland has offices in Brussels, New York and London. The question of what to do about Europe is not new. I see people shaking their heads. It is answered for Northern Ireland; why not for Scotland?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a number of powerful points. Some of us have been reading research papers, and even writing the odd research paper, on this issue for some long time. Some of us are even familiar with the precise details of the Government of Ireland Act 1920.
The valuable point that the noble Lord makes is to draw our attention to the Ulster situation. During the period of the Stormont Government, Westminster Members of Parliament from Ulster came to Westminster and voted on a full range of issues. There was never any questioning of that. We have never dealt with the problem of regional legislatures in the United Kingdom by adopting a two-tier membership approach, an in-out approach. Parliament has consistently set its face against that move. It is unworkable, and we have shown how we seek to move forward on the basis of a fair and just settlement.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Minister answer the question of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy about the ultimate responsibility of the Secretary of State to the United Kingdom Government and Parliament? Will he also tell us what is to happen when there is a conflict of interest between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish executive and parliament on a European Union matter? The White Paper does not answer that question.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I apologise if I did not answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. Let me make clear that the ultimate responsibility for the Secretary of State for Scotland will be to the Westminster Parliament. It is unlikely that he will be a member of the Scottish parliament. He is a Member of the UK Government and will be a Member of this Parliament. He is responsible and accountable to the UK Parliament.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, that was not quite my question. I asked what functions that he now retains through the Scottish Office will he retain, if any?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the areas of domestic policy that the noble Lord identified will pass to the Scottish parliament. Those functions will no longer stand to be exercised by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

1543
One of the clear responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland in these devolved arrangements will be to represent Scotland's interest in the reserved matters: to make sure that Scotland's voice is heard across the important range of reserved matters which remain at Westminster. Secondly, he can make an effective contribution by acting—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, amused us in an earlier debate with his use of the word "conduit"—as a means of communication. Heaven's above, my Lords, we are a mature democracy. We must recognise that a Scottish parliament and a UK Parliament may have differences of views. As we are mature politicians in a mature democracy, one of the important contributions that the Secretary of State could make is to act as an effective line of communication between those two governments.
There was a second point which escapes me.
Lord Renton: My Lords, who is to have the last word when there is a conflict of interest between the UK Government and the Scottish executive in parliament on a European Union proposal?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, we are absolutely clear on that in the White Paper. It is the fact that there will be an agreed UK line; and in the end it is the responsibility of the UK Government to represent the United Kingdom in Europe.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I welcome the White Paper with great pleasure, apart from some uneasiness about which he knows concerning the proposed electorate for the referendum? I leave that aside.
I wish to question the Minister on the unicameral nature of the proposed assembly. He says that scrutiny will be done largely through pre-legislative committees. It may be more complicated than that. But is it not a weakness that in the proposal the scrutiny and legislation will be carried out by the same people? Under the Westminster system the legislation, and the scrutiny of it, are undertaken by two different sets of people, with two different sets of expertise? Is the noble Lord quite sure that the proposal is better than the bicameral nature of the Westminster Parliament?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his endorsement of the White Paper. The noble Lord makes a valid point, but I do not think that it is persuasive. The point can equally well be made that in a unicameral system one can set up scrutiny committees which have that specific role. Therefore the same people are not scrutinising the legislation. There is a difference of function built into the committee structure of the parliament.
My noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale is the expert in this area, but I am aware that there are some extremely interesting and effective examples of how Scandinavian parliaments build a scrutinizing
1544
mechanism into the structure of unicameral parliaments. That is a matter that the new parliament will wish to examine, and perhaps adopt.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, perhaps I may—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I am sorry. This matter arose the other day. I am afraid that the 20-minute period is mandatory. There is nothing that I can do about it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that the 20 minutes of Back-Bench time has now been completed. However, before the next business commences, will the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, follow the example set yesterday by his noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn? Will he write to noble Lords who asked questions which have been unanswered and make sure that those answers are in their hands before Tuesday and that copies are placed in the Library? That will be extremely helpful for the debate on Wednesday.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am happy to give a general undertaking of that nature. However, I have to make the reservation that I shall do my best to ensure that they are available by Tuesday night.

Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Bill [H.L.]
5.28 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty which bans any nuclear weapon test explosion and any other nuclear explosion. The United Kingdom is one of the states whose ratification is a precondition for the treaty's entry into force. I am confident that this measure is supported by all political parties and, I hope, is supported by all noble Lords.
The treaty is the culmination of nearly 40 years of effort involving difficult negotiations. The previous government signed it on 24th September 1996. The treaty is a significant step forward in non-proliferation and brings the world closer to the goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons. Indeed the parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty attached the greatest importance to the comprehensive test ban treaty when they agreed, in May, 1995, a document concerning Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. The United Kingdom is fully committed to these goals and is therefore working for entry into force of the treaty at the earliest possible date; 144 states have now signed the treaty and four have ratified.
As I have said, the treaty bans nuclear explosions. Each state party must forbid anyone on its territory and its citizens abroad from undertaking any nuclear explosions.

1545
The treaty establishes a number of new international bodies to ensure that its provisions are properly observed. First, there is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation which will be set up in Vienna once the treaty enters into force. This will co-operate as closely as possible with the International Atomic Energy Authority, also in Vienna, and other relevant organisations. Part of the treaty organisation will be a technical secretariat, which will be responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of the treaty. To this end, the treaty will set up an international monitoring system. This will consist of a worldwide network of monitoring stations at locations which were agreed following negotiations between scientific experts. (A number of these are in the United Kingdom and the dependent territories.) These stations will use various technologies to detect, identify and locate the source of a suspicious event anywhere in the world. The data from the stations will be transmitted to an international data centre, which will be part of the technical secretariat in Vienna. The international data centre will then make the information available to states parties.
The verification regime in the treaty provides for consultation and clarification in cases of indications of possible non-compliance. If necessary, and if a certain proportion of states parties agree, an "on-site inspection" can start within 96 hours of its being requested. These inspections will be carried out by trained inspectors chosen from an agreed international list of experts. They will report back to the technical secretariat and to states parties.
The United Kingdom has for many years had a national research programme into the means of detecting and verifying nuclear explosions. This programme enabled the United Kingdom to play a major role in the negotiations on how best to verify the treaty. We aim to retain a national capability to allow us to reach an independent judgment on the data produced by the international monitoring system. This will strengthen our ability to justify requests for an on-site inspection to investigate a suspicious event. We are considering how best to provide this capability on a long-term basis.
The treaty will come into force six months after 44 states named in an annex to the treaty have ratified it. These states all took part in the negotiations on the treaty in the conference on disarmament in 1996 and are listed by the International Atomic Energy Authority as having a civil nuclear capability. The United Kingdom is one of them. Forty-one of these have already signed. The remaining three are North Korea, Pakistan and India. We are doing what we can to encourage all three states, and indeed all non-signatories, to sign and ratify the treaty quickly.
In the meantime, a preparatory commission is working in Vienna to develop the many detailed arrangements for implementation, including the establishment of the international monitoring system. A provisional technical secretariat has been established and is being progressively built up. We do not want to lose any time once the treaty enters into force and the United Kingdom is playing an active part in the work that is under way.
1546
With the advent of the treaty, the implications of any changes or deterioration in our Trident warheads will now have to be assessed without nuclear testing. Similarly, after any corrective action or refurbishment we will have to requalify warheads as safe and reliable without nuclear testing. These requirements will place great demands on the alternatives to nuclear testing. We intend to use experiments and computer simulation for this purpose. Both are consistent with the terms of the treaty.
The treaty requires each state party to establish a national authority to act as the point of contact with the treaty organisation and to be the focal point for the operation of the treaty on its territory. In the United Kingdom, the national authority will be set up within the Ministry of Defence.
Notes on Clauses are now available in the Library of the House, but perhaps I may turn briefly to the provisions of the Bill. These fall into two broad categories: those relating to the prohibition of nuclear explosions and those enabling inspections to be carried out in the United Kingdom under the terms of the treaty.
Clauses 1 and 2 make it an offence, punishable by life imprisonment, to cause a nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, other than a nuclear weapon explosion carried out in the course of an armed conflict. The offence can be committed in the United Kingdom by anyone. Abroad, the offence can be committed by United Kingdom nationals and corporations. No prosecution can be brought without the consent of the Attorney-General or the Lord Advocate.
Clauses 4 to 9 cover various aspects of inspections in the United Kingdom, such as their formal authorisation by the Secretary of State and the necessary privileges and immunities for the inspection teams. Clause 10 covers the issue of warrants authorising entry and search of premises, if offences are suspected. Clauses 11 to 15 contain various technical provisions but also provide for the Act to bind the Crown.
I hope I have explained the importance of the treaty and the United Kingdom's adherence to it. As I said at the beginning of my speech, both the treaty and the Bill should command the suport of the whole House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
5.37 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I would first like to agree with many of the views expressed by the Minister today and say on behalf of the Opposition how warmly I welcome the Bill to provide the legislation necessary for the ratification of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. This is another milestone on the historic journey undertaken by the United Nations General Assembly last September when it voted overwhelmingly for a treaty banning all further nuclear weapons test explosions and all other nuclear explosions. I pay tribute to all those who steered the treaty negotiations last year, including the chairman of the talks, Ambassador Ramaker of the Netherlands, and also the Australian Government whose diplomatic skills ensured that the CTBT had the opportunity for UN endorsement.

