Sitting of 22 April 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Air Quality
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the reports on air quality when public inquiries are held on major roadway developments; and if he will make a statement. [24716]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): Environmental statements for trunk road schemes, including air quality assessments, are prepared in accordance with current best practice, as set out in the design manual for roads and bridges. The manual is updated in the light of new developments in assessment methodology.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Secretary of State aware that, at a public inquiry held last year on the realignment of the A1 and the junction of the M62 at Ferrybridge, questions were asked about the environmental assessment relating to vehicle pollution, and the inquiry was told that no such assessment had been made? The interchange is within 200 m of a junior and infants' school where the majority of
    2
    children suffer from asthma; more than 200 were admitted to hospital in Wakefield last year. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Department should be more involved in obtaining assessments of air pollution when motorways are so near to schools, and will he ensure that such assessments are available at public inquiries for public scrutiny?
    Sir George Young: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is difficult for me to comment on the scheme, as a public inquiry has been held. The inspector has submitted a report, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I are now considering. I shall study it carefully before reaching a decision. I know that the hon. Gentleman gave evidence at the inquiry.
    Let me reaffirm that, when we are examining trunk road schemes, it is important for air quality assessments to be prepared in accordance with best practice. In arriving at decisions, we take account of the factors mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
    Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that natural gas-powered vehicles are one alternative that could improve the control of pollution from vehicles, especially public service vehicles? Will he congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on reducing the tax on that source of fuel, and will he encourage him to do the same this year?
    Sir George Young: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will be grateful for the plaudits heaped on him by my hon. Friend, and I know that he will take my hon. Friend's recommendations into account when he crafts his next Budget.
    The Government are giving keen consideration to the development of new fuels and new vehicle technologies in order to reduce vehicle emissions and drive up standards of air quality. My Department continues to conduct trials of alternative fuels with local authorities and with industry.
    Mr. Chidgey: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is aware that recent medical research carried out by

    3
    hospitals in England shows a direct relationship between the volume of traffic on trunk roads, and their closeness to urban areas, and the incidence of admission to hospital of patients with respiratory illnesses? What plans has he to include a calculation of health disbenefits in the overall calculation of benefits and costs for major highway schemes?
    Sir George Young: I think that improving air quality should be an objective in its own right, regardless of the specific economic factors to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. It is worth restating that air quality is improving, and that transport emissions are forecast to halve over the next decade as a result of improvements in vehicle emission standards and the enforcement measures that are already in place. My Department is playing an active role in improving the quality of the atmosphere and health standards, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us in that objective.

    Westward Rail Link (Heathrow)
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to secure provision of a westward rail link from Heathrow to the London—Swindon line. [24717]
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): A possible westward rail link from Heathrow airport to the Great Western main line is one of number of schemes being examined in the Government's London airports surface access study.
    Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of enthusiastic support for the concept of a westward link from Heathrow to the Great Western railway line on environmental grounds? It would make access to the airport from the west—from Wales, and from my constituency in Swindon—a great deal easier, and would encourage people not to travel on the M4, which, as my hon. Friend well knows, is already congested at peak times. Will he use his best endeavours to ensure that, if the access study team comes up with a proposal for such a link, the private sector is given every encouragement to bid for the project at the earliest possible stage?
    Mr. Watts: It is encouraging to hear such good, common sense from Swindon. Those who visit Swindon to make speeches do not always utter such sensible ideas. Proposals for improving rail access from Heathrow to the London-Swindon line are among the studies for schemes by BAA and Railtrack. Railtrack-BAA train operating companies and the London borough of Hillingdon are also looking at proposals for a new station north of Heathrow—the so-called Heathrow gateway north station. Either of those projects could be taken forward by the private sector in the new private sector railway.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is it not foolish that, in advance of receiving the surface access study relating to Heathrow, the Government are embarking on widening the M25? They should pause and reflect, and abandon that crackpot scheme until the whole question of surface access to Heathrow can be looked at and the issue of Terminal 5
    4
    determined. It is wrong to go ahead with the widening without a public inquiry into air quality and other matters at the same time as contemplating a rail link—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I gave the hon. Gentleman a chance, but he has gone wide of the mark.
    Mr. Watts: Over a year ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) announced our proposed approach to the M25 and access to Heathrow and said that we would be presenting a balanced transport package that would involve modest widening, and an enhancement, of the M25' s capacity, and studies into improving surface access by rail. Both elements of the policy are being taken forward expeditiously.

    Newbury Bypass
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce which contractor has won the main contract to build the Newbury bypass. [24718]
    Mr. Watts: Tenders are still being assessed for the works. The contract will be awarded as soon as possible.
    Mr. Rendel: Following the appalling amount of misinformation that has been put about by some of the protesters about the Newbury bypass, and the suggestions that there may be alternative methods of improving Newbury's environment, will the Minister make sure that the contractor who is finally given the contract is aware of the importance of publicity and makes sure that everybody in the country recognises that the bypass is the best—indeed, the only—way to improve Newbury's environment?
    Mr. Watts: I am not sure that I see that as part of the role of the selected contractor, but it is certainly important that the voice of the majority of people in and around Newbury is heard and that the views of unrepresentative minorities are not given undue weight. The environment is not just about furry animals and plants: it is about the conditions in which people in urban areas live. There is no doubt that the bypass would bring about a substantial improvement in the environment for the people of the town of Newbury.

    Buses (London)
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of bus speeds and usage in London; and if he will make a statement. [24719]
    Sir George Young: London Transport estimates that, in 1995–96, the average speed of buses in central London was about 8 mph in peak periods and 9 mph in the daytime off-peak. Almost 1.2 billion passenger journeys were made on London Transport bus services last year.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister not ashamed to announce that bus speeds in London are hardly any more than they have been over the past 50 years? Indeed, they are getting slower. Is it not time to put some money into bus priority measures throughout London, including high-technology schemes that allow traffic lights to be changed in favour of

    5
    approaching buses? Above all, is it not nonsense for London's 32 boroughs to compete with each other in planning London's transport needs when, rather than the existing chaos, the city needs what it once had—an overall transport authority, accountable to the people of London, that puts money, resources and imagination into public transport?
    Sir George Young: We have an elected transport authority for London and he is sitting beside me. As for resources, I agree and, this year, we are putting more financial support into the London bus priority network. Support and supplementary credit approvals total £9 million—a higher level than last year. I would like buses to run faster. London Transport predicts that, on completion of the London bus priority network, bus speeds should increase by 15 per cent.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, with the introduction of the red route system, bus speeds and timings have improved, and that accidents have been reduced? If all that is the case, will he push ahead with the undoubted success of the red route scheme?
    Sir George Young: Like my hon. Friend, I am a London Member of Parliament. In my post this morning, I received, from the Association of London Government, a publication on red routes, and I was pleased to read in paragraph 3.4 that survey results showed that illegal parking was drastically reduced, that traffic delays were reduced, with journey times down by an average of 10 per cent., that variability of journeys fell by one third and that casualties—to pick up my hon. Friend's point—fell by 17 per cent. The results also showed that average traffic speed had increased, so the scheme is already yielding benefits, and we are determined to ensure that those benefits are further extended throughout London.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Secretary of State pass on best wishes to his colleague the Minister for Transport in London for the work of the bus working group, which he has set up to consider this problem and others in relation to the bus industry's deregulation? Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a growing consensus, with the Select Committee on Transport and the Chartered Institute of Transport, that the Government should consider bus reregulation to take away the worst effects of bus deregulation? Will he therefore press on his hon. Friend the case for finding parliamentary time to introduce some sensible proposals that will be supported by Labour Members? If he does not do that, will he be assured that we shall find time to do so when we take over on the Government Benches?
    Sir George Young: Those are idle promises. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, there is no move towards a reregulated system. The Select Committee did not suggest that the bus system be reregulated, but, within the context of a deregulated system, my hon. Friend the Minister is seeing what extra measures can be taken further to drive up the standards that bus passengers enjoy.
    6
    There is always pressure on the House for legislative time, but, if there are sensible proposals for building on the progress that we have already made in improving life for people who use buses, we shall certainly consider introducing legislation.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, since deregulation, London buses get into all the corners and parts of London, which they never hitherto did, and give a much better service? What does he think an elected or nominated mayor of London could achieve that has not been achieved?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. There is no role for an elected authority in London between the London boroughs and the Department of Transport where, as I have already mentioned, we have a Minister for Transport in London who is making good progress in improving the quality of transport in London. My hon. Friend will know that the countdown system is being piloted along the Uxbridge road in Ealing and that we are in the process of evaluating that to find out whether there is a case for extending it throughout London.

    Crossrail
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of crossrail. [24720]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): As my right hon. Friend has told the House, crossrail has its place in the sequence of major London projects. The Government are committed to it going ahead as a joint venture with a substantial private sector contribution.
    Mr. Gapes: Many people and many organisations in London, including London Pride Partnership, the Corporation of London and the Association of London Government, were bitterly disappointed by the Government's announcement a few weeks ago. As Londoners, we feel that crossrail has been delayed unnecessarily and we hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the Government remain firmly committed to crossrail's implementation at an early date, as it is necessary for our city's economic vitality and for journeys across the city, because it links our main railway stations. May we have that assurance?
    Mr. Norris: If Londoners are disappointed, it is probably largely because they have relied on the disinformation about the status of crossrail which has been spread by the Opposition. The reality is that, in London, we are proceeding with the Jubilee line extension which is due to open on 28 March 1998—book your tickets now—and we have already announced that the £650 million Thameslink 2000 scheme will follow thereafter, to be followed by the channel tunnel rail link, which is a scheme of around £2.7 billion. We have made it clear that, from a financial and logistics standpoint, it is right that crossrail should follow those projects. That is prudent and sensible government, something that Londoners understand when they are exposed to it but something that I do not expect Opposition Members to begin to understand.
    Mr. Brooke: While I accept the logic of the Government's position, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have prolonged the already considerable blight along the line of rail? Have the Government ventured any consideration of the French method of compensation in such matters which seems, for a disproportionately low investment, greatly to accelerate the conduct of affairs?
    Mr. Norris: My right hon. Friend is right in the sense that one regrets any blight on properties necessarily involved in a scheme of such magnitude continuing for one day longer than necessary, especially when the status of the proposals is as it is. I hope that he will accept that I must resist his blandishment to discuss the relative merits of French compensation systems. Certainly, we are keen to ensure that people whose properties are affected by crossrail understand that the Government remain committed to the scheme and will see it happen, but we shall see it happen according to an orderly and sensible timetable that takes account of affordability and of the impact on the streets of London itself.
    Ms Short: Is the Minister aware that crossrail provides the equivalent of 28 lanes of road across London, that it is an enormously valuable project, and that recent reports show that perhaps half its funding could be provided by the private sector? Will he now admit what he has not told the House—that the scheme has been delayed deliberately because, if it went ahead and licences were sought, it might endanger the flotation of Railtrack? Does he agree that the enormous damage being done to London, yet again, is part of the destructive consequences of rail privatisation?
    Mr. Norris: I suspect that the difference between us is that I do not work with that kind of conspiracy theory constantly in my mind. To any objective observer, it is the most absurd notion one can imagine in relation to the flotation of Railtrack. Crossrail is, of course, a large and important scheme, and we remain committed to it. When planning such investments in public transport infrastructure, the key criterion has to be affordability. As I said, I do not expect the Opposition to understand that, but it is how tough and real decisions are made. It is, and has always been, the case that Railtrack will look at crossrail as a private sector entity to take account of the risks and rewards attendant on it, and will respond accordingly. That is entirely right. In addition, it ensures that the financing of crossrail is properly transparent and offers the best possible deal to taxpayers.
    Ms Short: Not true.
    Mr. Norris: I shall ignore what the hon. Lady said from a sedentary position, as that might not be parliamentary, but what I said is patently the case.
    Madam Speaker: It could not have been unparliamentary, or I would have stopped the hon. Lady.

    Fatal Accidents (Roads)
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the latest figures for fatal accidents on roads in England and Wales. [24721]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The provisional figures for 1995 are among the lowest since records began. They show that 3, 319 fatal accidents caused 3, 665 deaths in Great Britain as a whole.
    Mr. Arnold: Nevertheless, my hon. Friend will know that a number of those fatal accidents recently occurred on the stretch of the A2 opposite Gravesend. I thank him for commissioning, in response to my representations, a study of safety on that stretch of road to be carried out by Kent county council, our local highway authority. When can we expect a report?
    Mr. Norris: As my hon. Friend says, he advised me of his particular interest in the A2 scheme in Kent. The Highways Agency is discussing the scope of that study with Kent county council, which is our agent. Although the scheme is dependent on funding, we still expect it to go ahead this financial year.
    Mr. Miller: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Law Commission on its recent report on involuntary manslaughter in so far as it affects death on the road? When can we expect some primary legislation to bring about the important changes that are needed to deal with that difficult area of law?
    Mr. Norris: No, I will not join him in that because I do not think that it would be reasonable to do so before we have a chance to study the report. We acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's genuine interest in the matter. We also accept that penalties across the whole range of traffic offences have their place in discouraging inappropriate behaviour. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have to bear in mind that if unduly severe penalties are related to specific traffic infringements, one of the dangers is that the courts will not press those charges for fear that there might be acquittal. We welcome the report, we shall certainly look at it and we shall come forward with our findings on it in due course.

    Freight
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assistance his Department has given to encourage freight off the roads and on to the railways. [24722]
    Sir Geroge Young: By giving rail freight operators the commercial freedom and incentive to win traffic from road, we are ensuring a bright future for that important industry. We have made good progress with the sale of British Rail's freight businesses. We continue to provide targeted support for the industry through track access grants and freight facilities grant.
    Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recall his recent visit to my constituency, when he opened the new Government-funded railhead at Buxton Lime Industries, which is the largest quarry in Europe? Does he agree that such a combination of privatisation with Government grants and incentives will make it possible for freight to be transferred off the roads and on to railways? Will he assure my constituents that, wherever possible, it will be

    9
    the Government's objective to achieve precisely that, and to stop huge lorries rumbling through small villages that were never intended for such traffic?
    Sir George Young: I recall with affection my recent visit to my hon. Friend's constituency. He was good enough to arrange for me to be transported by a steam train and to be greeted by a brass band on my descent. I must say that that is not a reception that I receive in every constituency that I visit. The grant to which my hon. Friend referred is one of the largest ever awarded to a company. It ensures that the town of Buxton is spared 125 lorry movements a day for at least 10 years. Yes, it is indeed the Government's policy to continue to make grants available in suitable circumstances to win traffic off the road and to put it back on the railways.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State would like to come to Crewe and Nantwich, I could arrange for at least two brass bands to give him a very suitable fanfare, making the right kind of noises. Perhaps he could then explain to my constituents why the Conservative party chairman, having told us all at great length how it was necessary to split the freight system to get competition into the rail system, apparently went to America and handed over vast numbers of assets to a particular American firm, which has insisted that it should have total control? Is that correct, and is it why the Secretary of State received a fanfare when he went to the constituency of the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry)?
    Sir George Young: I am interested in the auction that is developing to see who can provide the most brass bands with which to greet the Transport Secretary. On the suggestion concerning my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), the competition was open, it was comprehensive and I have absolute confidence in its propriety. On the gist of the hon. Lady's comments, Trainload Freight was indeed split into three. We then gave the market an opportunity to decide whether it wanted to bid for it in three parts or in its entirety. It was clear from that competition that the market would prefer to buy it in one go. If one takes the view that real competition comes from road rather than rail, there is much to be said for having one well-resourced, effective provider in the rail industry in order to compete effectively with the road industry.
    Mr. Congdon: Although new investment in the railways is desirable to build additional freight lines, especially as that removes freight from the road on to the railway, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that any proposals do not do so at the expense of the destruction or blight of many houses, as is likely under the proposal by Central Railways?
    Sir George Young: I know how strongly my hon. Friend and other hon. Members feel about the potential impact of the Central Railways Group proposals. He will have seen that I recently refused the application for waivers that was lodged with my Department. The ball is now in the court of the Central Railways Group, which will have to decide whether it will proceed with that proposal.
    Ms Short: Does the Secretary of State agree that, given the projections of congestion, we must get more freight
    10
    on to rail? We are down to just 6 per cent. now. Does he agree that the opening of the channel tunnel gives us a real opportunity to get more freight on to rail because it can travel much greater distances? Is it not, therefore, a tragedy that track access charges have been set so high, to give a high income stream to Railtrack, that we shall not get that expansion? Will the Secretary of State admit that the pathfinder prospectus makes it clear that the opportunities for an increase in freight on rail are limited and, therefore, that the Government have no expectations that we shall get the expansion that we need?
    Sir George Young: I do not think that the hon. Lady does justice to the Government's progress in this matter. We have liberated access to the railways and as a result, two companies, National Power and Direct Rail Services, are now running their own rail freight services under the open access powers in the Railways Act 1993. Since 1979, we have awarded 146 grants with a total value of £100 million at today's prices, securing traffic to rail equivalent to more than 2.5 million lorry journeys per year. I am convinced that, with Wisconsin—an experienced operator, which will bring new ideas, new practices and new successes to rail freight—we shall make further progress in winning traffic back on to the railways and away from the roads.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that only 6 per cent. of freight goes by rail is a crushing indictment of British Rail? Does that not underline the case for privatisation rather than the status quo?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the regime that we are introducing, there is, for the first time, a commercial incentive to win traffic back on to the railways. Wisconsin has that incentive, but that incentive did not, and could never, exist within the nationalised industry. That is why I am confident that the new regime will lead to a reversal of the decline to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

    Railtrack
    Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department will conduct an environmental assessment of Railtrack's recent decision to require staff to use cars rather than trains when travelling to certain business appointments; and if he will make a statement. [24723]
    Mr. Watts: No.
    Mr. Khabra: Railtrack's senior management are considering forcing their staff to switch from the railways to the roads, which will cause more pollution and more congestion on the roads. That is a savage indictment of the operation of Britain's railway system, which talks money while we choke. Britain's roads will become more congested and more polluted. How can Minister—or the Secretary of State, with his well-known commitment to the environment—justify that when rail privatisation is directly causing more pollution and will lead to an increase in traffic on the roads, which will be disastrous?
    Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman should not believe his party's propaganda. There is no change in policy. Just as

    11
    with British Rail, Railtrack's predecessor, there are no specific instructions regarding any mode of travel in preference to another. Railtrack does not require travel by car, but, like any other sensible and well-managed business, it requires its staff to consider cost-effective methods of travel.

    Speed Limits
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the advantages of a statutory 20 mph limit in urban residential areas. [24724]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): Properly constructed 20 mph zones, with "self-enforcing" speed-reducing features such as road humps, have reduced casualties by 56 per cent., and child casualties by 74 per cent., on average.
    Mr. Robathan: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. He will already be aware that the introduction of a 20 mph speed limit is desirable in reducing danger, especially the danger to children playing in the streets. Is he also aware that a recent study has shown that both fuel consumption and vehicle emissions are also reduced by a lower speed limit? Will he therefore look towards replacing the 30 mph speed limit more generally in residential roads, with a standard 20 mph speed limit that might encourage us all to drive a little more slowly and safely?
    Mr. Norris: I understand the logic behind my hon. Friend's point. There is all-party agreement that we have seen the value of 20 mph speed limit zones, about 250 of which are now in place, but, from experience, I am sure that the key to limiting speed is setting the limit at a sensible level that is appropriate to the surrounding conditions. For example, when it is patently obvious that a 20 mph speed limit could safely be exceeded, such a limit is likely to lead to more abuse of the system and less regard for the sensible levels at which speed limits are normally set. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that I greatly welcome his support for the concept, but I believe that the way in which we are introducing a lower speed limit—in selected areas in which it will make a real difference—is right.
    Mr. Flynn: Although the Government and all the others responsible deserve congratulation on the considerable reduction in the number of fatal accidents, especially those involving children, the Minister knows that a car, even if travelling at 20 mph, will fatally injure a child if it is fitted with a bull bar. After hearing representations from his own side, has he changed his mind about my Bull Bars (Prohibition) Bill? Will he now allow it to go through Parliament? Can he tell us when his favourite alternative to that Bill, the European ban, is likely to be enacted, and what percentage of bull bars it will remove?
    Mr. Norris: I have seldom encountered an exercise more cynical than that mounted by the hon. Gentleman in support of his Bill, the contents of which, as I suspect he knew perfectly well, were already entirely covered by the Road Traffic Act 1988. I therefore welcome the opportunity to reiterate the fact that I entirely share his view on the principle that aggressive bull bars are not only unnecessary
    12
    but should be banned. The hon. Gentleman will know that I reported to the House when I had received some proposed wording from the Commission for amending the external projections directive—and that I look forward to being able to agree a suitable form of words with the Commission in the near future, and to ensuring that that is implemented as soon as possible. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is the right way to proceed, rather than trying to use spurious legislation that would add nothing whatever to the United Kingdom's ability to make the change that both he and I wish to bring about.

    London, Tilbury and Southend Line
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made over the privatization of the LTS line. [24725]
    Mr. Watts: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that bids for the LTS franchise were submitted on 17 April.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Minister is aware, Southend is one of the few areas in Britain in which, because of the wholly inadequate service that we have had in recent years, people are looking forward to privatisation. Can he give us some idea of when he expects the new operators to come forward and how they will communicate to the public the benefits that will accrue? Finally, does my hon. Friend see any merit in the idea of holding a public meeting in Southend to enable the new operators to explain their proposals?
    Mr. Watts: The award will be made as quickly as possible; my hon. Friend will have noticed that such matters are processed with considerable speed. In considering proposals, the franchising director will have particular regard to contractual commitments to improve the level and/or quality of service beyond that which he specifies. An approach from my hon. Friend inviting the new franchise operator to attend a public meeting to explain the proposals will probably be welcomed by that operator—although of course I do not yet know his identity.

    Roundabouts (Safety)
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve safety at roundabouts. [24726]
    Mr. Norris: In line with the Government's policy of reducing all road traffic accidents, safety at roundabouts is kept under constant review.
    Mr. French: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in recent years, many roundabouts have been decreased in diameter? Is he conversant with research that shows that, while that may increase the flow of traffic, it also increases the chances of vehicular collision? Will he seriously consider reviewing that policy?
    Mr. Norris: Our research suggests that the number of collisions at roundabouts is declining in line with the reduction in collisions generally. I shall, of course, consider the research to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, but I am satisfied from the evidence that I have seen so far

    13
    that safety at roundabouts is being dealt with as part of an overall road traffic strategy and that no significant safety issues are involved.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister consider the use of mini-roundabouts, which are over-used and often cause more safety problems than did the measures that previously existed at junctions?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman points to the importance of local authorities, which are responsible for such traffic schemes, bearing in mind the most appropriate way of dealing with traffic problems when they plan schemes. I suspect that, in many cases, he is right. The greatest enemy of common sense in such matters is the assumption that a particular method is a panacea, when it patently is not. An array of traffic calming and directing techniques is available. The hon. Gentleman is right—it is important that local authorities should seek the one that fits the circumstance, not a technique that replaces one problem with another.
    Mr. Fabricant: Mini-roundabouts or major roundabouts, will my hon. Friend pay tribute to whoever invented the roundabout? Is he aware that many states in the United States are investing in roundabouts and have renamed them circulatories? Despite the odd name, does not that demonstrate that Britain still leads the way in many things?
    Mr. Norris: No, I am not sure that it does. I can claim neither authorship of the roundabout nor the slightest insight into its lineage. I should not be surprised to find that Roman charioteers worked out how to circumnavigate Gates's corner, but in the absence of positive identification, I fear that I must resist my hon. Friend's blandishments.

    River Thames
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial decisions he has made arising from the work of his Department's working party on the use of the River Thames. [24730]
    Mr. Norris: The River Thames working group was set up to provide advice on ways of maximising the use of the river for transport purposes. I shall consider sympathetically any proposals that may be put to me for furthering that objective.
    Mr. Spearing: Has the working group considered the support of provision and maintenance for piers? Does the Minister agree that that would be a major way of reviving the Thames, which we all want? They would cost less than some recent estimates have suggested and could help with seasonal traffic from Greenwich to Hampton court and the central London riverbus service proposed by Transport on Water. Would not such an investigation be superior to the possible sell-off of the piers proposed by the Port of London Authority?
    Mr. Norris: I thought that the Labour party was in favour of abolishing peers. To revive passenger transport on the Thames, it is important to ensure that people can access the services sensibly and that services call at the places that people want to go to and from. That is one
    14
    of the major inadequacies of the present arrangements. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman understands that the river's meandering route through the capital and its tidal rise and fall make passenger transport on it less viable than we would like. The work that his Transport on Water organisation has done on that is bearing fruit and is being paralleled by, for example, the recent KPMG-London First report that showed that a hopper service for passenger transport on the Thames was practical. I look forward to hearing more about ways in which that can be translated into reality. If that requires support, then, without giving any commitment at this stage, I would certainly be prepared to consider it.

    Road Accidents (Children)
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average number of children (a) killed and (b) seriously injured in road accidents per day in the last three months. [24732]
    Mr. Norris: Despite a 4 per cent. decrease in the last quarter of 1995, compared with the same quarter in 1994, 86 children were killed and some 1, 500 seriously injured; nearly one death and 16 serious injuries a day.
    Mr. Soley: Does the Minister agree that those figures need the widest possible publication? Is not it a fact that the greatest fear for parents when their children walk the streets is not crime, but road accidents, and that that prevents parents from letting their children walk or cycle to school? Is not it high time that we asked ourselves, as a society, whether that is a price worth paying?
    Mr. Norris: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I often reflect on the fact that 10 people are killed on our roads every day. While the fact that the figure is substantially less than the 14 or 15 who were killed seven or eight years ago is welcome, it still represents an appalling loss of life. We have become so used to glossing over it that, whereas one death in other unfortunate circumstances can give rise to reams of media interest, these deaths, which happen every day, particularly the harrowing deaths of children, are almost unremarked. The first lesson that we must draw from that is that 95 per cent. of accidents involve human error. They may be errors by drivers or by pedestrians, but where children are concerned, drivers need to understand that a child will not necessarily have the same understanding of road safety and road speeds as an adult and the need for particular care has to be indoctrinated into drivers in those circumstances. We do not have the best record on child casualties, despite our good record overall, and I am concerned that we should undertake research to find out how we can reduce that dreadful total.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Services of the House (Survey)
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, when he expects the Commission

    15
    to respond to the opinion survey carried out on behalf of the Serjeant at Arms into hon. Members' views on the services of the House. [24746]
    Mr. A. J. Beith: The Commission has not been directly involved in the Serjeant at Arms survey. Any response to the results of the survey will be a matter for the Serjeant in the first instance and for the Domestic Committees in respect of any matters that fall within their areas of responsibility. The Commission is likely to become involved only if Committees recommend significant new expenditure or services.
    Mr. Ainger: I am grateful for the response, but I am sure that the Commission would like to comment on one suggestion that came to light during the survey—that members of the public visiting the two Houses should be charged £5 a head. Hon. Members who regularly conduct people around this place or organise guides would be horrified if they thought that schoolchildren were going to be charged £5 a head.
    I understand that the survey also showed that it is felt that there are great shortcomings in catering for the general public. Will there be any possibility of the Commission dealing with that shortcoming in the near future? I understand that one suggestion is to use part of Westminster Hall to provide at least a cup of tea and a sandwich for members of the public visiting this place.
    Mr. Beith: I understand that the £5 a head suggestion, which has never been considered by the Commission, was merely a report of one of the things said by respondents to the survey. I would not be willing to support such a proposal. As far as possible, the House should make itself available without cost, especially to young people. On catering for members of the public, it is the intention of the House authorities that provision should be made in the new Westminster Hall visitors centre, but the relevant committees have recommended to the Commission that that not be done until alternative provision can be made for staff who use the Westminster Hall cafeteria.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House is extremely well served by the Serjeant and his staff? The only real criticism that one can make is of conducting a survey of that sort, which merely tends to produce crackpot suggestions, create much dissatisfaction and solve no problems whatsoever.
    Mr. Beith: As hon. Members will find if they look at the survey, it revealed a number of services that the Serjeant at Arms would be glad to try to improve, but the staff in the Department will be glad to have the hon. Gentleman's kind words.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman also note that, although a lot of things still need to be put right in the House of Commons, the Serjeant at Arms has one great cross to bear—the fact that there are some fairly intolerable Members of Parliament and, from time to time, some pretty awful staff? The Department deals with that extremely well and quite kindly.
    Mr. Beith: That is not a subject on which the Commission would be wise to comment.

    Child Care Vouchers
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission how many child care vouchers have been issued since their inauguration; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [24747]
    Mr. Beith: There have been 6, 984 child care vouchers issued to 52 employees in the first year of the scheme's operation. The scheme was introduced by the Commission for its staff as part of its policy of equal opportunity employment. The policy was reviewed at the end of March this year, and the views of users and the trade union side were sought as a part of that review. The review's outcome showed that the vast majority of users were satisfied with the scheme, which is meeting their needs by making a wide choice of child care facilities at convenient locations accessible to them. Some suggestions for minor changes in the scheme will be considered by the management.
    Mr. Greenway: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that comprehensive reply. Can he tell us how the Commission views the scheme's future? Does it cover hon. Members, or only staff of the House? Are there sufficient qualified child carers available to meet the possible demand by House staff or those who qualify for the vouchers? It has been suggested that some staff have difficulty finding qualified child minders.
    Mr. Beith: The survey showed that many of our staff are able to find suitable means of using the vouchers and that the vouchers are popular with them. Whether the scheme will be extended to hon. Members' staff will depend partly on hon. Members—who can, if they wish, use the office costs allowance for that purpose—and partly on the Leader of the House and whether there is any demand for an extension of the allowance for that purpose or for the extension of the scheme to the children of hon. Members.

    Members' Dining Room (Staff Conditions)
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what proposals he has to improve the working conditions of staff in the Members' Dining Room. [24749]
    Mr. Beith: The refurbishment of the Refreshment Department, which the House has approved, will lead to improvements of the working conditions of its staff. Work to improve the central kitchen and the dining rooms it serves, which include the Members' Dining Room, is scheduled to commence next year.
    Mrs. Clwyd: That was not quite the answer that I had in mind. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that hon. Members are concerned not only about their pay and conditions but about the pay and conditions of the people who make life more tolerable for us in this place. Will he look into the pay and conditions of the people who serve in the dining rooms—particularly those who work split shifts and do not have adequate rest room facilities? Their rest room facilities have, in fact, got worse.

    17
    I am sure that the new catering manager or manageress is a very efficient person, but the stools at the side of the dining room, which people could use to take the weight off their feet when they were not serving at the table, have been taken away. Many people have to stand for long hours in the dining room without resting their feet. Although the catering manager says that the stools look untidy, I do not think that many hon. Members share that point of view.
    Mr. Beith: The pay and conditions of members of the Refreshment Department staff compare favourably with those of the rest of the catering industry. The conditions in the kitchens, however, have not been ideal, and that is one of the reasons for the substantial refurbishment I have described.
    The other part of the hon. Lady's question relates to a decision taken in 1994 in the Refreshment Department as a matter of day-to-day management. Sitting down during working hours was possible only for staff in the Members' Dining Room. That practice has not been considered by the Commission because it does not raise issues about the general conditions of Refreshment Department staff.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that some members of the Refreshment Department staff are paid more than Members of Parliament?
    Sir Patrick Cormack: And the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Beith: Yes, in respect of Members of Parliament.

  TRANSPORT

    Transport Links (London)
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss alternative options for the Watford-Harrow-central London rail and tube routes with the management teams before Railtrack's privatisation in May 1996. [24735]
    Mr. Norris: London Underground will be giving me a presentation on its proposed Croxley link on 20 May.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In view of the deplorable proposal that the Watford-Euston commuter service should operate every 40 minutes instead of every 20 minutes by the end of this year, which is outrageous and unacceptable to many of my constituents in Harrow, will he give full support to the alternative plans that would link up the tube and the BR lines before privatisation sets everything in concrete and makes it too difficult to go back to that idea? Will he receive, with me, an urgent deputation of the officers of the Harrow Public Transport Users Association to discuss these matters?
    Mr. Norris: I shall certainly see my hon. Friend and a delegation, if he wishes to bring it to me. I am aware of the proposition that the Croxley link should be constructed to feed the Watford services into the Metropolitan line more expeditiously than is currently the case. There is a variety of provision in my hon. Friend's constituency. I accept that it has been suggested that some
    18
    of them could be run more frequently. My hon. Friend should not take the view that the transition of the train operating companies to the private sector will mean that, thereafter, it will be more difficult to effect commonsense service changes which benefit customers. All the evidence that we have underscored, for example the midland main line announcements of substantial service enhancements by National Express, suggests that, under the new regime, it will be infinitely easier for my hon. Friend to obtain the improvements that he wants than it has been for half a century under nationalised British Rail.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Parliamentary Procedures
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Lord President of the Council what new proposals he has to streamline parliamentary procedures. [24751]
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Following the Jopling experiment last Session, the House agreed on 2 November last year to a wide range of Standing Order amendments. I have no further proposals to make at present. If the hon. Gentleman has anything specific in mind, he might like to draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee.
    Mr. Flynn: Was the Lord President present in the Chamber last Wednesday to witness a remarkable and possibly historic event—an hon. Member asking a genuine point of order? As most points of order are found not to be points of order and most business questions are not intended to seek a debate the following week, should not we reorganise our procedures along the lines of those in other Parliaments, which have a zero hour in which Members do not have to go through this rigmarole? While we should avoid the objections to the zero hour in the Indian Parliament to which you have referred, Madam Speaker, it is surely not beyond our wit to have a period of the day in which Members can raise matters of current importance without going through the nonsense of pretending that they are points of order or business questions.
    Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee will read the hon. Gentleman's remarks with interest. After 22 years here, I rather doubt that, whatever new opportunities we create, we shall stop Members of Parliament using the opportunities that they have made for themselves by free enterprise over the years.
    Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is increasingly clear that it is a Herculean task to sustain British interest in the European Union? To that end, will he consider the procedures of this Parliament so that the House of Commons can increasingly add its voice and its votes to guide the Government on our policies in Europe so that, once again, it will be seen that this House speaks for Britain?
    Mr. Newton: As I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware, the Scrutiny Committee is at this moment

    19
    conducting an inquiry into matters of scrutiny here. I am due to give evidence to it tomorrow and I believe that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) will do so some time early next month. I shall confine myself, in response to my right hon. Friend this afternoon, to saying simply that I shall study with interest, as is proper, any conclusions and proposals that it makes in due course.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: To return to the original question on streamlining our procedures, will the Lord President acknowledge that some measures which might not appear at first sight to do so would make our work in Parliament more efficient and effective? I am thinking of measures such as improved pre-legislative consultation and greater use of Special Standing Committees. As there has been so little discussion of such proposals, and as the Jopling reforms have been so much welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, will the Leader of the House tell us what steps he is willing to take to advance our shared interest in making Parliament work more effectively?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady knows, from the many constructive discussions that she and I have had since she has occupied her present position, that I always try to respond constructively to thinking of that kind. As I have said on a number of occasions, in ways that are open to the Government and that are welcome to the Opposition,
    20
    we have manifestly advanced the cause that she has referred to by increasing considerably the publication of Bills in draft form at an early stage—in many cases, even in the Session before we think it may be possible to present them to the House. I shall seek to build on those improvements.
    Mr. Fabricant: Did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity to listen to the Second Reading debate on the Broadcasting Bill? Is he aware that, because of the constraints that you laid down, Madam Speaker, even privy councillors had to limit themselves to speaking for only 10 minutes? I believe that that limit meant that they were able to concentrate their minds better, and that they were able to make concise and precise speeches. Does my right hon. Friend think it worth considering a 10-minutes rule for all debates and, possibly, suspending the House if the debate finishes before the allotted hour? Hon. Members could then be present to vote when the Division was called.
    Mr. Newton: I am not sure whether the idea suggested by my hon. Friend is good. The pressure to speak in debate varies quite significantly, so it is necessary to have some flexibility. I think that the way we do business on Thursdays often enables business to proceed for a shorter time, irrespective of whether many hon. Members want to speak. That is, perhaps, a sensible move in the direction that my hon. Friend is advocating.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY
  That the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Statutory Storage Period for Embryos) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 375) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  Question agreed to.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. John Marshall: Having been challenged by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) to produce a genuine point of order, I should like to do so. Yesterday, I was surprised to read in The Mail on Sunday that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) has a research assistant paid for by Mirror Group Newspapers. I was even more surprised when I looked in the Register of Members's Interests and discovered that that had not been reported. Should it not have been reported? I told the hon. Lady that I would be raising this issue at 3.30 this afternoon. Is it not surprising that a great national newspaper should be engaged in a course of action that might be conceived as buying influence in this place?
Madam Speaker: That is not my concern—my concern is that all hon. Members who receive outside finances report it correctly. I am sure that the hon. Member for Redcar will now do so, as the hon. Gentleman has reminded her of it.
Mr. Piers Merchant: Further to that point of order—
Madam Speaker: Order. There is no further point of order. Hon. Members have four weeks in which to report such information, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will take the necessary action. That matter has now been dealt with.

Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, Etc) Bill
  Considered in Committee
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): I ask all hon. Members who wish to take part in the debates to take note on the selection list of the sub-headings associated with all the amendments. These are for the guidance of hon. Members. I say again that Second Reading speeches are not acceptable when we are dealing with specific amendments.

  Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, Etc) Bill
    Clause 1

      THE ELECTIONS
      3.33 pm
      Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 99, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out 'providing' and insert 'electing'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 98, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, after 'delegates', insert 'to a forum'.
      No. 97, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out 'may' insert 'shall'.
      No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert
      'and to create a forum constituted by those delegates'.
      No. 109, in clause 2, clause 2, page 1, line 15, after 'returned', insert 'to the forum'.
      No. 129, in clause 8, clause 8, page 3, line 24, after 'Ireland' insert 'forum'.
      No. 10, in clause 8, page 3, line 24, after 'Negotiations', insert 'and Creation of Forum'.
      Mr. Ross: Mr. Morris, I compliment you on this new method of setting out the clauses and the groupings of amendments. It seems to make the purpose of the various groups of amendments clearer than has been the case in the past. We now have some idea of how the Chair views the groups of amendments that are put down. I think that you would agree with me that this will make the debate not only easier to follow but also much clearer to the participants and to people outside.
      As will be evident to the Committee, the small amendments standing in my name amount to a simple, straightforward tidying-up operation, intended to make the clause rather clearer than has been the case after defective drafting in the first instance.
      All we ask is that an election shall be held in Northern Ireland, not for the purpose of providing delegates, but for the purpose of electing delegates—because that is what will happen. We shall hold an election, we shall elect people to act on this body, and it seems reasonable that we should say that we are electing them and what we intend to elect them to. Amendment No. 99 deals with that point. It says that we are electing delegates to a forum, and asks that the participants in the negotiations shall be drawn from the participants in that forum.
      24
      It appears to me—I believe that it would appear to any reasonable person—that, if we intend to elect individuals to a forum, if we intend to ask people to negotiate on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland, regardless of whether they are of the age of election, they should be the choice of the people, not of some individual.
      All that we seek in this small group of amendments is to ensure that the elected delegates shall provide not only the members of the forum, but the negotiators. How on earth could a person who was not elected, had not put himself before the electorate and had not had votes cast for him and for his party, claim to speak for the population?
      The Minister should agree that this is a simple, straightforward change; I would be hard put to it to understand how the Government could resist what we are asking for in this group of tidying-up amendments. I shall listen with great interest to the Minister saying on behalf of the Government that they are happy to accept them. They are so reasonable, fair and sensible that no reasonable man or woman could reject them.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: Amendments Nos. 97, 98 and 99, placed on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), are very similar in content to amendment No. 1, which has been grouped with them. Therefore, I join the hon. Gentleman in making a plea to Government to accept that there is much to be tidied up in the Bill.
      We accept that the Government were under the whip of the IRA in producing this legislation at the speed they did, because the IRA had told them that they had to specify a date for negotiations to start. They bound themselves to 10 June 1996, so they had to concertina everything to meet the IRA's deadline. That has resulted in some fairly loose and shabby wording in the Bill, which it is a task of this Committee to encourage the Government to tidy up.
      The changes suggested by the amendments in the group will not have a major impact, but a basic principle underlies them—that of consent. In the view of my colleagues, the principle of consent is central to the negotiation process, and that consent can be tested by the electoral process, which is designated in the Bill and which permits the testing of the support that can be gained for any proposition.
      Therefore, a central feature of the Bill is to provide for elections—not simply for negotiators—and a forum that will be the testing ground for any proposition. That feature is so central and fundamental to the principle of the Bill that it should not be excluded from the purpose as designated in clause 1(1). I am sure that the Secretary of State will accept that it is reasonable to include in the clause an amendment which creates a forum constituted by the delegates who are elected under the auspices of the Bill.
      The Committee will note that the hon. Member for East Londonderry and I have not attempted to lengthen the proceedings on matters that are not critical to the Bill. We are simply stating our case, and, in so doing, trusting that the Government will recognise that they should not impose the guillotine: they should allow us to deal with substantial matters of amendment in greater detail. There should be no attempt to cut short a debate that is not only necessary, but, as I think that the Secretary of State will recognise, of value to the Government if they accept the arguments that will be advanced.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: I add my support for the amendments standing in the names of the

      25
      hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). The function of the Bill is to provide an electoral process, which is an essential insignia or indicia of democracy. The legislation is not intended to provide the means of furnishing negotiators for the purposes of entering into discussions about the possible settlement of Northern Ireland's future problems.
      It is worth emphasising that the process seeks to find out what the people of Northern Ireland want: both with regard to those who will represent them in any negotiations and as an indication of support for parties with particular views. That is part of the democratic process, and it is emphasised by the amendments.
      Mr. David Trimble: I support the amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I believe that his amendments are eminently sensible, and simply state the purpose of the legislation more accurately than the existing clause 1. It is accurate so far as it goes, but it is not a complete statement of what is in the legislation. I think that it would be better to have a more accurate statement by pointing out that elections will take place for the purpose of electing a forum from which the delegates shall be drawn—that is the effect of my hon. Friend's amendment.
      That characteristic of accuracy applies particularly to amendment No. 97. The Secretary of State will appreciate its accuracy if he refers to clause 2(2), which obliges the Secretary of State to invite delegates to participate in negotiations "from among those delegates"—that is, from among the delegates who are returned to the forum. Therefore, my hon. Friend's substitution of "shall" for "may" is absolutely accurate: the use of the word "may" is inaccurate, because it suggests that there is discretion, which clause 2(2) rules out.
      In the interests of accuracy, the Government must accept amendment No. 97. They may not be in a position to do so today, as they may need time to think about it. However, upon reflection, I believe that the Government will realise that my hon. Friend is absolutely correct—and I suggest that he is equally correct about amendments Nos. 98 and 99.
      3.45 pm
      The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and other hon. Members for the clarity with which the hon. Gentleman moved and the others supported the amendments. It is worth reminding ourselves that it is of central importance to the Bill that there shall be an election. The Bill is entitled "Entry to Negotiations", and, as I have said rather frequently, elections are a gateway to those negotiations. They are an important gateway—indeed, the only practicable one.
      Amendments Nos. 99, 98 and 97 would change clause 1(1) to read:
      "Elections shall be held in Northern Ireland for the purpose of"
      electing
      "delegates"
      to a forum
      "from among whom participants in negotiations"
      Shall
      "be drawn."
      26
      The points that have been made about amendment No. 99, as I understand them, have claimed that to change the word "electing" to "providing" would be a matter of accuracy. The scheme of the Bill is that parties should be elected and not individuals, although the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) has just made the point that clause 2(2) refers to the Secretary of State inviting
      "the nominating representative of each party for which delegates have been returned"
      to the forum
      "in accordance with Schedule 1 to nominate, from among those delegates, a team".
      The hon. and learned Member made that point in relation to amendment No. 97, which seeks to substitute "shall" for "may".
      Amendment No. 98 would effectively establish the forum as the parent body of the negotiations. The forum would be conceptually intermediate between the elections and the negotiations. The amendment ties in with later amendments that would increase the involvement of the forum in the negotiating process, and would—as no doubt hon. Members will later argue should be done—insert the name of the forum into the title of the Bill.
      There is a problem with "shall" and "may", and I understand the reason behind the amendment. Although it is not the intention of the hon. Member for East Londonderry, the substitution of obligatory for permissive language might be taken to work in the opposite direction to clause 2(3), which provides for the exclusion of delegates—for example, from Sinn Fein—in certain circumstances. Amendment No. 97 might suggest that participants in negotiation should come only from the delegates constituting the forum. That may be designed to exclude the possibility of unsuccessful parties having a seat in negotiations as observers, but it would also exclude the Government delegation, on one interpretation.
      Amendment No. 1, which was moved by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), would add to clause 1, as a second purpose of the election—in addition to providing delegates from whom negotiating teams are drawn—
      "and to create a forum constituted by those delegates".
      The forum would then rank on a par with the negotiations.
      One is here concerned with striking a presentational balance. All of us who have been involved with the subject for a long time know that we are dealing with a scene that is fraught with suspicion and fears, and, certainly, inspired by hopes. The hope is that we will come through to a process of negotiations that will lead ultimately to a comprehensive settlement, based upon consent. The fears are mutually opposed.
      Unionists fear that it is a nationalist intention that, somehow or other, decommissioning of arms shall be postponed almost out of sight in the negotiations; nationalists fear that it is a Unionist intention that the forum shall in some way become a kind of proto-Stormont, to control the negotiations and lead by that route to a restoration of majoritarian rule. Each of those fears is strongly denied by the other side, but that is the conflict of suspicion and fear we face.
      The Government therefore feel that it has been important to strike a balance whereby the true purpose of the legislation is set out, as it is in the long title of the Bill. It is a Bill to

      27
      "Make provision for elections in Northern Ireland for the purpose of providing delegates from among whom participants in negotiations may be drawn; for a forum constituted by those delegates; for referendums in Northern Ireland; and for connected purposes."
      Rev. Ian Paisley: In using the words "may be drawn", is the Secretary of State referring to delegates from the two Governments alone, or is he now suggesting that negotiators may come from parties that are not elected to the forum?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: No. The Bill provides for the forum to be composed of those who are returned as members of the parties that have been elected. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, under the Bill, members will be elected after the parties have provided lists of those who will represent them.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: That was not my point. We know that the forum will be elected, but I was always under the impression in all our negotiations with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the negotiators for the parties would be drawn from the forum alone. The right hon. and learned Gentleman now talks of the Government delegations not being elected. I understand that; I am asking whether the phrase "may be drawn" in the Bill refers only to negotiating delegates.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew:Yes, it does. There is no obligation for a nominating representative to submit a list, so the phrase is not "shall be drawn", but the wording does mean that those who will comprise the forum will be those who have been returned in the way specified in the Bill.
      Mr. William Ross:The right hon. and learned Gentleman will eventually have to decide how many persons will be in each negotiating team. He will be aware of press speculation—I put it no higher than that—that there is to be a team of three, with three back-up members. How will he secure those six people if the individual parties do not manage to get at least six elected to the forum? Like everyone in Northern Ireland, he is well aware that there are parties that may well be elected on the regional list—where there can be a maximum of two—but will not be able to get anyone elected under the system that has been designed for the parties in the constituencies.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew:The provision is for up to three members, but it will be up to the parties to decide how many members they want. I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's question.
      For reasons that I have tried to explain, I am anxious for us not to elevate the scope and intention of the forum beyond that which, in my view and that of the Government, is appropriate to maintaining the balance that I have described.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: The Secretary of State mentioned the introduction to the Bill, which, of course, shows its purpose. That is defined as providing for elections for the purpose of providing delegates for negotiations, and it is stated that the Bill also provides for a forum. However, the clause deals with the purpose of the election, not the Bill's purpose, and that purpose is clear.
      28
      First, it is clearly to provide negotiators for the process about which the Secretary of State has spoken. It is equally clear that the purpose of the election is to create a forum in which those delegates will be present. That is outlined later in the Bill. As the purpose of the election is clear, I do not understand why the Secretary of State should be shy about placing that within the clause.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I understand the way in which the hon. Gentleman puts the matter. Clause 3(1) states:
      "The delegates returned in accordance with Schedule 1 shall constitute a forum".
      That will be the consequence of the election, which will be of parties.
      I shall ask the Committee to resist the amendments, whose consequence could be to elevate the function of the forum and the purpose of the election beyond what I have sought to describe. I appreciate that it is a matter of judgment and I do not say that the amendments would affect the legal consequences of the provisions. However, as everyone who has studied these matters knows, I have to have regard to impression and presentation. I shall not extend my reply, because to do that would be to reiterate what I have said. For the reasons that I have given, I invite the Committee to resist the amendments.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that, if the elections are seen as some sort of procedural fraud, having no merit in themselves except, as it were, like mayflies to fertilise negotiators and then sink back into the primaeval ooze, many people in Northern Ireland will say, "This whole business is just a procedural fraud, in which democratic procedures are being used to give a veneer of respectability to the effecting of a political purpose that has little or nothing to do with democracy"?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. and learned Gentleman and I have discussed this, and I have sought to reassure him that it will not be a single outing for a mayfly during which it can spread its gauzy wings. The forum will continue, with an important role, and the Bill sets out its purposes. It will continue for at least a year. I think that that is a sufficient answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's fears.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I greatly regret that the Secretary of State is not prepared to discuss this matter in depth. I am sure that we all started the debate with a great deal of good will, but if, at the beginning of the debate, we repeat points that have been put to him and the Secretary of State says, "I ask the Committee to resist the amendments and I shall make no further comment, " Northern Ireland Members may as well pack up and go home. I have been here for 26 years and I know that it is unusual at the early stage of a Bill for a Minister to say, "I ask the Committee to resist the amendments, and I am not prepared to answer the arguments."
      Unionists as well as nationalists have fears. We have been bombarded by Dublin with vicious, unfair and scurrilous attacks on the idea of a forum and an election. There are people in Northern Ireland who will ask why, in the first stage of the Committee's consideration of the Bill, the Secretary of State cannot accept these amendments—which he accepts will not legally change

      29
      anything about the forum—to let Northern Ireland's people know that people are being elected to a forum that will represent the wish of the electorate in Northern Ireland, and that they will express the wish of the electorate. They will be widely drawn.
      4 pm
      I have been told by other hon. Members that this is a great thing, that it is an innovation, and that, for the first time, we will have people at a forum who never in all their days dreamed that they could get there. When they do so, the Secretary of State seems to be afraid that they might be elevated to some place of pre-eminence above the negotiators, but if the negotiators are drawn largely from the forum—we know today that they will not all be drawn from the forum, that the Government representatives will not be elected, and that other people, who will probably even be defeated candidates wiped out at the general poll, will be nominated with the two delegates from parties that come in the first 10—surely the Secretary of State has nothing to fear from the wide spectrum from which the negotiators are to come. He seems to be afraid of the Unionists, and perhaps he is right, because the Unionist vote might surprise him and the Committee.
      Mr. Jim Dowd: I should like to make just a few points. We have much ground to cover in the next couple of days, so I shall not detain the Committee for too long.
      This Bill is unprecedented. I do not think there are any precedents—there is certainly none in British history—that we can draw on to discover the substance of the arguments before us. There are no models to which we can readily draw to find out how this was done previously. We are breaking new ground, as much of the discussion and many of the points that have been raised so far on these amendments demonstrate.
      The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that these things are matters of judgment. I make it plain that we, the official Opposition, fully support his judgment about the amendments. When the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) introduced them, I was trying to see the look on his face to see whether he was not being somewhat tongue in cheek in describing them as a mere tidying-up exercise. To put it at its mildest, they are much more than that.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), speaking immediately after him, rightly said that matters of principle were involved in relation to what the amendments seek to achieve. There is no doubt that many principles are involved in all the proposals. Some are valid, and some are not. All are important, but some are more important than others.
      The reason why we support the Government's view on this is that we think that the amendments give an unnecessary preference and priority to the work of the forum, which, after all, has a whole clause devoted to it later in the Bill. Clause 3 goes into some detail about the forum's work and purposes, but the amendments give the forum a precedence that, to paraphrase the Secretary of State, would be unhelpful, in that it would confer no advantage in trying to take this process forward.
      The process is about electing parties. Hon. Members mention those who will be elected by Northern Ireland's people in the elections in the near future and who will speak as their elected representatives. That is a valid dimension, but it is not by any means the sole purpose.
      30
      The purpose of the Bill is essentially a functional one. There are no deeply entrenched principles about how it should work, other than that it should work. It is a mechanism to draw together parties that would not otherwise be together and to try to engage in dialogue and understanding that has not obviously been evident in the past.
      I have to say to those hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, and those who will represent the people of Northern Ireland in the body that is to be set up, that they will also carry with them the profound hopes of many millions of their fellow citizens in the United Kingdom and from much wider afield, who will have no vote in the election but who wish all its participants well. We are considering nothing less than an integral part of the earnest search for a just and durable settlement, for the benefit of the people not only of Northern Ireland but throughout the UK, Ireland and further afield. We hope that all those taking part will bear that in mind.
      The forum is an adjunct to the main purpose of the Bill. It will, as the Secretary of State says, have much valuable work to do, but the Bill is about far more than elections to a forum. We have high hopes of it. The road ahead—the clichés stream effortlessly—
      Mr. Robert McCartney: I entirely endorse the lofty sentiments that the hon. Gentleman expresses about the future for peace, but is he aware that, if the Government and the Opposition push ramstam and wholly ignore the views of the representatives of a significant number of people—I am perhaps talking about "a" majority, not "the" majority of the people in Northern Ireland—the lofty objectives—
      The Chairman: Order. I made it clear at the beginning that hon. Members must stick to the amendments.
      Mr. Dowd: I—
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) wishes to carry the people of Northern Ireland with him, but saying that the forum is an adjunct to the negotiating body is like telling the people of Northern Ireland that they can elect a Parliament but that that Parliament does not matter—only the Government matter.
      Mr. Dowd: I was somewhat depressed by the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) when he said that he might consider abandoning the procedures here today if he felt that he was not making sufficient progress. That would be a loss to our deliberations, although I suspect that it is not entirely unprecedented that he should consider such a course.
      We are not debating a Parliament. We have to make it perfectly clear that we are not electing a Parliament. The Bill is about parties; it is about trying to bring together parties and the individuals who comprise them to describe a way ahead. The parallels with a Parliament or a wholly representative assembly, whether at the local or national level, are not accurate. This is very much a mechanism, or a means to an end.
      Clearly we need to have due regard to democratic principles and practices. In response to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney),

      31
      the Committee of course has to have due regard to the opinions and voices not only of Northern Ireland but of the communities that make up the United Kingdom. However, nobody has the right to demand that that take precedence over the judgment of every Member of this House. Every hon. Member has a duty to try to give due weight to what is said by others on behalf of their constituents; but, ultimately, the right to decide rests with every individual, according to the evidence and his best judgment.
      As I said, we realise that there are many obstacles, and many things that need to happen. It only needs one or two of those things not to happen for the whole process to come juddering to a halt. However, we set out on this course, if not with optimism, with hope. We sincerely hope that all those taking part in the deliberations—in the forum, in the negotiations and in the plethora of other unofficial organisations that are the inevitable spin-offs of such processes—will genuinely set out to make that process work on behalf of the people not only of Northern Ireland but of a much wider constituency.
      Mr. William Ross: I have listened to the two Front-Bench speeches with increasing depression. We were told that the Opposition Front-Bench team supported the Government's judgment. In heaven's name, I have been in this place for 22 years, and I can think of very few occasions on which I have heard the Labour Front-Bench team support the judgment of the Conservative Front-Bench team. So what has changed? What wonderful act have the Government made on this occasion so that Labour—
      Mr. Trimble: New Labour.
      Mr. Ross: New Labour has got to the point where it is swiping not only the Conservatives' social and economic clothing, but every other thing it can to make certain that, whenever the election comes, it is so much like the Conservative party that it will not be possible to distinguish between them.
      Mr. Dowd: The hon. Gentleman asked what is different on this occasion. On this occasion, the Government have come forward with a credible explanation for their position, which has been lacking in so much of the rest of their policies.
      Mr. Ross: In those remarks, the hon. Gentleman threw away the principal job of the Opposition: to probe, criticise and expose to the light of day exactly what the Government are trying to do. The Opposition Front-Bench team is very far wrong in its judgment, because it is following the Government's judgment of the matter, which is, of course, so far away from reality that it does not bear thinking about.
      In addition, the hon. Gentleman said that there were principles in the amendments and the Bill. The principles in the amendments are founded on normal democratic practice, and the principles in the Bill run directly counter to normal democratic practice. No one can deny that.
      The Secretary of State said that they had to guard against elevating the forum. In other words, he was saying that we must elect a body in Northern Ireland and then
      32
      bypass it as far as possible. He said that there would be much valuable work for the forum to do, but he has not yet specified it. I hope that, before these debates are finished, he will be able to specify it. I have tabled a number of very sensible amendments, some of which I hope will appear on the selection list tomorrow, so that we may explore matters in the depth they deserve, because there is much that the people of Northern Ireland would like to know.
      The Secretary of State also talked about the Government delegation. Surely he meant the two Government delegations. He carefully avoided mentioning the second one. He went further and talked about the forum as a "gateway." It is, of course, a gateway to which all the nationalist parties object. Why anyone in their right senses would want to object to a forum that is democratically elected, heaven only knows—unless they have something to fear or hide.
      The nationalist parties, and even the most violent republican parties, just wanted negotiations. They have already managed to get a non-conditional date of 10 June. The timetable, the whole process, is therefore tied to that date. The date was apparently extracted from the Government—whether willingly or otherwise, we have not yet been told—by Mr. Bruton, or so he says in the newspaper articles that I have read. Since we on this Bench happen to believe that this Mr. Bruton is acting as a spokesman for the IRA—
      The Chairman: Order. I have some difficulty relating a newspaper article to the very specific amendment that the hon. Gentleman moved with great lucidity. He seems to have drifted away from it a little. Could we return to the amendment?
      Mr. Ross: With the greatest respect, Mr. Morris, both Governments are involved. I was referring to the specific date of 10 June, which is written into all the proposed legislation. Although I bow to your judgment, it seems that, if I was out of order, it was by such a teeny-weeny bit that it could have easily been passed by. I regret the fact that you judge that my comments are far from the matters under discussion. No doubt, however, it will be possible to return to those points.
      We are setting out to elect people to a forum that will have purposes that have not yet been specified and have not been clearly spelt out on the face of the Bill or in any other documentation. We are told by opposition parties in Northern Ireland that the intention is to limit the forum as much as is humanly possible—in fact, to hamstring it, so that it has no influence, and so that the elections have no influence, on the negotiating positions of the parties. The people of Northern Ireland will be surprised to learn that, because most of them do not yet understand what is being said.
      4.15 pm
      The Secretary of State also complained about the suggestion of using the word "shall" in place of the word "may." However, if he looks at the end of line 13, he will see that the Bill uses the word "shall". I wonder why the Secretary of State should use the word in one place and object so strenuously to it in another. The word "shall" places responsibility on him. Surely he should make it his business to accept our reasonable amendments.

      33
      The Secretary of State said that he was trying to strike a balance. In striking that balance, he has produced legislation that is so woolly that it can mean all things to all men. Given the long record of Government publications that could mean all things to all men, he cannot be surprised if people treat his words and the legislation with the most extreme suspicion.
      The Government have been in office for a long time. The Unionist population have not seen anything done by the Government over the years which has helped the Unionist position. They have every reason to view the Government's words and legislation with great suspicion, not least because of the article, which I am sure the Secretary of State has had drawn to his attention, that was published in The Observer yesterday.
      I also refer the Secretary of State back to November 1993, when he made certain denials in the House. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) found himself thrown out for accusations he made. Will the Secretary of State now stand by his statements on that occasion?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew indicated assent.
      Mr. Ross: I see the right hon. and learned Gentleman nodding. No doubt he will now rise to his feet. However, he will have the greatest difficulty in convincing anyone in Northern Ireland of the accuracy of any statement he may care to make on that subject, today or in future. Over the years, he and the Government have put themselves in a position whereby every single word and act of theirs is treated with the gravest suspicion. That suspicion, in the eyes of the people of Northern Ireland, has a solid foundation.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman mentioned my name. Does he agree that it is a rarity for Labour Front-Bench Members to talk about my leaving meetings when they voted me out of the House because I spoke the truth?
      Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman's words will no doubt be heard by Labour Front-Bench Members, and I hope that they will be heard by a wider public. In all truth, people should go back and read the events of 29 November 1993. If the Secretary of State disagrees with some of the things that are being said in the book that is to be published on Wednesday, and if he disagrees with what was in The Observer yesterday, he will no doubt take the appropriate action.
      I believe that this legislation has been produced as a smokescreen to provide a gloss of democracy on decisions that have already been taken. I believe that, regardless of what the forum says, regardless of what the greater number in Northern Ireland say, and regardless of the views of the people of Northern Ireland, we shall see the Government trying to impose on Northern Ireland the framework document mark II. That is the reality. [Interruption.] If it is not, it is certainly the reality of the situation as seen by Dublin. We read with considerable care the statements that emanate from there. The Dublin Government are now clearly the joint rulers of Northern Ireland.
      In the light of that, despite my grave disappointment in what the Secretary of State has said hitherto, and despite the suspicion with which I view him, I shall continue to listen to what he says; but my judgment will be made not
      34
      on his words but on the whole generality of the evidence available to the Unionist population of Northern Ireland in the coming days and weeks.
      As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so anxious to move forward, and unwilling to accept the reasonable changes suggested in our amendment, I am willing to withdraw it for now, but perhaps we may return to the subject on a future occasion. Whether the hon. Member for North Antrim shares my view, and what he intends to do about his party's amendment, is a matter for him.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: We are off to a dismal and depressing start, as the Government crank up their bulldozer to push their measure through the House virtually, if not entirely, unchanged. There are two elements in the group of amendments before us, of which one set was tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), and the other is in my name.
      The Secretary of State raised some technical objections to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry, but he raised no such technical objections to my amendment; he simply relied on his judgment—a judgment on which not only he relies, because it now appears that the Opposition too, rely on it. That may cause them some embarrassment in the future, and we shall then be able to remind them how wise their judgment was.
      In reality, the Secretary of State's sole reason for not accepting our reasonable amendment is the fact that he wants to upgrade the negotiating part of the process and downgrade the forum. It is therefore clear that those elected to the forum will be second-class citizens to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He is rendering much less meaningful the role of the forum in the whole process—a fact that will emerge from subsequent clauses, too.
      It has to be said that clearly underlying the process is the fact that the IRA whipped the Government into line concerning the date by which the process had to be under way. Not only have the Government obviously obeyed that whip, by introducing the legislation with such haste, but now we see them again toeing the IRA's line: the IRA has openly demanded that the forum be downgraded, and the Government answer the IRA's call, under threat of IRA violence. That gives a very unpleasant picture of the retreat that the Government are enacting.
      I am not prepared to refrain from pressing amendment No. 1. It is so reasonable that the Government should be ashamed of not accepting it, and I hope that no Member will shame himself or herself by voting against it.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert
      'and to create a forum constituted by those delegates'.—[Mr. Peter Robinson.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 217.

      Division No. 101]

      [16.23 pm

      AYES

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Trimble, David

      Hoey, Kate

      McCartney, Robert

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

      Mr. Peter Robinson and

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Rev. Ian Paisley.

      35

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Gill, Christopher

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Gorst, Sir John

      Ashby, David

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Hain, Peter

      Bames, Harry

      Hannam, Sir John

      Benton, Joe

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Betts, Clive

      Harris, David

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Harvey, Nick

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hawkins, Nick

      Booth, Hartley

      Hawksley, Warren

      Boswell, Tim

      Heald, Oliver

      Bowis, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Henderson, Doug

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hendron, Dr Joe

      Brazier, Julian

      Hendry, Charles

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Burns, Simon

      Hume, John

      Burt, Alistair

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Butler, Peter

      Hunter, Andrew

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hutton, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Illsley, Eric

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Carrington, Matthew

      Jessel, Toby

      Cash, William

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Chidgey, David

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Coe, Sebastian

      Khabra, Piara S

      Congdon, David

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Conway, Derek

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Couchman, James

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Cran, James

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Legg, Barry

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Dover, Den

      Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

      Dowd, Jim

      Lidington, David

      Duncan, Alan

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Dunn, Bob

      Lord, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Luff, Peter

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      McGrady, Eddie

      Faber, David

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fishburn, Dudley

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Flynn, Paul

      Madden, Max

      Forman, Nigel

      Maddock, Diana

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Malone, Gerald

      Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Marlow, Tony

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      French, Douglas

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gapes, Mike

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Merchant, Piers

      Garnier, Edward

      Michael, Alun

      36

      Miller, Andrew

      Steen, Anthony

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Stott, Roger

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Streeter, Gary

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Sykes, John

      Murphy, Paul

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Norris, Steve

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Paice, James

      Tracey, Richard

      Pawsey, James

      Twinn, Dr lan

      Pickles, Eric

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Pike, Peter L

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Pope, Greg

      Waller, Gary

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Watts, John

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Whitney, Ray

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Whittingdale, John

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Willetts, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wilshire, David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wood, Timothy

      Spearing, Nigel

      Worthington, Tony

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Yeo, Tim

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Spring, Richard

      Sproat, Iain

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Mr. Richard Ottaway and

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mr. Roger Knapman.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      THE NEGOTIATIONS
      Mr. David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 136, in page 1, line 11, leave out from 'in' to end of line 12 and insert
      'Schedule (Ground Rules for All Party Negotiations), which shall have effect for the purposes of those negotiations.'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Amendment No. 137, in page 1, line 20, leave out 'Command Paper 3232' and insert
      'Schedule (Ground Rules for All Party Negotiations) '.
      New schedule 1—Ground rules for substantive all-party negotiations: The basis, participation, structure, format and agenda of all-party negotiations—
      1. The purpose of the negotiations shall be to achieve a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands, and to agree new institutions and structures to take account of the totality of relationships.
      2. The negotiations shall, in a full and comprehensive fashion, address and seek to reach agreement on relationships and arrangements within Northern Ireland, including the relationship between any new institutions there and the Westminster Parliament; within the whole island of Ireland; and between the two Governments, including their relationship with any new institutions in Northern Ireland.
      3. (1) Any participant in the strand in question shall be free to raise any aspect of the three relationships, including constitutional issues and any other matter which it considers relevant;

      (2). No outcome shall either be predetermined or excluded in advance; and

      (3). Participation in negotiations shall be without prejudice to any participant's commitment to the achievement by exclusively peaceful and democratic means of its own preferred options.

      4.(1) The negotiations shall be structured so as to ensure that all issues will be addressed in a coherent and efficient manner in three interlocking strands, reflecting the three key relationships at issue, with appropriate distinctions as to participation and procedural arrangements.

      (2) Strand One shall cover relationships within Northern Ireland; Strand Two shall cover relationships within the island of Ireland; and Strand Three shall cover relationships between the British and Irish Governments.

      5. If appropriate, committees and sub-committees may be established.
      6. (1) The conduct of the negotiations shall be exclusively a matter for those involved in the negotiations.
      (2) Any reference to, or interaction with, the forum to be convened following the elective process held to determine which parties may participate in the negotiations may take place solely by agreement among the negotiating teams to this effect and only at their formal instigation.
      7. Negotiations shall involve the participation, in the appropriate strands, of representatives of both Governments and all those political parties operating in Northern Ireland (hereafter referred to as "the political parties") which achieve representation through an elective process and which, establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process.
      8. The participation in negotiations by any party shall require the unequivocal and permanent renunciation of violence.
      9. (1) There shall be no limit on the overall size of the negotiating teams of the political parties and the two Governments (hereafter collectively referred to as "the participants").
      (2) Notwithstanding subparagraph (I) or any one meeting, unless there is agreement otherwise, participants shall be limited to teams of three, plus three in support (five in support in the case of the two Governments).
      10. The negotiating team of each political party shall be designated by the party chairman or leader from among the elected representatives and such teams may be supported in meetings by researchers and others who are not elected.
      11. (1) Negotiations shall begin on Monday 10 June 1996 with an opening plenary session involving all the participants in the negotiations.
      (2) Each delegation shall have the opportunity to make an opening statement setting out its approach to the negotiations and its position on key issues.
      12. (1) The agenda shall have as its first item confidence building issues including permanently renouncing the use of violence, the decommissioning of all illegally held weapons and explosives and the total and absolute commitment to the six principles in paragraph 20 of the Report of the International Body dated 22 January 1996.

      (2). Provided agreement is reached on the first item, the opening plenary session shall also adopt, and commit the participants to negotiate, a comprehensive agenda which provides reassurance, both in terms of agreeing to the report of the International Body and ensuring that a meaningful and inclusive process of negotiations is genuinely being offered.

      (3). This agenda shall include all the significant items which the various negotiating teams consider relevant.

      38

      (4) The plenary session shall also decide how to deal with any procedural issues which may require resolution in the negotiations.

      13. (1) The structure and process of the negotiations shall be used in the most constructive possible manner in the search for agreement.
      (2) Both governments shall therefore use their influence in the appropriate strands to ensure that all items on the comprehensive agenda are fully addressed in the negotiating process and shall commit themselves, for their part, to doing so with a view to overcoming any obstacles which may arise.
      14. (1) All participants in the negotiations shall take part in good faith, shall seriously address all aspects of the agreed agenda, and shall make every effort to reach agreement.
      (2) They will maintain confidentiality on all aspects of the negotiations except where they may from time to time agree to publicity.
      15. If, during the negotiations, any party demonstrably dishonours its commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the report of the International Body by, for example, resorting to force or threatening the use of force to influence the course or the outcome of the negotiations, or failing to oppose the efforts of others to do so, it shall no longer be entitled to participate in the negotiations.
      16. (1) Negotiations shall address all three interlocking sets of relationships as a totality.

      (2). Negotiations in each of the three interlocking strands shall open on the same day and will proceed in parallel.

      (3). Unless otherwise agreed by the Business Committee, negotiating sessions in different strands, or within strands, shall not be held simultaneously in order to allow participants, if they so wish, the option of fielding the same negotiating team throughout the negotiations.

      17. (1) Negotiations on Strand One issues shall involve the British Government and the political parties.

      (2). Negotiations shall take place on the basis of an agreed agenda and in appropriate formations as agreed by the participants.

      (3). Formal meetings shall be chaired by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom operating procedural rules, agreed by the participants.

      (4). The Irish Government shall be kept informed of the progress achieved in Strand One through liaison arrangements agreed between the two Governments following consultation with the parties.

      18. (1) Negotiations on Strand Two issues shall involve both the British and Irish Governments and the political parties.

      (2). Negotiations shall take place on the basis of an agreed agenda and in appropriate formations as agreed by the participants.

      (3). Formal meetings shall be chaired by an independent Chairperson operating procedural rules, agreed by the participants.

      19. (1) Negotiations on Strand Three issues shall be between the two Governments.
      (2) With a view to providing a meaningful role for the political parties, the two Governments shall, during the course of their negotiations:

      (i) (ensure regular meetings at which the political parties shall be briefed and, as appropriate, consulted on progress in the negotiations, and at which they shall be able to put forward their views on Strand Three issues under discussion; and

      (ii). meet the political parties at their request for further discussion of Strand Three issues.

      (3) The outcome of Strand Three shall be considered by all the participants alongside the outcome of the other two strands.
      20. (1) The management of each strand shall be for the participants.

      (2) Notwithstanding subparagraph (1) above, a Business Committee composed of representatives of Her Majesty's Government in the UK and of the political parties, chaired by the independent Chairman of Strand Two or, otherwise, by any person agreed by the participants, shall be established to co-ordinate the progress and the procedures of the negotiations.

      (3). The Business Committee shall not deal with the substance of the negotiations but shall address unresolved procedural issues.

      (4). The Committee may also determine the modalities for dealing with any issue which does not fall exclusively within any of the three strands.

      21.(1) The negotiations shall proceed on the principle that nothing may be finally agreed in any strand until everything is agreed in the negotiations as a whole.
      (2) Subject to the above principle, it shall nevertheless be possible, solely on the basis of consensus among the participants, to proceed on the assumption of contingent agreement on any individual aspect of the negotiations.
      22. (1) The negotiations shall operate on the basis of consensus.

      (2). Notwithstanding subparagraph (1) above, if in Strand One or Two it proves impossible to achieve unanimity, the Chairman may, without prejudice to the provisions of the previous paragraph, operate on the basis of sufficient consensus among the political parties to allow negotiations to proceed.

      (3). The rules for establishing sufficient consensus shall be agreed in advance of negotiations by the participants and such rules shall ensure that any departure from the rule of unanimity is within minimal limits and shall, in all cases, ensure that any decision taken will be supported by a clear majority in both the unionist and nationalist communities in Northern Ireland.

      (4). Additionally, as regards Strands Two and Three, both Governments shall have to endorse a particular proposition for it to be deemed to have achieved sufficient consensus.

      (5). The overall outcome across all three strands shall also need to attract a sufficient consensus from the participants.

      23.(1) Strand One negotiations shall take place in Castle Buildings, Belfast.

      (2) Strand Two negotiations shall take place in Belfast, Dublin and London, at times agreed by the Business Committee.

      (3). The two Governments shall determine where Strand Three meetings shall take place.

      (4). The Business Committee shall determine the venue of its meetings.

      24. The outcome of negotiations shall be submitted for public approval by referendums in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, before being submitted to their respective Parliaments for ratification and the earliest possible implementation.
      25. Only if a majority of those entitled to vote in Northern Ireland support the outcome of the negotiations in a referendum shall those proposals be put to the United Kingdom Parliament.'
      Mr. Wilshire: The length of new schedule 1 impresses even me, but I am happy to confirm that I did not write it. The Government wrote the schedule, which is a key to what these amendments and this new schedule are all about—they seek to turn Command Paper 3232 into legislation. I believe that that is important because doing so will give Parliament a chance to debate the terms of the Command Paper and—if necessary and felt desirable by the Committee a chance to change those details.
      40
      The amendments' second purpose is to ensure that the Government get parliamentary approval for the conduct of the negotiations.
      I contend that those purposes are very democratic, and, at least in principle, neither of them is controversial. During the course of debate today and tomorrow, we must never forget that the Committee will be debating a fundamental constitutional issue—which is, of course, why it is being debated on the Floor of the House. If we are debating a basic constitutional issue, it is right that Parliament should be able to debate and decide every part of the issue rather than leaving some or all of it to the Government.
      I suspect that the Government, in reply to what I have to say, will probably say that these amendments would tie their hands. Because of my well-known reservations about what has been happening in the past 18 months, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be surprised to learn that that thought has crossed my mind, and that I do not think it is a bad thing to seek to tie the Government's hands. The way in which matters have progressed over the past 18 months has been a series of concessions to Dublin, in a manner with which I am unhappy. In the past 18 months, time and again, there have been futile attempts to buy peace from the IRA-Sinn Fein. I shall be grateful if these amendments can put a stop to those concessions and attempts to buy peace.
      We need new schedule 1 quite simply because the Bill's real purpose is to set up negotiating teams and to carry out negotiations in Northern Ireland. If one reads the Bill, however, it says something about absolutely everything—except about the negotiations. The Bill mentions the method of election in great detail and spells out arrangements for the forum, but it is almost silent when it comes to the exercise's primary purpose—the negotiations. As I understand the situation in the House, if the details of the negotiation are not in the Bill they cannot be debated. Those details—the very purpose of the exercise—do not require Parliament's approval, and that has to be wrong.
      New schedule 1 seeks to put matters right. The schedule is essentially—word for word—Command Paper 3232, inserted it into the Bill so that the House can debate it. Of course there is also some legal tidying up in the schedule—of the type whereby "shall" has been put in and "will" has been taken out. The lawyers tell me that those are significant changes, but, as a layman, I am not so sure that they are.
      In addition to inserting this "tidied up" Command Paper into the Bill, I have, in doing so, made four major changes of substance. I shall explain them to the House, which I hope will enable us to debate the matter fully.
      The first difference between the Command Paper and my new schedule is paragraph 9 of the Command Paper, which becomes paragraph 8 of my new schedule. Paragraph 9 of the command paper says that Sinn Fein-IRA cannot join in the negotiations until the ceasefire of August 1994 has been reinstated. That is the language of the Command Paper. Paragraph 8 of my new schedule says:
      "The participation in negotiations by any party shall require the unequivocal and permanent renunciation of violence."
      The change from requiring simple restoration of the 1994 ceasefire to requiring a permanent and clear statement that this time it is for real is absolutely fundamental to the exercise in which we are engaged.