1547
There is consensus on the overwhelming importance of this issue in your Lordships' House. Much hard work was done by my predecessors in government towards the signing of a universal, effective and verifiable treaty. We remain committed to early ratification to bring it into force as soon as possible.
Clearly, with the backing of the five declared nuclear powers, the CTBT is a major step towards non-proliferation. The very fact that the CTBT has been adopted will now make it difficult for any country to conduct nuclear test explosions in defiance of international opinion.
Nevertheless, the CTBT is not without its critics. To compound this, even though it has successfully established the framework for the banning of all further nuclear explosions, its future implementation and ultimate success remain vulnerably exposed to the dictates of international realpolitik.
Over the course of this Bill and beyond, the Government have the task of addressing some of the perceived international fundamental flaws in the treaty. I would welcome clarification from the Government on their policies to address the three broad areas highlighted by critics of the treaty; namely, ratification, the wider issues of disarmament and the lack of sincerity of purpose within the international community. I would equally welcome a statement of intent from the Government on how they will work to surmount those problems to achieve an effective treaty, signed by all and ratified by all, within the context of this Bill.
I take those issues one by one. The first is the question of ratification. I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting this in her introductory remarks. The CTBT will only come into force once the treaty has been ratified by all 44 countries which possess nuclear installations or weapons on their soil. That is proving elusive.
I should like to ask the Government, in the light of the ratification requirements, whether India's continued opposition to the CTBT will prove an insurmountable obstacle by effectively vetoing the treaty and preventing its universal effectiveness. If that is the case, what steps are being taken to persuade the Indian Government to review their position never to sign the current treaty? In the negotiations leading up to the CTBT, India had been looking to the treaty as a means for total disarmament, seeking to link a time frame for the five principal nuclear powers (the US, Russia, Britain, France and China) to eliminate all their weapons. Some more cynical observers have suggested that India's opposition was and is merely an attempt to stall the process until it has improved its own nuclear technology.
Furthermore, what assurances do the Government have from the United States that there will be Senate approval for ratification in the face of suggestions that ratification will obstruct necessary improvements in the United States nuclear arsenal and therefore may be delayed?
Although the treaty is so structured—by means of a clause allowing provisional application—that failure to ratify will not automatically scupper it, it is perceived
1548
that the cost of monitoring and inspection of nuclear testing will render that solution impracticable. If delays occur in the ratification process, what is the Government's plan of action to ensure that no one state or small group of states can render void the treaty? It is clear that for the treaty to be fully effective, it must become universal. What additional steps are the Government taking to urge all states to sign and ratify?
Secondly, some critics—most notably India—have expressed their disappointment that the CTBT has not been directly linked to the goal of nuclear disarmament. Such criticism has had a knock-on negative effect for so long as the Indian Government refuse to ratify it is likely that Pakistan will follow suit, in view of the mutual suspicion they share of one another.
Thirdly, it has been argued that failure to promote disarmament and to continue to allow sub-critical tests which use small quantities of high explosive charges mixed with pellets of nuclear material will only reinforce the view of an exclusive nuclear club which has no real desire to surrender its technological superiority.
On the issue of disarmament, I venture to say that nuclear disarmament cannot realistically be pursued independently of the broader security context. I should like clarification of the Government's position.
While the CTBT offers the tantalising prospect of a nuclear-free horizon, the surrounding waters remain troubled as we continue to face a world where nuclear weapons and political instability co-exist in a potentially volatile partnership. Defence and foreign affairs are more closely linked than ever before. The strategic threat to western Europe may have evaporated, but more localised, less coherent threats based on instability, unrest and ethnic and regional tension have taken its place.
While the threat of Soviet communism seeking world domination no longer exists, the challenges facing the international order remain daunting and in some ways are of a greater and more diverse magnitude. Political instability in Russia has on occasions appeared to push the democratic process to the brink of reversal while rekindling the flames of xenophobic nationalism. The political volatility of the Middle Eastern regimes, which sit on top of the majority of the world's oil supplies, threatens not only to undermine their own fragile existence but could also impact on the global context.
Similarly, rogue states such as Libya, Iran and North Korea seem to revel in their pariah status and are ever willing to defy international opinion and diplomacy. Those states in particular are suspected of having developed a clandestine nuclear weapons programme.
In Iran, the international community is becoming increasingly perturbed by intelligence reports that Tehran's nuclear research programme is beginning to produce disturbing results. It is believed that foreign nuclear experts have been working at the Karaj nuclear research centre on the assembly of a cyclotron, an instrument used for enriching uranium to weapons-grade standard. Iran has publicly maintained that its nuclear ambitions are purely for civilian purposes—an argument that has been used elsewhere to justify decisions to

1549
complete nuclear energy plants, not least by Russia in Bushire and its agreement to supply Iran with nuclear reactors. Does the Minister have any observations on that question?
North Korea's missile technology may pose a greater threat in the short term to the international order. With the assistance of Iranian funding, North Korea has developed the Nodong ballistic missile which has a 700-mile range. Both Iran and Libya have already expressed their keen desire to acquire that technology.
The development of the technology raises the spectre of those missiles in North Korea reaching Japan, or, if based in Iran, falling on Israel. Whether North Korea possesses the technology to arm the missiles with nuclear warheads is still open to speculation. However, according to a report prepared by the North Korean defector Hwang Jang-yop, the Stalinist state is ready to resort to war to deflect attention from its grim economic situation and,
"is capable of scorching South Korea with nuclear weapons".
The Government's view of the position in North Korea would be of value to the House.
In a world of doubt and insecurity, nuclear weapons still provide for the major powers a sense of security and deterrence, an issue which has been much debated by noble Lords on both sides of the House. Although such reports as that of the Canberra Commission—which I know has been discussed in your Lordships' House—called for sensible measures such as negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty and the continuation of the American/Russian START process, its assumption that deterrence no longer has a role to play in today's world is in my view premature. I should therefore like an assurance from the Government that, in harmony with NATO, they judge that nuclear deterrence continues to play an essential role in maintaining peace and security.
Nor must we underestimate the potential danger of the highly accessible nature of nuclear technology today. Advances in technology mean one only has to surf the Internet to obtain the recipe for a nuclear cocktail. Anyone with a computer, a modem and a mission can download instructions (although not necessarily accurate ones) on "How to build an H-bomb" or "Making a bomb using plutonium from a power reactor". I quote from today. The recipes are quick to point out that the acquisition of the ingredients—weapons-grade uranium and plutonium—is no longer the sole preserve of national governments. Consequently, in light of the nuclear ambitions of nations such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea, it is hardly advisable to proscribe the nuclear club only to see a another one formed with less noble intentions vis-à-vis the international order.
In such a climate, the promotion of international peace and stability serves the interests not only of countries like the United Kingdom but the international community as a whole. I am sure that the Government will continue Britain's policy of taking an active and positive role and of leadership by example.
1550
It is unrealistic to believe that around the corner we will arrive at a zero-nuclear weapons situation in this world. The way forward is through internationally agreed treaties such as the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the CTBT. We must strengthen viable, verifiable and enforceable arms control agreements which are firmly grounded in international law and we must lead the way in setting standards of international behaviour.
Our actions should be designed both to stamp out the perception by some states that the acquisition of nuclear technology is commensurate with international prestige and to smoke out any cloak-and-dagger pariahs, while guaranteeing our own security. I welcome the comments that the Minister made in her opening remarks. It is that approach which will end the development of advanced new types of nuclear weapons and lead us to our ultimate goal of a nuclear-free world where nuclear weapons, nuclear testing and nuclear arms races are historical fact, not present reality.
In conclusion, the CTBT is more than just a noble gesture in a nuclear world. The treaty represents a determined step in the right direction, seeking to restrict proliferation and ultimately facilitate disarmament. It is true that, irrespective of the treaty, states can still develop and deploy a basic nuclear capability without nuclear testing. But a sophisticated nuclear capability cannot be achieved without testing.
The Government have a vital task ahead, underlined by the Second Reading of the Bill, to navigate the most effective course through the pragmatism of today's international politics and to fulfil the aspirations of tomorrow's generation. In that objective we wish the Government well.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, let me first apologise to the Minister in that I was not in my place when she spoke at the Dispatch Box. I miscalculated the long-windedness of my Scottish colleagues.
I congratulate the Government on the speedy steps that they have taken so early in their period of office to enable ratification of the treaty through the passage of this Bill. I hope that the Bill itself will pass swiftly through Parliament so that final ratification can take place by Christmas. That might help greatly in the process of ratification in the American Senate and perhaps elsewhere among the signatories to the treaty.
I want to make one or two more general points, some of which have been covered by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I believe that it is a good treaty but it has weaknesses. One major weakness is the provisions for entry into force of the treaty in, I believe, Article 14 and Annex 2 of the treaty. Those provisions are now there. We have to live with them and they are a challenge to the Government's diplomacy. But the provisions are far too rigid and I believe that they owe a good deal of their rigidity to the way the previous government dragged their feet in aspects of the negotiations. We are left with a situation in which all 44 nuclear-capable states have too sign before the treaty can come into general operation and the processes of verification and inspection and so on can operate effectively.

1551
As the Minister said, 41 of those states have already signed. But India has not signed and has said, on occasion, that it will never sign. It has sought to veto the negotiations in the conference on disarmament. I feel that the treaty to a great extent was rescued by the diplomacy of Australia at that stage. So long as India does not sign, Pakistan will not sign. There is also the special and in many ways rather menacing case of North Korea. Incidentally, it is curious that Iraq is not included at all in the treaty.
If the treaty does not come into force, it will lose a great deal of its authority and there will be a great deal of difficulty about financing the processes of verification. The Indian position has to be considered very carefully by Her Majesty's Government and indeed the other five nuclear states. I understand that India wanted a declaration of commitment to worldwide nuclear disarmament and also a commitment that the treaty should have as one of its objectives the ending of the qualitative improvement of the existing systems. In my view, both those objectives seem to have a good deal of force and close attention ought to be paid to them. In this field, I urge the government to give an important lead.
In practical terms, I agree that Britain's nuclear capacity must be part of our defence provisions. On this matter I probably disagree with the noble Lord who will follow me in this debate. There are ways in which we could give a lead in this field. One of them would be to say that we are ready to enter into a commitment not to seek qualitatively to improve our existing nuclear capacity. Perhaps more precisely, in the transfer from our Polaris system to the Trident system, we could give a commitment not to increase the number of warheads or even that we might decrease the number of warheads. In that way we could help create a climate that might influence those states which have not yet signed. Britain needs to work as closely as possible with France to press India, Pakistan and North Korea to join in support of this treaty. A great deal is at stake in having a truly effective CTBT. It is an essential part of a wider nuclear non-proliferation regime.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that it is at least arguable that the balance of nuclear terror in the cold war system concentrated on the Soviet bloc and the NATO alliance. It was, perhaps, marginally a safer situation for humanity than the one into which we have now moved—a situation of nuclear proliferation among many smaller states, including, to use the vivid phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, a number of rogue nations.
For those reasons, giving the treaty effective force is a very important aim to achieve. Britain should seek progress on nuclear disarmament more widely as part of its efforts to make sure that the provisions in the treaty for bringing it into force, for all their inadequacies, are met and the treaty may become a reality.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I was not altogether surprised to find myself in large measure in
1552
agreement, if not wholly so, with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. However, I was rather more surprised to find myself agreeing with the preliminary part of what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said. Unhappily, he did not quite maintain that level. But it seemed to suggest that opposition suits the Conservative Party. I am rather tempted to wish them many long years in that capacity because I have discovered what I did not expect to find; namely, a capacity to learn. That is an excellent thing and I hope that it will be maintained.
Turning to my noble friend, I congratulate her and the Government most warmly on their decision to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty. They do it equally comprehensively by introducing this Bill. When my noble friend comes to reply, I wonder whether she can tell us something about the likely date on which the statement of ratification will be made. I think I am right in saying that the passage of the Bill in itself simply enables the Government to ratify the treaty. I should like to know, as would the House, I am sure, whether ratification will immediately follow the conclusion of the Bill or whether there will be an intervening period. Perhaps my noble friend will tell us when she comes to wind up the debate.
Perhaps I may mention the failure of the House to see in the Bill an opportunity to move forward toward a non-nuclear decision. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, guessed that I might wish to say some such thing. It would be a remarkable feat, if we could bring it off. But what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, did not say—I am afraid it did not become the Conservative Government—was that they were responsible for the mess we are in about India. The normal practice in measures of this kind is that ratification—bringing into effect the consequences of the Bill—takes place when a number of states have signed. It was the then government's insistence that, instead of the usual practice, a number of specifically named states—seven I believe—should be required to ratify before we brought into effect the whole Bill. That virtually gave India a position in which they could operate a veto, if not on the ratification, on the bringing into effect of the Bill.
We must rely upon Labour's long and, for the most part, friendly, relationship with India to see what can be done to resolve the difficult impasse which has arisen from the position which India has taken up in this matter. No single country should be placed in that position. That is why in the past one always had the number of countries stated rather than naming countries, which in effect gives each one of those countries the power to nullify the desired effect of the Bill.
The change to which I referred is made more difficult. That action has had the effect I described. Perhaps we can offer India some assurances which will enable her to resile from the position that she has taken up. I believe my noble friend said in her introduction that she had hopes in that direction. Perhaps she can confirm that. We shall make every endeavour to find a solution to this impasse when we ourselves ratify.

1553
The treaty will be a good step forward, but only a step towards the elimination of the nuclear weapon. As your Lordships will know, that is not only the ambition of myself, but also of many other people, including the Canberra Commission to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred. The Government can help by asking our defence spokesmen to make clear that elimination includes Trident and by making it clear that we will not test prior to the coming into force of the treaty. It is perfectly possible for us to say that we shall regard the treaty as being in force within our own ratification and other countries may join us in that so that we are not all brought to a complete halt by what I call the "Indian question"—the pre-nuclear question.
Discussions to remove the objections should be one of the aims of the Government. I believe I detected in my noble friend's opening remarks a hint that the Government will hold international discussions to see whether those problems can be resolved. The world is weary of living under the nuclear threat. Leading international military men have recently made it clear that they do not consider the threat of the mass destruction of humanity and its works to be a responsibility any soldier, sailor or airman should be required to carry. It is something that no generation of military men has been asked to do—that is, to use a weapon which could be so destructive as virtually to bring our own civilisation to an end.
As was originally said by Lord Mountbatten in the 1950s: this is not a weapon at all; we ought not to be asked to use it; it should be eliminated. That is a long time ago. I hope the measure that we have been discussing this evening will be a step towards that elimination.
6.5 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this brief debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is clear that the Bill enjoys the general support of all noble Lords who participated, but a number of specific points were raised and I shall do my best to cover most, if not all, of them.
A question was raised about the attitude of the United States and in particular what assurances we have received from the United States in relation to Senate approval. We are in close contact with the United States authorities and understand that they will begin their ratification process very soon.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was characteristically graceful in the way that he put his argument about the Bill. In particular, he raised a number of difficulties on ratification. It is perhaps worth gently pointing out that the difficulties over ratification are the difficulties inherent in the treaty, which was the same treaty he congratulated his noble friends on having negotiated. But there are important points to be resolved, as many noble Lords pointed out, in relation to ratification.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, it is probably only fair to say that the questions I put to the Government today
1554
on this Bill—which I warmly welcome—are exactly the sort of questions that I would have put to my officials before coming into this House to defend this important Bill, in order to see not only how the international community will respond to these issues, which are the thrust of the points the noble Baroness will answer in a moment, but also how much progress we can make with this Bill towards ratification.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I hope he will be as pleased as I am that those were also the points I put to officials before coming to the House today. Perhaps I may start with the question of North Korea.
North Korea is a party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and it is therefore already prohibited from testing. We see no reason why the North Koreans should not sign and ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty in due course. Of course, the far more difficult question is the question of India. We all want to see the treaty work and the best way would be for all the states specified to ratify it. There can be no difference between us on that point. The question is what happens if India refuses to sign. The implication of some of the remarks was that perhaps the treaty would lose all purpose.
We do not take that view. This is a treaty supported by almost all the international community. That includes seven of the eight countries with a capacity to test which are not already prohibited from doing so through other international agreements such as the non-proliferation treaty and the regional nuclear weapon-free zones. We believe that the treaty will act as an international moral and political norm against testing. The rest of the international community must now work to persuade India and other non-signatories to support it. The UK is not alone in believing that all states should be parties to the treaty. We shall endeavour to do everything we can to persuade other states to do so.
We therefore urge India and Pakistan to sign the treaty. We believe it is in their interests and in the interests of international security. Of course we understand the domestic background. The UK and others, however, have made sacrifices in accepting the treaty and we hope that, through the international pressure and the moral arguments that we shall bring to bear upon India and Pakistan, they will feel able to sign. Even if the treaty does not enter into force because India refuses to sign, we shall still have a monitoring system. That is a very important point. The monitoring system will still be there. We will still be able to scrutinise what is happening around the world.
Other questions were raised in relation to the sustaining of the nuclear deterrent in this country. We are committed to our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. Our goal is the global elimination of nuclear weapons. This must be achieved, as I have said in the House on a number of occasions in answering questions, by mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions. Our overall objective remains a strong defence against the security challenges of the post-cold war world.