      41
      On Second Reading I asked both my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), to confirm that the next ceasefire had to be declared in words of total clarity which made it clear that this time it was permanent and for ever. Neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor the hon. Lady was prepared to say that. I said at the time, and I repeat now, that I am not prepared to accept that. My new schedule gives Parliament as a whole the chance to say whether it believes that next time any ceasefire must be declared to be permanent.
      Let us not forget that the last ceasefire was a temporary truce. It was a ploy. If anyone doubts that, one has only to consider the evidence given last week about the bomber who blew himself up. It was confirmed that the planning and preparation for the bombing earlier this year was carried out during the so-called ceasefire last year. So the first change that the new schedule seeks to make is to spell out that next time any ceasefire will be declared to be permanent.
      The second change that I propose is in paragraph 14 of the Command Paper, which becomes in my new schedule paragraph 12(1). The Command Paper says that the opening session of the negotiations will give priority to confidence building. My new schedule changes that to:
      "The agenda shall have as its first item confidence building issues including pennanently renouncing the use of violence, the decommissioning of all illegally held weapons and explosives and the total and absolute commitment to the six principles".
      The Command Paper merely gives priority to confidence building, but new schedule 1 specifies doing certain things. I believe that those things need to be restated in the context of the negotiations because it was originally announced that the first ceasefire had to be called permanent before talks could start. If the House can remember back that far, it will recall that that requirement was abandoned.
      My new schedule also says that decommissioning must be dealt with. If hon. Members think back, they will recall that decommissioning was said to be a requirement which must be fulfilled before talks could start. That has been abandoned. Now we are told that the Mitchell six principles must be signed up to. I keep hearing that. My new schedule will make sure that this time we do not have something explained to us which is then abandoned. It will be within the legislation. I consider that that has to be right. We must make it clear that item 1 on the first day will not only give priority to general confidence building, but will do specific things. We spell them out and make it clear that they will not be abandoned. Putting them into the legislation is one way of achieving that. My right hon. and learned Friend may well tell me that there are other ways of achieving that. If there are, I should be delighted to hear them and I should be happy, as I am sure other people would be, to consider alternative ways, but the point that I am getting at is of great importance.
      4.45 pm
      The third change that I seek to make to the Command Paper is in paragraph 14, which becomes paragraph 12(2) of the new schedule. Paragraph 14 says that, once priority has been given to confidence building, other things will happen at the first meeting. My new schedule says that, provided that agreement is reached on those confidence-building measures, other things will then
      42
      happen. This is not merely a debating point. It will not merely make for better legislation. It will not merely tie the Government's hands a bit, which, as I explained, I believe is necessary. We must put it into the legislation because if no agreement is reached on the measures there will be no other talks. If that is the reality, let us reflect reality rather than going for a bit of pious hoping about what might happen. Until the issues of permanence, decommissioning and the Mitchell principles are met clearly, without doubt or fudge, nothing will happen, whether we want it to or not. The third change reflects that statement of reality.
      The fourth change that new schedule 1 seeks to make is in paragraph 26 of the Command Paper and paragraph 24 of the new schedule. A new point is introduced in paragraph 25. Paragraph 26 of the Command Paper refers to
      "referendums in Ireland—North and South".
      I do not need to labour the point because one has only to read the Second Reading debate to get the sense of what concerns me. Suffice it to say that in every document that I have ever seen relating to the Northern Ireland peace negotiations, a loose word or a phrase has never been thrown in because no one has got round to thinking it through carefully.
      The Command Paper refers to Ireland north and south for a reason. We were not given that reason on Second Reading, although the matter was raised. Unless anyone wants to contradict me, I remain convinced that the phrase was put there to fudge the reality of the sovereign state called the United Kingdom, having Northern Ireland in it. That was put there to fudge the matter because the Dublin Government demanded it and the British Government gave in to that demand to try to keep the peace.
      My new schedule corrects the balance and reflects the real world when it says that there will be a referendum in Northern Ireland—which is what it is called—and in the Republic of Ireland—which is what it is called.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fudge of which he speaks has a precedent? The London form of the Anglo-Irish agreement in 1985 referred to an agreement between the Republic of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland while the Dublin form was between the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom. That fudge was presumably required by articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution.
      Mr. Wilshire: That is correct and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman shares my view that that was not done by accident either. None of these things is done by accident. That is why new schedule 1 is necessary to put this particular mistake right.
      The other part of the fourth change that I seek to make introduces paragraph 25 of the new schedule. I wrote the paragraph in at the end of the Government's Command Paper because I was given an assurance on Second Reading when I specifically asked to be told that there would have to be a referendum in Northern Ireland and that a majority of those voting in Northern Ireland would have to be in favour of the outcome of the negotiations for any progress to be made. I was given that assurance by the Government—I believe it, I am delighted and it is exactly what I feel is correct.

      43
      Because of that assurance, I assume that the Government will now have no objection to writing it into the Bill. New paragraph 25 says exactly what I heard said during the Second Reading debate—that only if a majority of those entitled to vote in Northern Ireland support the outcome of the negotiations in a referendum shall those proposals be put to the United Kingdom Parliament. That is what I believe I heard from the Government and that is what I believe the legislation should say.
      I accept that the amendments and the new schedule join together two separate issues: putting the details of the negotiation into the Bill and changing the terms of the Command Paper. It may be that the principle of putting in the negotiations is acceptable and that the details of my changes are not. We will have the Report stage and the consideration before the other place to put the details right, if necessary. It may be that putting the whole of the Command Paper into law will make for rigidity—I can predict some of the things that will be said—and that rigidity is clearly not an ideal way in which to conduct negotiations.
      However, if my chosen way of achieving these things is held to be not the best way, my four concerns that are spelt out in the changes in the new schedule will remain. If the four changes are to be addressed—and there are other ways—I hope that we hear them. We can then decide whether an alternative way of dealing with the four matters can be found over the next two days. If we do not find alternative ways, the next two days could get seriously bogged down because these are fundamental issues and we could face lots more Divisions, such as the one that we have just had.
      In conclusion, I believe that the best way for harmony to break out in the next two days is for there to be a helpful start. If the Government could agree with these concerns and deal with them in whichever way they feel to be best, I am sure that that will make for shorter speeches, fewer divisions and a more agreeable two days.
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) moved his amendment with characteristic robustness and I listened carefully to what he said. He was right in saying that I might suggest that what he is proposing is somewhat inflexible—indeed, I would go further than that and suggest that there could be serious disadvantages if we were to proceed in the way that he suggests.
      I do not recognise in what I see before me in terms of the groundwork paper, the Command Paper, the concessions to Dublin to which he referred. This paper is the judgment of the two Governments as to the basis on which negotiations can be taken forward, but it is important to realise—I shall come back to this point—that the conduct of the negotiations is for those involved in them. I believe that that is an important point, and I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) appear to agree with that suggestion.
      Mr. Trimble: As the Minister says, the paper represents the present judgment of the two Governments. I am sure that he will acknowledge that if and when the
      44
      process moves forward and comes into the purview of the parties of Northern Ireland, whatever might have been the judgment of the two Governments up until then will to some extent be replaced by the contribution of the parties from Northern Ireland. As we found in 1992, in many cases the contribution of the Northern Ireland parties will be more positive and a better way of doing things than that prescribed by the two Governments.
      Mr. Ancram: I hear what the hon. Member for Upper Bann has to say—indeed, he outlined his views during the Second Reading debate and it was on that basis that I was confident that he, at least, would not wish to see the rules by which negotiations would be conducted written into statute. At the same time, it is right to say that the negotiations are not part of this legislation—I accept that. The legislation is there to provide for entry into the negotiations, but once the negotiations take place they will be for the participants to conduct.
      Experience suggests—particularly experience of the 1991–92 talks—that if they are to serve their purpose, the negotiations that we are setting in train need to be flexible and capable of responding to the wishes of the negotiators. The hon. Member for Upper Bann has said that he has wishes that he wants to make known. In addition, the negotiations should not be confined or constrained by statute.
      All participants will want to start the negotiations on the basis of a clear understanding of the way in which they are to be conducted. That is why—after consultation with the political parties—we have published the Command Paper that is our best judgment as to the most suitable and broadly acceptable ground rules. They do not have statutory force because the negotiations, rightly, are not established by statute. I hope that the paper represents a basis on which the parties can agree to participate in the negotiations.
      The key message, however—I mentioned this on Second Reading and I repeat it today—is to be found in paragraph 7 of the Command Paper, which states:
      "The conduct of the negotiations will be exclusively a matter for those involved in the negotiations."
      I was interested to note that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne left that passage in the ground rules that he has sought to bring into statute. There is a contradiction in trying to make statutory something which, in its own terms, allows for the conduct to be a matter for those involved in the negotiations.
      It is important to understand that we are trying to seek a new consensus on how Northern Ireland is to be governed and how it fits into the other relationships within these islands. We are seeking an agreed outcome to which the parties representing all parts of the community can give their assent and which is then put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum for their approval. Consensus and consent are essential if this process is to succeed.
      Mr. William Ross: The Minister has used rather peculiar language: he said that Northern Ireland fits into other relationships within these islands. Will he and the Front Bench get it through their heads once and for all that the Unionist parties are interested only in Northern Ireland's place in this kingdom?
      Mr. Ancram: One of the relationships that has been referred to at times when we have spoken about these

      45
      negotiations is the relationship that would exist between institutions in Northern Ireland and institutions in this Parliament. That is an example of relationships within these islands. It has been accepted for a long time that if we are to find a comprehensive answer, the relationships between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—and, indeed, the relationships between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom—are also relevant. A number of relationships have to be taken into account.
      I was making the point that if the negotiations are to succeed they must be based on consensus and agreement. If that is to be achieved, the greatest degree of flexibility to allow that to occur is necessary.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: I am sure that the Minister appreciates, as do all hon. Members, that there are certain of these proposed ground rules—such as the renunciation of violence and the acceptance of the democratic principle—to which there must be an absolute commitment in order to participate. Does the Minister agree that it would not be necessary for every participant in the negotiations to agree to every ground rule in order to enter into negotiations and to participate?
      Mr. Ancram: I believe we mentioned that on Second Reading. According to the ground rules, the participants must agree among themselves before the negotiating process begins what agreement will mean in the negotiating process. It is important that, before negotiations take place, we are able to agree on the way in which consensus—or sufficient consensus, as the Command Paper suggests—can be ascertained. Again I quote paragraph 7:
      "The conduct of the negotiations will be exclusively a matter for those involved in the negotiations."
      I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at one stage described the negotiators as masters of their own procedures; I believe that that is correct, and that is the way in which progress can be made with such negotiations.
      I will discuss some specific points in a moment, but first I shall say that this process, by its nature, is unsuitable for tight statutory definitions and procedures. All those likely to be involved in it would agree that there must be flexibility.
      Mr. McCartney indicated assent.
      Mr. Ancram: I see the hon. and learned Member for North Down nodding again.
      5 pm
      Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend spoke about referendums. A lot of my colleagues and hon. Friends have been stunned by the reference in one of the documents to holding referendums in "Ireland—North and South". My understanding is that there is the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, and the United Kingdom is one entity and the Republic of Ireland is another entity. If one is talking about "Ireland—North and South", the implication is that Ireland is about to become that entity. My right hon. Friend will understand that that is very disconcerting for a large number of colleagues in the House. Will he explain?
      Mr. Ancram: If I may, I will explain later, because my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne raised this as a
      46
      specific point and I wish to discuss his points in the sequence in which he raised them. I can say at this stage that if the interpretation by hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) were correct it would indeed be stunning, and I hope to satisfy him that it is not correct.
      I am saying, in essence, that I believe that amendments Nos. 136 and 137 would constrain the process of negotiation. The negotiations must proceed at a pace and in a manner that the negotiators are happy with. We have set out our best judgment in the Command Paper, but if the negotiators themselves, by agreement and consensus, find it better to proceed differently, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so.
      I therefore urge the Committee not to make what will already be a difficult enough task more difficult by accepting the amendments, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will understand the value of the remarks that I have made in this context and will be prepared to seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne firmly drew our attention to areas of the ground rules that he wished to amend. I hope to answer his points. The first related to his new paragraph 8, which would provide that participation in negotiations by any party would require
      "the unequivocal and permanent renunciation of violence."
      That would move away from the need for the unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of 1994. In replacing paragraph 9 of the ground rules with what appears to be the rather simpler approach of paragraph 8 of the new schedule, there is a risk that some key elements have—unintentionally, I am sure—been abandoned. I cite, for example, the lack of a clear link to events on the ground.
      We know from experience—I believe that it was mentioned on Second Reading—that Sinn Fein as a party is adept at claiming to be committed exclusively to peaceful means. For reasons that we well know, it is vital, in our view, and in the view of the Irish Government, that Sinn Fein' s participation in negotiations be accompanied by an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire. On further commitment to peaceful means, I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne by saying that the fact that at the start of the negotiating process all participants will have to commit themselves totally and absolutely to the six Mitchell principles will more than cover the areas that he mentioned.
      Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that Sinn Fein constantly attempts, when it suits it, to put clear blue water between itself and the IRA. The Government have always taken the view that the two are inextricably linked. Given the comments that he has just made, do the Government adhere to the view that they are so inextricably linked as to be one and the same organisation?
      Mr. Ancram: That question has been asked several times. I believe that it was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who said that members of one are members of the other. The key is to consider what members of Sinn Fein, if they were to be invited to the negotiations, would have to commit themselves totally and absolutely to. I shall not go through all six principles because they are available to hon. Members, but I remind them that members of Sinn Fein would have to commit themselves to

      47
      "democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues"
      Another of the principles is:
      "To renounce for themselves, and to oppose any effort by others, to use force, or threaten to use force, to influence the outcome of all-party negotiations".
      I believe that the fears that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, is expressing are covered in those principles, enunciated by Senator Mitchell in his report of 24 January.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows what Gerry Adams said a few hours ago—that he would present himself, with his delegates, at the negotiating table on 10 June, that he would not tolerate any conditions whatsoever, and that he would have a mandate. He said that he would also demand that the negotiations should deal with the republican consensus—that would be its business—and with getting British rule out of Ireland.
      If those are the remarks that Mr. Adams made—they were widely reported everywhere—how, in the name of goodness, will the Secretary of State decide on 10 June if some other statement is made by the same gentleman, if one can call him a gentleman, that things are different and that those people have forsworn their violent ways and violent manners?
      Mr. Ancram: I do not want to pre-empt discussions later in the debate on the clauses about the qualifications on my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State inviting parties to participate in or send negotiators to the negotiations. I would say, however, that the two Governments have said—it is part of the Command Paper and part of the communiqué—that Sinn Fein could not be involved in a resumption of ministerial dialogue, or participate in negotiations, without an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994. So the gentlemen to whom the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) refers may talk about coming to the negotiations, but both Governments have made it clear that being invited to participate in the negotiations requires a total and absolute commitment to the Mitchell principles and, as we shall see later, that must be reiterated at the opening of negotiations. I ask the hon. Gentleman to read the Command Paper rather than necessarily listening to some of the rhetoric that may be being spouted on the radio and elsewhere outside the House.
      Mr. Wilshire: I want to take my right hon. Friend back to a point that he has made again in reply to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). Did I hear him correctly when he said that everyone who takes part in the negotiations will have to sign up to every last one of the Mitchell principles, without exception or qualification? If that is so, can he confirm that each and every person taking part will have to do that before anything else happens?
      Mr. Ancram: I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 12 of the communiqué between the two Governments, which makes it clear that all participants would need to make clear at the beginning of the discussions their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and
      48
      non-violence set out in the report of the international body. On Second Reading, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State read those six principles into the record again, to make it completely clear that those are the six principles to which total and absolute commitment by the participants would be required.
      Mr. Wilshire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, before Sinn Fein-IRA can participate in any discussions following the elections, they must sign up to every one of the Mitchell principles without qualification? Is that the position—yes or no?
      Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend should look closely at the communiqué, which makes the position clear. I shall develop that point later as he has asked a proper question. The communiqué makes it clear that there must be total and absolute commitment to the Mitchell principles at the beginning of the process if those making that commitment are to continue to participate in the process. That point has been clear for a long time—certainly since 28 February—and it is reiterated in the Command Paper in order to make it clear beyond peradventure that it is not simply the statement of the two Governments, but is part of the ground rules that we hope will provide the basis for beginning the negotiations.
      The Chairman: Order. Before the Minister goes any further, I remind him that we shall be dealing later with amendment No. 2, which appears to refer to some of the detail and covers some of the issues being addressed by hon. Members.
      Mr. Ancram: I seek your guidance on that point, Mr. Morris. As the new schedule introduces all of the provisions, I am uncertain as to whether I am duty bound to respond to comments about them.
      The Chairman: The Minister is quite right: the new schedule is far reaching. However, if a Member takes an intervention and realises that the points will be covered by subsequent amendments, he or she should decide whether to resist responding to that intervention.
      Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to you, Mr. Morris, for offering that gentle advice. I shall try not to cover areas to which we shall return when considering later amendments.
      Mr. Marlow: In the interests of clarity—we do not need to read out the text again—will my right hon. Friend confirm whether the answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is yes?
      Mr. Ancram: Yes. I have said that the participants—the parties to the negotiations—will be required to make clear their total and absolute commitment. I do not think that I can say more than that: it is clear not only on my part, but on the part of the two Governments and in the Command Paper. I hope that that is sufficient reassurance.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will recognise that the first change to the Command Paper would not necessarily help—in many ways it would be more restrictive than the existing provisions.
      Mr. William Ross: I seek the Minister's assistance with one or two matters about which I am not clear.

      49
      He referred to participants having to sign up to many wonderful things. Do "participants" mean a party or parties, individuals, or both? In either case, will the commitment that is given be in much stronger and clearer terms than the existing declaration for those who serve on councils?
      Mr. Ancram: It means the parties to the negotiations—which is not just the political parties, but the two Governments.
      Mr. Ross: And the individuals?
      Mr. Ancram: The delegates to the negotiations attend on behalf of their parties.
      In the light of your comments, Mr. Morris, I shall not detain the Committee unnecessarily. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne referred to two sets of changes, but I shall deal with them as one. They deal with the ways in which the process will move forward after the beginning to which I have referred. The communiqué and the ground rules make it clear that at that stage the Mitchell proposals on decommissioning and the other confidence-building measures must be addressed.
      When we discussed the matter recently on Second Reading, the general view of the parties and certainly that of the hon. Member for Upper Bann—he is not in his place at present, but I am sure that he will not mind my referring to his remarks on that occasion—was that we must be clear before 10 June about the procedures that will be adopted. In replying to the debate, I said that there must be further discussion and consultation with the parties in order to determine how the procedures will operate.
      5.15 pm
      I do not think that it serves any great purpose to lay down hard and fast rules in this place before those consultations take place and different views are expressed. I think it is correct to proceed on the understanding that we must be clear about the matter before negotiations begin. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the strength of that argument—it was employed with effect by the hon. Member for Upper Bann in his speech last Thursday. My hon. Friend should recognise that his suggestions are perhaps not the best way to proceed.
      I turn now to the point that my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North—who has now left the Chamber—raised about the referendums, which are referred to at the end of the Command Paper. Paragraph 26 of that paper reaffirms the intention already made clear by each Government respectively—I emphasise the word "respectively". In October 1994, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that any outcome agreed by the parties would be submitted to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum for their approval before being put to Parliament. That makes it clear that there will be a referendum on the outcome of the talks held in Northern Ireland for the people of Northern Ireland to agree or disagree to the propositions being put forward before the matters may come before Parliament. That was the position set out by my right hon. Friend some time ago and it remains the position today.
      50
      Equally, it is common ground that a successful outcome would require, among other things, constitutional change in the Irish Republic. That, in itself, would require a referendum. Therefore, the two Governments have stated that the outcome of the negotiations will be submitted for public approval by referendums in the north and in the south which will come under the jurisdiction of each Government respectively.
      Mr. Wilshire: As to my right hon. Friend's point about a referendum in the south, I did not refer to that for the simple reason that I consider it impertinent to mention the internal affairs of a foreign country—and I wish that Dublin would have regard to that principle when it comes to Northern Ireland affairs. As well as restating that there will be a referendum in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend put me out of my misery by confirming that, if the referendum does not produce a majority, the matter will not be brought before Parliament?
      Mr. Ancram: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the triple locks: the requirement for the agreement, first, of the parties; secondly, of the people of Northern Ireland by way of a referendum; and thirdly—and in that order—of Parliament. My hon. Friend is correct: if the people of Northern Ireland were to vote against the propositions, they would not be brought before Parliament.
      Although my hon. Friend says that he does not wish to intervene in the affairs of another country, it is important that he should appreciate that the negotiations and the balance of the package might require changes to the Irish constitution, which in turn would require a referendum in the south. It is therefore not possible to look at these matters in isolation, even though we might like to.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: I am sure that the Minister appreciates that words are very important when it comes to the confidence-building measures. Reference was made earlier to referendums in "both parts of Ireland—North and South", or words to that effect, rather than in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland. The Minister must appreciate that the terms of the Downing street declaration gave great offence to an overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland as that document never once referred to the British citizens of Northern Ireland. That confidence-building measure appears to be absent from the terms of this document also.
      Mr. Ancram: The word "respectively" is there for a good purpose, but I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman from the Dispatch Box that a referendum will be held in Northern Ireland, which will require the assent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, if any proposition is to proceed to Parliament as a result of the negotiations.
      Mr. Marlow: I am sorry, but I had to nip out for a second. I do not think that my right hon. Friend answered the point that I made. Would it not have been more straightforward, traditional, and clearer and easier for his colleagues on this side of the House if instead of reading "Ireland—North and South" the document had read "Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic". Why did it not say that?
      Mr. Ancram: It might, in some circumstances, have been easier, but it does not say that. From the Dispatch

      51
      Box, I am trying to explain to and, I hope, reassure my hon. Friend that his concern is ill founded and that the unease that he feels as a result of the misinterpretation is therefore not merited.
      Mr. William Ross: As the Minister has proceeded, some of us have felt more and more disquiet. It seems that in this instance the Government are leaning over backwards to adopt the language of the most violent of republicans. It is the sort of language that we hear from Sinn Fein, the IRA and occasionally from those close to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). We all know that the Government do not use that sort of language without thinking about it. There must have been some reason for using that language and we simply have not been given a reason. Why will the Minister not tell us why those words have been used rather than the correct appellations? All that the Minister is doing is increasing our suspicions.
      Mr. Ancram: The language is not new. If my memory serves me right, the hon. Gentleman will find similar language in paragraph 4 of the Downing street declaration of 15 December 1993.
      Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ancram: Let me complete this point, because it is important. The Government are responsible for this jurisdiction and I say from the Dispatch Box, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said before, that any proposition or agreement that comes from the negotiations will be put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum, and only if it passes that referendum will it proceed to this Parliament. It is my understanding that to make constitutional changes—which might be, especially in the eyes of the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), an important part of a settlement—will require a referendum in the south. That is a matter for the Irish Government, but I understand that that might be necessary. Therefore, they have said in their turn that they would also hold a referendum.
      Mr. Taylor: The term "Ireland—North and South" has created much unease in Northern Ireland. It is not a confidence-building term, and it is causing increasing unease on both sides of the Committee this afternoon. Under the Ireland Act 1949, the term "Republic of Ireland" is defined in the legislation of this nation. In what legislation is the term "Ireland—South" defined?
      Mr. Ancram: At the moment, I cannot say more than I have said. We are not considering legislation.
      Mr. Taylor: We are.
      Mr. Ancram: No. I have advised the Committee that the term should not be brought into the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne is trying to make it part of the legislation and I have said that I do not think that it should be part of the legislation. I have been asked a direct question about what the reference to referendums "respectively" in the north and south means and I have given a complete and categorical answer. I cannot give greater reassurance than that because there is no greater reassurance available.
      Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ancram: I must draw my remarks to a conclusion, but if the right hon. Member wishes to speak, I will give way.
      Mr. Taylor: I simply wish to pursue the matter. The Minister has dodged my question by saying that we are not considering legislation. But we are considering a Bill that makes specific reference to Command Paper 3232, which uses the term "Ireland—North and South". I ask the Minister to tell the House under what legislation the term "Ireland—South" is defined and in which counties will a referendum be used?
      Mr. Ancram: So far as I know, the term has not been used. I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that Command Paper 3232 is not part of the legislation. The legislation refers to identifying negotiations in terms of the Command Paper, but the Command Paper is not part of the legislation. Indeed, a later amendment will further specify the connection between the legislation and the Command Paper. I hope that we can deal with the subject when we come to the later amendment.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as ever, intends to be completely and totally helpful. I will give way, but we should try to bring this part of the debate to a conclusion.
      Mr. Robinson: Will the Minister confirm that if he had wished to introduce such terms in the legislation, they would not have been acceptable, and that it would therefore not be acceptable for Ministers to use them in the House in general debate?.
      Mr. Ancram: I would take advice from the draftsmen, but the hon. Gentleman is probably right that there are terms that are used in legislation, but the Command Paper is not part of the legislation and I am resisting the attempt by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne to make it part of the legislation.
      Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ancram: Yes, as we are in Committee.
      Mr. Ross: If the Minister has now admitted that the terms could not be used in legislation, he has also admitted the sensitivity of the language used in the Command Paper. Would not it be wiser, for the sake of everyone, for the Minister to be precise and accurate in his language at all times, instead of using the woolly terms that are designed by republicans to cause maximum offence to the Unionist population, and indeed do?
      Mr. Ancram: In the light of this debate, I will try in future to use language that is accurate in the terms that the hon. Member has suggested. The whole process will have to operate by consensus and on the basis of careful balance.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I appreciate the difficulty that the Minister is in, but he must also appreciate that those

      53
      words have a real significance in Northern Ireland. If the Minister is keen to instil some confidence in the Unionist population, all Ministers in all documents should stick to the legal terms, "Northern Ireland" and "Irish Republic". If they did that, especially in documents in which the Irish Government have a say, we would see a real difference in perception by the people of Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Ancram: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I hope that the clear indications that I have given from the Dispatch Box have left him in no doubt about what the language is intended to mean and that he will help me to ensure that people in Northern Ireland are fully aware of that position.
      We are involved in a balancing exercise and there must be a degree of flexibility. I hope that I have satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne that in my view his amendments would not make the process of reaching a result easier—as he and I would wish. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will seek leave to withdraw his amendments.
      Mr. Eric Illsley: The Opposition cannot support the amendments; if they were pressed to a Division we would not support them. We believe that the ground rule document is clear. It is described as
      "the best judgment of the two Governments on the most suitable and broadly acceptable ground rules"
      that can be produced for the elections. The Government have tried to reach a consensus. They have consulted all the political parties to try to achieve agreement. It would be unfortunate if we were now to be delayed by the incorporation of the new schedule. It would be debated at length as part of the legislation and, perhaps, lead to further delays.
      As the Minister pointed out, paragraph 7 of the Command Paper states that the rules for the negotiations will be left to the parties themselves to organise and negotiate. If I heard him correctly, he also said that there would be further consultations between now and 10 June, when those negotiations will take place. So, after the Bill has been passed, there will be further opportunities for the political parties to put forward their points of view on the ground rules.
      The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said that parliamentary approval should be required for the ground rules. In our opinion, the Minister made the status of those rules clear today, as did the Secretary of State on Second Reading, and we feel that they are the best that could be achieved. If parliamentary approval were sought for the new schedule, it is unlikely that any further consensus would be achieved: it is obvious that it is simply not there.
      5.30 pm
      The hon. Gentleman cited four respects in which his new schedule differed from the existing ground rules. He made great play of the question of the ceasefire and the report of the international body. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State made it plain that all participants would be required to accept the principles of the Mitchell commission. Paragraph 13 of the ground rules quotes the communiqué of 28 February, which states that
      "all participants would need to make clear at the beginning of the discussions their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the report of the International Body."
      54
      It has been made clear throughout today's debate, and on Second Reading, that those requirements would be in place. If they were not, the negotiations would not take place, because the other parties would not take part unless such commitments were given by all participants.
      We cannot support the wording of paragraph 25 of the new schedule. I understand that further amendments, to be debated later today or tomorrow, will enshrine the principle it sets out, but we cannot accept the requirement for a majority of those entitled to vote; we believe that the majority should be of those voting.
      As I said, if the amendments are pushed to a Division, we will not support them.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said at the beginning of his speech that he was happy to confirm that he had not drafted the new schedule. I understand why he would want to dissociate himself from it. I agree with him that it is valuable for the participants to have clear ground rules in the Bill, but the ground rules in the new schedule—taken almost directly from the Command Paper, which itself resulted from the consultation on the ground rules produced by the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic—are so flawed that even the hon. Gentleman's most valiant efforts would not enable them to be sufficiently sanitised to become part of United Kingdom legislation.
      The wording of one small part of the new schedule has been referred to in detail. A number of hon. Members have taken offence at the use of such terms as "Ireland—North and South", although there is nothing new about them: they have featured in documents that the Government have been prepared to sign in the past. During the last series of talks, I spent no end of time trying to remove terminology of that kind. Those who produced the ground rules that gave rise to the Command Paper and the new schedule knew full well that they were using wording that was unacceptable to the overwhelming majority in Northern Ireland—and, I suspect, to a large section of the community of the United Kingdom as a whole—but they also knew the purpose of that wording. They knew that the words, "Ireland—North and South" suggested the existence of a political entity known as Ireland, when no such entity exists.
      The draft consultation paper produced for the ground rules contained terminology such as
      "among the people of the island of Ireland",
      which suggested that there was one people on the island of Ireland. There is nothing of the sort, and I was glad to note that, when that offensive language was brought to the Minister's attention, he made efforts to ensure its removal. I hope that, now that the House has drawn his attention to the degree of offence caused by the terminology in the ground rules and the new schedule, he will fight with equal vigour to ensure that it, too, is not used again.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Would not it have been impossible for the Government of the Republic of Ireland to agree with Her Majesty's Government on the ground rules if the term "Northern Ireland" had been used? To accept in any form that Northern Ireland exists as part of the United Kingdom would be contrary to the claims made in articles 2 and 3 of its constitution, which the Irish Supreme Court has defined as a constitutional imperative.
      Mr. Robinson: That is undoubtedly true. Furthermore, the Government of the Republic would not have been prepared to use the terms "Irish Republic" or "Republic of Ireland"—usage that would be acceptable to those drafting legislation for the House of Commons. May I make a minor correction? The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the two separate covers for the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The cover for the Irish Republic was that it was the Government of Ireland, and the agreement was between the Governments of Ireland and Great Britain.
      We must examine the precise words that are being used. Over the past few minutes, the hon. Member for Spelthorne has repeatedly sought to extract from the Government confirmation that, before they could move any further, all those who would be present at the negotiations would be required to sign up to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the report of the international body.
      The communiqué says that the participants
      "would need to make clear"
      their commitment to those principles. That is not the most precise language. I "would need" to be in bed early tonight, but that does not mean that I shall; indeed, it is most unlikely that I shall. Simply to say that something "would need" to happen does not suggest any precise requirement. That is why, on Second Reading, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) suggested that the word "must" should be substituted—a suggestion that was not taken up by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Later amendments will attempt to make the wording much more precise.
      Mr. Illsley: The communiqué states that
      "all participants would need to make clear at the beginning of the discussions their total and absolute commitment".
      That could be taken to mean clarifying a commitment that was given before the start of the negotiations.
      Mr. Robinson: It could mean a good many things: that is the problem. Given the importance of the matters with which we are dealing, I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne that it is important for us to know precisely what the criteria are. His new schedule is intended to lay down the criteria that would move the process forward. As the Minister has made clear, there are other ways of doing that, and such attempts will be made later.
      I have not emerged from the mood of depression. Although the Minister was encouraged by the hon. Member for Spelthorne to say that, if he did not intend to approach the issues by way of a new schedule, he would at least address them by some other means, unfortunately, he was not prepared to take up that opportunity.
      The language of the Command Paper is flawed, and my colleagues and I have made it clear that we would rely on the terms of paragraph 7 of the ground rules, which state:
      "The conduct of the negotiations is to be exclusively a matter for those involved in the negotiations".
      We have made it clear that we do not accept the ground rules and that we and all other participants in the negotiating process will look at an early stage at agreed ground rules for the process. For those reasons, I cannot support the precise wording of the proposed new schedule and, if it is pushed to a Division, I shall not support it. However, I support the purpose behind its introduction.
      Mr. John D. Taylor: The new schedule gives us an opportunity for wider debate on many of the ground rules.
      56
      Some of the issues that emerged from the Minister's initial response were most disturbing and they will have increased unease in Northern Ireland. First, it is becoming quite clear that he is thinking in geographical terms about the island of Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland and not in constitutional or legal terms. When he uses the term "Ireland—North and South" he is using it geographically. There is no definition in law or in our constitution—or in that of the Republic of Ireland—defining Ireland, north or south.
      For the people of Northern Ireland—which is the proper term—Ireland, south is Cork and Ireland, north is Donegal. Those are geographical terms and they are all that the Minister is using. It is not good enough to ask hon. Members to agree to a process that is based simply on geographical terms, because each one will interpret the geography differently. The Minister has not accepted the challenge to define Ireland, south. Is it just Cork and Kerry or is there more to it? It is time that the Minister told us. He should not sit in silence. We ask him to respond.
      My second point centres on a matter of even more concern. When the Minister spoke about the Mitchell principles, it emerged that the members of the new forum will not have to subscribe to them. I do not think that many people in the United Kingdom have fully grasped that reality. What is even worse is that members entering the negotiations will not have to subscribe to those principles as individuals. That will be done simply by their parties. That was news to me, and it will be badly received in Northern Ireland that each person entering the negotiations will not have to subscribe to the Mitchell principles. Members elected to local authorities are required individually to subscribe to certain documentation. It is not done by the parties on their behalf, but in this case the Government have apparently opted out of individuals' subscribing to the Mitchell principles: it will be done by the secretariat or by party leaders. I want a response to that issue.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. William Ross: Although my right hon. Friend is aware of this, perhaps we should remind the House that some people in Northern Ireland have always been able to say that they took oaths with mental reservations. It will be perfectly plain to everyone that it will be much easier to have a mental reservation if a party leader rather than the individual gives the commitment.
      Mr. Taylor: It might not even be the party leader. It is left open to the Secretary of State to invite someone whom he assumes to be a party leader to make decisions on the party's behalf.
      The new schedule contains a matter that I mentioned on Second Reading, and I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has repeated it. Paragraph 1 rightly refers to relationships between,
      "the peoples of these islands".
      As the Government now prefer to use geographical rather than constitutional terms, I can say that we are discussing an improvement in relationships between the peoples of the British Isles, because that is what the paragraph means in geographical terms.
      However, paragraphs 2 and 4(2) show that the hon. Member for Spelthorne, like the Government, has narrowed the wider and more important issue of

      57
      improving relationships between the peoples of the British Isles so that it is restricted solely and totally to covering just the relationships between the two Governments. Paragraph 2 mentions just "the two Governments" and paragraph 4(2) refers to relations
      "between the British and Irish Governments".
      I regret that, and it is one of my reasons for not supporting the new schedule. In the wider negotiations that should take place in which all issues should be addressed, an important matter is the improvement in relationships between the peoples of these islands. It should not be restricted simply to the two Governments talking to each other.
      Mr. Wilshire: I think that the Minister tried twice to pay me a compliment when he said that I was being robust. I warn him that I consider that to be my moderate approach and that he may wish not to find me in a robust mood. The Minister said that there would be a serious disadvantage in accepting my amendments and the new schedule; but there will be a disadvantage if we do not, because we will have missed the chance to curb the Government's over-enthusiasm in negotiating. Despite my reservations, neither the Ulster Unionist party nor the Democratic Unionist party are prepared to support me and, in terms of the principle, I know when I am beaten.
      Mr. Robinson: We support the principle.
      Mr. Wilshire: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will vote for me if I get around to forcing a Division.
      I raised four issues and the Minister dealt with some of them more fully than others. I say that gently. On the matter of permanence and my insistence of a declaration on that, I think that the Minister said that I was being too simple and that my language left something to be desired. One must be careful not to confuse simplicity with clarity. I do not see what could be clearer than my phrase, "permanent renunciation of violence." The Minister said that Sinn Fein/IRA are past masters at exploiting vagueness. My clarity of phrase should, therefore, have commended itself.
      Despite what I have heard in the debate, I still think that the six Mitchell principles are not enough and that permanence must be included. However, it is clear from the amendment paper that we can return to that matter. As for the two items that I raised about the negotiations' agenda, may I say a simple thank you to my right hon. Friend the Minister for saying, "Yes, they must sign up to Mitchell six." That is important. I know that it might have taken us slightly longer than we would have liked, but we got the simple word yes, which is important. I hope that that message goes out from here. Now that we have reached the stage of saying that those people must sign up to that principle, I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that my new clause 2 is the ideal way in which to give effect to their having to say yes.
      On the referendum issues, I wish that I could buy the argument that the reference to "Ireland—North and South" was simply sloppy drafting, but nothing that I have heard persuades me that it is as simple as that. Again, may I simply say thank you to my right hon. Friend for the assurance that, if there is no majority in a referendum in Northern Ireland. matters will go no further? We have clarified that point.
      58
      The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), who spoke for the Opposition, explained that he could not support my amendments and went on almost to apologise for that. It is a strange old world when the Labour party apologises to me for not agreeing with me, but I understand his point. At a slightly more serious level, he said that the Bill as it stood was the best that could be achieved. That is what is wrong with so much of the negotiating that has taken place. Some people are prepared to approach the matter by saying, "If we cannot achieve that, so what? Let's give up." I worry when a Labour party spokesman says that this is the best that can be achieved.
      Mr. Illsley: Just to clarify the matter, I intended to say that the ground rules—not the legislation—were the best that could be achieved after the Government's discussions with the political parties.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful for that. That sorts that issue out, but it is important not to signal to anyone that there is nothing on which we are prepared to say no and mean it.
      Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman has just touched on an important point. Many people wonder why we must always steer a middle course, trying to please all people and to be all things to all men. That is not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government; their role should be to protect the Queen's realm across the board, in every detail. The Government have signally failed to do that in relation to Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Wilshire: That is exactly the point that was at the back of my mind. To start with, I thought that that was what the Opposition were suggesting. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central then made it clear that that was not his point, so I let matters rest, but I agree with the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). That is why I was so concerned when I heard the phrase.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that I did not write the new schedule and that even I could not sanitise the document. When he went on to express some of the detail, I became pleased that perhaps the Command Paper's detail would be dealt with at some other time so that some of us might not necessarily have to sit through it, but I understand his concern about the phrase, "You need to do something" and I hope that the phrase, "Yes, they must sign up" goes some way to meeting that concern. He explained that he could not support me. As I did not vote with him earlier, I cannot complain about that.
      The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) simply said that the amendments provided a chance to have a wider debate on some issues and that the debate had increased unease rather than resolved some of it. What I have heard and, perhaps, he has heard means that the Committee's later debates now take on a greater urgency and importance and will have to be fought hard.
      As for my new schedule, we are at an early stage in the debate. I made four requests and raised four points. Two have been dealt with satisfactorily, for which I am grateful. Two out of four on the first outing is not bad. My right hon. Friend the Minister will have noticed that 17 more of my amendments are to be debated. If we can keep up that strike rate, perhaps the 12th amendment

      59
      onwards may no longer be necessary. In that spirit, and having got two out of four, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'refrain from inviting' and insert 'not invite'.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 107, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'or' and insert 'and shall'.
      Mr. Ross: I am afraid that you, have caught me a bit quick, Sir Geoffrey. I did not think that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) was coming to an end quite so quickly, but it has been an interesting debate which will repay careful reading on the morrow before we return to the remainder of the Bill in the afternoon, when some of these matters may be touched on again.
      These amendments run in the same vein as the next group of amendments. On the amendment paper, they are headed "Exclusion of delegates (drafting) ". Like the first simple amendments which were discussed, these amendments have a much stronger basis for acceptance than others. All that they do is strengthen the hand of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as they make it plain that he should not invite people who will not say clearly and beyond peradventure that they have given up violence. Ministers should accept the amendments' intention, which is to tighten the position to ensure that the Government will be in a much stronger position whenever they deal with the gunmen, of whatever stripe.
      We should never create a position where Sinn Fein-IRA—he Minister confirmed earlier that we are correct to use that designation as they are inextricably linked—could cry foul. Sinn Fein-IRA is good at doing that and at using ambiguous language and vagueness to say, "Oh, we did not know what the Government meant. We thought that they meant what we meant." The Minister should therefore accept these little amendments because they would allow him to say, "Look, it is plain from the drafting of the Bill that I not only should not, but I cannot, accept nominations from a party that has links with people who are deeply involved in violence."
      It is essential that everyone should know where he or she stands from the beginning. This is an opportunity for the Government to draw a clear, decisive line in the sand. It may be better to set the line in concrete so that it cannot be so easily forgotten and to stick to it.
      The amendments make the position clear beyond peradventure. With the support of the Committee, the Government can easily accept them. The Minister will then find himself in a much stronger position should Sinn Fein, the IRA, the Dublin Government, the Irish Americans or, for heaven's sake, perhaps even the Social Democratic and Labour party say to him, "You need a little flexibility here. We need a little space to manoeuvre." The right hon. Gentleman should deny himself that space for manoeuvre. That would lead to clarification and quicker and clearer decisions whenever he has to confront the difficult decisions that await him.
      60
      It would also make the position clear when the right hon. Gentleman talks to other people. He can say to the people of Northern Ireland, "Look, we have made our position rigid on this. We will not accept the people who speak and act for gunmen, murderers and thugs. They cannot and will not be treated as members of a normal political party or as normal politicians."
      The problem is that the Governments are asking for the restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994. It is not clear whether these matters will be touched on in debates on future amendments, but I hope that they will. My position, and that, I think, of most of my colleagues, is absolutely plain: we do not believe that the so-called ceasefire of August 1994 is good enough.
      On that occasion, the IRA, followed by the Protestant, or loyalist, paramilitaries, simply stopped shooting people and blowing them up. Or at least they stopped shooting members of the opposing political dimension. They stopped shooting, bombing and blowing up members of the security forces; they stopped blowing up buildings and town centres, but they did not stop their other activities. Targeting and fund raising continued. Only last week, funds were increased by £1 million, which will buy a great deal and an enormous amount of expertise in elections and election material if, God willing, it is used for that—if those involved are not caught out and the money returned.
      6 pm
      Thuggery continued too. I am sure that the Secretary of State is well aware that, only a fortnight or three weeks ago, a young man who had had 6 in nails driven through his wrists and ankles was seen on television and in the newspapers. I understand that the nails were driven through his wrists and ankles into a wooden fence and that he was carried into the hospital still fixed to the fence. I see the Ministers nodding, confirming what I had been told. I had hoped that such crucifixions had passed from western society, but it appears that that is not so. I think that Ministers will agree that people who behave in such a way or who have the support of such people should not be admitted into negotiations and should be treated not as a political party but as the thugs and outcasts of society that they are.
      Another problem relates to Government representatives. This matter will be touched on later, but perhaps Ministers would like to say something about it now. I have read the papers and discovered that the Government can have five back-ups, but it is not clear who those Government back-ups will be. The Government people are clearly not going to be elected but will be put forward by the Government as their representatives in the negotiations. The Government will therefore have a team of three—presumably, Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office—and five others. Who are these five others going to be? What is intended by having that number? Are these people going to be Members of this House? If not, where will they be drawn from? We shall have to return to such matters.
      The Secretary of State is going to have to examine the list of parties. There are a number, but the principal one is Sinn Fein-IRA. The Secretary of State will have to ask himself whether this allegedly political party meets the criteria that have been laid down. We were told earlier that Sinn Fein intended to turn up anyway and cause a scene if it was not allowed in—it has done that before.

      61
      When the Secretary of State comes to make that decision, he will have to look at Mr. Adams, Mr. McGuinness, possibly Mr. Kelly and perhaps others who have as yet not appeared to be members of Sinn Fein but are known only to the security forces as the leading murderers and bombers of the IRA. He will be told that they are the negotiators for Sinn Fein. At that point, some other young man might be being nailed to a fence; some young lady, having had her arms and legs smashed, might be being chucked over a hedge; someone accused of being a drug dealer might be lying with a black bag over his head and two bullet holes through it; or a few people, alleged to have misbehaved in Belfast or elsewhere, might be receiving attention with hammers and iron bars, leaving them the thankful patients of what remains of the national health service. The Secretary of State will have to consider all these possibilities when he makes his decision.
      Will the Secretary of State tell Sinn Fein the dreadful things that happened? Will he say, for example, that a gang of masked men smashed their way into a house using a sledgehammer to break down the door, that they held the wife and children captive while they wrecked the house and beat up the man, who is now seriously ill in hospital, and that they did something similar the night before and the night before that? The nice, gentle Mr. Adams will be saying, "We're very sorry, it's nothing to do with us. You can't prove it's anything to do with us."
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the amendment.
      Mr. Ross: I am always willing to accept the judgment of the Chair in these matters but, although it might be straining at the limits, I thought what I was saying was relevant to the decision that the Secretary of State will have to make. He will have to decide whether the individuals seeking admission to the talks have any links with the violence perpetrated against citizens of Northern Ireland in the previous 24, 48 or 72 hours.
      Is the Secretary of State going to say, "I don't care what you say. My information is that the people involved are members of the Sinn Fein-IRA. These are people with whom you are associated, who are part and parcel of your terrorist, murderous political organisation, and I am not admitting you"? What is the Secretary of State going to do?
      The people of Northern Ireland and hon. Members need to understand how the Secretary of State is going to make his decision. I am trying to make it a little easier for him. I am trying to lay down a rigid line behind which he can stand, thus placing the onus not on his judgment or on the reports that he receives from the security forces or those investigating the crimes but on the thugs and murderers. They will have to prove that they were not involved and that the activities about which complaints had been made were carried out by others for other reasons.
      Mr. Ancram: I listened with great care to the hon. Gentleman. The amendments relate to the requirement placed on the Secretary of State to invite the nominating representatives of each party to submit elected delegates from among whom a team will be formed to participate in the negotiations. If that requirement were not met, the Secretary of State would have to refrain from issuing such invitations.
      We all share the hon. Gentleman's horror at the outrages to which he referred. The requirements set out in subsections (2) and (3) relate to the Command Paper and,
      62
      indeed, are the basis of the next group of amendments. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore forgive me if I do not deal directly at this stage with the points that he raised; I think that they form a necessary part of our discussions on the next group of amendments.
      I have examined the amendments closely. I think that amendment No. 108 is another way of saying what the Government have sought to do in clause 2(3). I do not think that its effect would be any different. Were we to accept his amendment, some further amendments would be required to clarify what the Secretary of State's duty would refer to in those circumstances. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment No. 107 does not alter the effect of the clause either. In fact, I think that it improves the drafting of the clause and makes it clearer, and I am pleased to say that the Government are happy to accept it.
      Mr. Ross: I am very grateful to have carried the Minister a millimetre with me. He said that before he could accept amendment No. 108 he would have to table further amendments and that further changes would have to be made, but he has not made clear to the Committee exactly what the effect would be. Perhaps he can go further. I would like a further explanation because I do not think that he went far enough.
      Mr. Ancram: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not want a technical explanation, but I am happy to give it to him. Clause 2(2) imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to invite the nomination for negotiating teams, as I said earlier. Clause 2(3) qualifies that duty and therefore talks of the Secretary of State refraining from issuing invitations if certain requirements are not met. I presume that the hon. Gentleman's concern is economy of expression since the change is not material. The phrase "refrain from inviting" was designed as a way in which to clarify the fact that subsection (3) detracts from the duty in subsection (2) without having to use words like "subject to" or others of that kind. Our aim was also economy of expression. On that basis, I would prefer to stay with what we have, since the effect is the same. As I said, I bow to the hon. Gentleman's improvement of amendment No. 107, and I hope that he will accept my gratitude for having drawn it to our attention.
      Mr. Ross: I am very grateful to the Minister for his further explanation and I am happy to abide by his comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 107, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'or' and insert 'and shall'.—[Mr. William Ross.]
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 19, leave out from the second 'as' to end of line 21 and insert
      'that party:—

      (a) is attached to a proscribed organisation which is listed in Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, and which

      (i) has not declared, and is not presently honouring, a permanent and total cessation of violence; and

      (ii) has not surrendered its illegal weaponry; and

      (iii) has not dismantled its paramilitary structure, and

      63

      (b) has not made an unequivocal declaration of its acceptance of the six principles contained in the Report of the International Commission on Decommissioning, which establish a commitment to:—

      (i) exclusively peaceful means; and

      (ii) abide by the democratic process.'.

      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendment No. 27.
      Amendment No. 93, in page 1, line 20, leave out 'Command Paper 3232' and insert
      'the Report of the Mitchell Commission'.
      Amendment No. 106, in page 1, line 20, after 'met', insert 'in full'.
      Amendment No. 105, in page 1, line 20, leave out from 'met' to the end of line 21 and insert
      'by that party, or independent member, and any paramilitary or proscribed organisation with which he has reason to believe that party or individual has links or for whom the party purports to speak.'.
      Amendment No. 76, in page 1, line 21, after 'party', insert
      'or if the party has not

      (a) permanently renounced the use of violence for any political or other purpose whatsoever; and

      (b) affirmed its total and absolute commitment to the six principles set out in paragraph 20 of the Report of the International Body dated 22nd January 1996.'.

      Amendment No. 77, in page 1, line 21, after 'party, ' insert 'and its individual delegates.'.
      Amendment No. 85, in page 1, line 21, after 'party', insert—
      '(3A) The Secretary of State shall have power to expel any delegate who, after he has taken his seat—

      (a) resorts to any act of political violence; or

      (b) fails to dissociate himself from any act of political violence; or

      (c) withdraws his total and absolute commitment to the six principles set out in paragraph 20 of the Report of the International Body dated 22nd January 1996.'.

      New clause 2—Statutory Declaration—
      '. Before taking their seats, each member of the forum and of the negotiating teams shall make a statutory declaration that he:

      (a) permanently renounces the use of violence for any political or other purpose whatsoever; and

      (b) affirms his total and absolute commitment to the six principles set out in paragraph 20 of the Report of the International Body dated 22nd January 1996.'.

      Mr. Robinson: The Committee is slightly stunned by the fact that the Government have conceded an amendment, albeit one that will not exactly change the course of history. I wonder whether that has established a pattern and that, as an example of their good faith, the Government will accept amendment No. 2. On the other hand, their acceptance of the previous amendment could well have been just a blip and the bulldozer is about to proceed, leaving behind it the belching smoke to put as much confusion over the scene as possible. That is the issue at stake. The amendment attempts to provide more precise language for the fudge in the Government's Command Paper, and clarity where all that we have at the present time is vagueness.
      64
      Under clause 2(3), the amendment would require the Secretary of State to refrain from inviting nominations from nominating representatives of a party or exclude delegates already nominated from entering into negotiations if and for as long as the party had
      "not declared, and is not presently honouring, a permanent and total cessation of violence",
      as well as a number of other qualifications. On the declaration and honouring of a permanent and total cessation of violence, the amendment is very much more precise than the vague reference to a reintroduction of the failed ceasefire of August 1994.
      6.15 pm
      On Second Reading, there was much comment by hon. Members on both sides of the House on how unsatisfactory the 1994 ceasefire had been. Reference was made to the 10 people who were murdered during that ceasefire, the hundreds of very serious beatings that took place, the gangsterism that continued and the many other breaches of the ceasefire that occurred not only in Northern Ireland but even here in Great Britain. It is therefore very clear that hon. Members would not be looking for a reintroduction of that failed and unsatisfactory ceasefire of August 1994 and would want something very much more permanent and secure. To ensure that there is no doubt in the minds of members of the Provisional IRA, the Bill if amended would make it very clear that they simply could not get away with that again.
      The second issue that the amendment addresses relates to the surrender of illegal weaponry. I know that the Secretary of State has in the past been touchy about the use of the word "surrender" because he does not like to give the impression that he is asking the IRA to do anything that would be difficult. I do not have any compunction about using language that would require the surrender of the IRA, never mind its weaponry, because, unlike the Secretary of State, I do not believe that it is possible to talk down this terrorist rebellion.
      It is not good enough to go along with the decommissioning in parallel, in stages, as an incremental surrender of weapons. The people of Northern Ireland are as much threatened by 95 per cent. of the Provisional IRA's weapons—or, for that matter, by the weapons of loyalist paramilitary organizations—as they would be by 100 per cent. of its weaponry. That is why I believe that it is a necessary condition that all weaponry should be surrendered. Apart from removing the weapons of death from our society, such a surrender of weapons would in itself be a very clear sign—perhaps the clearest—that the paramilitary organisations intended to embrace the democratic process and give up their terrorism.
      Paragraph (a)(iii) of the amendment, however, recognises that it is simply not enough to hand over weapons, because organisations could of course rearm. There therefore has to be the dismantling of the terrorist machinery and structure.
      As well as those confidence-building issues for the Northern Ireland community, the amendment includes a requirement for an unequivocal declaration of each party's acceptance of the six principles contained in the report of the international commission on decommissioning. Those principles, which have been spelled out on many

      65
      occasions in the House of Commons, have been rolled up into the requirement to endorse "exclusively peaceful means" and to
      "abide by the democratic process".
      No one should be in a democratic negotiating process if he cannot sign up to such simple conditions. The House of Commons is not laying down those conditions. They were not concocted by the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, the Minister, or any hon. Member. They are the fruit of an international commission that considered the matters and what would be the basic requirements, the lowest level of entry, into a negotiating process for any person. The commission of international representatives was headed by an American. That must be an attraction for the Government because the Americans can hardly complain if the Government put down conditions that they have set in the first place. Those who want to take part in the negotiations are required to accept basic democratic principles.
      I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept the principles contained in the amendment. I believe that the requirements are unnecessarily vague in the Command Paper, on which the Secretary of State relies. The use of terminology such as
      "would need to make clear"
      and "the need to address", which is even more vague, is quite unsatisfactory. During the negotiating process, delegates will be asked to consider as an agenda item matters such as the six Mitchell principles and decommissioning. They will have brought before them the Command Paper, which is referred to in the Bill, and they will spend days, weeks or even months trying to determine what "to address" the proposals on decommissioning means at that stage.
      The truth is that the words will mean whatever the Secretary of State wants them to mean at that moment. Northern Ireland representatives are worried that they would go into a process that was open to the definition of the Secretary of State at some moment in future. I believe that, as he has not encouraged us much by being more precise at the Dispatch Box about what the phrase "to address" the issue of decommissioning means, the House of Commons will want to make the wording of the legislation precise by accepting the amendment. Nobody can then be in any doubt about what has to be done for entry into the negotiating process.
      Simply to say that parties would need "to address" the issue leaves it open for the parties to refer to it and to nod in its direction. Even on a daily basis, they might want to "address" issues. However, using that terminology, there is no requirement to come to any decision on the matter, still less to take any action arising from any decision on the matter. Such imprecision will not be acceptable to parties in Northern Ireland and if it persists, it will undoubtedly lead to major problems as the process continues. For all those reasons, there is cause for hon. Members to support the amendment. I trust that the Committee and the Government will be able to do so.
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: I want to speak briefly to my amendment No. 93, which is being considered with amendment No. 2. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) may be surprised to hear that I agree with at least some of what he has said. It is very important for any party at the negotiating table to
      66
      subscribe to the six principles laid out in the Mitchell commission's report. That is precisely what the amendment states.
      I therefore do not see why there is any need to make a specific reference to Command Paper 3232, as the Bill does more than once. It would help to achieve broader acceptance of the criteria for admission to the negotiations if they were based on the report of an international commission rather than simply on a White Paper issued by the British Government. Indeed, it is arguable that the six principles, as set out in the Mitchell commission's report, are far more comprehensive than paragraph 9, for example, of the White Paper.
      It is worth reminding hon. Members of the six principles. The main points are that the parties ought to be committed to
      "democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues;
      To the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations;
      To agree that such disarmament must be verifiable to the satisfaction of an independent commission;
      To renounce for themselves, and to oppose any effort by others, to use force, or threaten to use force, to influence the course or the outcome of all-party negotiations;
      To agree to abide by the terms of any agreement reached in all-party negotiations and to resort to democratic and exclusively peaceful methods in trying to alter any aspect of that outcome with which they may disagree; and,
      To urge that 'punishment' killings and beatings stop and to take effective steps to prevent such actions."
      There is broad agreement in the House—and, I hope, among the people of Northern Ireland—that those six principles are a fair list of criteria for admission to the talks, without the British Government having to interpret them or add to them in any way. It would therefore be helpful to try to get all parties to the negotiating table as quickly as possible. I hope that, in the immediate aftermath of the elections on 30 May, we manage to get all the parties that are successful in satisfying the electoral criteria to satisfy the Mitchell criteria, so that they can get to the negotiating table and begin the important and, we hope, meaningful negotiations on 10 June.
      It would be enough to get all parties publicly to subscribe to the six principles of the Mitchell commission, so it is unnecessary to make any specific reference to Command Paper 3232, as the Bill does at present. I therefore ask the Government to consider amendment No. 93.
      Ms Marjorie Mowlam: I want to comment briefly on amendment No. 93, which has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). Before doing that, I want to put the record straight on a comment made on a point of order just before we began consideration of the Bill, as this is the first chance I have had to do so. I make it clear that I properly declared my interests in the year just ended, and that I will continue to do so. I thank the House for allowing me to put the record straight on that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West said that the spirit of amendment No. 93 was to move the negotiations on as speedily as possible—an aim shared. I am sure, by hon. Members of all parties. However, we are slightly concerned about the wording of the amendment, because, in a sense, the ground rules document puts the

      67
      Mitchell report first on the agenda for talk. The way in which the amendment is worded does two things. First, it undermines some of the value of the ground rules document; secondly, it may in a sense do what my hon. Friend is trying not to do, which is to impose another precondition before talks start. I make that point in a friendly spirit, in the hope of facilitating debate this afternoon.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: I endorse amendment No. 2, which was moved so eloquently by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). During earlier discussions on amendment No. 136, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthome (Mr. Wilshire), it was accepted by the Committee in general that it was necessary to have the flexibility of the putative ground rules set out in the Command Paper rather than having them rendered more inflexible by being put in their entirety into legislation.
      Within the Command Paper on the ground rules there is a central unequivocal core—a number of principles to which everyone must subscribe before being able to hope to participate in the negotiations. Those are more than just ground rules; they are essential democratic requirements, which throw into broad relief the principles of democracy, and the principles, if such they can be called, of those who wish to achieve political ends by means of violence and terrorism.
      It is my view—I hope that the view is shared by the House—that those essential principles have been abstracted and put into words, in the shape of amendment No. 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). From the Command Paper, the hon. Gentleman has abstracted what is absolutely necessary, what is not negotiable and what is a positive requirement for everyone who will pay real, substantial and unequivocal tribute to democratic principles, rather than creating an area of fudge and equivocation through which they may later escape.
      6.30 pm
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the first thing necessary after the elections will be a declaration by the leaders of all the parties that they will abide by those principles? Before people are called to the table to negotiate, they must make an affirmation that that is their basis. If they are called to the table and start negotiating on such conditions, we shall be in the middle of a negotiation that can never be fruitful.
      Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it seems to me absolutely necessary and essential that all those who claim to be democrats and who wish to participate in what is said to be a democratic resolution, or a means of resolving our present problems democratically, should abide by those principles.
      It is important that those principles, which are the very essence of any basis for negotiations, should not simply be left as one item among a set of items in the Command Paper, but must be set out in clear and unequivocal terms within the body of the Bill, so that there can be no ifs or buts about what people are required to do.
      There is an enormous amount of good sense in requiring, before 10 June and after the elections, those persons who have been designated by the Secretary of
      68
      State as the nominators of delegates for each party participating in the talks to make a clear, unqualified statement, without reservations, on behalf of themselves and of such delegates as they are responsible for appointing, that they accept the principles in clause 2 as it would be amended.
      In the absence of such a declaration, the confidence that is said to be such an essential requirement for everyone who intends to participate in the negotiations will not be created. People will go into the negotiations with reservations.
      On the basis that the past is the only guide we have to future performance, many people in Northern Ireland believe that, unless certain principles are spelled out in a way that allows no fudge or equivocation, concessions will be made to the men of violence, to get them to the table. At some point, a price is too high to pay for bringing such people within the fold of democratic procedures.
      What concerns me is not only the opposition to an amendment of the kind suggested, but, in the general principle of the legislation, the absence of any suggestion about what democrats will do if an agreement is reached without the parties of violence being involved. Is there to be any sanction to prevent those people from saying, "It is all very well you democrats getting together and arriving at an agreement—but we shall continue as heretofore"?
      It seems to me that the parties will be creating a situation in which their democratic agreement is the only weapon in the Government's armoury against the possibility of the men of terror simply continuing as before. I appreciate that this may not be the time when the Government can say, "If the democrats arrive at an agreement, and if the men of violence ignore it and, despite being pilloried at the bar of world opinion—for which they have shown scant regard in the past—they continue, we shall do X, Y and Z."
      But at least there should be some suggestion that, if those people do not participate, and if there is an agreement that is endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum and approved by the House, yet terror continues, there will be no question of either the Government of the Republic or the United Kingdom Government not adopting certain measures—at this stage, I do not require them to be specified—to ensure that democratic principles and arrangements democratically arrived at will be guaranteed by those two Governments, by whatever means may then be necessary.
      Mr. Wilshire: Four of the amendments in the group—amendments Nos. 76, 77 and 85 and new clause 2—stand in my name. I say at the outset that I shall not be easily talked out of pressing at least some of the points in them, so I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will bear that sentiment in mind and allow me at this stage simply to explain what concerns me; then, having had the chance to listen to what he has to say, with the leave of the House I will come back to one or two matters, if necessary.
      Amendment No. 76 seeks to add to the requirement that I understand my right hon. and learned Friend will advocate in a Government amendment—the requirement that participation in the negotiations be dependent on agreement with the contents of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Command Paper. Paragraph 8 requires people to

      69
      "establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods"—
      that is a step in the right direction—and paragraph 9 requires
      "the unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire".
      My amendment seeks to return to the issue of a permanent renunciation of all violence, rather than a mere restoration of the ceasefire. It would also require participants to sign up to Mitchell totally and absolutely. The words "total" and "absolute" are taken from the Government document; they are not words that I have invented.
      If I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's proposed amendment correctly, I welcome it, but he will not be surprised to hear that I do not believe that it goes far enough. I will not rehearse the reasons for that, which I have given before, but my right hon. Friend the Minister's amendment requires parties to "establish a commitment". Parties could say, "Yes, we would agree to that in an ideal world, but it is not ideal, so we can't act on our commitment just yet." They could say, "Yes, we are committed to it, but as long as the British Government are so intransigent"—to quote Sinn Fein-IRA—"there is nothing we can do about it." Those are both interpretations of establishing a commitment.
      In an earlier debate—I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was here—my right hon. Friend the Minister said that Sinn Fein-IRA was a master of interpretation and finding loopholes. To avoid all doubt, in addition to Government amendment No. 27, the phrase "establish a commitment" should be changed to "sign up to the Mitchell six principles and permanently renounce violence". That is what amendment No. 76 seeks to do.
      Amendment No. 77 is altogether simpler. My right hon. and learned Friend is a master of legal detail. As a mere layman, I worry that a reference only to parties having to do something offers a loophole through which individual delegates might be able to duck. The amendment, in non-legalistic language, seeks to ensure that not only parties but individual delegates must do what my right hon. and learned Friend wants. If my worry is unnecessary, I should be grateful if he would explain in detail how the reference to parties covers individuals.
      Amendment No. 85 raises two points. First, there may be another legal loophole. My right hon. and learned Friend is taking powers to refuse to admit people to talks and to exclude people from taking their seats if, after they have been nominated, they have not done certain things; but nowhere in the Bill does he take powers to expel people if, after they have taken their seats, circumstances change. We need to be reassured that not admitting and excluding also means expelling. If there is any doubt about that. I hope that the Bill will be amended so that the Secretary of State can expel people who do things after they join the negotiations.
      Secondly, the amendment gives the grounds on which the Secretary of State should have the power to expel people. They will come as no surprise, and I do not need to labour them. If people in the negotiations resort to violence, out they go. If violence is resumed during the negotiations and people in the negotiating teams refuse to dissociate themselves from it, out they go. If people who have signed up to the Mitchell six principles decide to forget some of them, out they go. That is what should happen, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will tell us that he will have the power to expel people.
      70
      New clause 2 takes us back to what my right hon. Friend the Minister said in an earlier debate about people joining the negotiations having to sign up to the Mitchell six before they started. After a while, we got it clear that they would have to sign up to them. That raises the question how delegates to the talks can demonstrate that they have signed up to the Mitchell six. New clause 2 offers one way. I readily accept that there could be dozens of better ways, but this is on the table for consideration.
      Mr. Ancram: I do not want a misunderstanding to arise. When I spoke on the earlier amendment, I hoped that I had made it clear that participants would have to sign up for the Mitchell principles, and that the participants would be the parties and the Governments.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Wilshire: I hope that the term "parties" includes the individuals in parties who make up the negotiating teams. That is one of the points on which I sought clarification earlier. If I am wrong, no doubt my right hon. Friend will say that it does not mean that individuals have to sign up. If they do not, we have a debate on our hands, because it is essential that they should. Whether it is parties or individuals, new clause 2 seeks to give effect to the assurance that my right hon. Friend gave us earlier.
      I propose a statutory declaration. That is not novel; I would love to take the credit, but people in Northern Ireland have to sign up for such things when they are elected as councillors. As Sinn Fein-IRA is happy to sign up after council elections, I assume that even it will not be able to find a way of not signing up on this occasion. The best way to handle agreement to Mitchell is to use the same method as is used for council elections.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the weakness of the present legislation is that individuals must take the matter to court. The Government should take such matters to court. Given the situation in Northern Ireland, it is not fair that individuals have to put themselves in the way of a death squad to clarify the matter through court proceedings. I am sure that he agrees that the onus should be on the Secretary of State and the Government to bring people to book if they break the principles.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Every time I get involved in Northern Ireland debates, I learn something new. I appreciate that I probably should have understood that point before I started to speak. He is absolutely right. If this provision is to be meaningful, there has to be action. Although it is outside the scope of this debate, now that I understand what happens in council elections, he can count on my support on another occasion for trying to have it put right. For the moment, I will explain what my four amendments seek to do.
      I do not want to get into the justifications, because I have explained my approach often enough. I want to listen to my right hon. Friend's reply. I hope that he will take all my points on board; if not, with the leave of the House, I should like to come back on some of them.
      Mr. William Ross: The two amendments in my name are simple and straightforward. Although they could have

      71
      appeared as one, I have chosen to present them as two so that one or other, or both, can be inserted in the Bill. They attempt to pin down people with links with violent organisations, clarify the situation and make things easier for the Secretary of State.
      Before I deal with that, I want to comment on what hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said about councillors signing up. First, councillors do not sign up in a ceremonial way, but privately. They could later deny that they had signed up. Secondly, when Sinn Fein councillors are elected, it means that they have a considerable number of supporters in the area for which they are elected. In reality, only a person from the same area could challenge them. In that light, it is not surprising that folk are unwilling to put their lives on the line—and that is what they would have to do. That may not be clearly enough understood in the House or elsewhere. IRA-Sinn Fein said at the beginning that it could sign up to that without any problem. If it can do so, it is not worded strongly enough. It does not put IRA-Sinn Fein on the spot and if it does not do so, it is not worth having.
      If we are going to have declarations, the Secretary of State must understand that they must have teeth and they must bite. They must be enforceable and there must be some cost if they are not enforced. I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board the concern that has been articulated on the issue in one way or another in the House and on which no action has as yet been taken.
      The Secretary of State will see from my amendments that not only do I intend to pin the individuals and parties down, but that Members on the Ulster Unionist Benches want him to carry out the spirit of the legislation, which is important in the perception of the people of Northern Ireland. He has to fulfil their perceptions in relation to this matter. If he is to exclude people whom he has reason to believe are engaged in murderous activities, the Bill must enable him to do so without hesitation. He must be standing on firm ground and his position must be strong.
      For that reason, we tabled amendment No. 105. Our amendment No. 106 refers only to meeting the requirements "in full". Amendment No. 105 goes further and states that not only the party but the independent members must be covered. They have not been mentioned in this context. The amendment refers to
      "any paramilitary or proscribed organisation with which he"—
      the Secretary of State—
      "has reason to believe that party or individual has links or for whom the party purports to speak."
      If I were writing the amendment today, after the exchanges that have taken place, I would have referred not only to independent members, but to individuals put forward as candidates by their parties. It is important that those individuals sign and agree that they are bound by the strictures of the legislation, and that is not the case.
      By "in full", I mean that we cannot accept ambiguous language. We cannot accept the sort of language that has been used in the past—the degree of vagueness that allows that nice bearded fellow to try to convince the people of Northern Ireland, without success I may say, how peacefully intentioned he is. I must tell the Secretary of State that we are trying to ensure that on this occasion those who are involved in violence—those who speak for violence and may not only be the spokesmen for violence,
      72
      but commit it off their own bat and are directed by it—and who say what has to be said for the purposes of those violent organisations are pinned down in spirit, so that the people of Northern Ireland know that the Government really mean it and that the individuals involved are breaking with their violent pasts. We mean, therefore, that the whole concept and spirit of non-violence and democracy should be involved and should be accepted by all concerned.
      In amendment No. 105, 1 am also trying to draw attention to the fact that those parties, or alleged parties as I prefer to describe them, will attempt to cover the links between themselves—as individuals and as parties—and the violent organisations. The earlier exchanges made it perfectly plain to anyone who cares to read the debate that, so far as the Government are concerned, Sinn Fein-IRA is the same body. We are simply looking at two faces of the same body of persons. We are all aware also that that applies not only to Sinn Fein-IRA, but to the other paramilitary organisations and the parties that speak for them.
      In this legislation, the Government are creating a structure that will draw those people into negotiations. To a large extent, the Government also believe that it will draw them from the ways of violence, thuggery and fascism that they have followed until now into the ways of peace and democracy. That is a pious hope without any solid foundation and it does not impress people. Folk see through that humbug. For heaven's sake, we have lived with it for 25 years. The individuals are known in every street, district, town and village in which they live. We are not dealing with strangers, or with an unknown quantity, but with the thugs we know. We are dealing with the murderers, gunmen and bombers we know. We are dealing with people who have records and have in many cases served prison sentences for their evil deeds. We know that they have neither deserted them nor in any way turned from their violent past or from the concept of violence succeeding. Far too often, the Government have given them hope that their violence will succeed by making concessions, or what those individuals perceive to be concessions.
      I believe that I am being perfectly correct—it is only sensible—to draw the attention of the House to the independent candidates in the amendment. My understanding is that one of those independent candidates is not just some little flower that has sprouted from the ground like a daisy in a field, but is an ex-Sinn Fein chairman of a council in Northern Ireland. If that is so, this is a man who must be pinned down and asked to sign up to the principles of democracy and non-violence. Amendment No. 105 would pin that individual down. We would be telling him that he had to sign up. If an independent member who is standing for election is to be pinned down and will have to sign up, why should individual members whose names are on the list for the parties not have to sign up also? That is not a small point. It is important and the Government must take it on board. If the words in the amendment do not fit the purpose, let them come back on Report with words that meet my point—a point that has been made by others.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether the person to whom he just referred is the man who said that he did not apply to be on the list, but was put on it and is just going to run with it?
      Mr. Ross: The individual who uttered those words has not been identified to me, but I am prepared to take my hon. Friend's word for that, if he is accusing that person of not wanting to run. Perhaps he was complaining for the sake of doing so. If the Government are so willing to accept a name, heaven help us. I notice that one amendment would have the effect of adding the Communist party of Ireland to the list. It was a bit slow off the mark, which is not normal for that party. It is a bit rich when the Secretary of State is promoting the Communist party of Ireland.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: Is not the hon. Gentleman's argument made all the stronger when the House recognises that the independent about whom he is speaking is the same independent who declared, as chairman of the council, that the council workers were legitimate targets to be killed by the IRA?
      Mr. Ross: Indeed, the hon. Gentleman draws to my mind an incident that I had forgotten. He is correct in his assertion. That is what that individual said. I wonder why, when the IRA is so fond of such people, he and that organisation parted company? Perhaps he was too moderate for it. I am not sure, but considering the area from which he came he was probably considered to be a moderate.
      In the light of what has been said, I hope that the Secretary of State will meet the point, which has been made with great force. I was also glad to hear what the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said. He understands quite clearly the need to build confidence by removing the weaponry, which is a very important point that must be dealt with, if not at the top of the list, very early on in the negotiations. It would perhaps be much easier to address that issue if the people who enter negotiations are prepared to say beforehand that they will desert violence and that their parties will become democratic and real political parties that are not merely the face of thuggery and murder.
      7 pm
      The Government have also, of course, tabled an amendment, which is the final item that I intend to mention in my remarks—other hon. Members can speak for themselves. The Government's amendment does not go far enough. In paragraph 8 of the Command Paper, which they wish to insert into the Bill, they talk about including parties that
      "abide by the democratic process."
      That does not go far enough because there is no mention of those parties abiding by democratic decisions—which has been assiduously avoided in all the documents, from start to finish. We talk about a democratic process, but no one ever says, "We're going to abide by democratic decisions", as we do in the House.
      At the end of paragraph 9 of the Command Paper, we come to the question of
      "the unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994."
      Hon. Members have already said today that that is simply not sufficient. It was not enough before, and it is even less now. We really need to have something that goes far beyond the IRA saying, "We've stopped murdering folk, but we're going to go on with all the other thuggery."
      It is not good enough for the Government to accept the IRA's demand that there will be no forensic examination of any surrendered weapons, because one can foresee a
      74
      situation in which the IRA will not remember whether a weapon or group of weapons has been used in an attack, holds on to those weapons and surrenders others, says, "We have given up all our weapons", and that is the end of the matter. There must be forensic examination and the weapons must be identified. If the weapons that have been used do not appear, we will know whether the IRA is telling lies.
      Mr. Tony Worthington: I shall make clear the Opposition's attitude to these amendments, which are grouped under the title of "Grounds for Excluding Delegates". In listening to hon. Members who have spoken—such as the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross)—they are obviously quite right in wanting to exclude from participation in peace talks people who do not subscribe to democratic values. There is no question about that.
      When comparing those hon. Members' proposals with those of the Government, however, I must ask myself which proposals are more likely to bring progress in the peace talks. I have come to the conclusion that, by and large, the Government have it right in setting the framework for peace talks. If one were to go further than the Government have gone, one would bring in so many restrictions and preconditions that progress would not be possible. As the Secretary of State said earlier, we must make our judgments in the context of the mood that would be set in the framework and in the talks.
      The Government have appropriately made it quite clear, as have we, that we must embrace confidence-building issues at the start of the talks. Those issues come directly from the international body and the Mitchell report, which requires that the people who take part in the talks unambiguously accept its six principles. Let us make no mistake about it: the six principles will be extremely difficult for Sinn Fein to accept. The principles include the principle of consent, which is something that Sinn Fein was unable to accept in the peace and reconciliation talks in Dublin, and it will not be an easy test for Sinn Fein.
      The ceasefire will have to be re-established if Sinn Fein is to get to the talks. If the ceasefire is not re-established, the Secretary of State will, in the words of the Bill, "refrain from inviting" Sinn Fein to the talks. That test must be passed. Another requirement is that, on the first day of the talks, the Mitchell principles on decommissioning are embraced. We believe that that is an adequate test in relation to the talks.
      The obvious question for the participants in the forum is what will be its rules of procedure, which will be an issue for it to decide. The forum may or may not decide that, in its rules of procedure, it requires an oath of allegiance from the delegates. That will be for the forum to decide. I do not suggest that that is what should occur, but it is obvious from what has been said in today's debate that members of the forum will take that decision. Whether such an oath is a good idea will be for that body to decide.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: When the hon. Gentleman says that the matter is for the forum to decide, does he means that it is a matter for the negotiators to decide?
      Mr. Worthington: I meant exactly what I said. The legislation says that the rules of procedure will be for the