1555
Questions were raised about what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to as the rogue states. We have said that we will retain Trident. We have strong armed forces. We are pledged to maintain robust British defences. Our overall objective remains a strong defence, in the way I have described, facing, yes indeed, the different challenges in the current world situation. We have said that we will retain Trident for as long as necessary while we work for our goal of the elimination of nuclear weapons.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, asked about the number of warheads on Polaris. Our deterrence requirements, including nuclear warhead numbers, will be examined by the strategic defence review. We believe that we already have the fewest nuclear warheads of any nuclear weapons state.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, referred to the ratification process. Clearly, the earliest time that we could ratify is shortly after Royal Assent. The treaty cannot enter into force before September next year but we hope to ratify before that date. As we have said, the treaty can only come into force six months after the 44 states named in the annex to the treaty have ratified it. I come back to the point with which I opened. With regard to the three states which at the moment have not ratified it, all our energies and the energies of those who support the goals in the treaty must now be bent towards persuading those states to ratify the treaty in the way that we were able to do.
Let there be no doubt about it. The treaty ends nuclear weapon test explosions for all time. It therefore constrains the development and the qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons and it ends the development of advanced new types of nuclear weapons. We believe that this constitutes an effective measure of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in all its aspects. I welcome the support that noble Lords have expressed for the Bill. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Jobseeker's Allowance (Workskill Courses) Pilot (No. 2) Regulations 1997
6. 13 p.m.
Baroness Blackstonerose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wish today to seek your Lordships' approval to introduce two pilot schemes that will allow us to assess flexible arrangements for helping people into work by allowing them to undertake education and training while receiving the jobseeker's allowance. These will be introduced under Section 29 of the Jobseekers Act 1995 which provides for regulations for pilot schemes to test whether new arrangements will encourage or help people to get and retain work.
1556
As your Lordships know, the Jobseekers Act provides that people studying full-time cannot normally receive JSA as they are not considered available for work. JSA was designed as a benefit for those available for and actively seeking work. People receiving JSA are allowed to undertake part-time training and education as long as they meet the entitlement conditions which include being available for and actively seeking work.
The Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996 provide a definition of part-time education and training. Courses funded or part-funded by the Further Education Funding Councils for England and Wales are part-time if they consist of an average of no more than 16 guided learning hours per week. There are comparable provisions for students on further education courses in Scotland. For all other courses—for example, those in the private or voluntary sectors—each case is decided on its merits, as was the practice pre-JSA.
It has always been difficult to balance the aim of helping people on benefit to return quickly to work with measures designed to help them to improve their longer-term employability. There are no easy answers and we need to proceed carefully. We have made clear our intention to introduce measures to improve the skills of the workforce through lifelong learning and to help people back into work. The pilots will help us in this. They involve a significant expansion of the existing workskill pilots. We need good quality evidence about the potential effects, short-term and long-term, of changes in benefit rules before going any further. That is why we want to introduce this second round of pilots. They will extend beneficial flexibilities to four more areas, allowing about 2,000 people voluntarily to take part in each area. They will provide us with a firm basis for evaluation.
The pilots also support our plans for the New Deal for unemployed young people. There we are seeking to help 18 to 24 year-olds from benefit dependency to work. We are including provisions to improve their employability. For the 25 year-olds and over who have been unemployed for two years or more, we want to change the JSA rules to allow them access to full-time education and training while receiving JSA. These are important matters. We will further review the jobseeker's allowance rules on education and training in the light of the results of the workskill pilots and early experience in the New Deal.
I should like to introduce the regulations to the House by explaining briefly the powers we are seeking and describing how the pilot schemes would work. We want to introduce the pilots on 1st September 1997. People who have been receiving JSA for six months or more will be able to apply for a workskill course for up to one year.
There will be two types of pilot schemes: full-time and part-time. Full-time pilots will be run in Scotland, in the Glasgow and Dumbarton districts and in the north-west region in the Lancashire and Cumbria districts. These pilots will allow people to undertake certain full-time courses of up to a year and to be excused from the normal JSA rules on availability for work and actively looking for work while they are on the course.

1557
Part-time pilots will be run in the London and south-east region, in the south and south-east London districts and in the south-west region, in the Avon, Somerset and Wiltshire districts. These pilots will allow people to undertake certain part-time courses of up to a year and to be available and look for part-time work which can be fitted around their course. Participants will be able to choose from a wide range of courses, most of which will lead to an approved qualification. The course will have to be employment-related; that is, it will help people to get skills needed for work, for particular occupations or for jobsearch. It will help them to obtain a job.
We know from the correspondence we have received that people will want to take up these opportunities and to succeed in the courses they undertake. For the few who might be tempted to take the opportunity less seriously, we will provide an incentive to fulfil their commitment. The regulations will not encourage people to leave a course without a good reason. Those who do so may lose their JSA for two weeks.
Your Lordships may wonder what is happening to the existing pilots which were introduced on 7th April this year under the Jobseeker's Allowance (Workskill Courses) Pilot Regulations 1997. Those pilots, which operate in other areas, will continue as planned for one year. Together with the pilots we are seeking to introduce under these draft regulations, they will provide us with valuable information.
The new pilot schemes under these draft regulations will allow a period of one year for applications starting on 1st September in the new specified areas. These regulations, if approved, would be in force for one year and would establish pilot schemes which will operate in the specified areas. I hope that my opening explanation has helped the House. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blackstone.)
6.20 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the main thrust of the Minister's remarks with regard to the new pilot schemes. The measures proposed aim to improve the skills of the workforce through lifelong learning and to help people back to work—a move which I am sure would be welcomed by all noble Lords. Indeed, the Minister said that there are no easy answers and I believe that we all accept that, too.
We are pleased that the Government recognise the importance of the Workskill pilot schemes, which were launched by the previous Government. At that time the Opposition parties were not so supportive and indeed many expressed their concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, when moving an amendment at Committee stage on Recommitment said:
"We regard it as a mean, nasty, rather vindictive piece of legislation which will make life more difficult for some of the most vulnerable sections of our society".
1558
The party opposite now recognises the benefits of such pilot schemes and we are pleased to add our support. The schemes should provide good quality evidence about the potential effects, short and long term, of the changes in benefit rules. The Minister highlighted the importance of a careful evaluation of the practical effect of specific changes in benefit rules to check that the schemes deliver good value and that we accurately refine our rules when the pilot schemes are established.
I have three questions for the Minister. The first concerns the monitoring of the new pilot schemes. Will the evaluation be the same for schemes whether they are in the city or rural-based, or will there be any additional factors? Secondly, the Jobseekers' Allowance (Workskill Courses) Pilot (No. 2) Regulations give a great deal of power to the employment officer. Is that of any concern to the Minister? Thirdly, under paragraph 8, will the Minister consider giving greater flexibility, for those who are studying for exams, by adding:
"or revision the week before exams"?
During the past five years, we have seen a steady reduction in the number of young people between 18 and 24 years of age who were unemployed. From the 789,000 in January 1992 the figure fell to 479,000 in April this year. That is still too many, but the previous Government encouraged the right economic climate and hundreds and thousands of our young people have entered or re-entered the workplace as a result of the range of measures and economic policies that were pursued.
As I said at the beginning, we welcome the measures proposed to improve the skills of our young people and to ensure that they are not consigned to a life which is dependent on benefit. With these few comments and questions, we are pleased to support this further initiative extending the pilot schemes to a further four areas and benefiting another 2,000 young people.
6.23 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Crosby, who spoke on behalf of the Conservative Opposition, I believe that the Government are attempting to do the best they can with a piece of legislation which I regard as having been vindictive, arbitrary and in many ways cruel. In moving these regulations, I believe that the Government are attempting to make the best of what we can only describe as rather a bad job.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about the Jobseekers Bill when it was going through this House. Only last week, in a telling and trenchant report by the Citizens Advice Bureau, which some noble Lords may have seen, it used these terms as regards the Act and its effects—"arbitrary", "cavalier", "crude" and "mechanistic". Even the noble Lord, Lord Richard, could hardly have spoken in stronger terms.
The truth of the matter is that deep in the very centre of the Jobseekers Act was an extraordinary degree of arbitrary judgment allowed to employment officers. I once worked for the Department of Labour, as it then was, and I have great respect for employment officers.