      75
      forum to decide, and that the forum must propose rules of procedure that will then have to be approved by the Secretary of State. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be nit-picking about this, delegates to the forum can be dealt with in that manner. I think that the Government basically have it right in setting the conditions for the talks.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: In view of what my hon. Friend is saying about making the rules, does not that make even more important the point that any rules passed by the negotiators or the forum—or whoever it might be—should have the support of majorities representing both communities and not only 75 per cent. of those participating?
      Mr. Worthington: My hon. Friend must not tempt me to go down a route that we will deal with in a later schedule. We will tackle that issue then.
      We must deal with whether the Government have put in sufficiently firm tests for entry to the talks. We believe that the Secretary of State has done that. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), in her brief reply to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), said that his amendment appeared to say that the parties had to sign up to the Mitchell principles before they got to the talks, whereas the Command Paper says that that is really the first item on the agenda of the all-party talks. That seems to be exactly the right point at which there should be testing of the parties' resolve and attitude, rather than before that. The Mitchell principles are expressed in simple language, but I am sure that the debate on them will not be dealt with in half an hour or so. All parties will wish to test what is meant by the Mitchell principles. I see the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) laughing at that point. I am sure that if he were at those talks he would certainly wish to test Sinn Fein on what principle 6 meant to it.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State has assured us that the leaders of the parties will have to make an affirmation and declaration and not indulge in long discussions, qualifications, definitions and parsing of sentences. I shall make that declaration when my party is returned. I shall not be at any table to listen to the shenanigans of would-be murderers who cannot even reject the murder that has been carried out on both sides of the community. I am speaking of loyalist paramilitaries as well as Sinn Fein on this occasion. They should make that declaration. Until that declaration is made, we do not know what will happen in the peace talks.
      Mr. Worthington: The point that I was making was that, if a representative of Sinn Fein was at the negotiations and said that Sinn Fein fully accepted Mitchell principles 5 and 6, it would be wholly out of character for the hon. Gentleman to say, "We accept your word on that. We can move on to the next business." I think that that is unlikely to occur. The hon. Gentleman would want to test that.
      We hope that the Government will resist the amendments because we believe that they would not facilitate the early movement to all-party talks or help to set the right atmosphere. I believe that the right safeguards are in the Bill and that to go beyond would not be helpful to the conduct of the talks.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I rise to try to clarify some of the suggestions that have just been made by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman as I did not have an opportunity to intervene. Are right hon. and hon. Members really aware of what we are legislating for at this stage? It is suggested that people could be elected to a forum and that thereafter that forum could place a bar on its membership. I believe that that will leave us open to continuous legal wrangling. Even on the question of the negotiating bodies, we have watched what has happened in the courts of Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein councillors and others have gone to the courts to obtain a legal interpretation and judgment. The House should legislate clearly rather than leave matters for speculative discussions and innumerable law cases thereafter.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I want an assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. As he knows, I have mixed views about the Bill and its purpose. I wonder whether at any stage we will get Mr. Gerry Adams and Mr. Martin McGuinness and their ilk to accept the principles of Mitchell and, therefore, whether my right hon. and learned Friend will be prepared to consider on-going negotiations with Sinn Fein and the IRA, as he has carried on negotiations with them for many months. If it is clear that Mr. Adams, Mr. McGuinness and other leading representatives of Sinn Fein who will be elected to take part in the discussions and the examination which the forum will undertake, cannot and will not meet the Mitchell principles, will negotiations take place? Or will my right hon. and learned Friend find a way around that so that he can continue to negotiate with the IRA and Sinn Fein? The commitment of my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to finding a permanent peace and the reintroduction of the IRA ceasefire is not in doubt. The doubt is how far they will go in undermining the principles of the Union, which I support, to find the platform on which negotiations can take place.
      In putting that question to my right hon. and learned Friend, am I right in thinking that there will be a point beyond which he will not go? If certain leading representatives who may be part of the forum cannot meet the Mitchell principles or the criteria laid down in clause 2—the grounds for excluding delegates that we are currently discussing—will my right hon. and learned Friend have the courage and the principle to refuse to negotiate with Mr. McGuinness, Mr. Adams and others with whom in the past he has been in positive on-going negotiations? If he cannot give me a proper answer to that question and say that if they cannot meet the criteria he will not negotiate with them, what are we talking about in this debate tonight?
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Perhaps the Secretary of State would clarify the basic principles relating to the issue now before the House. Will acceptance of the Mitchell principles and of the necessity to address the issue of decommissioning be a necessary preliminary to allowing a party into the discussions and not a condition for staying in the discussions? I suspect that, instead of taking a firm and principled stand and saying to those gentlemen who espouse violence as a means of obtaining political ends, "You cannot participate and discuss with democrats unless you accept the principles of democracy", the Government

      77
      will allow them in on the first day. Whether it is five minutes, 10 minutes or a day into the discussions, we will be in discussions. The other participants may be left to do the dirty job of saying, "Out you go or out we go". The Government should make the position unequivocally and abundantly clear and say, "You are not to be here at all unless you give the democratic affirmations that are required." Will the Government answer that question?
      Mr. John Wilkinson: Please forgive me for coming in late and not having listened to the debate that preceded my intervention. It is beholden on Her Majesty's Government unequivocally to clarify their position with regard to the eligibility of delegates to take part in the negotiations. It is all very well to finesse the issues and to seek to obfuscate them. However, I believe that no reasonable democrat could quibble with amendment No. 2—which is in the name of the leader of the Ulster Democratic Unionist party, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), and in the name of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
      It ought to be utterly fundamental that those who are associated with the use of violence for political ends or those who maintain the capability of continuing to pursue violent means in the course of seeking their political objectives are excluded. If we cede this point, the whole process will become fatally flawed because it will give an equivalence of status to those who use horrendous and unprincipled means of wreaking mass murder with those who have eschewed for principled and noble political motives those methods that we so utterly deplore. There has to be an element of trust in the position adopted by Her Majesty's Government. I hope that they will not obfuscate the issues and that they will explain why they exclude amendment No. 2, if they so do.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: This has been a full debate, and rightly so. The amendments cover important matters and they are perceived as going to some important facets of the negotiations. It may help if I put the debate into the context of the Government's policy as it has been explained hitherto. The Government's policy has been to seek to secure all-party negotiations, by which it is meant negotiations including all those parties with a democratic mandate, with the purpose of coming through to a comprehensive settlement based on consent, if that proves to be possible.
      It has always been made clear that those parties which shall be entitled to take part as having a democratic mandate shall be those which have declared themselves to be committed to democratic principles and to peaceful methods. For obvious reasons, there can be no place in a democracy for people or parties who are prepared—if they are negotiating as parties—to threaten, or by implication threaten, that they will use violence if they do not get what they want by democratic and peaceful purposes around the table. Putting it another way, people in a democracy cannot be expected to sit down and negotiate with other parties that are not prepared to disavow their willingness to rely on violence in the sense that I have just described it.
      That has always been a qualification of the Government's policy of bringing in, if possible, all the parties with a democratic mandate. That has been fleshed out in what is now the Command Paper agreed between
      78
      the two Governments as offering their best judgment as to what may receive most acceptance in a way with which we are now familiar. Again, it may be worth spelling it out. So far as Sinn Fein is concerned, it is specifically stipulated in the document—in the ninth paragraph—that it shall not be entitled, first of all, to continue with any ministerial contact and, more particularly in the context of what we are discussing, it shall not be entitled to enter into the negotiations unless there has been a restoration by the IRA of the ceasefire of August 1994.
      The point has eloquently been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that that would not be enough. I agree with that, because we know that the ceasefire was broken and that it did not prove to be a permanent or a true cessation of violence. This is where the requirements that are stipulated in the Command Paper become vividly important as to what shall happen when the negotiations begin, because perhaps it is rather more important or significant than the restoration of the ceasefire.
      At the beginning of the negotiations, each and every participant—by which it is meant, in the scheme of things, each and every participating party—shall make it clear that they are totally and absolutely committed to the Mitchell principles, which have come to be called the Mitchell six, of non-violence and of democracy. In the interests of time, I am quoting from memory but, I think, accurately. They have already been referred to by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).
      Without taking up the time of the Committee by looking up the principles and reading them extensively, they include a commitment of the parties to abide by the outcome of democratic discussions and, if they dislike the outcome, to commit themselves exclusively to democratic and peaceful ways of changing them. Just as important—and perhaps more immediately important in the context of what has been occupying us for the last hour or so—they include a commitment to the total and verifiable disarmament of the weapons held by paramilitary organisations.
      In reality, in relation to Sinn Fein there is the requirement that the ceasefire be restored and that it, together with all other participants—including the two Governments—shall commit itself to those principles. However, it does not end there because the scheme as set out in the Command Paper requires that at the same time—that is, at the beginning of the negotiations—they shall address the proposals made by Mitchell for the decommissioning of weapons by paramilitary organisations. Those proposals comprise, embrace and include a proposal that decommissioning shall take place—this is not the precise language, which can be found in paragraph 34—in parallel with the progress of negotiations. The six detailed proposals appear much later in the report.
      Much concern has been expressed about the verb "to address". In my opinion, there is more than one way in which a serious commitment, a serious expression of good faith, of getting into the guts of the proposals can be achieved. Therefore, it seemed a sensible way in which that could be associated with the first, total and absolute requirement to sign up to those clearly expressed principles of non-violence and of democracy.
      Mr. Wilshire: I accept that there is more than one way of addressing something, but the end product is

      79
      what concerns me and, I believe, a number of other people. However this matte ill my right hon. and learned Friend confirm in clear terms that no party and no individual will be allowed to take part in the negotiations until they have publicly signed up—by whatever route they choose to sign up—to every one of the Mitchell six principles?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned in relation to every party participating in the negotiations. That is the language of the scheme to which the two Governments are committed, and to which I have committed our own Government on Second Reading and more than once since. That is certainly the case.
      Mr. Wilshire rose—
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: Before my hon. Friend rises again, perhaps he will permit me to say that it is central to this scheme that these are elections of parties and that the negotiations shall be participated in by parties, albeit parties which have provided lists of names of people who shall be returned as delegates to the forum from whom there shall be drawn down, as it were, the negotiating teams to take part in the negotiations.
      I want to make it perfectly clear—as did my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—that, by reason of the fact that the scheme requires parties to take part, it is of parties that we ask and require, indeed demand, that they make clear a total and absolute commitment to the Mitchell principles. If they are not prepared to do that, they are not entitled to proceed.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Trimble: The Secretary of State may have been about to turn his mind to the following point. It is equally important that we have clarification about what happens afterwards. Assuming that commitments are given, those commitments have to be honoured, and they have to be honoured by parties, which demonstrate their honouring of them by their collective and individual actions. It is equally important that we get some clarity about what happens in the event of a prominent member of the party—perhaps its leader or some leading figure—proceeding to act in a way which conflicts or to make statements which conflict with the Mitchell principles. We need to be clear about how paragraph 17 of the ground rules will operate so as to exclude not only the individual, but possibly the party, from further participation.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. For greater clarity, I remind the Committee of paragraph 17:
      "If, during the negotiations, any party demonstrably dishonoured its commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the report of the International Body by, for example, resorting to force or threatening the use of force to influence the course or the outcome of the negotiations, or failing to oppose the efforts of others to do so, it would no longer be entitled to participate in the negotiations."
      I shall discuss the illustration that the hon. Gentleman specified in a moment, but first I ask how paragraph 17 would be applied?
      80
      The circumstances of the moment would have to be taken account of in the totality. It is very difficult to say, here and now, what the consequence would be in every set of circumstances, but it would plainly be for those participating in the negotiations to form a collective view as to whether a party had, for example, failed to oppose the efforts of others to resort to force or to threaten the use of force.
      Mr. Robert McCartney rose—
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall just complete this thought. A party acts through its individuals. I am being asked by the hon. Gentleman to consider the example of a leader or a prominent person, as I was also asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). If a party, through its leader, has failed to oppose—to use the language of paragraph 17—the efforts of those who resort to force or threaten the use of force, it is very much a matter for consideration whether the party has not brought itself within the ambit of paragraph 17.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: All parties have mavericks. Why should the party leader be forced to accept responsibility for disciplining someone who has stepped out of line and has simply become involved but is not committed? Why does the Secretary of State not accept responsibility for removing from proceedings the person who has dishonoured the commitment and dishonoured their party?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: The negotiations will not be my exclusive property. It will not be open to me to exclude someone once the negotiations have begun. It will be open to the participants, who will be the masters in their own procedure, and it will be for them to decide whether that should be the case. I can make arrangements and I can make dispositions so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, but I cannot determine that for others.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I will give way in a moment.
      That leads us into the territory of amendments Nos. 105 and 106, tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), and new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, which propose that these requirements shall be required of individual members of teams.
      Mr. William Ross: And the independents.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: The independents are there because for the purposes of the Bill they are parties; that is made clear in the drafting of the legislation. The hon. Gentleman makes a face, but we went into this on Second Reading and they are parties for the purpose of the Bill.
      I understand the argument that commitments should be required of individuals, but I repeat the point that I made at the outset: the scheme of the Bill is about parties. Parties put themselves up for election, parties are elected and parties participate. I believe that it would not be practicable to require a commitment to the Mitchell principles from individual party delegates as opposed to the parties

      81
      collectively, and I believe that the requirements that I indicated at the outset of my remarks as being central to the Government's policy are sufficiently fulfilled if that which is required vis-à-vis the Mitchell six is required of the parties.
      I have argued, and I believe that it is relevant at this juncture, that if a party, through its leader, expresses, fails to oppose or in other ways perhaps more positively demonstrates dishonouring of its commitment to the principles of democracy—if an individual does that—it is very hard indeed to see how a party can deny that it is the party that is doing it.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Perhaps the Secretary of State will answer this question, which returns to the generalities of principle rather than the particularities with which he has been dealing.
      Let us suppose that Sinn Fein-IRA re-institute their ceasefire a week before 30 May, participate in the elections, give an undertaking on the first day of the talks on 10 June and address—whatever that may mean—the Mitchell principles. First, is it possible that the Government would accept such a restoration of the ceasefire as late as a week before 30 May, which would not in itself give any ground for confidence or provide any validation of the authenticity of that ceasefire? Secondly, in those circumstances, would the Government be prepared to accept the undertaking? Thirdly, by addressing the Mitchell principles on decommissioning, is it possible that Sinn Fein-IRA could continue on that basis to be involved in negotiations for months without handing over a single rusty revolver?
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the Secretary of State continues, may I point out that interventions, by their nature, should be short? I shall not be so generous another time.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) invited me to be general rather than particular and then described a very particular scenario. Nevertheless, I will try to deal with it. I acknowledge that some people will say, "You are dodging the issue if you do not give a precise answer now to a hypothetical scenario", but I must face that. Our stand is based on the requirement for an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire. That is the language of the Command Paper: it must be unequivocal. Whether the ceasefire may be reasonably regarded as unequivocal depends on all the circumstances, including prior conduct and how soon before 10 June it is purported to be restored. I did not just think of that: I said the same thing on Second Reading. That is the extent to which I am able to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's question.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman then asked what would occur if parties spin out the negotiations without decommissioning taking place. It depends on how the participants to the negotiations tighten the procedures that will be required to implement the commitment to the Mitchell six and to address the modalities of decommissioning. The leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), addressed that issue on Second Reading when he said:
      "It is essential that, well before 10 June, there is a discussion between the constitutional parties and the two Governments on the exact procedures that we shall follow on 10 June so that we can be
      82
      sure that there is a commitment, that it is given in a clear way and that we do not find things disappearing in a cloud of obfuscation and Anglo-Irishese".—[Official Report, 18 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 876.]
      On that occasion, I said that we have to clarify what will be required, and to do so in good time. I think that I said also—I am quoting from memory and not from Hansard—that the discussions should take place soon. That is the extent to which I can answer the hon. and learned Gentleman. He raises an extremely germane point, which the Government recognise is significant.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I refer the Secretary of State back to his point about discipline. He seemed to imply that those who attend the talks, and not the Government, will discipline people. Mr. Adams has said that he will try to break into the talks. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that Mr. Adams tried to break into the last meeting and that police were called to keep him out of the Stormont conference. It is impossible for ordinary parties to the talks to discipline anyone from Sinn Fein-IRA. The Government must give an undertaking that they will deal with the paramilitaries and anyone else who breaches the agreement.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: Sinn Fein was not invited to the talks to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Its representatives were therefore not admitted to the premises, which were controlled by the Government. Similarly, if Sinn Fein does not comply with the requirements that I have mentioned, its nominated representatives will not be invited to select teams and they will be excluded from any future talks. If Sinn Fein or anyone else fails to sign up to the Mitchell six, they will not be entitled to participate in the negotiations, as paragraph 17 of the groundwork Command Paper states. I do not think that we need to write into the Bill the way in which our decision will be implemented. Sinn Fein would not be entitled to participate, and that would be that. We would then see what happened. I do not think that I need to be more specific at this stage.
      Mr. Wilshire: I hope my right hon. and learned Friend realises that I am trying very hard to support him. He said that in his opinion it is not necessary for individuals as well as parties to sign up to the principles. What would be wrong with requiring individuals to sign? If there is nothing wrong with that, will he concede that point and make it easier for me to support him?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: There is obviously nothing wrong with it morally, but I think that there are some practical difficulties. Individuals may claim that they stand by their undertakings in spite of their party's actions. It is hard to see what such a move would add to the proceedings. Any individuals who were excluded for demonstrably dishonouring the Mitchell six would probably be excluded as a result of an IRA action, so we would have to exclude the whole delegation.
      7.45 pm
      I understand what is in the mind of my hon. Friend and in the mind of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I recognise that there is intense distaste at the prospect of sitting down at a table with those who have associated themselves—to put it mildly—with

      83
      abominable crimes. However, we are seeking to bring together people who, however lamentably, by reason of the past have a significant democratic mandate. As a result of that mandate, we are trying to bring those people into the negotiations in recognition of the fact, not that they can veto the process, but that their absence may make it harder for any ultimate solution that may be arrived at to stick. We want to include those parties in the negotiations if we can—provided that they have signed up to all the democratic principles. There is deep distaste for that proposition—which I share as a result of some practical experience—but that is what lies behind the difficult line that we must tread in the circumstances.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some hon. Members are very concerned about his use of the phrase "to address" in relation to the six Mitchell principles? Those principles are absolutely clear: there is no doubt about their meaning. Why must we "address" those six principles when everyone knows what they mean? If we "address" them as part of the forum exchanges prior to forming negotiating teams, it will protract the discussion and enable people to slip under, over or around those principles as recognised by this place and by most people.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I would deserve my hon. Friend's thunderbolts if we were proposing to address the Mitchell principles, but we are not. I correct my hon. Friend rather gently as I know that the language is not easy to distinguish unless one has lived with it—as has been my lot for some time.
      We have said that the principles shall be signed: each and every participant shall make it clear that they are committed totally and absolutely to the Mitchell principles of non-violence and democracy. The phrase "to address" refers to some different proposals made by Mitchell about decommissioning. They are specific proposals about how there shall be a verifiable means and so forth. I endeavoured to explain that, as there is more than one way of achieving them, it is sensible to use the phrase "to address". It is quite different from the principles.
      Mr. Winterton: I wish to clarify that point further. I understood that decommissioning was part of the democratic process. If that is so, why do we need to "address" decommissioning? One either signs up to it and honours it, or one does not.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is perfectly true when it comes to the principles. As to the proposals, there are several ways of going about it, but I will not repeat myself. I have been reminded that I am going on a bit—it is because I have endeavoured to answer all the questions put to me—so I shall now turn briefly to the amendments.
      I would like to be able to help, but I cannot advise the Committee to accept any of the amendments.
      I believe that I have sufficiently dealt with amendment No. 2 in the argument that I have given off the cuff rather than by reading the brief, so I hope that I shall not be regarded as discourteous if I do not say more.
      Government amendment No. 27 makes it clear that the reference to the Command Paper is to paragraphs 8 and 9. As for amendment No. 93, tabled by the hon. Member
      84
      for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), we believe that the Command Paper—as narrowed down by reference to paragraphs 8 and 9—is a much more serviceable point of reference than the Mitchell report, which is much broader. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept, in the light of what I have said, that it is desirable that we should retain the reference to the Command Paper rather than to Mitchell as his amendment suggests.
      I would have liked to accept amendment No. 106, tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry. I have tried hard to discover whether we can prudently include the words "in full", but I have had vehement advice from the draftsmen that that would dangerously, and unnecessarily, open channels for judicial review and challenge and that we would be unwise to solicit such actions. The words would add nothing to the effect, but they would open opportunities for challenge. That is the real reason why I am not able to accept the amendment.
      Mr. William Ross: Perhaps the Secretary of State would care to say more about why it would open up such channels. Is he frightened that in some way the Bill is sailing very close to hybridity?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have asked for this in terms. The words "in full" add nothing to the legal effect, but the courts would have to try to give them meaning and it is anyone's guess what they might conclude. That would materially increase the possibility and danger of challenge to what is at present a simple discretion. I fear that that is what I have to say to the hon. Gentleman on the subject.
      The effect of amendment No. 105 would be that the requirements in the Command Paper must be met not only in relation to the party concerned but in relation to
      "any paramilitary party or proscribed organisation with which…that party…has links or for whom that party purports to speak."
      In the light of what I have said about Sinn Fein and what it will have to do and about signing up to the six Mitchell principles, the hon. Member for East Londonderry can be reassured that clause 2 meets his requirements without the need for the amendment.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will concede that I have dealt at some length with what he said. He shakes his head—I hope that that means that he thinks that my answer is unsatisfactory rather than that I have not dealt with the point.
      I apologise for taking some time. I invite those hon. Members who have tabled the amendments to consider, after full reassurance, whether they might decide not to press the amendments.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: It is interesting that the Secretary of State, having closed his ears to the strength of the arguments that have been made by those who have tabled the amendments, suggests that he has in some way answered the points. In fact, he has at best skirted round the arguments and, in most cases, there has been a long breadth between what he argued at the Dispatch Box and the points that were raised in the debate.
      During the Secretary of State's mild rebuke and gentle correction of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), he used language that was inaccurate. The Secretary of State said that there was no reference to a need to address the principles because the words "need to address" referred to the proposals for decommissioning.

      85
      That was absolutely right, but he then said that the principles indicated that the participants would make the proposals clear. That is not what the Command Paper says. If the Command Paper had said that, it would have been of some assistance to us. The Command Paper says that the participants would need to make their commitment to the principles clear. We have already gone into the difference between "would need to" and "shall" in the Mitchell principles. The reference to "need to address" has not, in my view, been satisfactorily dealt with. The very fact that the Secretary of State is now envisaging the possibility of legal recourse being taken by some frustrated participants suggests that the words of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), in the course of his short remarks, may be accurate.
      It is because of the necessity for the Committee to ensure precision in order to avoid difficulties later in the courts that I believe the amendments should be accepted. There is little doubt that some people out there will take great pleasure in having recourse to the courts on these issues. The less precise the language used in the Bill, the more likely it is that there could be an unfavourable outcome to such a challenge. For that reason, among many others, we have used precise language in amendment No. 2.
      As hon. Members would probably expect me to say, I believe that amendment No. 2 is the most comprehensive of the amendments in this group. It would set a standard for those who will take part in negotiations. Therefore, the question is not, as the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) suggested, one of ascertaining which route is most likely to lead to a successful outcome to negotiations. Amendment No. 2 would set down the standard that would be required of those who will participate in negotiations. As the Secretary of State and others have clearly recognised, it is simply not acceptable for people to walk through the doors into negotiations who have, the day before, been involved in violence, or to expect people to accept their word. People could bomb London or elsewhere one day and the next day be part of a negotiating process that everyone hopes will lead to a peaceful outcome. I must tell the official Opposition that the question is not about the most likely route to a favourable result; it is about setting, at the outset, the standards that will be required of those who are to participate.
      The Government have fudged the issue. I take the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). Clearly, in politics, there is a time for vagueness and a time for clarity. In the Command Paper, there are issues on which perhaps it is more sensible to be vague at this stage than to be clear, but it is abundantly clear that this issue, at a later stage, will be a matter of contention. If hon. Members believe that to be the case, we should be as precise as it is possible to be so that nobody is left in any doubt about the criteria that have to be met.
      We must all have had experience in recent years of the Government giving a wink and nod to suggest that the wording of a document can be loosened at a later stage. The Government have suggested that they might find a circuitous route to get round the language laid down in certain documents. When people come to the point, they have found that the route is closed off and they then feel that they have been betrayed, just as many parties in Northern Ireland, of the fringe variety, feel that they have
      86
      been betrayed by the Government, because those parties are now being required to go beyond what they were asked to do during discussions with the Government about ceasefire arrangements.
      I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that there is value in precise wording for clause 2. I am rather disappointed, though not surprised, that the Government are reverting to type and simply steamrollering the Bill through the House. I trust that the Secretary of State will realise that it is not satisfactory that people who will be present at the negotiations can be put under threat by the participation in those negotiations of people who are effectively saying that, if their demands are not met, they will start up their campaign again. The fact that the Secretary of State is prepared to fudge the issue leads many of us to fear that, somewhere down the line, he will view getting Sinn Fein to the talks, come what may, as his prime motive.
      We fear that, if that means that the Secretary of State must use weaker wording than he used earlier, he will ultimately be prepared to do so. We fear it particularly when we note that there is nothing about talking to the Provisional IRA that would turn the stomach of the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State. As was revealed over the weekend, for a long period while they were telling us that such dialogue would turn their stomachs, they were engaged in dialogue with Sinn Fein.
      My amendment is supported by the leaders of the Ulster Unionist party and my party, and we intend to push it to a Division because we consider it essential for the views of the House to be tested. I am sorry that the Secretary of State has not been prepared to make the smallest gesture towards those of us who have tabled the amendments.
      8 pm
      Mr. Trimble: These are probably the most important amendments that we shall discuss this evening. They try to spell out clearly what should happen in the negotiations, and to clarify the inclusion or exclusion of certain parties. In effect, the Secretary of State has argued against such precision, and we are left with the fairly general statements—featuring a certain amount of ambiguity—in the Command Paper known as the ground rules.
      Following the route suggested by the Secretary of State would require us to have a degree of confidence in the way in which the Government interpret, and will apply, the statements in the ground rules. I waited until the Secretary of State had spoken before expressing my views, but I regret to say that, having heard what he had to say about two important points, I am somewhat disappointed.
      The Secretary of State quoted from my Second Reading speech. I was glad that he did, because it is essential for us to be clear about what will happen when the talks open, but I would have preferred that to be clarified publicly. All parties in the House, and elsewhere, that may be contemplating involvement in the negotiations must know exactly what will happen. None of us wishes to engage in any form of dialogue with those—not just Sinn Fein—who have committed appalling atrocities in the past until we know of the existence of a clear commitment: the total and absolute commitment referred to by the Secretary of State and in the ground rules.
      Just as important, however, is the question of what happens thereafter. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) pointed out that I had signed the

      87
      amendment that he tabled originally; I am rather sorry that I did not also sign amendment No. 85, tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), which also makes clear what will happen afterwards. The Secretary of State disappointed us gravely by saying that it would be for the parties collectively to act, thus giving a clear indication that he intends to duck his obligations.
      The Secretary of State has responsibilities in this regard. It would be much better if the criteria for the exclusion of parties that act contrary to the Mitchell principles on peace and democracy, or fail to implement those principles, were written into the Bill as they are written into paragraphs 8 and 9 of the ground rules.
      At the opening of the talks we are likely to be issued with a postdated cheque, which we fully expect to be dishonoured. The procedures that will apply when it has been dishonoured should be made just as clear. The Government have accepted the principle of narrowing the reference to the communiqué in paragraphs 8 and 9 of Cm 3232, but those paragraphs relate to the original invitation. The Government should accept a similar obligation with regard to paragraph 17: it should be included as well. The Government should have a duty to exclude delegates, which would require the rewriting of clause 2(3). It is not good enough for the Government to duck those obligations by transferring them to the parties collectively; they should not shirk their responsibilities.
      Mr. Wilshire: When I explained the purpose of the four amendments that I had tabled, I said that I wanted to listen to what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and then decide whether any further comment was necessary.
      As the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has just said, our present debate lies at the heart of the Bill—at the heart of what we are trying to achieve. As I have repeatedly said, the matters that we are discussing include what, for me, are two key issues: the clear distinction between asking people to sign something and asking them to address a matter, and the difference between saying that something is permanent and simply reinstating it.
      Every time we debate these matters, Ministers give the same response. They say, "Yes, you are right; this will happen. There is nothing to worry about; all will be well. We have given you assurances before." Hansard is littered with such responses. In all the time during which I have raised such issues, however, I have received not a single reply that would change anything, or give effect to those reassurances. Not one amendment has been considered acceptable tonight, although I stressed that, although a measure might not appear necessary, there was nothing wrong with introducing it if that would reassure some of us.
      As a result, I am sorry to say that I feel forced to do something that I have never done before, and vote against my right hon. and hon. Friends. I do not see this as a party-political issue pure and simple; indeed, the existence of a consensus suggests that more than party politics is involved. I hope I have made it clear over the months that, for me at least—and doubtless for others—the issues that we are discussing raise matters of personal conscience. What is happening flies in the face of my fundamental commitment to democracy.
      88
      I simply cannot bring myself to accept that others should be expected to sit down with evil killers who have not even signed up to anything before the start of the talks, and with people who have broken a temporary truce when it suited their purpose. For me those matters go deep, and they are matters of conscience. I have said time and again that I am unhappy, but there comes a point when it is necessary to show that, as well as to say it.
      I would prefer to vote for my amendment, No. 76, but I understand only too clearly that, with an all-party consensus, any amendment will be defeated. I have serious reservations about amendment No. 2, which has been moved by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) but, rather than divide the Committee twice unnecessarily, despite those reservations, I shall vote for it. I hope that the Committee will note that I would have preferred to vote for a different amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 233.

      Division No. 102]

      [8.09 pm

      AYES

      Beggs, Roy

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Trimble, David

      McCartney, Robert

      Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Wilshire, David

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Paisley, The Reverend Ian

      Mr. William Ross and

      Smyth, The Reverend Martin

      Mr. Peter Robinson.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Carttiss, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Cash, William

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Chidgey, David

      Ashby, David

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

      Clappison, James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Coffey, Ann

      Bames, Harry

      Congdon, David

      Bates, Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cran, James

      Benton, Joe

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Blunkett, David

      Dover, Den

      Boateng, Paul

      Dowd, Jim

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Duncan, Alan

      Booth, Hartley

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Boswell, Tim

      Dunn, Bob

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Brazier, Julian

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Faber, David

      Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fishbum, Dudley

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Fisher, Mark

      Burns, Simon

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burt, Alistair

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Butler, Peter

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Canavan, Dennis

      French, Douglas

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      89

      Gill, Christopher

      Mates, Michael

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Merchant, Piers

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Miller, Andrew

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mills, Iain

      Gorst, Sir John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Hain, Peter

      Murphy, Paul

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hannam, Sir John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Harris, David

      Norris, Steve

      Harvey, Nick

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Paice, James

      Hawksley, Warren

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Heald, Oliver

      Pawsey, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hendron, Dr Joe

      Pickles, Eric

      Hendry, Charles

      Pope, Greg

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Horam, John

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

      Rendel, David

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Richards, Rod

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hume, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Hutton, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Illsley, Eric

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Ingram, Adam

      Sackville, Tom

      Jack, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Jenkins, Brian (SE Staffs)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jessel, Toby

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Spearing, Nigel

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Spring, Richard

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Sproat, Iain

      Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Stern, Michael

      Knapman, Roger

      Stott, Roger

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Sykes, John

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Legg, Barry

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Lidington, David

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Timms, Stephen

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Lord, Michael

      Trend, Michael

      Luff, Peter

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      McGrady, Eddie

      Walden, George

      MacKay, Andrew

      Waller, Gary

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Watts, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Whitney, Ray

      Madden, Max

      Whittingdale, John

      Marlow, Tony

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      90

      Wilkinson, John

      Worthington, Tony

      Willetts, David

      Yeo, Tim

      Winterton, Mrs Ann(Congleton)

      Winterton, Nicholas(Macc'fld)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wolfson, Mark

      Mr. Gary Streeter and

      Wood, Timothy

      Mr. Derek Conway.

      Amendment accordingly negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 27, in page 1, line 20, after first 'in', insert
      'paragraphs 8 and 9 of'.—[Sir Patrick Mayhew.]
      Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3

      THE FORUM
      Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 114, in page 2, line 3, after 'Ireland', insert
      'and an accurate record of such deliberations shall be published and their recommendations made available to the negotiating teams and to the Secretary of State.'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 3, in page 2, line 4, after 'shall' insert 'primarily'.
      No. 5, in page 2, line 4, leave out 'only' and insert
      'but it may, after deliberation, come to a resolution on any matter and may determine the level of support which exists for any proposal submitted by any of the participants in the negotiations'.
      No. 113, in page 2, line 4, after 'only', insert
      'but it may make recommendations to the negotiating teams and to the Secretary of State.'.
      No. 29, in page 2, line 6, leave out from 'functions' to end of line 7.
      No. 75, in page 2, line 6, after first 'or', insert
      '(subject to the provisions of paragraph 3A of Schedule 2) '.
      No. 4, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'course or outcome' and insert 'or course'.
      No. 112, in page 2, line 7, after 'I', insert
      'but that it may debate any area currently the subject of negotiations and it shall deliberate on any report produced by the negotiations.'.
      No. 102, in page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (4)
      No. 6, in page 2, line 8, leave out 'if' and insert 'when'.
      No. 28, in page 2, line 8, leave out
      ', in accordance with any rules of procedure adopted by them, '.
      No. 90, in page 2, line 9, leave out
      'refer any matter to the forum'
      and insert
      'decide to consult the forum on any matter.'.
      No. 7, in page 2, line 9, leave out from 'forum' to end of line 10 and insert
      'it shall consider such matters and determine the level of support which exists for any agreement reached by the participants in the negotiations'.
      No. 91, in page 2, line 10, after 'matter', insert
      'but any such consideration shall be deliberative only and shall not in any way determine the conduct, course or outcome of the negotiating.'.
      No. 8, in page 2, line 11, at end add—

      91
      '(6)—'No agreement shall be reached by the participants in the negotiations unless it is tested to measure its level of support in the forum and shall not be considered to have reached sufficient consensus as referred to in Command Paper 3232 unless it is approved on a vote by at least 75 per cent of those voting.'.
      No. 68, in schedule 2, page 8, line 18, at end insert—
      '3A. The forum shall elect the independent chairperson referred to in paragraph 20 of Command Paper 3232.'.
      Mr. Ross: The intention here is to ensure that, when we have the election to the forum and go to the trouble and expense of proposing candidates, of selecting them and of putting their parties through all the traumas associated with an election, the people who are elected have a job to do. I and, I think, any sensible person believe that people are elected not in a vacuum, but to do a job. Under the Bill, only a small number of the people who are elected will be given a job of any real significance.
      The mass of members elected to the forum will be called together only as and when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland decides to do so or when something is referred to them by the negotiators. That is wrong. The forum is much the larger body of opinion. The people on it will represent directly the electorate and will have gone there to put the electorate's view.
      I and my colleagues have total confidence in the leader of our party. We know his ability in advancing the party's views, but no matter how sensible his and other negotiators' views, other people will have been elected. Many of them will wish to have their opinion listened to. People who have voted for the party in their constituency will wish to know that the people for whom they have voted have the right to speak on their behalf. All that this group of amendments tries to do is to ensure that those people will be able to do just that.
      In amendment No. 114, I specifically ask that an accurate record of such deliberations be published. When we come into the House tomorrow morning, we will be able to pick up Hansard, which will give an almost verbatim report—certainly a report that gives the sense of all that has been said in the Chamber today. As we all know, on many occasions, exchanges in this place are heated. At times, one does not hear every syllable that is uttered and it is difficult to unravel the obscure and ambiguous language that is such a characteristic of the Northern Ireland Office and its Ministers. We have had quite an exhibition of that this afternoon. Time and again, we have had to go back to the Ministry.
      Mr. Ancram: indicated dissent.
      Mr. Ross: The Minister shakes his head. That shows simply that he is not aware of the reality of what he has uttered and the lack of precision and accuracy that we find in what he says. We would like, therefore, to read as soon as possible exactly what everyone has said and what people have thought so that we understand precisely what they were getting at and can question and probe.
      We are dealing not with a small matter of a law that might be changed next year, or perhaps in a few months' time, but with the future existence of the United Kingdom as we know it and Northern Ireland's place within the UK. Surely, therefore, it is only right that the people who are elected to negotiate and to speak on behalf of Northern Ireland's electorate should
      92
      have the opportunity to make their voice heard and that everyone should have the opportunity to read what their representatives have said. That is a reasonable view.
      I make the general case. No doubt it will be followed up by my right hon. and hon. Friends and others. We are simply saying to the Government: "Let us have the opportunity to make our points, to keep a clear record and, in future years, to be able to know what was said on the electorate's behalf by their representatives."
      Unfortunately, throughout the passage of the Bill, a clear effort has been made to limit the forum to ensure that it can do little or nothing and that those who are elected to it are deliberately bypassed and deprived of any power, authority or capacity to extend the debate on the needs of Northern Ireland's people. For example, think what a rich day the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who speaks for the Social Democratic and Labour party, would have had discussing bovine spongiform encephalopathy if the forum had been allowed to debate such a subject and of the wonderful opportunity that he would have had to debate the difficulties that the hospitals in his constituency have encountered, which he has tried to make clear, but which he could have made clear with even greater force within the smaller group in Northern Ireland.
      A body will be elected that will represent all Northern Ireland's people in a way that has never been attempted before. This unique, novel formula is intended to ensure that even the teeniest group in the community will have its voice—and what do we find? The representatives are to be elected and then gagged. They will not be able to make their views clear or do the job that the electorate expect them to do. That is wrong.
      In my efforts to extend the body's remit to ensure that it can do those things, that it can debate and call to account, as far as possible, in its limited way, the Minister of the Crown, I should have thought that I was doing something that everyone who believes in democracy in this place would have applauded, but what do I find? I fear that, yet again, the Government will resist my reasonable points. It is plain that the electorate will not understand the deliberate limiting or gagging of elected representatives. They will say to those folk, "What about the slates that have blown off my house?" The reply will be, "You could go to your councillor or your Member of Parliament, " which is not satisfactory.
      In this series of modest proposals, I am opening the door—not very wide; it is just a small crack—so that the representatives will have the opportunity to expand the role that the Government intend to allow them. I am not in favour of electing a body and then bypassing it. As I said, the negotiators form a very small team. They cannot possibly think of everything or deal with every jot and tittle and might therefore be very happy to have a bit of extra help. Amendment No. 112 would allow just that.
      8.30 pm
      I appreciate that one or two others are trying to reach the same end by slightly different means. I do not object to that. None of us manages to get our amendments as precise and accurate as we would like to think we do, and some people may accomplish the task rather more neatly than I have done. I welcome that, but I have made an effort. However, I do object to amendment No. 102,

      93
      tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who was so helpful in the previous debate. Now, he is trying to gag the forum completely, which is completely unacceptable.
      The amendments are an effort to introduce an incentive for people to stand for the body; they are also an attempt to probe exactly what the Government are trying to do by limiting the forum.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 3, 5, 4, 6, 7 and 8, which deal with the forum. If amendments Nos. 3 and 5 were accepted, they would cause clause 3(2) to read as follows:
      "The functions of the forum shall primarily be deliberative but it may, after deliberation, come to a resolution on any matter and may determine the level of support which exists for any proposal submitted by any of the participants in the negotiations".
      Amendment No. 4 would cause clause 3(3) to read:
      "Accordingly the forum shall not have any legislative, executive or administrative functions, "—
      I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) notes that carefully, because it seems that the nationalists are fearful, but we are stressing that the forum will not have any legislative, executive or administrative functions—
      "or any power to determine the conduct or course of the negotiations mentioned in section 1."
      Amendment No. 6 would cause subsection (4) to read:
      "But when, in accordance with any rules of procedure adopted by them, the participants in the negotiations refer any matter to the forum".
      Amendment No. 7 would then cause some words to be omitted and the following to be added:
      "it shall consider such matters and determine the level of support which exists for any agreement reached by the participants in the negotiations".
      Amendment No. 8 would add a sixth subsection, which would read:
      "No agreement shall be reached by the participants in the negotiations unless it is tested to measure its level of support in the forum and shall not be considered to have reached sufficient consensus as referred to in Command Paper 3232 unless it is approved on a vote by at least 75 per cent of those voting."
      It is very strange that the Government have been prepared to allow self-appointed people to carry on negotiations, some of whom have never been elected to any body in Northern Ireland, and that for a period—stretching now to about two years—the Government have appointed rooms for and put the names of the leaders of these groups on the doors at Stormont and held secretive meetings with them. No one knows what was said to them.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, some of those people are now saying that promises were made to them by the Government which the Government have not kept. Some are saying that conditions are now asked of them which were not asked of them previously. The Minister of State has been photographed with these people from time to time. Although some of them have not been elected to any body in Northern Ireland, long talks have been held with them. We have been privileged outside the remit of the talks to listen to them on the steps of Stormont or at press conferences telling us the types of things being discussed.
      94
      We receive letters from a Mr. Spring from Dublin, telling us that we will now be permitted to pass some sort of judgment on a paper that he submits to us—perhaps we would like to come to talk to him. In fact, he says that he did not know why the leader of the Ulster Unionist party did not go to have a nice chat with him. He has never said that I could have a nice chat with him, but at least he said that the leader of the UUP could do so.
      That is not the way to negotiate the future of any country. If hon. Members think that the Ulster people are so dumb that they are prepared to put up with such treatment and be dealt with as if they had no real say in the future of our Province, they had better be disillusioned once and for all.
      Some hon. Members think that they know what is good for Northern Ireland, but one has only to look back over their record since they took over direct rule. They blamed the Unionists for 50 years of bad rule in Northern Ireland. Certainly, they have not come very far because the other day I heard a republican saying that things were worse than ever. He said that there was now more discrimination, unequal treatment and terrible indignity suffered by the republican people than ever before. Some people will never be satisfied. If the apostle Paul introduced heaven to Northern Ireland, some would think that heaven was purgatory or some worse place.
      I recently read a history of the House and the debates on nationalism in it. It made very interesting reading. One need only change the names to have the same hurling of contempt on all British rule in the island of Ireland. Things have not really changed, but we are now told that we are to have people elected to a body.
      We are told that there is to be an election. People were at first to be elected to a body, but that body has become a forum. I always thought that a forum was a place where people exchanged views and came to a resolution about what they thought should happen. However, we are to have a forum that cannot come to any decision. It is supposed to encourage dialogue but not to come to any decisions.
      I wonder how the House responded to the slip of the tongue made by the Secretary of State when he said the negotiating body would come "down" from the forum. Evidently, on that occasion, he thought that the forum was higher than the negotiating body. So it is, because if we did not have a forum we could not have a negotiating body.
      Some parties are not going to get six people on to that forum. In fact, they will get nobody elected by direct vote of the people. If they are fortunate to squeeze into the first 10 parties, they will of course be given two representatives who will be able to attend the forum. They can bring who they like with them. Since the IRA has been taking members of its supreme command to the talks that have taken place at Stormont, one wonders what sort of characters will be pushed into the talks, which we, as good democrats, are supposed to support and in which we are supposed to have deliberations with such people. Every effort has been made to destroy the forum that was to be appointed as the place where the people of Northern Ireland would have an opportunity to express in public what they hoped would be achieved for them.
      Where did that attack commence? It commenced with IRA-Sinn Fein, which told us that there should be no election. I do not wonder why a terrorist organisation such

      95
      as IRA-Sinn Fein would not want an election. It is not difficult to find an answer to that when one considers the way in which it has crucified its own co-religionists and carried out such desperate beatings in its own areas. I would not think that a person going around on behalf of IRA-Sinn Fein would be too well received in some homes in Northern Ireland.
      IRA-Sinn Fein said, "No election, " and then said that there should definitely be no forum. It will probably try to bypass the forum, for in the forum it would have to talk directly to and engage in debate with the grass-roots representatives of all the Protestant people. It would not be sitting in the cosy company of the two Governments, who for so long have conceded and conceded. Our Government published a book that told of about 100 concessions that they have made to the IRA. Not one concession was made by the IRA to them.
      The attack was joined by the Dublin Government. Mr. Spring said, "We do not need elections, " although it is no part of his jurisdiction. He said, "There is to be no election and there is to be no forum. We should go direct to the negotiating table." The SDLP also took that attitude, although I must say to it that at least the parties of Northern Ireland have had talks together and, although there is a great divide between us, at least we came to some broad agreements on things relevant to an election being held. A degree of democracy prevailed so that we could have a conversation and put our views forcefully to one another. Those meetings were not a cosy little chat, because we all have strong views, which we put and discussed. We agreed to disagree, but at least we made considerable progress.
      The best way in which to have negotiations in Northern Ireland is in an ad hoc way, when parties that choose to talk come together and start negotiating. I hope that, when the procedure has got under way, that is the way in which we shall proceed. An effort is still being made, however, by many to dehorn the procedure completely.
      8.45 pm
      I apologise to the Labour Front-Bench team because I should have said that its members, too, were not keen on the forum. When I spoke to their spokesperson, they felt that the forum should be elected, but then they thought that the forum should be forgotten and that they should go immediately to negotiations. I do not want them to feel that I did not praise them for joining the rest. I would not like them to think that their opinions were rejected and not listened to.
      So there was all that conspiracy, saying, "Do not let the Ulster people have a forum; do not let them express themselves in that forum; do not let any democracy prevail; do your best to silence them, they should not be heard anyway." When the House takes that viewpoint—the words of the Secretary of State tonight have been heard in Northern Ireland—the people in Northern Ireland feel that a dark cloud has descended, and that the road to elections and a democratic voice of the people being heard will be bound by rules and regulations.
      One matter that concerns me greatly is that the Government will not take responsibility to deal with those who violate what we are told are the first principles of getting to the table. I do not know what
      96
      happens when those negotiators meet. The night before we have read in the press some of the things that they have said about the future of Northern Ireland. We have heard Mr. McGuinness say that they have nothing more to give—not that they ever gave anything—but murder and mayhem and that it is up to the Unionists to give. I wonder what they want us to give. I think that they want us to surrender to a united Ireland.
      After that, the same thing would happen as happened in the south of Ireland. When the line was drawn, 10 per cent. of the entire population of the Irish Republic was Protestant. Today, only 2.5 per cent. of the population is Protestant, which means that 80 per cent. of the Protestant population of the south of Ireland have disappeared. [Interruption.] The Labour Front-Bench team can argue what they like, but that is a fact. One need only talk to people in the south of Ireland to discover how the land has been denuded of the Protestant population.
      I heard Gerry Adams say, "We have to get the Brits out. There can be no more British rule. That is what we are going to talk about in the talks." I always thought that nothing could be done to the constitution of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom until we had a referendum, but, evidently, now there is a republican consensus. We heard Mr. Ahern on the same track last night in Dublin. He was praising the IRA leadership and castigating Mr. Bruton because he did not invite Gerry Adams to discuss the breakdown of the ceasefire with him, as if the Taoiseach should have immediately consulted Gerry Adams and asked him to explain why the ceasefire had broken down. Those are all the things that are happening in the environment that surrounds the coming election.
      Are we to have a body that can express the views of the people of Northern Ireland or not? How far are those views to be expressed? Will this body have any power at all to impress on those who are ceded from it to be negotiators or is it to have none?
      Will the people of Northern Ireland be taken into account? They certainly cannot be taken into account by the negotiators because, we are told, they will negotiate three days a week. I had a letter from the Secretary of State this morning in which he said that there would be negotiating three days a week. If three days a week are spent negotiating, how shall we meet representatives of the Churches, of the trade unions and of all the other people who want to talk to us? That will be impossible.
      We should remember that there could be as many as 70 people at the table in the negotiations, and perhaps even more. One can understand how large the room will have to be and one can understand what a folly it will be when 70 people are sitting around the table trying to negotiate. That will be impossible.
      I believe that there should be committees in the forum and I believe that the committees could do a useful job in sounding out the views of various people and reporting those views to the negotiators who will be speaking for them. That matter needs to be taken care of. However, in the letter I received from the Secretary of State this morning, I was told that the forum may meet just once a week. How can the forum possibly do a useful task when there are official meetings of the negotiators? The Dublin Government will be able to say, "We must have an official meeting of the negotiators." That will mean that the forum in Northern Ireland will have to quit its work.

      97
      I would like the Secretary of State and the Minister to tell us how the system will work. How can we have committees of the forum in session which suddenly have to stop their work because there are going to be negotiations? Does the Secretary of State envisage that the negotiations will be held as the previous negotiations were held and that all the parties concerned will be round the table? We shall have to wait long hours until the Irish delegation gets to the meeting. Having sat and kicked our heels for at least an hour until the Irish Government get there, we shall have to wait until matters proceed on a grace and favour basis.
      We must discover what opportunities the forum will have. People will stand for election. What do the leaders of the parties tell those people? Do they tell them, "Well, you will have a job of work to do"? Alternatively, do they tell them, "You are very nice; give up your job"? I know a young man who wanted to stand for my party. He told his boss, who said, "Well, I think you would be better resigning your job." I would have thought that the Secretary of State should at least say that he wants people from all walks of life in the negotiations. Industry should be exhorted to let off from their work those who want to stand and to be elected so that they can make a contribution to the future of our Province. That should be done immediately.
      Unlike some of the other leaders, I now have all my candidates in place, so I am not pushed for time. However, it was a difficult task to ask people to stand for a forum when no one knew what the forum was or even if it was going to exist. I am sure that any person in politics will understand how difficult it is at times to get good candidates to stand, especially if they do not know what they are standing for, what remuneration they will get or what will happen to them after they are elected. There is a great difficulty.
      We agree that the functions of the forum should be primarily deliberative, although it should have other functions as well. We agree that the forum should have no legislative, executive or administrative functions. We are fully agreed on that and I do not think that any of the major parties desires anything else for the forum. However, we believe that those who are doing the negotiations—the leaders of the parties—should be able to test some of the things that are being discussed in that forum to see whether they have real support across the divide. It would be a useful function—a litmus test—to see exactly how the forum would respond to certain propositions. You should be well assured, Dame Janet, that if the proposals could not get past the forum, they would never succeed in a referendum of all the people of Northern Ireland. Anyone who thinks otherwise should think again.
      The argument is posed, "What if there was a majority of Unionists?" The forum will certainly not have 75 per cent. of Unionists; that is one thing that will not happen. We have, therefore, included that figure in the amendment. There would have to be a broad consensus and every representative section would have to agree with the outcome in some way.
      Under the rules of procedure, the forum could take up certain matters and discuss them. Added to that, we would want to see that the forum had the useful role of looking at the overall package. I suggest to the Committee that that would, indeed, be a useful role for the forum. Members of the forum will not, of course, be at the
      98
      negotiations; they will not determine the course of those negotiations or their conduct. That will be for the negotiators themselves to decide.
      However, members of the forum will have influence in the outcome because they will have the opportunity to discuss the agreement, some agreement or a little agreement, whichever has been achieved. They will be able to look at that and discuss it, not behind closed doors, but in full public view so that all the people of Northern Ireland can understand what is happening and what the proposals on the table are. They would be able to understand what people were arguing about at Stormont, and what arguments the parties were putting forward to try to secure a future for our people and our families, for our children and our children's children.
      The House would do well to ensure that the forum could do useful and rewarding work, and that those people could have a real say in shaping the future. Who are those people? They are people who are willing to make a sacrifice, because the remuneration offered is small, and some of them will have to leave their jobs and lose their pay.
      Some of them will also put at risk their prospects of getting back into employment afterwards, because politicians are not the most likely people to get jobs in Northern Ireland. Former Members of Parliament find it easier to take early retirement than to get a job, and Members of the Stormont Assembly found it difficult to be re-employed. So here we have people who are prepared to make a sacrifice to do a reasonable job of work for the future of Northern Ireland. The House should encourage them in that role.
      Again I stress the fact that we are not asking for executive, legislative or administrative functions. I do not want people to say, "You just want to turn the forum into a new Stormont." We want nothing of the sort. It should be the objective of the talks to bring about a situation in which we could have a real Assembly in Northern Ireland, with real powers to deal with the bread-and-butter issues that are important to all the people of Northern Ireland. But that must come after the negotiations, not during the negotiations, and we want to make that fact perfectly clear.
      I have said to the candidates who will run for my party, "Do not think that you are MPs in embryo; you are only delegates to a forum. Your constituency does not really matter, because you will be elected to an all-Ulster body, and your job is to do the things that will help us as we seek to find a way forward for Northern Ireland now."
      I commend the amendments to the House, including that moved by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). The forum deserves to have a certain job of work to do. I believe that people who work together get to know one another, and if that happens, at least there will be some cement in the society that they hope will benefit from their contribution.
      9 pm
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I declare an interest, in that I was born and bred in Dublin, and I come from a family that has lived in Ireland for centuries. Probably my first memory is of Dublin during the war, when the bombs were falling, and my second memory is of the stories told me by my grandfather, who was involved in 1916. My father

      99
      woke on Easter day 1916 to see that his Easter egg had been hit by a bullet in the first moments of the rising. He never found out whether it was an English or an Irish bullet.
      Eighty years later, we have an opportunity to turn back the clock for once, and to begin to think afresh. Are we to continue to fight the wars of 80 years ago and of 180 years ago, and even those of the 13th and 14th century—the time when my family first went to Ireland? Or shall we, as surely we must, begin to think about how we can take things forward?
      This is probably the first time during the 13 years that I have been in the House that I have spoken on Irish matters in the Chamber. I have put my name to two of the amendments in the group, including that relating to the chairperson of the forum, and how that person should be appointed, because it seems to me that the forum, with all its faults, failings and limitations, represents a step forward, at long last. The differing views—they are numerous, and let us not underestimate them—will be aired, fully and frankly, I hope.
      I take on board many of the fears and worries expressed by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). Those fears and worries are realistic, because everything always takes place against the background of what happened yesterday, of the memories we all have, and of what we were taught as children about what happened in the past. However, there has to come a time when we put those memories behind us and think forward to the Ireland that we want to emerge.
      I am not so conceited as to say that I have a solution of any sort. With the Irish, of both north and south, a little humility might not be bad thing. We should all accept that things have happened in history of which none of us is proud. Attitudes have been taken and deeds done which none of us can justify in the modern world.
      I will keep my plea to the Government and the forum short, because one of the disadvantages of being an Irishman is that one can speak for ever and a day. We are well used to that; it is one of our great failings.
      Mr. William Ross: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman. He used a phrase that people should reflect on. He said that things that happened long ago would not be acceptable when viewed in the light of the modern world. That, however, is not the point of history. Many things have happened in the history of all nations that are not acceptable in a modern light. Indeed, there are things happening today—certainly, things have happened in our lifetimes—that are not acceptable, but they still happen.
      Some of what was done in the past, by all nations, was done in the light of those people's view of the circumstances of the time and of the dangers in which they perceived themselves to be. I do not know whether that helps the hon. Gentleman, but it is dangerous to judge the past with modern views and 20:20 hindsight. That is never helpful.
      Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman goes down the path that I seek to go down. The things that happened 50, 60 or 70 years ago, happened in the context of their time. The people involved, whether they were right or wrong
      100
      by the standards or lights of others, believed that they were right. When we consider the situation now, we have to ask ourselves how to go forward. Of course injustices have been done on all sides over the centuries, but that is all I ask of the forum, in which I shall have no vote and play no part, because I do not live in Northern Ireland.
      People will have to make sacrifices, from whatever quarter of the political spectrum they come. The hon. Member for North Antrim is right; one has to give up things when one takes part in public life. Whether one is a parish or district councillor or plays any other role in public life, we should not forget that those roles entail sacrifice.
      Those who will play their part in the forum will make sacrifices. They may lose their jobs or their friends—people may disagree with their participation in the body—but they will make the sacrifice and play their part. From whatever part of the political spectrum they come, I hope that they will make their points forcefully and well, but in the spirit of looking to tomorrow. That leads me to my amendments, which deal with who is to be the independent chairman of the forum.
      Should we look to the party that has the most seats? I believe that that would set the forum back. If we looked to someone in the forum, that would, in its way, set the body back. That is why my amendments talk of an independent chairman. I do not envy the person who will chair the body. It will probably be the most nightmarish task. There will be many conflicting factions and disputes. There is so much at stake that the person who performs that function must be someone who has the respect of the forum as a whole.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman carefully. The only time that I had the opportunity to talk about these matters outside the House with him, we had an interesting and helpful discussion. His argument was made to us in respect of the Prior assembly. Who would we get to chair that assembly? Who could control the people attending it? We got one of ourselves, the late Sir James Kilfedder.
      When the election was being fought, no one would have said that he would have been the ideal man to chair it, but all parties that sat under him thought that he did well. They did not always agree with what he did. I did not agree with him when he threw out some of my members and rebuked me for saying things that, had I said them in this House, would have been ruled in order. But that assembly did well under his chairmanship.
      I am not so sanguine as to think that, when we get all these people together, there will not be someone among them able to manage the chair of the assembly. I think that it would be—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but I gave a warning earlier about interventions being shorter. I call the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham).
      Mr. Bermingham: I take on board what the hon. Member for North Antrim says. I was listening with interest to his intervention, because I thought that he was coming round to my way of thinking.

      101
      The forum itself may throw up the person, and we were given a classic example there—someone who will command respect. One might find what I would call the independent chairman from within the forum. One might find him or her from without. I speak in the singular, rather than taking the politically correct stance of using the word "person", for which I apologise. "Chairperson" is a phrase of which I am not particularly fond, but be that as it may.
      The outcome must be that the person commands respect. That person will have a formidable task on his or her hands. He or she must reflect the confidence of the forum. If that is achieved, and this is why the amendment stands in the way it does, in my view—it is a purely personal view—it would be the first step forward. One would then have an organisation that had someone it respected to command the way in which it was run.
      I have listened carefully to hon. Members speaking to the other amendments in the group and I believe that the forum should not be merely an idle ship. It should play an important part, and be able to discuss a number of matters. I am not suggesting that it should have legislative, executive or any other powers, but it is an opportunity for people to discuss and debate various aspects of life in Northern Ireland to their mutual advantage. I do not know what will come from such discussions. Perhaps when people talk, ideas begin to flow, seeds are sown and new ideas grow. Like Mark Antony at the funeral of Julius Caesar, I have come not to praise the forum, merely to wish it well.
      I sink back into my own Irish history, strongly urging on the Secretary of State the concept of an independent chairperson for the forum.
      Mr. Trimble: I endorse much of what the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said. I agree that the forum offers an important opportunity—a valuable opportunity for the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to debate, discuss and take evidence and to carry the debate forward positively. I am sure that the decision about electing a chairman, which will have to be carried out through the weighted majority of 75 per cent., will ensure a degree of independence. It will be interesting to see whether we manage to find the appropriate chairman from within the personnel of the forum. That remains to be seen.
      Like the hon. Members for North Antrim and for St. Helens, South, I am anxious to ensure that the forum has the opportunity to engage in wide debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East tabled amendments that refer to the ability of the forum to debate and make recommendations. The reason for tabling such amendments is the apparently restrictive wording in clause 3.
      I take the view that the words in clause 3 do not restrict the forum's ability to debate any issue that it regards as
      "relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland."
      If that rubric of
      "promoting dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland"
      gives the forum the opportunity to discuss any issue it considers to be relevant to those broad considerations, I am sure the forum will think that there is a wide range of matters that could be discussed.
      102
      That phrase will, of course, also cover all the matters that may arise in the negotiations, because it is inconceivable that there could be matters in the negotiation track that are not
      "relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding".
      I take that broad phrase as giving the forum the opportunity to discuss anything that might be regarded as relevant to this process. If the forum discusses such matters, those discussions might or might not—depending on how they proceed—come to a conclusion, and might or might not result in reports or recommendations.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend has pointed out that, under the amendments we are discussing, it would presumably be possible for the forum to discuss almost anything. But schedule 2 says:
      "the forum shall not meet at any time notified by the Secretary of State to the chairman as being a time when, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it would not be appropriate for the forum to meet because negotiations within section 2 may take place."
      I fear that that brake could be used by the Secretary of State to gag the forum.
      Mr. Trimble: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern, to which I should respond by making two points. First, amendments have been tabled which would clarify the matter, which we shall discuss when we reach that schedule. A second and more general point—it may be more relevant in practice—is that, as the Minister said earlier this evening, the conduct of the negotiations will be for the parties themselves.
      If the Secretary of State was minded to use that provision in a manner that would be unduly restrictive of the forum's operation, there is a very simple remedy in the parties' hands. I imagine that a sufficient number of people will be engaged in the talks who are committed to the forum's success to ensure that meetings will not be held in a manner that would frustrate the forum's operation. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) that this is a matter in which the remedy is in our hands, and we can exercise it should the need arise.
      It will be possible for the forum to discuss matters and for those discussions to conclude in whatever manner the forum decides, subject to whatever rules of procedure the forum may adopt. That reference to rules and procedure of course carries with it built-in safeguards, which are spelt out in greater detail in schedule 2. If the debates and discussions in the forum result in any form of conclusion, it will be entirely open to the parties engaged in the negotiations to refer to those matters.
      This process and this legislation, in trying to separate negotiations from the forum, are flying a little against the reality that the same people from the same parties will be present in the forum and in the negotiations, and that some interaction will be inevitable.
      I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 28 and 29. Amendment No. 29 proposes to delete the second half of clause 3(3). I do not think that the second half of clause 3(3) says anything at all. The beginning of clause 3(3) states:
      "the forum shall not have any legislative, executive or administrative functions".

      103
      If it does not have any executive or administrative functions, it obviously does not have the power to determine anything in relation to the negotiations or to anything else.
      The words in the second half of clause 3(3) are redundant and do not say or do anything because the forum does not have an executive or administrative function. The forum does not have power, and those words are unnecessary to the meaning. I understand that those words have been put into the Bill to meet the paranoia shown by certain parties about the forum, but one must make the point that the words are devoid of content.
      Dr. Joe Hendron: Will the hon. Gentleman answer this question for me? In Northern Ireland we are divided by history. I can understand the amendments that have been moved today to strengthen the concept of a forum. I agree with some of the points that have been made, but others do not agree. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, within the broad nationalist community in the north of Ireland—I am not talking about paramilitary people—there is apprehension about the forum, and that it would be even greater if some of the amendments were carried? The apprehension relates to the fear of the old Stormont coming back at some stage in the future.
      Mr. Trimble: I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. He will have noted that, in referring to clause 3(3), I quoted with approval the statement that the forum would not have any legislative, administrative or executive functions. No effort is being made in this debate to amend that part of subsection (3) or to give the forum a function or power to determine. I understand the concern, and I understand that the additional words to which I have referred have been included as a result of that concern. I merely point out that the additional words in subsection (3) add nothing to what is already in the first half of subsection (3). That should give the hon. Gentleman adequate assurance.
      Amendment No. 28 seeks to delete some words from clause 3(4). The reason why it has been tabled—I should be grateful for the Minister's response on this point—is that I find the reference to the rules of procedure to be adopted by parties to the negotiations somewhat curious in view of the detailed set of ground rules that have been formulated. I wonder what else there is, and what is meant by the reference to the rules of procedure. I should be grateful if the Minister would elucidate that.
      Mr. McNamara: Listening to the speeches of the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) rekindled my fears about the purpose that the forum might pursue if the amendments were accepted. I cannot help feeling that it is a little naive of the hon. Member for Upper Bann to believe that, merely because the forum will not have any legislative, administrative or executive functions, the rest of the clause is redundant.
      Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Antrim have said that the forum will make recommendations, come to conclusions and suggest things
      104
      that should or should not happen. Indeed, the hon. Member for Upper Bann suggested that the forum could discuss almost anything under the heading of promoting dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland. It is a broad definition. The lines he sought to draw between what might be discussed in the negotiations and what might be discussed in the forum were very blurred—indeed, positively overlapping. Therefore, I should like to have some clarity from the Minister.
      The Minister will recall that matters relating to the negotiations may be referred to the forum under clause 3(4) if the parties to the negotiations are agreeable. The only reference we have to the rules of the negotiations and of the business committee is what we find in paragraph 24 of the Command Paper. I shall read what is contained in brackets:
      "The rules for establishing sufficient consensus will be agreed in advance of negotiations by the participants and such rules will ensure that any departure from the rule of unanimity is within minimal limits and will, in all cases, ensure that any decision taken will be supported by a clear majority in both the unionist and nationalist communities in Northern Ireland."
      They are the rules that are being laid down for the negotiations to take place. I take it from that that, with regard to clause 3(4), no decision will be taken to refer anything to the forum—unless by the parties to the negotiations—unless it has passed the hurdle that it will be supported by a clear majority in both the unionist and nationalist communities in Northern Ireland. Am Ito take it from that that they mean in terms of Northern Ireland—the representatives so elected to the forum by the communities in Northern Ireland—and that it will be the parties that have been elected and the negotiators who will decide when that is to happen?
      If that is the case—although I regard the forum as something of a nonsense—if that power lies with the parties to the negotiations, my fears and those of my hon. Friends might be assuaged to a degree. However, if that is not the case, what we have created is a forum that will discuss all manner of things, that will be able to come to conclusions and that will have things referred to it from the negotiations, which it will seek to debate.
      After the framework document, we wanted to have negotiating parties and negotiations rather than going into the election. We wanted the negotiators to have the ability to sit and negotiate without fearing that they had to look over their shoulders all the time to other people in another assembly who would be passing judgment, day in, day out, on the process of the negotiations. There might be cries of betrayal. We wanted to have negotiations before the elections to prevent that from happening—to come to some agreement and then ask the people of Northern Ireland to accept it or to reject it in a referendum as laid down in the framework document.
      However, here we have the parties elected with a forum. If that all-embracing phrase in paragraph 24 relates to what can or cannot be said and debated in the forum on the recommendation of the negotiating parties, that is fine. However, if the argument were to be adopted that negotiations were likely to be conducted under rules and procedure for the negotiating parties—as they are to be for the rules of negotiations for the forum—that would be a dangerous
      matter.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: It would be of some assistance if all hon. Members realised that the purpose of the legislation is essentially to have a set of negotiators going about the business of trying to arrive at a consensus about the best way that a peaceful and, hopefully, permanent settlement can be achieved for the people of Northern
      Ireland.
      However, such a settlement—first, if it is to be achieved and, secondly, if it is to receive the democratic endorsement of those for whose benefit it is alleged to have been put in place—must have validation. There is no point in a set of secret negotiations taking place and a package being produced like a rabbit from a hat and placed before the people of Northern Ireland, who have not been made conscious and made aware in general terms of what those pledged to negotiate on their behalf have in mind.
      9.30 pm
      The fears of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and of some parties representing minority interests in the House are unjustified. If any package is to be approved in a referendum of the people of Northern Ireland, it is much more likely to receive the endorsement of the people in a referendum if they have previously been made aware in some form of plenary session of what those negotiating on their behalf have arrived at, and if those elected—the parties in and the delegates appointed by the electoral process—have had an opportunity to see it and endorse it.
      It is pointless for the negotiators to present a package to an elected body in the forum for approval unless they present it to that body with a recommendation that the package should be endorsed and validated by the delegates in the
      forum.
      It is extremely unlikely that, in the absence of agreement within the negotiating teams, anything would see the light of day before the delegates in a plenary session of the forum. Every advantage would therefore be obtained by permitting the delegates, in a plenary session in the forum, to consider and examine and endorse the package that their negotiators have arrived at before it is unleashed on the general population in the form of a referendum.
      Given that the negotiators who will provide the peace package to the general body in a plenary session were delegates appointed from all the members that have been chosen for the forum, it is very unlikely that they would take back to the forum in plenary session something that they could not endorse whole-heartedly and recommend for validation to that forum in plenary session.
      That point was taken up on Second Reading. The example was given of the discussions that took place at Sunningdale in the early 1970s, when, as a result of a great deal of pressure—a great deal, I may say, of bullying by members of Her Majesty's Government—the late Brian Faulkner took back to Northern Ireland a deal, the Sunningdale agreement, which the pro-Union negotiators had accepted. Because there had been no validation by the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives generally, he failed to sell that peace package, as it then was, to the pro-Union constituency in Northern Ireland.
      It therefore behoves the House, when considering the powers to be given to the forum, to think positively about what the forum can do to enhance, not hinder, the
      106
      endorsement of a peace package or settlement arrived at by the negotiators. There would be absolutely no point in the negotiators arriving at an agreement in secret if that agreement were not approved of by most of the delegates, and, as a result, caused a substantial division among those who were supposed to recommend it to the constituency of Northern Ireland in a referendum.
      Therefore, those who labour under the misapprehension that we should give the forum powers other than those of a total cipher should think again: they may be formulating not a policy for achieving the acceptance of a negotiated peace, but a mode of operations that will militate against it.
      Mr. Eddie McGrady: This is the first contribution from the Social Democratic and Labour party Benches in today's very long debate as my amendments were not selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means. However, it is appropriate that I should speak on behalf of my party about the forum question.
      The purpose of the legislation is to facilitate negotiations and their successful outcome. We have not had negotiations. The legislation proposing elections and a forum is before us now because the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland simply refused to participate in such negotiations until they received assurances that, first, there would be an election that would confirm their electoral mandate for the 21st time in 20 years; and, secondly, that the forum would be appointed and granted the powers under clause 3, as amended.
      The legislation makes provision for elections which would provide negotiators who would engage in talks and try to resolve the tremendous differences affecting all of the people of Northern Ireland, irrespective of their political beliefs or community affiliations. We believe that the elections could prove divisive. Elections, by their very nature, are confrontational—we fight elections—while negotiations strive for consensus: they are the antithesis of elections. Yet elections and negotiations are married in this document—and so be it.
      The forum suggestion causes great concern in the community and among that part of the electorate that supports me and my party. We have seen many assemblies and forums over the years, all of which have failed. I have listened to the assurances given during today's debate by the leader of the Ulster Democratic Unionist party, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and others. Such assurances are hollow when viewed against the backdrop of the amendments that have been proposed to clauses 2 and 3—all of which are designed to enhance the authoriry of the forum while, at the same time, diminishing and restricting the authority of the negotiating table and team. The powers drain from one to the other.
      We fear that constant debate in a public forum will, as has occurred in the past—we are not looking into a crystal ball; we are drawing on experiences—lead to extreme debate and hot words, which often cannot be withdrawn. We are afraid that the negotiators will be pressurised into abandoning the necessary consensus and compromise for which they should strive.
      Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
      Mr. McGrady: This is my first contribution and I wish to develop my argument. The purpose of the negotiating team is to try to obtain consensus across very difficult strands of disagreement. We have been accused of being undemocratic because we do not support the concept of the forum. The forum is not a body that is designed to engage in democratic debate. That is not what it is about. The election is designed primarily to provide negotiators and to give confidence to the parties that need such confidence. With manifestos endorsed, the parties can come to the negotiating table to draw out a conclusion. To say that it is undemocratic to wish not to diminish that role is not a reasonable argument.
      The other argument made against our opposition to the forum is that community groups and various people could come to the forum and make presentations. There is nothing to stop such people and community groups presenting their evidence directly to the negotiators, and not at third hand.
      Mr. Maginnis: Is not the hon. Member manufacturing an argument that is without real substance? Does he not recall that during the 1992 negotiations, when only the negotiators were around the table, an impasse was reached again and again? Those of us who endeavoured, by putting substantive documents on the table, to move forward were thwarted because there was a totally opposite reaction to what we were trying to achieve. Does the hon. Member understand that—as well as having the purpose that was outlined by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney)—the forum can indeed be a constant conduit to the public, who need to understand what is happening, rather than be taken by surprise at the end of the process? When there is a confrontation or an impasse, not on a point but on assertions made on a particular point, a committee of the forum could take that away and discuss it and take evidence about the issue.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would draw breath. Interventions should be under a minute and the hon. Gentleman has been going for a minute and a quarter.
      Mr. Maginnis: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I thought that in Committee it was possible to make a point in some detail, as distinct from during Second Reading. I understand the rules of the House and I take your point, but surely I am entitled to wind up very briefly. I beg your indulgence.
      The Chairman: Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had only just started, so I am not sure about winding up. The hon. Gentleman may, of course, make his own speech, but interventions—in the 22 years that I have been in the House—have always been of short duration and usually involve just one
      question.
      Mr. McGrady: I must confess that the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's intervention has now escaped me, but I believe that before he intervened I was dealing with the perception of democracy in terms of the forum. We are
      108
      told that it is to be a non-executive assembly that could have certain parliamentary attributes: that it could, for example, shadow a local government department.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: We have not been told that.
      Mr. McGrady: During Thursday's debate, the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party suggested that a sub-committee could be formed to deal with matters involving local government in Northern
      Ireland.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman should obtain a copy of Hansard and read what my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim, (Rev. Ian Paisley) actually said. He said that, in the case of many subjects, the forum would be able to assist by taking representations from the public—from interested groups, for example—compiling a report and sending it to the negotiating teams, thus providing them with background information. One subject that he mentioned was local government in Northern Ireland. He merely said that the forum could consider the future of local government, and possible proposals for changes in its operation.
      Mr. McGrady: That is the very point that I am making. The proposal is to establish sub-committees to deal with a variety of matters concerning all aspects of life in Northern Ireland: that has been suggested time and again today.
      Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McGrady: Not now.
      We fear that the amendments will distract people from the kernel of the legislation, which is the need to give the negotiators the best possible opportunity of bringing about a successful outcome. We should all strive to do that, rather than create obstacles that might enable a competing body—perhaps in the same building and during the same week, or even the same day—to prevent the negotiating team from engaging in proper debate. That may suggest that we do not want people's views to be heard, but nothing could be further from the truth. As I have said, it would surely be better for representations to be made directly to the negotiators than to be conveyed through the conduit of public debate in a forum.
      Our other fear in regard to the forum is the possibility of "majoritarian" decisions. If we have learnt anything in Northern Ireland, it is that nothing can be achieved without consensus. The definition of consensus is fairly well illustrated in paragraph 24 of Command Paper 3232, which was quoted earlier. It refers not to majoritarian decisions, but to a consensus among the representatives of the main traditions or communities. That is what consensus means in Northern Ireland, and that is what we must strive for, no matter how difficult it may be.
      All the amendments that we have discussed have focused on a strengthening and broadening of the forum's functions and the creation of a non-executive assembly. That is the political objective of the Ulster Unionists, who long ago abandoned the idea of an executive assembly. They are now integrationists rather than devolutionists, and one of their prime aims has been achieved before the negotiations have even begun. We have grave concerns