1559
They have a tough job and they do it as well as they can, often under tremendous pressure to produce results. But the truth of the matter, as anyone who has read and knows this Act will have seen, is that it gives an extraordinary level of arbitrary judgment to the employment officer, as the noble Baroness has just said, although I have to say that it is in the Act itself and not in the regulations that this degree of arbitrary judgment was instituted.
There is the sheer breadth of the terminology of the legislation as to how one defines such phrases as "availability for work" and "actively seeking work". Not on the face of the Bill, but in every decision that is made under its umbrella, we see the real effects and consequences of this legislation. Some of those consequences are only now emerging. Those noble Lords who read last week's report in the Observer will know that, among other things, we now have some people who are unable to work their way through the traps and mazes of the benefits system and are becoming heavily dependent on charity, often through no particular fault of their own. For example, noble Lords will recall the case of the man who was obliged to look after his young children when his wife was detained in hospital during a very difficult birth. He was told by his employment officer that he was regarded as no longer actively seeking work and was cut off from every possible form of benefit.
I now turn briefly to the regulations and then I shall ask the noble Baroness whether she will respond to a few questions. She will probably be the first to admit that these are modest schemes. There is also a danger that they may be bogged down in the levels of bureaucracy that surround them. It is about that that I wish to ask the noble Baroness a few questions. The requirements are stringent. They are that people must have been unemployed for six months; that the course they take must be employment-related; that they must be willing to work for at least six months or more; that they must receive the approval of the employment officer; and that there must be regular reports back on attendance and satisfactory progress, and I do not complain about that.
As the noble Baroness will know, in paragraphs 7 and 12 there is consistent reference to the phrase,
"as often as may be required by an employment officer".
That may be an innocent phrase as regards the insistence on receiving reports back on attendance and on satisfactory progress. But the phrase is also an open door to bureaucratic regulation of a kind that could make life difficult for people who are quite genuinely seeking to follow through a course. Therefore, first, can the noble Baroness give an assurance that that phrase will be subject to a reasonable interpretation of what those words convey?
Secondly, I am somewhat troubled by the difference in the regulations. There is a reference to "guided learning hours" in England and Wales. In a more elaborate way there is a definition of the application to courses in Scotland. It seems to me that the Scottish definition is much more precise and better. I am not sure
1560
what "guided learning hours" means when it comes, for example, to work done at home to complete a project or when reading the textbooks required for the course. If the textbook is read at home in my own time, is that "guided learning" because the member of the faculty teaching me said that I must read the book or is it unguided learning because she is not leaning over my shoulder while I do it? Can the noble Baroness respond on the definition of what is a "guided learning hour" and why there is this strange distinction between Scotland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other?
Thirdly—this is perhaps rather less of a matter of detail—I refer to the purpose of the original pilot scheme. The then Minister, Mr. Forsyth, said in another place that the main measure of the pilot's success will be how quickly unemployed people get into work. He made it plain that not only was that the guiding requirement, but that—perhaps more significantly—a ceiling would be put on recruitment to such courses, set at about 1,000 for each of the group of pilot schemes, because if the courses did not get people back into work, he was not particularly interested in people completing their courses.
The new Government have said repeatedly that one of the matters about which they are most concerned is the need for this country to have a skilled and flexible workforce. At the moment, 41 per cent. of the people of Britain hold a vocational qualification at level 3 or above, but 59 per cent. hold a qualification at a lower level. Therefore, I would have expected—I am sure that this is the case—the Government to place the greatest possible premium on people acquiring qualifications and skills that will enable them not just to pick up a job at McDonald's, but to get a job that will serve them for a substantial period of time.
The latest figures on this, in the current issue of The Economist (dated 19th July), indicate—not surprisingly at a time of rapid growth—that serious skills shortages are once again emerging in the British economy. The Economist makes specific reference to the representations made by the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Industry Training Board about the lack of apprentices coming forward and the difficulty in finding people to fill vacancies requiring true trade qualifications. Given that—and this is my third penultimate question to the Minister—can some thought be given to the link between these courses for those who have been unemployed for six months or more and the Government's general strategy of welfare to work for young people to ensure that we step up the provision of training for skills? We have lots of training for higher education, but we have pathetic training for what one might describe as the craftsman, tradesman, or technician level, from the shortage of which this country still suffers badly in competitive terms.
My final question picks up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who spoke on behalf of the Opposition. Would the Minister be willing to consider giving advice to employment officers that, on the balance of uncertainties which they are constantly having to judge, the assumption should be that if a man or woman has started a course and is showing

1561
indications of being seriously committed to that course (that is to say, fully satisfies the attendance and performance criteria), that person will not then he pushed into a dead-end job?
I am sure that the Minister is aware that in DfEE circles it is quite widely known that there is a small group of extremely poorly paid, unattractive and low skill jobs which are nevertheless full-time and which are available as a kind of benchmark of how successfully employment officers are meeting their quotas. I do not believe that the new Government would put the meeting of quotas above all other considerations. However, I wonder whether the Minister can give us some assurance that employment officers will be asked to weigh considerations of skills and training in at least equal part—and perhaps in a somewhat more than equal part—as against getting people into jobs, however unattractive and pointless those jobs may be.
6.33 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to welcome the regulations which have been introduced by my noble friend Lady Blackstone and to thank her for the clarity with which she explained them to the House. Of course, the regulations fulfil to some extent the manifesto commitment made by my party and I am sure that the intentions behind them will command widespread support. It is right to try to get people off benefit and into employment. The mandate given by the electorate was precisely to that end.
I particularly welcome the factors to be taken into account by employment officers. Incidentally, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, about the power of employment officers. That power, however, resides in the original Act rather than in these regulations. Nonetheless, I agree that there should be some sort of brake upon the way in which such bureaucratic powers are exercised. If there is no such brake, I do not think that the regulations will be as successful as everybody hopes.
The factors which particularly attracted me come under paragraph 3(3). Paragraph 3(3)(b) states that,
"an employment officer must take into account … whether the course would assist him [the claimant] to acquire new skills and qualifications".
Paragraph 3(3)(g) states than an employment officer must also take into account,
"the number of jobs in the labour market and, if relevant, the local labour market, which require the skills and qualifications which he [the claimant] would acquire on the course".
One of the complaints that is often made, particularly by young people, about previous schemes is that they would often take course after course, but at the end they would still not have skills that could get them any kind of position. The training that they had received simply did not qualify them for the jobs available, such as they were, in the locality. As a result, people became disillusioned and frustrated.
I hope that the new regulations will match the skills in which people are trained with the local job opportunities so that those emerging from training will be able to find a job of a reasonable level and of good
1562
quality. I share the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, with regard to monitoring. I hope that the courses will be effectively monitored to ensure that they are of a reasonable level and quality.
Similar considerations apply with regard to the long-term unemployed. Perhaps I may now put in a plea for older workers. I know that the regulations are aimed primarily at young people. That is quite right because action must speedily be taken to deal with the problem of youth unemployment and the lack of skills among many of our young people. However, as a result of widespread downsizing, many older people have been landed on the labour market at an age when they find alternative employment difficult to come by. They may still have much to offer, but the skills in which they have previously been trained have been rendered obsolete by the onward march of technology and they may not yet be ready to contemplate early retirement. Although the regulations are clearly aimed at younger people, I hope that the Government will take into account the position of older people.
I very much welcome the fact that there will he a pilot scheme and opportunities to discover how the regulations will operate in practice in regard to benefits, the level and quality of training and the extent to which people manage to obtain employment at the end of their courses. That is what training is all about.
I welcome also the reference to carers and the disabled. Clearly, special arrangements have to be made in those areas.
However, there are problems and I turn first to the problem of sanctions. There have always been sanctions against people who break the rules and who are not prepared to participate. We know that there will be sanctions under the New Deal and that the sanction will be the loss of JSA. I am worried by that. Although those provisions existed under the previous regime, I am concerned about those who may be extremely disadvantaged and who may slip through the net. I do not want to see more young people sleeping on the streets, which could very well happen unless there is a proper safety net. I should like to he assured that there will be such a safety net to look after those who are desperately disadvantaged. We know very well that there are such young people in our society.
The regulations have clearly been introduced with the very best of intentions and I wish them well, but as we said repeatedly when we were in Opposition—I say it again now—it is the job of government to protect the vulnerable. I should like to be sure that in operating the regulations (with this new concept of training, which is admirable in itself), we shall not overlook the duty of looking after the vulnerable. We have had extremely divisive social policies over many years and we have seen the result, over the past decade, in the very large numbers of disadvantaged young people. It will be difficult to accommodate some of them, even under a very well intentioned scheme. This must be handled with sensitivity, and I very much hope that the Government will bear those considerations in mind. Having said that, I thank my noble friend for explaining the regulations this evening, and I wish them well.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate, although not in the depth as my noble friend the Minister or the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who have long experience in this area. When I saw the regulations I believed that I could contribute on the basis that I have two sons in their thirties who, unfortunately, needed to apply for jobseeker's allowance. It is soul destroying to see someone who is fit, who is able and who wants to work, presented with what is ostensibly a golden package of training and skill relearning yet still seeking the right package and the right encouragement.
I join my noble friends in congratulating the Government in doing what they can—I believe that that was the expression used by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—to improve the situation following one of the bitterest battles that we have had in this Chamber. My noble friend Lady Hollis, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and others were involved. Those on the then Opposition Benches attacked the Bill for what it was. It was described as cruel, vindictive, mean, petty and destructive of the enthusiasm of young people who found themselves in difficulties. Sometimes Ministers and those who advise them, who have decent jobs, pay and prospects, have no idea of the soul-destroying situation faced by someone in Britain who is out of work in 1997 irrespective of whether or not he contributed to that job loss. Such people need all the encouragement that they can get both from the Minister and those who work in employment offices.
The intention behind the regulations is to help back into work about 8,000 people in addition to 4,000 in existing pilot areas. Given that there are more than one million people out of work, 8,000 is a tiny proportion of the total. Nevertheless I believe that each of them will be grateful to the Government for this measure. I start on the basis that almost any work, skilled or unskilled, is better than the prospect after training of getting a better job. What is required is work. The money is not necessarily important to someone out of work and living on allowances who is given the prospect of a job.
I should like to know whether the Minister agrees that in the short term it is important to get a person into work. My noble friend will inform the House that pilot schemes are experiments carried out in different parts of the country in different circumstances in order to provide the right mix of opportunities. Based on the experience of my two sons and close observation of the position, I am not convinced that the enthusiasm, dedication and honesty of those whose job it is to train them and to provide the skills are as they should be. For many years part of the solution, apart from finding jobs, has been to retrain people or give them better training. There are many situations in which the training that is provided is half-hearted, inadequate and certainly not tailored to suit particular needs.
What are the needs of someone who is out of work and desperate to find work? Certainly, he wants more money, but he also wants greater respect and skills. Many noble Lords have pursued the same route I have.
1564
They have become better qualified for certain posts. Sometimes qualifications are useful; sometimes they are not. The ethic that drives a person to become better qualified in the abstract is a glorious thing. Most people seek education and attend classes or skill centres as a means of obtaining jobs. Leaving aside the laudable objective of helping 8,000 people, I take up the point made by my noble friend Lady Turner. The regulations are designed to aid the young more than the old. But we must not forget those who are no longer classified as young jobseekers. One knows that unemployment, which stood at 1 million in 1979 and went up to 3 million, is now below 2 million. However, one realises the enormity of even 1.5 million unemployed. And even that figure is suspect, until my noble friend does a better job than the previous government in being honest about the situation. There are many more people who are without work but who are not classified as unemployed.
Someone who is not desperate for a bob or two may be turned off by the questions and procedures under the scheme. I see on page 2 of the regulations a long list of definitions under "Interpretation". Someone who goes into an unemployment office is met by an officer with an order and an Act. A number of matters must be interpreted: "the Act"; "benefit"; "receiving benefit"; "caring responsibilities"; "casual employment"; "employment officer"; "employment-related course"; "examination"; "full-time employment"; "full-time student"; "the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations"; "jobseeking period"; "made a claim for jobseeker's allowance"; "part-time employment"; "period of study"; "qualifying person"; "region"; "term-time"; "vacation"; "week"; and "workskill course". That is just for starters.
I am sure that my noble friend will inform the House that an interpretation is necessary, and it is. I merely point out the difficulty faced by officers if they have to interpret these matters and receive guidance upon them. Occasionally, they will misinterpret. The effect is that a young person or perhaps older person who seeks assistance will find that he or she is on the wrong side of the interpretation of the officer.
I turn to page 3. Under "Application" one sees that Regulation 3(1) has four subparagraphs; Regulation 3(2) has three; and Regulation 3(3) has nine. I can well imagine that in those circumstances a person will lose heart. One comes to the availability for employment in term-time and the tortuous way in which an applicant may fall on the right or wrong side of the interpretation. The Minister has been quite fair in saying what she seeks to improve. I believe that that is right. Without wishing to nitpick, someone may be turned off by the wording of the regulation that deals with the availability of carers in term-time if the applicant is pressed, challenged or monitored as to whether he or she is inside or outside the law.
Is my noble friend satisfied that the level of education and training is approved or monitored by the department? I know her well, and I admire her background in education. Is she satisfied that the courses provided will be tailored to the needs of the individual? It is all very well having a youngster who wants to be trained and a set of training modules, but they must be

1565
matched. Is my noble friend satisfied that her department and her colleagues are ensuring that individuals are dealt with as individuals?
Will my noble friend clarify the position with regard to people who have savings of more than £16,000? They find themselves disqualified because they have some savings. There need to be minimum amounts above which one cannot claim. Do my noble friend and her department consult the DSS about easing those limits?
The regulations are described as a new deal. They are designed to improve the employability and labour market prospects of young people who have been unemployed for six months or more. That is laudable, and we must welcome it. The task is daunting. The resources are limited. The prospects for those who have been unemployed for six months or more, as many people have been, must be depressing and terrifying. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say more about other measures of which she may be aware to ease the passage from welfare to work. I welcome what she said and look forward to hearing something even more hopeful when she responds.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I have what may be an interest so I might as well declare it. I am chairman of a charity called Training for Life. It takes young people who have left school without qualifications and gives them life skills, numeracy and computer literacy and places them in work. It is a small but successful charity.
I welcome the order and the way my noble friend presented it. That is not an empty formal compliment. A long time ago when I was briefly on the Opposition Front Bench I had to discuss an order. It had something to do with the income entitlement of 16 and 17 year-olds. Like my noble friend, I have three degrees and four honorary degrees. I am sure that she has many more than I have. It was extremely difficult to understand what was going on.
As my noble friends Lord Graham and Lady Turner have said, some of the regulations are complicated. I do not know who understands them. I shall make a general point which I have made before. We have created a welfare state that is so complicated that few of us understand it. The claimants' book that the Child Poverty Action Group publishes contains 500 pages. It is difficult to understand what one's entitlements are. There is a great difference between whether you are a 17 year-old woman who has previously worked but who is now pregnant, or who has not worked and is pregnant or is not pregnant. The difference between those categories amounted to 35p per week either way. Someone has set up lots and lots of pigeonholes and lots and lots of regulations, because what we have set up in the welfare state is suspicion of the claimant.
I hope that with the new Government and the new climate that is being created there will be room to rethink the welfare state so as to trust the citizen rather than suspect him. We have to create a great many regulations because we have got into the way of thinking that the claimant is out to cheat us. It is not for very much, because we do not pay the claimant very
1566
much. The claimant is out to cheat us by claiming what he or she is not entitled to or by claiming in a different category from the one they are entitled to. So we set up lots and lots of little pigeonholes. We create work for ourselves, waste resources and cause a great deal of unhappiness.
To return to the jobseeker's allowance. I remember the Bill clearly. I recall what I said at that time. I did not say anything about the Government being vindictive, because I was used to that. The jobseeker's legislation was predicated on the belief that there were jobs out there if only people looked for them. People were unemployed because they were not looking for jobs.
The City, the Bank of England and everyone admits, that we are currently at the top of a business cycle. We have between 1.75 million and 2 million people unemployed, depending upon whether one uses the claimant formula or the labour force survey method. I do not deny that unemployment has been going down. Between 1993 and 1997 cyclical demand-created employment has meant that unemployment has declined. But there are still about 1.75 million people unemployed. They are not the same people. There has been a bit of churning around. However that shows us that unemployment is not at the top of the cycle. It means that old-fashioned demand policies do not work. People are not unemployed because they are not looking for jobs, they are unemployed for supply-side reasons.
I would go further than that. The fact that the previous government set up the pilot schemes was a recognition of the fact that some people do not get jobs because they do not have the appropriate skills. It is not laziness. I welcome the order. Early in the new Government's term of office we are adding new pilot schemes to the previous pilot schemes. We want to be generous and help people and not hinder them. So when we relax the rules and look for supply-side measures to create employment, we want to create opportunities which will not further frustrate people, and make them unhappier, but which will give them the skills needed to do a job.
We have to look at the schemes within the wider context of the welfare-to-work scheme which was announced in the Budget. That is a rolling programme which will continue for the next five years. It will begin slowly. It is a big adventure. It is almost a gamble. How do we know that supply-side policies will work? Everyone has said that they will work, but no one actually knows that they will. Indeed, people who assert supply-side policies do not actually need them; they are already in jobs and very comfortably off.
One very important point—and this is perhaps something that my noble friend the Minister can either answer this evening or later—is that, if we create such pilot schemes, it is extremely important for us to analyse the results carefully. Moreover, the scheme to analyse such results should be set up either before the pilot starts or simultaneously with it. I would even urge the Government to employ an anthropologist to analyse such schemes. I say that because we actually do not know, except at a kind of bar-room conversational level, how unemployed people seek work. What do they actually do? How do they try and what are the