      109
      about the remit of the forum, and the extension of that remit even beyond what is contained in paragraph 3, which we oppose in general terms.
      Mr. Canavan: I should like to speak briefly to amendments Nos. 102, 90 and 91 which stand in my name.
      When the Government first mentioned a proposal to hold elections as their response to the report of the Mitchell commission, there was widespread concern, particularly among the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, although not confined to it, that those elections might lead to the resurrection of some kind of Stormont Parliament. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) say that that was not the intention of the Unionist proposal for elections. It is certainly not provided for in the Bill, but I think that the hon. Gentleman insinuated that perhaps it was a stepping stone that could lead to some form of Parliament with legislative powers.
      The Committee is aware of the detestation of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland for the Stormont Parliament and majority rule under which the winner took all and the minority was discriminated against for decades. I hope that the Secretary of State agrees that the clock must never be turned back to that. The fears that were expressed about the resurrection of some kind of Stormont Parliament were understandable, bearing in mind that the idea for the elections was a response to the Mitchell commission report. But the elections were not Mitchell's idea: it was a Unionist idea that was adopted by the Government and did not have consensus—broad support among the communities in Northern Ireland. Apparently it had support from within only one community.
      The Government eventually got the message about nationalist fears and came up with these proposals, through which they seem to be trying to emphasise the few, if any, powers that the elected body will have. Instead of calling it a Parliament, an assembly or even a convention, they are calling it a forum.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the view that this forum should have no legislative or administrative powers had nothing to do with the Government? From day one of the proposals, the view of the pro-Union parties was that such a forum should have no administrative or legislative powers. Not just the Government but the pro-Union parties, my own included, advocated that long before there were any such Government proposals. It is not a creature of their imagination but of the pro-Union people.
      Mr. Canavan: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot say that it has nothing to do with the Government. They have drafted the Bill, which explicitly states that the forum will have no legislative, economic or administrative functions. In statements, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have emphasised that the forum is completely separate from the negotiating body. Clause 3(2) states:
      "The functions of the forum shall be deliberative only."
      110
      That is fair enough. Subsection 3 states:
      "Accordingly the forum shall not have any legislative, executive or administrative functions, or any power to determine the conduct, course or outcome of the negotiations mentioned in section 1."
      Subsection (3), however, is qualified by subsection (4), which says:
      "But if, in accordance with any rules of procedure adopted by them, the participants in the negotiations refer any matter to the forum, subsection (3) shall not be taken to prevent the forum from considering that matter."
      There is no need for subsection (4). When replying to the debate, will the Secretary of State say why the Government considered it essential to include that subsection?
      Amendment No. 102, which I tabled, proposes the deletion of subsection (4) because it seems to give some qualification to the absence of legislative, executive or administrative functions and of powers to determine the conduct, course or outcome of the negotiations mentioned earlier in the clause. What is the need for such qualification? There is no need and therefore I propose that the subsection be deleted.
      If that is not acceptable to the Government, will they consider my alternative: amendments Nos. 90 and 91? Instead of the negotiating body being able to refer any matter to the forum, if there is to be any relationship between that body and the forum, it should be purely consultative rather than involve reference. If one body refers something to another body, I take it that that means that the other body can take decisions on the matter. If I refer something to the Secretary of State, that is more or less passing the decision to him, but if I consult him, that is a different matter. My choice of words—namely, consultation rather than reference—would be preferable if the Secretary of State wants to emphasise the fact that the forum will not have executive decision-making powers.
      Several hon. Members have mentioned the possibility of a constitutional package, as it were, being referred to the forum and to the forum being allowed to express a view on such a package before it goes to the people by way of a referendum. That would not be a good idea. It is almost certain that there will be an in-built Unionist majority in the forum. The White Paper says that it will be necessary or at least desirable to have agreement to proposals in both communities. Ultimately, what is important is not whether a new constitutional package has the agreement of this strange body that has been elected by the most bizarre electoral system to come before the House and by probably one of the most bizarre electoral systems in the world. What is far more important than any approval or disapproval by such a body is that any new constitutional package is tested directly by the people by way of referendum both north and south of the border.
      No doubt we will come to the wording and timing of referendums, but, at this stage, the Secretary of State should make it clear that the forum will have no veto on any new constitutional proposal, that it will not have any authoritative say on the matter and that, ultimately, if we are true democrats, we should be saying, "Let the people of Ireland
      decide."
      Mr. Maginnis: I am pleased to have the opportunity to pursue the issue that I endeavoured to raise earlier. It relates to the impression that we gain from listening to the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and

      111
      for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) that there is something wrong which needs to be remedied about the fact that a substantial majority of the people of Northern Ireland happen to be Unionists.
      We are hearing that anything that gives that section of our society which is Unionist the opportunity to deliberate—
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report progress.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
      Question agreed to.
      Again considered in Committee.
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Maginnis: Mr. Morris, I shall not dare ask what time we stop for breakfast.
      I was about to say that if we ask the people of Northern Ireland to elect a forum—the Government are imposing on us a forum comprising 20 more than we expected—if we elect 110 people, it must surely be proper and a matter of courtesy and respect to the people of Northern Ireland who elect that forum to ensure that it has a job to do.
      Mr. McGrady rose—
      Mr. Maginnis: I shall give way in a moment.
      The point is that we shall take 50 or 60 members of that forum, put them into a room and call them negotiators. They will be called the constructive element. Left behind will be the other 50 or 60 who were elected in exactly the same way but who will be regarded as the destructive element. Yet the negotiators and members of the forum who are left behind will all be members of the same political parties.
      The difficulty that we experienced in 1992—a matter that I raised earlier and that I shall not go into in any great detail—was the reluctance on the part of negotiators to deal with substantive issues. They wanted to make demands and they wanted a positive response to those demands, but there were counter-demands from the other side of the table. In fact, there were times when my party was not quite sure what the demands being made by the party of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) really were. We certainly had no idea in the strand 2 element what the demands coming from Dublin were.
      All we knew was that the Dublin delegation sitting around the table appeared to be little more than boot boys for the SDLP. When members of that delegation tried to speak or dared to move too far forward, they were quickly hushed by the leader of the SDLP. Eventually, the whole thing began to crumble. Nothing substantive was discussed. Our document to provide a bill of rights was on the table, which would have reassured the nationalist community to whom the hon. Member for South Down
      112
      referred. Yet that document—the Secretary of State knows this because he was there—was never picked up, opened or debated.
      There would be an opportunity when there was an impasse between two elements at the negotiations, when one side was making a statement and another was making a directly contrary statement and there was no possibility of a resolution, to refer the issue to the forum and ask that an element of that forum sitting in committee take whatever evidence it might deem reasonable from whatever body it deemed reasonable and try to bring forward a factual report that could be reintroduced into the negotiations with a view to moving things forward and giving the two irreconcilable elements something to get their teeth into. As I said earlier, we are talking not only about the people in the forum but about how those who sent them there understand what is going on.
      The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) referred to the Sunningdale agreement. Although many of us would still be unhappy with elements of that agreement, with hindsight we would consider that some of them might have been helpful if they had been more fully understood by the people out in the country. But the people did not understand; they were suspicious because the deal was done behind closed doors.
      Having listened to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), it appears that he is seeking a veto for the nationalist community so that under subsection (4) nothing can be referred to the forum. He has demanded that if some party to the negotiations wants to refer a matter to the forum, and the Secretary of State is inclined to agree that the matter could usefully be considered by the forum, it cannot be considered unless there is substantial—I think that that was the term that he used—agreement on both sides of the negotiating table.
      That means that those who want to stifle democratic debate are able to veto the movement of anything from the negotiating chamber to the forum. I hope that the Secretary of State is not going to tell us tonight that he will assent to that attitude being adopted in the negotiating chamber, because that in itself will cause the process to crumble through distrust and frustration more quickly than anything else.
      I wonder whether the crux of the matter in terms of the difficulties that the Secretary of State and Ministers appear to have is the fact that although the Secretary of State is supposedly answerable to the House, he is inhibited by what is coming out of Dublin as instructions and what emanates from the Anglo-Irish agreement. Is that not the millstone that is around the Secretary of State's neck? He cannot come here tonight a free man who is able to speak openly on behalf of the Government. Rather, he must try to recall what his civil servants have been telling him will please or displease Dublin.
      Is it not a reality that we have a de facto joint authority when it comes to decision-making about how we move the real political process forward in Northern Ireland? I believe that it is, and I think that every one of my colleagues believes that it is. I think that there is hardly a Unionist in Northern Ireland who does not believe that that is what inhibits the Secretary of State. That is why we do not have, for example, a straightforward election, as I said on Second Reading, with people electing people who will be answerable to people. Instead, we are asking people to commit themselves narrowly and conclusively

      113
      to a political party and trying to create a basis which, I can tell the hon. Member for South Down, is not what my party wanted.
      On that point, we need to know tonight whether the Secretary of State and the Government have the freedom to allow the people of Northern Ireland to explore every opportunity that needs to be explored if we are to find a solution—
      The Chairman: Order. Not under this amendment.
      Mr. Maginnis: Under clause 3(4), there will be—
      The Chairman: Order. There are many aspects to the Bill, to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his last few remarks. I draw his attention to the fact that we are discussing amendment No. 114 and those grouped with it. I should be grateful if he would return to that.
      Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to you, Mr. Morris, for assisting me once again. I will leave the Secretary of State to answer the point. Does he have the freedom to allow the electorate of Northern Ireland to have their views properly reflected in the forum? That is the question he must answer.
      Mr. Roger Stott: I appreciate that the hour is getting late, so my contribution will be brief. I wonder whether my electorate, who give me a majority of almost 23, 000, are leaning on their snooker cues this evening avidly listening to every word we are saying. I rather doubt it. They are, however, fortunate in having a Member of Parliament who takes some interest in matters in Northern Ireland, even if they do not.
      I have listened to almost all the debate so far, and I am convinced that my original view was right, that we should not have started from that point, and that the whole process was absolutely unnecessary. If the Government had had the perspicacity to grapple with the Mitchell committee report when the Prime Minister was first given it, we might not have been debating the Bill this evening.
      Alas, as so often happens, that is all water under the bridge, and we are debating a Bill which has been given a Second Reading and therefore has the authority of the House conferred on the principles contained within it. Had it not been a constitutional Bill, it would have been taken in a Standing Committee upstairs, but because it is constitutional it is being taken on the Floor of the House, as is right.
      Whether the Bill is being taken on the Floor or in Standing Committee upstairs, however, what we as elected Members are doing, as I so often say both to Conservative Members and to my hon. Friends, is making the law. This evening we are making the law of the United Kingdom, so we had better be pretty clear about what we are doing and what we are legislating for.
      10.15 pm
      We are legislating to create an assembly, a forum—clause 3, which we are now discussing, refers to that, Mr. Morris—and my problems with the forum are summed up by the following questions. What is it supposed to do? What are its terms
      114
      of reference? My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) read out part of clause 3 earlier. Subsection (2) says:
      "The functions of the forum shall be deliberative only."
      Great—that says a lot. What is "deliberative only" supposed to mean? What is the forum supposed to deliberate on? What are its terms of reference? What can it discuss and what can it not discuss? What will be the parameters of those discussions?
      Even schedule 2 does not tell us much more about what the functions of the forum are. A forum that will bring people together where they can genuinely, peacefully and intelligently discuss the current problems of Northern Ireland seems like a good idea. But there must be ground rules and parameters. There must be terms of reference defining what the forum is supposed to be about.
      Apart from my hon. Friends from the Social Democratic and Labour party, I am probably the only person in the Chamber tonight who was present at, and spoke at, the forum for peace and reconciliation in Dublin, which was set up by the Dublin Government under Albert Reynolds. I found the terms of reference of that forum, and its deliberations, very useful. It involved people of violently differing views, who none the less came together in Dublin castle under the chairmanship of Judge McGuinness, and had some very positive deliberative sessions.
      The amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Londonderry is about producing records of the forum. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the forum for peace and reconciliation arrived at certain conclusions and published its recommendations, although those were not binding on the Irish Government, and certainly not on the British Government.
      One of the recommendations was that everybody concerned with the process should sign up to consent. The only people who did not sign up, and who were therefore outwith the nationalist consensus in the island of Ireland, were Sinn Fein. Why cannot we have something like that in the proposed forum's proceedings? If the forum is going to happen—as I have said, I would not have started from there—the terms of reference must be decided. Why should not the Government consider what they should be? I cited the example of the forum for peace and reconciliation in Dublin because it came to those conclusions. If we are to have a forum, the Minister who replies should be more explicit—again, I stress that we are writing the law—about its terms of reference, its parameters of debate and what it can do. We all know what it cannot do.
      The Chairman: On the parameters of the debate, we are discussing amendment No. 114. While the hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, most of it would be more appropriate to the clause stand part debate.
      Mr. Stott: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Morris. I was about to conclude. I was in my peroration when you kindly brought me back to order. I was going so well that I thought I would give it a final shot. Everyone has been saying what the forum cannot do. It cannot legislate or have any influence on the negotiating teams; it cannot do this, that or the other. We want to know what it can do.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: Over the past half hour, I have listened to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) agonise over how he might explain why the SDLP could support and take part in a non-elected forum in the Irish Republic but would not take part in an elected forum in Northern Ireland. I do not think that he convinced the House that he had a realistic solution to that conundrum. It is clear that he is still struggling with it himself.
      I listened to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) build up straw men so that he could knock them down. The idea of having, as part of the process, a forum with legislative, administrative or executive authority, was never in any of our dreams. It was not part of the process that we envisaged. It would not be the sort of process that would be likely to succeed and get the result that all the people of Northern Ireland want.
      The process is undoubtedly capable of ending with an agreement that would give Northern Ireland a form of government that would include a legislative, executive and administrative structure, but that would come out of agreement under the process, not from the process itself. If I take anything from what the hon. Member for South Down said, it is that his party—and to this extent I can understand where he is coming from—does not want to concede by way of process what it would not wish to concede as part of the negotiations. If that is his argument, he must remember that Unionists could equally say that there are many parts of the process, taken as a whole, that would have the same effect for them if they believed that, by accepting something as part of the process, they were giving a nod and a wink that it would be acceptable as part of an overall settlement. He should not be nervous about accepting as part of the process something that he may want to improve as part of the settlement as a whole.
      Our amendments are not intended to undermine the negotiating process. Not one of them undermines that process. First, they attempt to elicit some information from the Government as to what the forum will do—in the way that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) was attempting to do. The position is as vague as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
      The fact that the forum's role is to be "deliberative only" gives no clear sign of whether it will even be able to vote on issues. If it is able only to deliberate, will it be able to resolve any issues? If it has resolved a matter, will it be able to pass on that resolution to others? Is it entitled to produce a report and, if it is, can it hand it on to others, whether the Secretary of State or the negotiating participants? None of that is clear on the basis of the one clause, which gives little information about the forum. Indeed, the clause that deals with the forum tells us what it cannot do as opposed to what it can.
      When the Government respond to this group of amendments, can they say whether the forum will be allowed to arrive at decisions and transmit them to others? Will there be any limit on what it can deliberate on and what it can send by way of resolution to the negotiating teams and the Secretary of State?
      Today, we received a communication from the Minister with responsibility for the talks process, which gave some indication of the work of the forum. He said that it might meet once in the week. That seems to be a further attempt on the Government's part to diminish its role. Perhaps the Minister can say during this debate whether any limits
      116
      will be imposed, other than those set down in the clause, which suggest that, if negotiations are taking place at a plenary level—I assume that that is what he means by it—the Secretary of State will tell the chairman of the forum that it would not be appropriate for it to meet. Other than the limitation imposed by that clause, can the forum choose when to meet? It is important for us to know to what extent the Secretary of State is going to neuter and limit its role in all those matters.
      It is in the interests of the negotiators, who will be drawn from the same parties that will be present in the forum, to get work done for them there. The hon. Member for South Down said that there was nothing to stop the good and the wise giving their evidence to the negotiators. I dread to think what will happen if the negotiating teams act as a forum and take evidence of that kind. It would clearly not be appropriate; nor is that a body that has any democratic weight to take such evidence. I trust, therefore, that we will be clear that all the work of taking evidence from the general public—whether from interest groups or others—will be done by the forum.
      No hon. Member should be concerned that the forum will have that sole task, because all those in the negotiations are entitled—wearing their forum hats—to be present during that sort of session. I trust that we were not given an indication that the SDLP will confine itself to the work of the negotiating process and not go into the forum—almost obeying what Sinn Fein is requiring. That would be an unwise step. I do not believe that the community that the SDLP represents in Northern Ireland will restrict itself by not giving evidence to the forum in such sessions.
      It would be a shame if the SDLP was not part of the forum, just as it was a shame that it boycotted the last assembly, in which we took evidence from groups within the nationalist community which came to assist the work of the assembly. The SDLP could not carry its community with it. I suggest that the very same thing will happen this time round. If the party turns its back on the forum, its community will not do so, but will come and give evidence. The SDLP would do well not to commit itself to a course of action similar to that of Sinn Fein—of boycotting the forum.
      10.30 pm
      Sinn Fein, from its tactical point of view, would be making a grave mistake if it boycotted the forum, which might be the only place where it will be entitled to go under the legislation. It would not be prohibited from going into the forum and expressing views, but it might be prohibited from entering the negotiating process. Perhaps Sinn Fein is beginning to take account of that and regrets some of the remarks that its spokesmen have been making.
      I trust that we shall have a full answer from the Minister when he replies to all the issues that have been raised. It is essential that, at this stage—rather than some time after the election—those who will be part of the forum learn from the Government what they will be elected to. It is not outrageous to suggest that the Government should tell them what they will do after they are elected, particularly if they are to give up their job to go into this worthwhile venture. It is not going over the top to ask the Government to tell them that they might have a particular role during the next year or two.
      Mr. Ancram: I think I can say with some feeling that we have had a full and interesting debate on this topic, which has ranged widely over the variety of amendments before us and occasionally, as you have pointed out, Mr. Morris, a little more widely than that. I shall try to remain within the rules of order in replying to the debate, but there may be occasions when, in doing so, I have to be cautious not to go beyond the parameters of the amendments.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked some important questions, but by and large they related to schedule 2, with which we shall deal later. He will see that the times of meetings of the forum will be determined by the members of the forum, subject to one qualification with which I am sure that we shall deal in depth when we come to it. He will also see that schedule 2(3) says that the proceedings of the forum
      "shall be conducted in accordance with rules of procedure determined by the members of the forum and approved by the Secretary of State."
      I am not trying to avoid answering the hon. Gentleman's question—that is a relevant question to ask—but it is right to pursue it in the context of schedule 2, when we shall consider the details of the way in which the forum will work. However, there is no doubt that tonight's debate has been useful to the extent that it has, I hope, made it clear beyond doubt that what the forum is not is a Stormont or a legislative body and that it does not bear resemblance to the forums of the 1970s and 1980s. Indeed, we have gone to great lengths in the Bill to ensure that we have in the statute a number of statements that show firmly that the extent of the capabilities of the forum are rightly limited. Several of those limits have been mentioned tonight and I shall deal with them in my reply.
      It is important that we remember that the purpose of the forum, as set out in clause 3, is to promote dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland and that many of the fears that have been expressed would run contrary to that purpose. It is right to examine those fears in the light of the purpose of the clause, which is the promotion of dialogue and understanding by deliberative action only.
      It is difficult to reply to a debate of this length in any consistent form, but I shall try to reply to the amendments, and I hope to pick up on the points that were made as I go through. I hope that hon. Members will feel that I reply fully to the debate.
      Some two hours ago, we started with the amendment of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross)—amendment No. 114—which requires that an accurate record of the deliberations of the forum be published and that its recommendations be made available to the negotiating teams and to the Secretary of State. That was a good place to start, because it reminded the Committee that it is the Government's intention that the forum should be a public body and that its work should be widely known. We believe that to be part of its fulfilling its purpose of promoting dialogue and understanding, so it is implicit in the nature of its functions. I do not say this facetiously—the point has been raised in seriousness; the forum is not there to promote dissent and mistrust. We have to look at the ways in which it can promote dialogue and understanding.
      Public access to the information that comes out of the forum is, therefore, important. We hope that its work will be widely reported. We hope that constructive
      118
      conclusions, which we believe can emerge from it, will be helpful in the climate in which the political process is proceeding.
      There is no doubt that, in the nature of things, the work of the forum will be accessible to the negotiating teams, for the reason that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) gave—that the members of the forum will, in part, be part of the negotiating teams. What is available to the members of the forum will, by natural means, be available to the negotiating teams. The Secretary of State also features in the amendment; he will take the closest interest in the work of the forum.
      We will have to give thought to the way in which the forum's proceedings should be recorded and disseminated. What is required is a means of publication that is accessible to a broad audience and best calculated to promote further constructive thought. We have considerable sympathy, therefore, with the proposition set out in the amendment, but statutory provision is not required. I believe that, in matters of detail such as this, we should avoid committing ourselves by statutory formulations that may embody unnecessary rigidities. Although I accept the purpose behind the hon. Member's amendment, I cannot recommend that it be approved by the Committee.
      Mr. William Ross: If the Minister accepts the purpose of the amendment, how does he intend to fulfil it so that a transcript is available to those involved in the forum and the negotiations, and to members of the general public who have a great interest in these matters?
      Mr. Ancram: As I have said, these are matters of detail that will require consideration to establish the best way. At this stage, it is not a good idea to try to set such things in statute or to take a hard and fast position. I hope that I have suggested to the hon. Gentleman that his purpose and mine are alike and that we can work together to consider ways in which this purpose might be fulfilled in practice.
      Mr. Bermingham: Select Committees of the House are recorded by reporters and the Chamber and legislative Committees are recorded by Hansard. Should not the same happen to the
      forum?
      Mr. Ancram: I understand that the hon. Gentleman's amendment is looking for wider and further dissemination of material. I do not know how many people read Hansard, other than hon. Members. This is an area of importance and I think that we should give it due consideration, but it is not a matter that we would want to set down in statute—which is what an amendment to a Bill is intended to do.
      Mr. Ross: The Minister says that he does not know how many people read Hansard. He has a lot of civil servants working for him, so it should not be too much of a problem for him to find out.
      Mr. Ancram: I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point that I was making. He and I share the view that the deliberations of the forum should get the widest possible
      circulation.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: If the forum wanted to have its words recorded, would the Minister oppose it, or say that it could?
      Mr. Ancram: I would not oppose it. I want the best way to be found of achieving the purpose that the hon. Member for East Londonderry set out, which appears to be the common purpose in the House. We want to consider that. It is a practical issue, not a matter for statute.
      Mr. Robert McCartney indicated assent.
      Mr. Ancram: I see the hon. and learned Member for North Down nodding. I think he accepts that it is a matter that will require consideration.
      Mr. McCartney: It is a matter of administrative minutiae.
      Mr. Ancram: It is a matter, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, of minutiae—
      Mr. Ross: Of important minutiae.
      Mr. Ancram: Indeed.
      Amendments Nos. 3 and 5, tabled by the hon. Members for North Antrim and for Belfast, East, tie in with amendments Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 8, which would add to the forum's functions that of, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East put it on Second Reading, a testing ground for proposals generated in the negotiations. I take it from the remarks that have been made that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues envisage the forum's having a role at a fairly early stage in the process, acting as a filter to assess the likely level of support for emerging propositions. I take it that that would be the purpose of what he set out.
      I believe that that is an unnecessary elaboration of the negotiating process. That development of the role of the forum would interfere with what I believe is the helpful work that the forum will be able to do if it sticks to the remit envisaged for it in the Bill. It is unnecessary in practical terms because the participants in the negotiations, being drawn from all parts of the community—indeed, being themselves forum members—will have a clear idea of acceptability, and they will agree nothing that does not have a wide measure of acceptability. Indeed, in his Second Reading speech, the hon. Member for Upper Bann—on 18 April at column 878—graphically made the point that there would be a commonality of view between the negotiators and the forum because the same parties are represented in both. I feel that the over-elaboration that is proposed is unnecessary.
      The proposal is also unnecessary as a safeguard because we have made it clear that any proposals emerging from the negotiations must be subject to testing. As I said earlier, the testing is, first, the agreement of the parties in the negotiations, secondly, the agreement in a referendum in Northern Ireland and, thirdly, agreement by this Parliament. The safeguards that were mentioned tonight are already in place and do not need to be extended.
      Mr. Robinson: Might the most appropriate way of testing the measure of support for a proposition be to test it in the forum?
      Mr. Ancram: It is within the negotiators' capability to
      120
      decide that that should be done if they feel that it would be helpful. Several important questions were asked about that issue, and I shall discuss it in due course.
      The amendments would be unhelpful in relation to the forum, because we have made it clear from the outset that the forum will be independent of the negotiations and will not interfere in the conduct of the negotiations; that was made explicit in our announcement on 21 March 1996. It would not be helpful, therefore, for the forum to cover the same ground as the negotiations or to keep them under review.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Minister intend that, as a result of this legislation, any agreement arrived at by the negotiators will be produced like a rabbit from a hat and presented to the people of Northern Ireland in the form of a referendum? Or will there be a mode, other than the forum, of communicating to them in broad terms, before it is presented in the form of a referendum, what the negotiators—presumably after a long period of gestation—have produced?
      Mr. Ancram: It is for the negotiators to decide—I shall return to that subject later. If the negotiators feel that it is useful to refer such an overall proposition to the forum, they will be able to do so. The hon. Gentleman's question can be answered only, in a sense, by saying that if the negotiators feel that that aids the process, that is available to them so to do.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister said that the forum should have no power to determine the conduct or course of the negotiations. We have accepted that in our amendment; we are not arguing about that. We say only that the outcome of the negotiations should at least be tested in a forum of all the people of Northern Ireland. What is wrong with that? Is the forum meant to be a mirror of Northern Ireland, or is it not intended to be a representative authority?
      Mr. Ancram: The forum may be used in that way if the negotiators so wish. I shall not be pressed into responding to that point before I am ready to do so in dealing with the amendments.
      Hon. Members from all parties have made it clear that they agree with the Government that the forum should not have executive, legislative and administrative powers and should not be in a position, as the Bill states, to determine the conduct and the course of the negotiations. I shall come in due course to the question of determining the
      outcome.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister understand the concerns of the main Unionist parties in Northern Ireland? They are anxious that, as the negotiations proceed, there should be a sounding of their progress within a forum that reflects public opinion in Northern Ireland.
      In such a forum, the Ulster Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party between them could probably win 50 per cent. of the vote in Northern Ireland. However, the negotiating body is so rigged that only 20 per cent. of those at the negotiating table would represent the DUP and the Ulster Unionist party. Therefore, the negotiating table would not reflect opinion in Northern Ireland in any

      121
      democratic sense. That is why we want to have a sounding of public opinion as the negotiations proceed; otherwise, we shall end up with a negotiating conclusion that does not command support throughout Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Ancram: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's fears—many fears are expressed to me as I exercise my responsibilities. However, we must explore whether those fears are real. The likelihood of misunderstanding between those who will be involved in negotiations and in the forum is remote. The hon. Member for Upper Bann has said:
      "If there is agreement in the negotiations, I expect there to be similar agreements in the forum. How could it be otherwise if the same people are in both channels?"—[Official Report, 18 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 878.]
      I think that it is reasonable to adopt the view that if parties are involved in both channels, they will not adopt different positions in each. A strange idea has been advanced tonight that somehow parties could negotiate in a vacuum, without reference to the wishes of their supporters or members. All negotiations will be informed by the views of the parties—it was ever thus and it will be ever thus.
      Mr. McGrady: The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) raised the point to which the Minister responded by saying that it would be appropriate for the forum to give piecemeal approval to negotiators. First, is that not impractical if negotiations are to continue; and, secondly, is it not in direct contravention of the inter-party agreement of March 1991—to which I understand that all parties still subscribe—which states that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?
      Mr. Ancram: I shall not be drawn into another debate. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the ground rules Command Paper, he will see that that principle still applies. However, he will see also that, because of the lessons learned from previous negotiations, it is now possible, subject to that principle, for the negotiations to proceed
      "on the assumption of contingent agreement on any individual aspect of the negotiations".
      That is the basis in the ground rule paper, which is the subject of agreement between the two Governments. In the end, this process—again, I do not want to be driven to make this point early in my remarks—will depend on agreement. It always has and it always will. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's fears are unreal.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister make it clear to the Committee that both Unionist parties have made representations to him and told him that we did not accept that nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed? We also said that we had nothing to do with anything that was done at the other talks because the southern Government brought them to an end. They brought them to an end, not us. We are not tied by anything that was done at the other talks.
      Mr. Ancram: I am afraid that I strayed slightly previously and mentioned that paragraph. I am now well away from the amendments with which I should be dealing. If I may, I will answer the hon. Gentleman at another time on that subject.
      122
      I have outlined the constructive work that we envisage the forum doing, including exploring a wider range of ideas, drawing on a wider range of contributors and hearing people from the community who do not have an opportunity, in the conventional structure, to put their views, which may contain seeds of worthwhile advance. That is the way in which the forum can make a distinctive contribution. The role envisaged in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Antrim is a long way from that and would mark a diversion that would detract from the rationale of the forum as established by the Bill. I invite the Committee not to approve the amendments.
      Amendment No. 113, tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry, would alter clause 3(2) so that the forum might make recommendations to the negotiating teams and the Secretary of State. As I said earlier on a previous amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman, we envisage that the forum's deliberations and conclusions will be publicly available. We hope that the forum sittings will draw in ideas and that the publication of the record of its work will generate fresh ones. But as I have said—it is made absolutely clear in the Bill—we intend that the forum will be independent of the negotiations and will not interfere in their conduct. I cannot accept the amendment and I also recommend opposition to amendment No. 112.
      Mr. William Ross: The Minister has told us that the same people will be involved, that everybody will know what is going on and that therefore we will not need publication of the material in any cohesive fashion. He then turned round and told us that we will have two totally separate and different bodies. Did the Minister draw that conjunction of ideas from the relationship that exists between the IRA and Sinn Fein? It seems to me that, if the IRA and Sinn Fein are inextricably linked, the forum and the negotiators are equally inextricably linked.
      Mr. Ancram: I do not think that I used the words "separate bodies". I said that the functions of the forum and of the negotiators should remain independent, and I believe that is right if they are to succeed.
      Amendment No. 29, tabled by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, would excise the last element of clause 3(3) and would remove the reference to the forum having no
      "power to determine the conduct, course or outcome of the negotiations".
      The hon. Gentleman's argument was that those words were not necessary, because they were already covered. The hon. Gentleman will have heard during the debate that that is a matter of concern, and the words have been included by us to put the matter beyond doubt. It is right, in the interest of those who have expressed that fear, that the words remain. They express beyond doubt the fact, which the hon. Gentleman accepted, that—because of its deliberative function—the forum would not have the power to decide or determine the outcome of the negotiations. It is right that those words are there and make that clear beyond peradventure.
      Amendment No. 102 was tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). It would omit the negotiators' power of reference in clause 3(4). I was a little confused by the hon. Gentleman's argument. It is important to realise that the only way in which a reference can be made is at the instigation not of the forum but of the negotiators. I shall come back to that point and explain it in more detail.

      123
      The hon. Gentleman said that any consideration arising from any reference should be deliberative. I read his amendment carefully; if he now reads the Bill and notes the restriction preventing the forum's functions from being other than deliberative, he will recognise that that is already the case.
      We believe that clause 3(4), which has attracted some comment, is well judged. In the announcement on 21 March, we referred to the possibility of the forum's being commissioned by the negotiators to examine particular questions. I consider that a useful power, permitting the development of a creative approach to problems that would be less likely to arise in the more intense atmosphere of negotiation.
      The last part of clause 3(4) is included out of caution. There must be no room for doubt that the negotiators can commission such work, despite the drafting of clause 3(3); but there is no suggestion that the forum will be more than deliberative on such occasions, or that it will be able to determine the negotiations' conduct, course or outcome. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the subsection be omitted is therefore unnecessary.
      Mr. Canavan: Subsection (4) states that the negotiators may refer any matter to the forum, but the Minister has said that, even if a matter is referred to the forum, it will not have any decision-making powers. That is a contradiction in terms. As the Bill stands, there is nothing to stop the negotiators referring any matter to the forum, including the content of all or part of the negotiations, and, if that happens, the forum can then make a decision. If that is an incorrect interpretation of subsection (4), would it not be better to replace the word "refer" with the word "consultation" to describe the interaction between the forum and the negotiating body?
      Mr. Ancram: I think that the hon. Gentleman's view arises from a misunderstanding. It is for the negotiators to decide what is referred to the forum, and for what purpose. For that reason, if a reference is made, it should not be thought that anything in the Bill—as opposed to the ground rules that will inform the way in which the reference can be made—prevents consideration of a matter referred by the negotiators. The purpose of clause 3(4) is to ensure that that cannot happen.
      The hon. Member for Upper Bann raised the question of the rules of procedure adopted in clause 3(4), which relate to the rules of procedure for the negotiations. Comments were made about that, not least by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Before turning to paragraph 24 of the ground rules, I shall refer the Committee to paragraph 7, which states:
      "The conduct of the negotiations will be exclusively a matter for those involved in the negotiations. Any reference to, or interaction with, the forum to be convened following the elective process…may take place solely by agreement among the negotiating teams to this effect and only at their formal instigation."
      Surely that makes it clear that any reference from the negotiators to the forum, and any consideration in the forum of matters referred to it, will take place with agreement among the negotiating teams and at their formal instigation.
      The hon. Gentleman asked, in effect, what agreement amounted to. Like one or two other hon. Members, he referred to paragraph 24 of the Command Paper, which sets
      124
      out what the two Governments believe to be the way to seek a sufficiency of consensus. It states that the rules will have to be agreed by the participants in advance of the negotiations. Those rules apply not just to one type of agreement but to agreements throughout the negotiating process. From that, it is clear that the rules that apply in other areas of the negotiating process will also apply to an agreement that could lead to a reference from the negotiations to the forum. As the Command Paper says, that matter must be decided by the participants in the talks in advance of the talks starting. It would be strange if I were to say that I could give a definition of the form of the agreement before it has been discussed by the participants.
      11 pm
      Mr. McNamara: Paragraph 24 states that the rules will
      "ensure that any decision taken will be supported by a clear majority in both the unionist and nationalist communities".
      Is "a clear majority" in both communities the underlying principle?
      Mr. Ancram: That is the principle that the two Governments have set as the basis for agreement, but it is important to remember that the paragraph states that the matter is for agreement between the participants. Hon. Members have said many times in the debate that the negotiators are the masters of their own procedure. That is the only way in which such negotiations can operate. Therefore, agreement will be reached by the participants before the negotiations start, and that will operate in this area and in others.
      Mr. McNamara: I am sorry if I am being obtuse about this matter. The Minister says that the participants must agree on their rules of procedure. The paragraph states that if they cannot "achieve unanimity", or presumably a little less than that, what is agreed will have to be supported by a majority representing each community—that is, a majority of the Unionists and a majority of the nationalists must agree on the rules. Is that right?
      Mr. Ancram: That is what the paragraph states, and it also states that any such agreement has to be reached by the parties in advance of the negotiations. The hon. Gentleman must not ask me to pre-empt an essential part of the way in which the negotiating process will operate, which will be by the agreement of the parties.
      Mr. Maginnis: Has the Minister allowed himself to be backed into a corner by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) or perhaps, as I suggested earlier, by the Dublin influence? Does he agree that what he has just conceded puts in the hands of those who want to destroy the forum a veto that cannot be overcome?
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman was in the last talks. Any process that works by agreement has to have the agreement of those who are in the process. Anybody who disagrees will obviously affect the ability to secure agreement, whether it is on a matter such as the one that we are discussing or on other matters in the negotiations.
      Mr. Maginnis rose—
      Mr. Ancram: I want to clarify this important matter. It strikes me when listening to such debates that each side

      125
      is saying that it will be blocked by the other operating a veto. I like to think that both aspects of the process on which we are embarking, the negotiations and the forum, will be taken up by the parties in a constructive and positive manner, first, to try to promote dialogue and understanding and, secondly, to come to an agreement. If the processes are embarked on in that manner, the fears that have been expressed, some of them understandable, will not be realised.
      Mr. John D. Taylor: I have a question that flows from what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said. When it is said that a matter has to be agreed by a majority of the Unionist and nationalist negotiating groups in the talks, how do we know who is Unionist and who is nationalist? If No Going Back is at the negotiations, will it be considered Unionist or nationalist? What about Ulster Independence? Will it be considered Unionist or nationalist?
      Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman has opened an interesting path of discussion, down which I will not be drawn tonight; when suggestions were made that the ground rules should be made part of statute, how those positions might be defined in law was a matter of consideration.
      We have made a balanced and constructive proposition in clause 3. Listening to the fears of both sides, I suspect that the balance is more central than I thought. The clause threatens no one. It provides the ability to open a new dimension in terms of promoting dialogue and understanding in Northern Ireland. It can give Northern Ireland's people a platform that they have not had in previous negotiations. The clause is right.
      Mr. Bermingham: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ancram: I am sorry that I have not been able to recommend acceptance of any amendments and I hope that the Committee will now be able to proceed.
      Ms Mowlam: I shall be brief. Front-Bench Labour Members have waited a number of hours and listened to the debate because we think that this group of amendments is important in relation to how the forum functions. We are keen to ensure that it can stimulate trust and confidence and that it works towards mutual agreement, greater dialogue and understanding. Therefore, many of the amendments have a bearing on that.
      During the debate, it has been fascinating to note that, on one side, people are arguing strongly that the forum will develop into an assembly—that is their fear—and that, on the other, there is the opposite view that it will not be strong enough to represent people's views. Both arguments have been fully played out.
      In moving amendments, many hon. Members have given voice to our basic concern. Hon. Members on both sides of the House tried to assuage the nationalist fear that the forum would take on powers greater than the ones in the Bill. Many hon. Members tried hard to reassure the nationalist community that that would not happen. The difficulty is that some of the amendments do the opposite. Let me refer to just two specific ones to make the point.
      Amendment No. 29, moved by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), clearly retains in clause 3(3) the specific details that the forum
      126
      "shall not have any legislative, executive or administrative functions",
      defining it by default. The amendment, however, cuts out
      "any power to determine the conduct, course or outcome of the negotiations",
      stimulating the nationalist community's fears that the relationship between the negotiations and the forum will be strengthened.
      Similarly, in speaking to an amendment, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) advanced a persuasive argument about how the forum could be a useful sounding board for ideas discussed in the negotiations, but that would just be a repetitive act: the issues concerned will already have been discussed in the negotiations. We will not go into great detail here, because we are concerned about how the forum's procedures will work; that is covered in schedule 2. We will hold our major point and amendment to the debate on that schedule because that is crucial to how the forum will work.
      Mr. Bermingham: I am disappointed that, having made probably my maiden speech on Ireland and raised matters of great concern to me, the Minister had the discourtesy of not giving way when I wanted to ask him merely whether he took on board the concept of an independent chairman. If history has taught me anything, it is this lesson: unless we have independent chairmen—people who are prepared to listen to all sides—no Irish problem is ever solved.
      Ms Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure that the Minister heard that point. In the debate on schedule 2, we will be able to return to it, because the schedule gives us an opportunity to discuss the nature not just of the chairman, but of the procedures. The point can then be re-emphasised.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the hon. Lady taken on board the Minister's remark about there being no danger to any of the parties? However, there is a danger to the whole process. Hitherto, we have been dealing with widespread consent throughout the community. Tonight we have heard an interesting and novel idea. To illustrate it using the Parliament in which we are sitting, we should have to have the majority of Conservatives and the majority of Labour Members agreeing to get anything passed. That is the novel suggestion being made tonight. We have to look again at the question of the process, rather than the parties, being endangered.
      Ms Mowlam: The process would be in danger if we allowed ourselves to lose the focus from the negotiations, which are, after all, the end product we are trying to reach. It is important that the forum does not engage in the negotiations, but remains independent. In that way, which may not be exactly the way that the hon. Gentleman meant it, there is a danger of the process getting into difficulty if the forum's role is changed considerably.
      When we debate schedule 2, some difficult matters need to be dealt with regarding how, in relation to paragraph 24 of the Command Paper, a majority of both communities is translated into the workings of the forum if there are, on the one hand, the two majorities—as the Minister outlined—and, on the other, hon. Members