1567
frustrations that they face? Economists do not carry out such studies, but anthropologists observe and an urban anthropologist would be ideal.
We really need to understand such frustration. For example, what is it that frustrates the unemployed? Why is it, as my noble friend Lady Turner asked, that some people join courses which are not suitable for them? Of course, it takes some time for them to realise that the course is not suitable. The regulations may state that within five days one has to report that the course is not suitable, but how does one know that in such a short space of time? How do people get on to such courses? What are the real obstacles? The evaluation of such schemes must be set up very early on so that the 12,000, as it were, units of observation can be studied very carefully and quickly. That will enable us to make policies for the next 100,000 or 200,000 places which will be required under the welfare to work scheme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned skills shortages. Again, with all the electronic data and information that we have, I wonder whether we can somehow ease and speed up apprenticeships or placements aimed at acquiring such skills at work. There is no denying the fact that the shortages are there. Someone in some part of the Government has recorded such shortages—for example, the Construction Industry Training Board, and so on. In other words, somewhere else in the machinery of government people know that there are people seeking work. But, even in these modern days, it is difficult for us to match the two concepts.
From my experience of another charity with which I am involved, I know that the Government have a co-ordinating arrangement concerning drugs across several ministries. Perhaps we ought to have such an arrangement whereby someone is always tracking the problem of skill shortages. That is especially important because, over the next few years while the spending boom lasts, skill shortages might actually cause inflationary problems to arise sooner than we would like and that would only lead to the Bank of England going even more berserk than it already is and putting up interest rates. I believe that somewhere here there is a co-ordination problem. I do not know quite how we can fix it, but I believe that it is necessary to do so.
I am not a very practical person, but when I look at Regulation 3(3) under "Application" I wonder whether employment officers are adequately trained and capable of handling so many considerations. Indeed, one has only to look at all those considerations—like, for example, paragraph (g) which refers to,
"the number of jobs in the labour market and, if relevant, the local labour market, which require the skills and qualifications which he would acquire on the course"—
to understand my point. As a professional economist I know for a fact that labour market data are not easily and quickly available. Moreover, local labour market data are even more difficult to get hold of and not very accurate.
The regulations actually require someone to look at the labour market data for particular kinds of skills. But the local labour market may not be relevant. What are
1568
we really asking such people to do? Is it really necessary? Broadly speaking, we want to know that the person who is trying to claim the jobseeker's allowance while doing something else and looking for jobs—or, indeed, taking a course—is not defrauding the state. That is all we want to know. I am sure that all the other conditions set out in the regulations are surplus to requirements.
The regulations before us have already been presented. However, as we become more experienced in such matters and as we need to place more and more people on such schemes to tackle the out-of-work problem, I hope that we will think completely differently about how we monitor or check people's sincerity in seeking training and skills. Perhaps we should reverse the burden of proof and trust people to know what they are doing. In that way we could help them. Indeed, if they have gone into courses which are not suitable for them, we must not blame them; it is not their fault. We must help them along in a positive way.
It is very rare that people go out of their way deliberately and repeatedly to cheat. There are, perhaps, better illegal ways of making more money than this—which I am not recommending. People do not cheat for such amounts of money all the time. Let us change our way of thinking on the matter and start to trust people. The next time that an order is placed before the House, let us approach the matter in a more positive and helpful way. Employment officers should become helpers for the people who are seeking work and actually become more positive, rather than just being negative monitoring persons—in other words, powerful people hanging over the jobseeker, which is the picture that we have at present.
Such regulations worry me when I read them. I do not expect a jobseeker to understand them; he does not have to do so. The jobseeker will be examined when he goes to claim the allowance and state that he is doing this or that course. However, at that stage, I worry about the situation. After all, employment officers are only human. Perhaps we are making them do far too much. We have actually not thought the problem through in a positive way and, as I said, we ought to think about a much greater simplification of rules. There ought to be much more leeway, a greater degree of tolerance and much more trust in our citizens. Basically, we want our welfare state to be good for our citizens; indeed, we are talking about their entitlements. If we become more helpful, more positive and indeed more trusting, I believe that we might be able to create a better welfare state than the one we have at present. It seems to me that the more suspicious we get the less efficient we become. So let us trust people and thereby help them.
7.8 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we have had a very interesting and helpful discussion about the regulations, in which a number of important matters have been raised. I was also interested to note that a number of my noble friends were able to draw on their personal experiences and bring in the useful information that one

1569
can always glean when one has relatives, or people that one knows well, who are unemployed and are having to rely on JSA.
I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, for her welcome to the regulations. However, I was a little surprised by some of her remarks in relation to what my noble friends said regarding the JSA legislation before the election. I should point out that the Government entirely stand by what was said by Members of what was then Her Majesty's Opposition in this House at that time. I fully endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said.
I am grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said about the regulations. As she said, they are designed to mitigate what we have inherited from our predecessors. The schemes are quite modest. I am ready to admit that. But they are a helpful beginning. They are about providing us with much better information to help us consider how to make progress towards a better regime for the long-term unemployed than there has been for the previous 18 years, before the general election in May 1997.
Of course, it is very much at the centre of this Government's ambition to put the greatest possible premium on people acquiring skills. I say that by way of starting. I hope that everything that I say as I go on will fill that out and convince the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who asked that that should be at the centre of everything that we do.
I now turn to the large number of questions which have been asked in the debate and shall do my best to answer them. But if I fail to deal with anything, I shall write to noble Lords who have asked questions. There were one or two quite specific questions to which I may not be able to give the answers.
A number of participants in the debate were concerned about employment officers in a variety of different ways. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and my noble friend Lord Desai were concerned about the powers that were given to employment officers. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the very difficult job which employment officers must now do. Many of the problems which they face are a direct result of the legislation which they must implement.
But having said that, employment officers are being trained and will receive extra training through the coming months to operate properly the provisions in these regulations. They are being given very detailed guidance and we are confident that they will play a vital role in helping people to take up courses. I should tell my noble friend Lord Desai that they have access to a national labour market computer system which provides very full details of local jobs, opportunities and the training courses which the long-term unemployed, for whom these regulations are intended, can take. Employment officers build up good contacts with local employers; they hold marketing events throughout the year; and they know the importance of keeping up to date with local labour market needs. I hope that that satisfies my noble friend Lord Desai.
1570
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, asked whether we would be willing to advise employment officers that someone who is on a course and looks totally committed to that course should not be pushed into a dead-end job. There is absolutely no question of participants being forced to take up either unsuitable or very low-paid work. Employment Service advisers take their work seriously and seek to match people properly with vacancies. The service would not be able to place people into work if it acquired a reputation with employers for submitting unsuitable people for their vacancies. I do not quite understand why it is suggested that participants should be forced into unsuitable work once they have taken up a Workskill course when they had not been forced into unsuitable work by the Employment Service in the previous six months. It would be highly undesirable if that were to happen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, asked also about reports which may be required by the employment officer. I assure her that those powers will be used sensibly, as they must be.
My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton asked whether we are satisfied that the lever of education or training is monitored adequately by the department. Again, that relates to the role of employment officers. The courses must be approved. An employment officer will help an applicant to choose a course which is appropriate to his skills, qualifications and abilities and also a course which interests him. An employment officer will then make sure that the course which the applicant takes is relevant to the job which he is interested in obtaining in the longer term.
My noble friends Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Desai made the point that applicants are likely to face a long, complicated and bureaucratic list of rules and regulations. I am sure that all noble Lords will understand that legislation is necessary, detailed and complex. It must be in order to ensure that we are clear about what we are trying to do. But employment officers are trained—I have already said this and I repeat it—to help people to decide whether they wish to participate and will explain the rules to them. There will also be explanatory leaflets available which will be short, simple, clear and easily comprehensible for all applicants. That is vital. It is extremely important that anyone who is to take part in a pilot scheme should be clear as to what he is doing, why he is doing it and what he is likely to get out of it.
The noble Baroness speaking for the Opposition asked about monitoring. She questioned whether the evaluation would be the same for rural areas as for city schemes. In relation to the rural schemes, it will be necessary to look also at any problems which might be specific to rural areas; for example, where a participant must travel a long distance. Apart from those rather special considerations which relate to people who live in the country and some way from an urban area, the same detailed monitoring and evaluation will apply.
She asked also whether we should be introducing greater flexibility in order to treat participants as available for employment, as actively seeking work, the week before they take examinations. We have already

1571
relaxed the rules as regards availability for employment. We are seeking to ensure that part-time students undertaking a Workskill course under these regulations, both during term time and the vacations, take up such employment which allows them to successfully complete the course. We certainly do not believe that we should treat a person as available for employment and actively seeking employment in the weeks before examinations. That would completely defeat the object of the regulations and the pilot schemes which we are introducing; namely, not only to help people undertake a course but to achieve a qualification at the end of it. That means that they must be able to take their examinations and not be pushed into a job at that point in time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked a rather specific question about guided learning hours and what the English definition includes. I think she asked about the distinctions between Scotland and England. As I understand it, the definition does not include homework or voluntary study. Definitions reflect the way that education courses are designed by colleges in England and Scotland, and they are, of course, different because of the different education system in Scotland. The Further Education Funding Council does not fund courses in Scotland.
The noble Baroness also asked whether it would be possible to provide advice to employment officers, asking them to assume that if someone is committed to a course that person should not be pushed into a dead-end job. I believe that I have already touched on that.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I hope I may assist the noble Baroness because I was not trying to make a tedious point. The Scottish definition includes classroom and also work experience. The guided learning hours in the English definition might not include the concept of work experience. I was not clear whether it included that. The Scottish definition is more precise, and that is why I asked the question.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is extremely helpful. In a more general sense we see gaining and developing skills that can get people off benefit and into work as absolutely central to the way in which we respond to the problems of long-term unemployment. Clearly, obtaining a skill will almost by definition increase employability. We do not want people to stay unemployed and on benefit to study indefinitely. JSA is not a source of funding for full-time students, nor should it be. Most people want to get back into work quickly and want to know what job opportunities are available to them. It is a question of judgment as to how much leeway we allow people to continue studying when a suitable job opportunity is available.
We expect all those on the pilots who are notified by the Employment Service of a full-time, permanent job—I do not mean just any job—to apply for it, even if that may occasionally mean giving up a course. However, people who are within a few weeks of finishing a course
1572
or taking examinations will be able to turn down a job offer so that they can finish the course. We shall evaluate that aspect of the pilots extremely carefully.
I shall now address comments made by my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden and the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. The regulations allow anyone receiving JSA for six months or more to participate in the pilot areas. There is in fact no age requirement. Older people can take part, and indeed they should be encouraged to do so. It is part of lifelong learning, creating employability and avoiding large numbers of people in long-term unemployment, and the poverty and marginalisation that are entailed in that, to consider people whatever their age—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. However, one knows the resistance of many employers to take on older people. Are my noble friend and her colleagues in the department conscious of that and are they seeking ways to encourage employers to give prospective, older employees a chance?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is certainly a matter that I shall convey to my right honourable friend the Minister for Employment. I cannot give a precise answer as to whether there are any particular proposals to encourage the employment of older workers. However, as I say, I shall certainly raise that matter with my right honourable friend Mr. Andrew Smith.
I turn to another point made by my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden. She requested that sanctions should be handled sensitively. There are rules and sanctions governing the Workskill pilots which can result in loss of JSA for people who break the rules. People should not be allowed to waste time and money if they cannot be bothered to put in the time and effort needed to complete a course at taxpayers' expense. Sanctions will be imposed resulting normally in the loss of JSA for two weeks if people drop out of courses through misconduct or without a good reason. However, people who have merely chosen the wrong course will be able to leave it in the first four weeks without receiving a sanction. Obviously from time to time people will misjudge a course and start a course which is not suitable. Those who are genuinely unable to keep up with a course will also have a good reason for leaving it, as will those on an unsuitable course. Those sanctioned can apply for JSA hardship payments if they are in a vulnerable group.
My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton asked about savings. To take part in Workskill pilots a participant has to be in receipt of JSA for more than six months. This is based on the longstanding principle that savings are taken into account for means tested benefits. Income based JSA is not payable to those with significant savings of more than about £8,000. My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton mentioned the new deal and asked about the relevance of these pilots to the new deal. The Workskill pilots support our general approach on a new deal which seeks to improve employability and labour market prospects for young people who are unemployed for six months or more and for long-term unemployed people.

1573
All four programme options for young people aged 18 to 24 will include education and training. One of the options is for full-time education or training. Those aged 25 or over who have been unemployed for two years or more will be able to undertake full-time education and training for up to a year and remain on JSA. We shall learn much from those pilots in implementing the new deal next spring.
However, the new deal will operate differently to these pilots. I should make that absolutely clear. The new deal for 18 to 24 year-olds is a compulsory programme aimed at helping that age group avoid benefit dependency. Our plans to allow the 25-year plus long-term unemployed to undertake education and training while on JSA is targeted to ensure that we deal with a particular problem. With the pilots we are looking at a voluntary entering into education and training for all age groups while on JSA. The pilots will allow us to assess the case for a change to the rules for all those on JSA.
My noble friend Lord Desai asked about fraud and said that we should not assume that people are trying to cheat. Of course we do not assume that people are trying to cheat. However, the Government are determined to bear down on fraud and abuse where they take place—that is only right. There is no question of assuming that in general people cheat, but I regret to say that some people do and we must tackle that when it occurs.
My noble friend Lord Desai and a number of other speakers asked how we would analyse the pilot schemes and referred to the importance of doing so properly. I hope I can reassure him by saying that they will be analysed in great detail. Monitoring starts at the beginning of the scheme and as well as collecting basic facts the participants will be tracked to see how the courses have affected their later employment prospects. That is important.
I believe that I have answered most of the questions that were put. I hope that I have done so. I conclude by reminding the House of the purpose of these regulations. This second wave of pilots will allow us to offer many more people the opportunity to undertake education or training while receiving JSA and to see what effects this has on their efforts to obtain and stay in work. They will play an important role in our review of the jobseeker allowance rules on education and training which we intend to go forward with as soon as possible. I commend them to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.30 to 8 p.m.]

Education (Schools) Bill
8 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reason be now considered.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO THE LORDS AMENDMENT
[The page and line refer to Bill 10 as, first printed for the Lords]
LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 2, page 2, line 5, at end insert—
("() in the case of a pupil with an assisted place at a school providing education for children up to the age of 13 but not beyond, at the end of the school year in which he attains the age of 13; or")
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons; and the Commons do not offer any further reason. trusting this reason may be deemed sufficient.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason stated.
During Report stage we passed an amendment to Clause 2 of the Bill. This would require the Government to support all pupils with assisted places at free-standing preparatory schools through to age 13 regardless of whether they were given an assurance that they could hold the assisted place until the end of their time at that school.
The Commons have now considered this amendment and have disagreed with it,
"Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting this reason may be deemed sufficient".
I urge your Lordships to agree with the Commons.
We have made clear that we will use the discretionary power so that where the child was given a clear promise of a place to age 13, on the basis of the letter written by Peter Kilfoyle to the chairman of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools on 1st April, that place would be honoured. It is clear that that has been the main concern of your Lordships.
But Amendment No. l goes further. It would require the Government to support all pupils with assisted places at free-standing preparatory schools through to age 13, regardless of whether a promise of a place was made. Of course some preparatory schools will have offered pupils a clear promise of a place to age 13 on the basis of the Kilfoyle letter. Subject to a check of the commitment given to the parents, and provided the parent wants the child to continue through to age 13, then we will provide support through to age 13. So, if there was the promise of a place to age 13, then we will honour that place.

1575
But making the entitlement automatic would mean extra support at the expense of the taxpayer for a commitment that never existed. It would mean that some cases would receive support when no promise was made. That would not be a proper use of public money. There will be cases where no clear promise of a place through to age 13 was given. We must have a mechanism to identify these. The discretionary power will allow the detail of individual cases to be checked. It means that we can ensure that parents understand that, after age 13, they will not be able to take up an assisted place at a senior school. These points need to be verified. Only through the use of the discretionary power will there be a mechanism for ensuring that support goes only to the deserving.
There are no broken promises. We are honouring our commitments. I ask the House not to insist on its amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her statement. I am rather sorry that Mr. Kilfoyle did not include all the qualifications in his letter. That is the basis of the Opposition's objection to this particular measure.
I regret very much that the Government have used their majority in the Commons to overturn this amendment. I repeat: the qualifications made were not made in the original letter. That is the basis of my case. A promise was made, a promise without qualifications, and it has now been reduced to a discretion. Mr. Kilfoyle may have been over-generous; he may have been carried away by the conviviality of the prep school gathering. However, he made a promise.
The noble Baroness's command of English is almost certainly better than mine. She knows as well as I do that "discretion" means, "freedom to make decisions one way or the other"; while a promise means, "an agreement to follow a defined line". The Government know that what will happen to these worried parents is that they will have to approach bureaucrats in the Department for Education and Employment. Letters will be exchanged and an enormous burden will be placed upon them merely as a result, so far as I can gather, of the indiscretion of a shadow spokesman of the party now in government, then in Opposition.
I go further. I absolutely trust the noble Baroness's promise. Since she says that she will observe the spirit of the Kilfoyle letter rashly though it was given, as I gather from the qualification that she makes, I fail to understand why the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment since it was their Member, their shadow spokesman, who made this rash promise. This amendment clearly puts on the face of the Bill, without any equivocation, the intent of that letter. The noble Baroness has said on more than on occasion—and I repeat that I respect her assurances—that she will fulfil the spirit of the amendment. I remind the House
1576
or the third time that Mr. Kilfoyle did not put any qualifications on his promise. Why not leave it in the Bill?
I make this comment for the record. For us this is a matter not just of principle but of integrity. It is a sad business when promises are not kept. I do not include the noble Baroness in this, but it is dishonourable. A member of the party then in Opposition and now in Government made a promise on which the Government are now reneging. We all know that "discretion" will mean endless letters and endless distress.
We have made our feelings clear. We shall not oppose the decision of the other place to remove the amendment from the Bill. We shall go to dinner and I shall enjoy my dinner more than noble Lords opposite in that I command the moral high ground. A promise was made and a promise was not kept. My digestion will be better than that of noble Lords opposite, particularly for members of a party who profess to believe in trust. We shall see what happens in the next four years, but this is a bad beginning.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have no intention of going back over all the arguments again. I do not think that the noble Lord opposite would expect me to do so.
However, I wish to say that there is nothing dishonourable about what we have agreed to do. We made a concession to look, on a discretionary basis, at those cases where people may have been influenced by the Kilfoyle letter and where a genuine promise had been made. We are not in any sense reneging on promises.
The noble Lord used a term relating to the bureaucrats in my department somewhat disparagingly. The officials in my department will operate the system honourably.
Finally, we on this side of the House will enjoy our dinner greatly because we shall have put through a Bill which was in our manifesto—a commitment which we made which we believe will help the many hundreds of thousands of five, six and seven year-old children in state schools who deserve to receive their education in smaller class sizes than the party of the noble Lord opposite was able to achieve when it was in power.
It is in keeping with the role of the non-elected revising and debating Chamber to ask the other place to think again on certain aspects of the Government's proposals. But when the other place disagrees with your Lordships' amendment, particularly when privilege is involved, we do not insist on the matter. Earlier today, Members in another place debated the principle of the amendment in some depth. So, while the reason given relates to the financial aspect of the amendment, I can assure your Lordships that the other place took full account of the principle behind the amendment in reaching the decision to disagree. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past eight o'clock.