      127
      themselves. There could be a potential conflict which, when we debate schedule 2, I am sure the Minister will cover in more detail.
      We believe that the forum should be a deliberative body that encourages an exchange of views and dialogue, which listens to people, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has said repeatedly—
      Mr. Peter Robinson rose—
      Ms Mowlam: And as he is about to say again.
      Mr. Robinson: I want to deal with a point that the hon. Lady made earlier—that the role of the forum should be to deliberate. I wonder whether the official Opposition, if they were in government, would put any restrictions on what the forum could deliberate.
      Ms Mowlam: As the hon. Gentleman will know from reading clause 3, the role of the forum is to discuss
      "issues relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland."
      That sets the forum's parameters, and I am sure that hon. Members who potentially have the opportunity to be members of it will be able to define what they believe would promote dialogue and understanding.
      Some of the amendments may not be very helpful in promoting dialogue and understanding. It is important to build consensus and agreement, not put in place systems that would further entrench and reinforce divisions rather than build agreement.
      We will oppose many of the amendments if they are pressed to a Division, because, in the end, they lose sight of the purpose of the elections, which is to move towards participation in the negotiations.
      Amendment negatived.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4

      REFERENDUMS
      Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 128, in clause 4, page 2, line 12, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 84, in clause 4, page 2, line 13, leave out 'views' and insert 'consent'.
      No. 125, in clause 4, page 2, line 14, leave out second 'Northern Ireland' and insert
      'the constitutional status of Northern Ireland resulting from these negotiations, or any agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, and the result of any such referendum shall be binding upon Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.'.
      No. 83, in clause 4, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
      '(1A) If any outcome of the negotiations provided for in this Act does not receive the support, in a referendum, of a majority of those entitled to vote it shall not be proceeded with.'.
      No. 100, in clause 4, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
      128
      (1A) The Secretary of State shall consult the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the wording and timing of any referendum on constitutional proposals affecting the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.'.
      Mr. Ross: Amendment No. 128 centres on the use of the word "shall". You will be aware, Dame Janet, of the earlier debate on whether we should use the word "shall" or the word "may". At that time, the Minister seemed to have some objection to "shall". The word appears six times on page 2 of the Bill, most of them in the top quarter of the page, so I do not understand the antipathy towards a simple word that can mean so much. The Minister knows that the use of the word "shall" would strengthen his hand in this context.
      The inclusion of the word "shall" would leave the Secretary of State with no option—he could not be pressured to refrain from having a referendum for the purpose of obtaining the views of the people of Northern Ireland. I would have thought that that was a very good thing.
      There will be those who will say to the Secretary of State, "Oh no, we are very much against a referendum. You really cannot do that." He would have Dublin knocking the door down to try to stop a referendum under certain circumstances. The SDLP, Sinn Fein, the IRA, old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and heaven knows who would try to stop a referendum if they thought it suited their purpose, which is of course to ensure that Northern Ireland is taken out of the United Kingdom. Anything that would keep Northern Ireland in would of course he met with objection.
      If one reads the amendment in conjunction with the second amendment in the group that I have tabled, No. 125, it is perfectly plain that I am concerned that, every time the constitutional status of Northern Ireland was perceived by the Unionist population to be under threat, there would have to be a referendum before any of the proposed changes could be brought into operation.
      11.15 pm
      I do not see how on earth the Secretary of State could or should resist the amendments. After all, if such provisions had been in place in 1985, all the concerns expressed by the Unionist population over the agreement of that year could have been very rapidly disposed of by reference to the population, and the Secretary of State would not be in the position he is in today, of having to jump to the demands of Dublin.
      The Dublin Government would not have an input into the government of Northern Ireland, and they would not on a daily basis, as Mr. Bruton told us in a recent speech, be in a position to make use of the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985. A referendum in Northern Ireland would have rapidly disposed of the whole monstrous edifice.
      I do not see why the Secretary of State should not agree to my very simple propositions. All I am asking is that, if the people of Northern Ireland believe that a change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland is resulting from the negotiations, there should be a referendum that would be binding on Her Majesty's Government. In other words, we are asking the Government to put into print what they say will happen—if there is a referendum, they will take note of it. In that context, "take note" means that they will accept the result.

      129
      I should have thought that, in those circumstances, the Government should be willing not only to accept the amendments but would leap in exclamations of joy to thank me for tabling them. [Laughter.] I do not know why there is such hilarity on the Labour Front Bench when they say that they accept the Government's point of view. That is what we were told.
      If the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) does not watch out, his head will fall off. The Labour Front-Bench team have been telling us all evening that they agree totally with the Government on this issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "New Labour."' New Labour is new in some respects, but certain little rumblings of old Labour are still around. That is a matter for the Labour party; we are not concerned with it. All we are concerned with is gaining the support of the Labour Front-Bench team for the improvements to the Bill that I am proposing. I see no good reason why the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and her hon. Friends should not support me.
      We are told that the Government want to ensure that they have the support of the people of Northern Ireland and that they want to keep the United Kingdom intact. They have not shown much sign of supporting those of us who are trying to do so, but that is what they tell us. Here is an opportunity for them to put down a marker for the whole world and say that they are prepared to go along with the will of the people of Northern Ireland when it comes to its constitutional status. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will rapidly rise and agree to accept my modest recommendation.
      We in Northern Ireland are very familiar with the Government and the Irish nationalist parties talking about demands for change as if all the changes that have been made in Northern Ireland since 1968–69 have been brought about purely to improve the administration in Northern Ireland, to improve the security of the people of Northern Ireland—with about 3, 000 dead, the policy does not seem to have been all that successful—and to promote dialogue, understanding, consensus, fairness and peace in the Province.
      One of the SDLP Members told us earlier that we were divided by history. I thought that we were divided not so much by history as by the question of which nation we wished to belong to—the constitutional issue. I have to say yet again that, in the light of all that has happened so far, my proposal seems a sensible route. The Committee should think of the confidence that my proposal would build in the people of Northern Ireland. They would be aware that, by an Act of Parliament, they would certainly be able to state their opinion of proposed changes. The door would be opened, as the Minister said earlier.
      Mr. Trimble: A window of opportunity.
      Mr. Ross: A window of opportunity, as my hon. Friend says.
      My proposal would protect the constitutional position of the country, which would take a load off the Government's shoulders. They could say to the Americans, the Irish Republic, Europe and any country in the world, "Look, here the people of Northern Ireland have stated their opinion. We have to abide by the principle of democracy in Northern Ireland. We are very happy to accept that opinion."
      130
      There is therefore no good reason for the Government not to take my view on board and act on it. The reality is, of course, that the Government have other pressures on them. However, they should show a bit of manhood, stand on their own feet and defend the unity of the kingdom, because we all want to live in the kingdom.
      I believe that when the Government consider my brief remarks with the care they deserve, the Minister will hop up to say that he thinks my proposal a wonderful idea. However, Mr. Bruton has not been very helpful in this regard. He is clearly intent on making further changes in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. He said in a recent speech that the Irish Government had been given the right, under the 1985 agreement, to put forward views and proposals. They have been doing that daily ever since. He also said, yet again, that work was needed to get a settlement on the basis of the joint framework document.
      Even Ministers and Labour Front-Bench Members understand that that view of the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic is not acceptable to the Unionist population of Northern Ireland. Indeed, I wonder whether it is acceptable to a wider community—what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) was fond of describing as the greater number in Northern Ireland. I believe that that greater number, which extends beyond traditional Unionist opinion, would also view with a measure of alarm the possibility of going into an all-Ireland republic. Those people were not all that anxious, therefore, to have the joint framework imposed on them.
      I believe that the various proposals we have made to get such agreements put to the people and to stop the Government overriding the desires of the greatest number would be a step forward, and would inspire confidence among the people of Northern Ireland. They would take away the fear, distrust and lack of faith in the Government's good intentions. There would be a remarkable improvement in atmosphere in Northern Ireland, and all sorts of good things could flow from the change I propose.
      The truth is, as the Secretary of State knows, that the people of Northern Ireland perceive that endless concessions are being made to the gunmen.
      They believe that, instead of ruling according to the desires of the greater number in the population, the Government have accorded far too much influence, to put it no higher than that, to those who have tried hard to effect change by the use of weaponry, explosives and violence, or by suppression, or both, and who claim every concession as a surrender to their policy of violence.
      I see that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has rejoined us. I believe that he understands the problems we see, although, sadly, he is one of those who does not believe in the unity of the United Kingdom, because he—
      Mr. John D. Taylor: Supports Celtic?
      Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman may support Celtic; I understand that it is a pretty good football team—but I must confess that, if I were a football lover, I might support another team.
      Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: That is the root of the problem.
      Mr. Ross: I meant Coleraine; it is in my constituency. [Interruption.] I could not follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) down that road. But I am not a footballer, so the problem does not arise.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. This is no doubt most interesting and entertaining, but can the hon. Gentleman tell me what it has to do with his amendment?
      Mr. Ross: Actually, Dame Janet, I had moved somewhat from my own amendment to discuss amendment No. 100, which the hon. Member for Falkirk, West hopes to move if he catches your eye in a few minutes' time. He demands:
      "The Secretary of State shall consult the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the wording and timing of any referendum on constitutional proposals affecting the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland."
      That is an interesting proposition.
      Mr. Corbyn: It is a good amendment.
      Mr. Ross: It is an interesting proposition, but I do not think it is needed. Surely we are told by Mr. Bruton that, since 1985, the Irish Government have constantly been consulted on a daily basis. Are we to believe that they are not consulted on those issues, and that in the past ten and a half years there has ever been a time when the Government of the Irish Republic have not raised the constitutional position of Northern Ireland?
      The proposition by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West is unnecessary. It is redundant, because what the hon. Gentleman wants is already happening, and we are trying to ensure that it stops happening. We want the Secretary of State to consult not only the Unionist population—the greater number in Northern Ireland—but the people of Northern Ireland.
      Surely the electorate of Northern Ireland should be allowed to pronounce on such matters. As I have said, if that happened, a burden would be lifted from the Government's shoulders. They are loth to transfer the responsibility for things going wrong on to the shoulders of the Unionists. Perhaps they would find it easier, wiser and more defensible to transfer that burden to the shoulders of the people of Northern Ireland—a burden that that electorate would joyfully accept, because it would mean that they could protect the position that they enjoy within the kingdom.
      Mr. Wilshire: I want to speak to the two amendments in my name, Nos. 83 and 84. Amendment No. 83 seeks to make it clear that the Government could not proceed with any decision emerging from talks unless a majority of the people supported it in a referendum within Northern Ireland. That is a variation on amendment No. 125.
      Amendment No. 84 seeks to make it clear that the purpose of a referendum is to obtain not simply the views of the people of Northern Ireland but their consent.
      11.30 pm
      Amendment No. 83 takes up something that we discussed in slightly more general terms earlier—the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Minister kindly made it clear that there would have to be consent from the majority in Northern Ireland.
      132
      That has been talked about in the past. Having said that earlier today, I am asking him to put it in writing so that we have in the Bill what we are repeatedly told informally is the case. As my amendment merely confirms what the Government have already said, I assume that they will not find it difficult to accept.
      The Government make much of the triple lock. Some of us are not so sure how secure it is, but they tell us that it is vital and that the people of Northern Ireland must agree. The amendment says that if they do not agree, the proposals
      "shall not be proceeded with".
      If the Government are willing to say that, let them do so, but I draw my right hon. Friend the Minister's attention to my amendment's detailed wording. It defines "majority" as being
      "a majority of those entitled to vote",
      not a straightforward majority of those who happen to turn up on a wet Thursday afternoon. There is a precedent for that in other referendums that have been held in the United Kingdom to determine the future relationship of a part of the Union with the whole. The Government should make it clear that they accept that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland means a majority of those entitled to vote doing so.
      Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend may have glanced at clause 4(6), which we shall debate later. He may not have noticed that it states:
      "Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the Secretary of State to direct the holding of a poll otherwise than in accordance with Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 in relation to"—
      and this is the important bit—
      "the matters dealt with in section 1 of that Act."
      Section 1 of that Act states:
      "It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland remains part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom, and it is hereby affirmed that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part of it cease to be part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland".
      It is a strange anomaly that clause 4(1) refers to
      "obtaining the views of the people of Northern Ireland on any matter relating to Northern Ireland"
      but that clause 4(6)—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but interventions should be brief, as I have had occasion to say before. If he wants to make such a complicated and lengthy point, he should try to catch my eye to make a separate speech.
      Mr. Wilshire: I understand your point, Dame Janet, but I found my hon. Friend's intervention interesting and helpful. I consider myself told off for not reading that part of the 1973 Act as he did. His intervention provides with me with another argument. If my amendments say only what already exists in other legislation, it is sensible for the Government to accept that the Bill should be changed to bring it into line with what he described.
      Amendment No. 84 goes beyond simply seeking the views of the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that we should confirm in writing tonight that the purpose of the

      133
      exercise is what the Government have repeatedly said informally—that we are seeking consent. Let us put that into writing for the avoidance of all doubt.
      So that I do not have to speak again during this short debate, I must assume that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) will speak to amendment No. 100, which suggests that there should be formal consultation with a foreign Government about the internal affairs of the United Kingdom. The decision by a sovereign Parliament to hold a referendum within its territory is a matter for that country alone. To suggest that a foreign Government, be it the Republic of Ireland, Peru, or wherever, should have a formal status in the process of the House deciding to hold a referendum on a particular date and what wording to put to its citizens and to no others is utterly unacceptable. I hope that the House will have no part of the amendment that I suspect will be moved.
      I realise that there is an overlap and that the Republic may want to hold its own referendum. There may be some need for an informal chat over a pint of Guinness, or whatever these people do on such occasions. But it would be an impertinence for us to interfere formally in what is decided in Dublin, just as it is an impertinence for them to interfere in the internal matters of this sovereign nation.
      Once again, I am pleading with my right hon. and hon. Friends not simply to come up with soothing words when they respond to my points and, having said all those things all over again, to say, "No. We can't accept these amendments either." My right hon. and hon. Friends may find my amendments unnecessary, but that is not the point. I would be grateful to hear—if it can be argued—why my amendments are wrong, not why they might be inconvenient to the Government.
      I consider that, by accepting the amendments, the Government will prove beyond all doubt that they are willing to stand by their informal words. They will show that they are willing to help their friends on the Back Benches. I urge them, therefore, to accept the amendments. It is one way of making speedier progress tonight.
      Mr. Canavan: My amendment No. 100 would impose on the Secretary of State a statutory obligation to
      "consult the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the wording and timing of any referendum on constitutional proposals affecting the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland."
      I emphasise that we are talking not simply of a new internal constitutional arrangement in Northern Ireland, or the relationship between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. My amendment refers to
      "constitutional proposals affecting the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland."
      It is only fair and democratic, therefore, that that new constitutional package, defining a new relationship between all the peoples of the island of Ireland, should be put to a democratic test throughout the entire island, rather than just one part of it.
      My amendment places a statutory obligation on the Government to implement paragraph 26 of the White Paper, Cm 3232, which states:
      "Both Governments respectively reaffirm their intention that the outcome of negotiations will be submitted for public approval by referendums"—
      134
      I always thought that the plural of referendum was referenda, but it says referendums—
      "in Ireland—North and South—before being submitted to their respective Parliaments for ratification and the earliest possible implementation."
      It would make good sense, therefore, for there to be consultation between both Governments, so that they could agree on exactly the same form of wording to be put to their peoples. There may well be some advantage in holding the referenda on the same day. Those could all be matters for consultation.
      The Republic of Ireland has a longer history of referenda than we have. I understand that it must hold a referendum if it amends its constitution. Whatever referendum is put to the people of the Republic of Ireland may be one that is required by its constitution, so the wording would perhaps not be exactly the same. The wording of part of the constitutional package may be the same, but if it involves a constitutional amendment in the Republic of Ireland, the British Government obviously would not want to include that in the wording of the referendum put to the people of Northern Ireland. Those matters are all points for consultation. They are important and there is merit in making the wording on the relationship between the peoples of Ireland as similar as possible in the two referenda.
      Mr. John D. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman continually refers to the peoples of Ireland, but of course he will recall that any referendum could well apply to the peoples of these islands. Part of the negotiations will be about the relationship between the peoples of these islands, as paragraph 1 of Command Paper 3232 says. It is not simply the peoples of the island of Ireland. It is the peoples of these islands.
      Mr. Canavan: Clause 4 of the Bill refers to
      "obtaining the views of the people of Northern Ireland on any matter relating to Northern Ireland."
      The Bill will have no jurisdiction in the Republic of Ireland, so if we are to put into effect paragraph 26 of the White Paper it makes sense to have statutory consultation between both Governments on the content and timing of the referendum. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point that there may well be a case for extending some form of consultative referendum to all the people of the United Kingdom. I know that some hon. Members take that view on constitutional matters, but if one examines the agreements that have been signed recently by both Governments on the right of self-determination and the definition of consent, it is clear that it will be sufficient to confine the democratic test to the entire island of Ireland.
      I commend my amendment to the House.
      Mr. Cash: I think that I have made my point already, thanks to your indulgence, Dame Janet, in an intervention that I made earlier. There is a potentially serious point here. It is the inconsistency and perhaps even conflict between clause 4(1), which refers to the views of the people of Northern Ireland, and the requirements in clause 4(6), which deal with the question of consent by reference to section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has made an important point in amendment No. 84. I suspect that it would be extremely

      135
      undesirable to find that someone attempted to upset the arrangements that have been made in pursuance of those sections if there were an inconsistency—and there clearly is between the words "views" and "consent"—that led them to say that it was ultra vires or in some way out of order.
      I simply say to the Minister that this looks to be a point that could be taken on Report. It looks as though my hon. Friend has a serious point with respect to amendment 84. Therefore, this matter ought to be looked at again.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Corbyn: I put on record my support for amendment No. 100, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). If there is no consultation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the wording, timing and content of the referendum proposals, it is very unlikely that there will be a successful outcome from the peace talks—and we want them to come to a successful conclusion.
      I fail to see why there should be any objection to consulting the Government of the Republic when it is obvious that the whole problem with Ireland is the division, the relationship between Britain and the Republic of Ireland and the future of the six counties. Holding a referendum with similar questions—multiple choice questions that include the same options within them on both sides of the border—seems to me to be the best way to bring this to a successful conclusion.
      The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West and said what about a referendum in the rest of the United Kingdom, or perhaps he said that there should not be one in the rest of the United Kingdom. Essentially, the issue has to be resolved by the peoples of Ireland as a whole and that can bring about a permanent peace. If he is serious about a referendum in the whole of the United Kingdom, he might find that the result will be that Britain should not be so involved in Northern Ireland or perhaps not involved at all. I am not so sure that a referendum would bring him the result that he would like to see.
      That is not the content of the amendment that has been put down in our names. We are saying that the Secretary of State, before presenting any referendum questions to the people of Northern Ireland, should, as a matter of requirement, talk to the Government of the Republic of Ireland in the hope and expectation that a similarly worded referendum could take place on the other side of the border.
      Mr. Illsley: The Opposition would like some clarification of the amendments and of clause 4. We take the view of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) that clause 4(6) prevents the Secretary of State from holding a referendum on the constitutional future of Northern Ireland unless it is in accordance with the Northern Ireland (Constitution) Act 1973. Therefore, we look on the holding of referendums under clause 4 as giving the Secretary of State the opportunity to hold referendums periodically in Northern Ireland on topics other than the issue of constitutional change.
      Perhaps the Minister could clarify that and tell us the purpose of clause 4. We look on it not as a clause which authorises a referendum on the constitutional future of
      136
      Northern Ireland arising out of those negotiations, but as one which gives the Secretary of State the power to hold a referendum on issues that may arise from time to time—perhaps on the use of violence, as was suggested by the SDLP recently.
      We regard some of the amendments that have been moved as unnecessary and others as unworkable. Inserting the word "shall" in the first line of clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to hold referendums from time to time regardless of whether there was an issue on which to hold one. I cannot envisage circumstances in which there would be no issue on which to hold a referendum. Nevertheless, amendment No. 128 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to hold referendums periodically, and we see no need for continually holding referendums.
      Obviously, the most important referendum to be held in relation to Northern Ireland would come under the provisions of clause 4(6). The issue is that of obtaining the consent rather than the views of the people of Northern Ireland. The issue of consent brings us back to subsection (6). As we see it, clause 4 is intended for the Secretary of State to obtain the views of the people of Northern Ireland on specific subjects. If the word "consent" is written into clause 4, the Secretary of State will be under a duty to hold referendums in Northern Ireland, each of which is to give consent, and issues may be put to a referendum that do not require the consent of the people of Northern Ireland but simply an expression of their view.
      I refer back to the subject raised by the SDLP when it said that perhaps the issue of the use of violence or whatever might be put to a referendum in Northern Ireland. That does not require the issue of consent to be agreed on; it simply means that the people of Northern Ireland can express their view.
      The issue of consent in any respect has been laid to rest by both Government and Opposition; both have committed themselves repeatedly to the view that no constitutional change will take place in Northern Ireland unless it is with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland expressed through a referendum. I regard that as being enshrined in the various documents that the Government have produced in the past, and it is not relevant to clause 4.
      Worryingly, amendment No. 125 would give a duty or a power to hold referendums on any agreement between the Government and the Irish Republic. I read that to mean that we might hold a referendum in Northern Ireland on the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, and we could be bogged down in holding a referendum on agreements or treaties that have been in position for the past 10 years and whether they are agreed. It will not take the process forward if we begin to look backwards rather than forwards to the negotiations.
      Amendment No. 125 would also limit referendums to constitutional issues, which I do not envisage as the remit of clause 4. I hope that the Minister will respond on that point and confirm that clause 4 is simply to obtain expressions of the will of the people of Northern Ireland rather than their consent on major constitutional issues.
      We cannot agree with an amendment that would make the results of any referendum binding on the Government. It is a well-known rule of the House that Parliament cannot bind its successors. It would not be right or proper

      137
      for the Government to enshrine in legislation here the fact that they would hold referendums to be binding on themselves and any future Government.
      Amendment No. 83, tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), also refers to clause 4. He wishes the decision in a referendum to be taken on a majority of those entitled to vote, rather than the majority of those people voting. We cannot agree with the fact that abstentions will be counted as people voting against in any such referendum.
      Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this point. We are reaching a crucial moment in defining a central part of Labour party policy with reference to what might happen after the next general election. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) draws its inspiration from the legislation of the last Labour Government in the Scotland Act 1978 and the Wales Act 1978. In view of the Labour party's proposal to introduce within its first year in Government legislation regarding devolution in Scotland, is the hon. Gentleman announcing that there will be no referendum along the same lines as provided for by the last Labour Government? It is a crucial issue.
      Mr. Illsley: The circumstances in Northern Ireland are unique. A Labour Government would not conduct a referendum along the lines of the previous legislation as suggested by the hon. Gentleman. We do not agree that the decision should be taken on the basis of the majority of people entitled to vote.
      As to amendment No. 100 moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), we tend to agree with earlier comments that perhaps it is not necessary in view of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the on-going consultation between the Irish and the British Governments on Northern Ireland issues. We assume—perhaps the Minister will confirm our view—that the Irish Government will be consulted about the wording of any referendum question on constitutional issues.
      I see no reason why the Irish Government should be consulted under clause 4, unless border issues or constitutional matters were involved. Under clause 4—which is not related to constitutional issues or to the outcome of negotiations—there is less need to consult the Irish Government. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point in due course.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: In talking about referendums and constitutional issues, we are on very important ground and we must tread carefully. I hope that the Government do not intend to change the firm commitment made by successive Governments—both Labour and Conservative—that Northern Ireland's position as an integral part of the United Kingdom will not be altered except by referendum in which the people have the right to give their verdict. That point must be underscored over and over again.
      Mr. Stott: Which people?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The people of Northern Ireland. That is a law of the Parliament as supported by the hon. Gentleman's party
      138
      Conditions in Northern Ireland are difficult at present and it ill behoves anyone in this place to say that we wish to undermine Northern Ireland's position as an integral part of the United Kingdom. In so doing, they do a grave disservice to the people of Northern Ireland. I simply reiterate that it is a very serious matter.
      The Government of the Irish Republic would resent this place interfering in the constitutional matters that they intended to put to their people. The criminal and immoral articles 2 and 3—behind which the IRA has hidden for years and which the chief court of the south has underscored—must be changed. No British Government would be allowed to interfere in any referendum held by the Irish Government, so no one should interfere in the UK Government's plans for an integral part of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: The question of referendums and of consent involves the fundamental constitutional position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. It has been accepted by both the Government and the Opposition as far back as 1972, in the Downing street declaration, in the Anglo-Irish Agreement and more recently, that there would be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom without the consent of a majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland. That is the fundamental principle of consent which has been accepted by the Dublin Government, by the parties of constitutional nationalism and by the forum for peace and reconciliation in Dublin. It has been accepted by all those other than Sinn Fein-IRA and the parties and groups dedicated to attaining political objectives by violent means.
      12 midnight
      That element of consent must be totally distinguished from the question of receiving the views of the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum about the outcome, in this context, of any package or agreement arrived at by negotiations in the negotiating body that is being organised. The two issues are very distinct, and that should always be borne in mind. As the hon. Member for North Antrim pointed out, it would seriously undermine the whole basis on which any pro-Union party in Northern Ireland would enter any negotiations if there was the slightest suggestion that that guarantee would be interfered with in any way. I speak for myself as an independent, but I am sure that I reflect the views of all pro-Union parties in the House. No one will go into those or any other negotiations against a background of that constitutional guarantee being in any wise called in question.
      A distinction must be drawn between the proposals for a referendum before us and the proposals in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. They are two completely different issues. The referendums to which the amendments refer would be, I assume, only about such matters as may evolve from any negotiations. In no manner can they affect the constitutional position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, because if they do that will be the death knell of any prospect of any success whatever emerging from the negotiations that follow the Bill.
      Mr. Cash: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree with the point that I have made that the inconsistency

      139
      between clause 4(1) and 4(6) must be resolved? We cannot have a situation in which section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 requires consent but clause 4(1) of the Bill requires merely the expression of views. Must not that be resolved and, therefore, must we not look, as a matter of critical importance and for the very reason the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned—the death knell of the negotiations—look to the Minister to try to resolve that problem?
      Mr. McCartney: I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman has said, because under the present proposals any party can raise any issue that it wishes. That would entitle Sinn Fein, if it participates, or the SDLP or any other nationalist party to raise the constitutional issue in the course of the negotiations.
      Some people think that it should be a precondition for any party entering the negotiations that it should accept that constitutional principle, which has been accepted by everyone else. Indeed, many think that the only reason why that acceptance is not a precondition is that, if it were made a precondition, the only party which does not accept it—Sinn Fein—would not turn up for or participate in the negotiations. Since the Government's fundamental objective is so clearly to have Sinn Fein at the talks, it is necessary to make every conceivable concession to Sinn Fein, including that of the guarantee of the Union. That is why it is not a precondition, and that is why—as the hon. Member for North Antrim, pointed out—it is so important to resolve an anomaly that will otherwise inevitably lead to difficulty.
      Mr. Ancram: Until the last few moments of his speech, I thought that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) was delivering my reply for me rather well, but I am afraid that in that final part he diverted from it slightly.
      Subsection (6) deals with the fears of both the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Antrim, making it clear in relation to the constitutional guarantee that nothing in the clause will alter the effect of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
      Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend is digressing from the main point. He refers to schedule 1 to the 1973 Act, but fails to relate his points to the phrase
      "in relation to the matters dealt with in section 1 of that Act"
      in clause 4(6). Those matters necessarily include the notion of consent.
      Mr. Ancram: I shall come to that. It is an important point.
      Let me repeat that the constitutional guarantee is protected under subsection (6). That is why it is there.
      Speaking to amendment No. 100, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West began to undermine his own argument about the language that he wanted to be replicated in the two referendums, realising that the purpose of the referendums might be somewhat different. I am not sure whether he was present earlier, when we discussed referendums; if he was, he will have heard me make it clear that they are two separate referendums in two
      140
      separate jurisdictions, and that—for the very reasons that he gave in relation to the Irish constitution—their specific purposes could well be different.
      A process that will involve consultation in the reaching of agreement between a series of parties—including the two Governments—will obviously involve some consultation about the purpose of the two referendums, but I see no point in putting that in statute any more than I see any point in putting in statute the need for me to consult the hon. Member for Upper Bann and the hon. Member for North Antrim—although I would certainly feel the need to consult them on an essential matter such as this.
      Mr. Canavan: The Minister says that he and the Secretary of State are committed to continuing consultations, but they may not be in power when the referendum is held.
      Mr. Ancram: I am interested to learn that other parties may not believe in consultation, given that we are discussing the reaching of agreement through negotiations. Negotiations tend to require consultation between those who are holding them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows of another means of negotiating which I have yet to discover; no doubt he will enlighten me one day.
      I agree with much that was said by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). If his purpose was to protect the situation spelt out in section 1 of the 1973 Act, however, the amendment is unnecessary: that matter is covered in subsection (6). The 1973 Act states:
      "in no event will Northern Ireland or any part of it cease to be a part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent"—
      I stress the word consent—
      "of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1".
      The protection is firmly there and, as the hon. and learned Member for North Down pointed out, it is not just there in the Act; it has been accepted in many different forms, such as the Downing street declaration and the forum in Dublin. Consent is an essential part of that protection, and it is underwritten. Far from protecting, the amendment might become unduly restrictive because it refers to any agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and that of the Irish Republic.
      Although the amendment may be intended to cover matters such as the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, the variation in agreements between the two Governments can be considerable. Some of them have nothing to do with Northern Ireland, and it would obviously be wrong—and certainly not the intention—to make agreements between the two Governments which have nothing to do with Northern Ireland subject to a referendum in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. William Ross: The present legislation is merely permissive—the word "may" is used. I was trying to make it binding on the Government to hold a referendum if concern was being expressed in Northern Ireland. The Minister is correct in terms of the words on the amendment paper, but in the light of his expanded

      141
      remarks I would be perfectly happy to table another amendment on Report to allay the concerns that he has expressed.
      Mr. Ancram: I must develop my reply further. By tabling his amendment, the hon. Gentleman is saying that
      "The Secretary of State shall, from time to time by order direct the holding of a referendum for the purpose of obtaining the views of the people of Northern Ireland on any matter relating to Northern Ireland."
      The hon. Gentleman is making that mandatory without explaining its purpose and in what circumstances he expects the measure to be applied. I sympathise with many of his arguments, but his amendment is not only flawed but unnecessary. I suspect that his main concern is to ensure that the constitutional guarantee is protected, and I can give him that firm assurance.
      I shall now deal with the amendments that were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, to whom I listened carefully. The word "views" is used in clause 4 (1) because, while a referendum under the clause might be held to assess agreement or consent, and that would be set out in the question, a referendum might be held on a matter that was not suitable for such a response. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) suggested a question that might be part of a referendum to be held simultaneously with the election. In declaratory questions, consent would not be an issue, whereas the views of the people of Northern Ireland would. Where agreement or consent is required, that has to be made clear in the question, and the form of the question would ensure that consent was a factor.
      I listened to my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne and for Stafford (Mr. Cash). None of us is trying to avoid the question of consent because we have made it clear that any outcome of negotiations can proceed only if it has the consent of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. If a question were framed in relation to the outcome of negotiations, it would have to cover that point or it would not match the firm commitment that has been given many times.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne made much of the amendment's request that the referendum should receive the support of the majority of people who are entitled to vote. In the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford rightly drew our attention, "consent" is the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll. It would be strange if a change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland could be secured by a majority of those voting in a poll when a higher threshold would be required for the implementation of any agreed outcome of negotiations. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said that we should be consistent. I take his words seriously, and I suggest that, in the context of the 1973 Act and the Bill, consistency is important.
      Mr. Cash: I am glad that my right hon. Friend says that there should be consistency and that that is important. All I am saying is that it would be important also to have a period of reflection between now and Report to make certain that there is no inconsistency. Clearly, there are two conflicting provisions—one in the 1973 Act and the other in the Bill—with respect to the point that I have made already. If that is so, and it turned out that the
      142
      Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was not authorised to make the order in the terms prescribed under the Bill, that would cause considerable disquiet. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend simply to give an assurance that, between now and Report, he will consider the matter and, furthermore, if necessary, table an amendment on Report.
      12.15 am
      Mr. Ancram: I certainly give an undertaking that I shall consider the matter, but, in the light of what I said, I would not expect to find that inconsistency.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: Why does the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between the requirement to have a simple majority as the view or consent of the people of Northern Ireland as expressed in a referendum and the much higher requirement for a majority in both communities for propositions in the Command Paper?
      Mr. Ancram: I think that the hon. Gentleman realises that the referendum is there to test the opinion of the people of Northern Ireland. We have been through that in some detail. It is part of the triple lock. We have talked about the way in which agreement is come to in negotiations, which is obviously a different matter, but it is important that, in terms of the two pieces of legislation, the proportion of voting required is consistent. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way before he finally sits down. He has raised an important point about amendment No. 83 and I accept the contradiction between the two pieces of legislation. He has not, however, dealt with the spirit of amendment No. 83, if it did not have that defective point about a majority of people entitled to vote. Is he willing to reflect on the spirit of my amendment to find out whether he can find a form of words that will write in the respect for the consent of the majority, however he tries to define it, either before Report or when the Bill is before another place, in which case it may be possible to make progress?
      Mr. Ancram: Again, I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said, but in moving in that direction, there is an inevitable restriction of what referendums can be used for in this context. That must be taken into account, especially in the light of the fact that representations have been made that there may be occasions when referendums would be a useful way of assessing people's views rather than necessarily always having to seek consent on a particular issue. Given what I have said, I hope that he will withdraw his amendments.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 2, line 20, at end insert—
      '(a) setting out the wording of the question to be put;'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 126, in page 2, line 21, leave out
      'as to the persons entitled to vote'
      and insert,

      143
      'that the persons entitled to vote shall be those on the current register of electors for parliamentary elections.'.
      No. 86, in page 2, line 25, leave out subsection (4).
      Mr. Trimble: This is a simple amendment and a simple issue. I hope that we will have a straightforward answer. The amendment would require that the order that is to be made under clause 4 with regard to the conduct of the referendum contains the wording of the question that is to be put in the referendum. The order must be approved by a resolution of the House—an excellent provision: it is right that, before a referendum takes place, there should be parliamentary approval.
      It would be improper for the House to be asked to approve any referendum when it is not aware of the wording that is to be put to the electorate.
      There is an interesting analogy with polls under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Schedule 1 of that Act, which is referred to in clause 4(6), sets out the statutory form of wording. It is not a matter of an order made under the Act; it is set out in primary legislation. It is therefore not asking too much to ensure that we have the exact wording in the secondary legislation providing for the referendum.
      Mr. Cash: I shall ask one simple question. Is there the slightest possibility in the mind of the Secretary of State or of any Ministers that a referendum held under clause 4(6) could deal with questions relating to the treaty on European union? It is clear that the intention is to confine the provision to Northern Ireland, but clause 4(1) states that a referendum can be held to obtain the views on
      "any matter relating to Northern Ireland."
      Furthermore, having read schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, it seems that it is just possible that a referendum dealing with questions relating to the treaty on European union could be held at the same time or separately.
      I want it on the record that I have raised this issue but, most emphatically, that the possibility of a referendum relating to the treaty on European union being held under this provision is ruled out.
      Mr. Canavan: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 86, which is a probing amendment. It would delete subsection (4) of clause 4. Subsection (4) states:
      "Where an order under subsection (1) applies an enactment which empowers a person or body to make any provision or to do anything it may modify that enactment by substituting the Secretary of State for that person or body."
      What on earth is the point of giving a person or a body the powers to do something presumably concerned with the organisation of a referendum but, at the same time, saying that the Secretary of State may act instead of that person or body and take over the powers of that body or person? What are the circumstances in which the Secretary of State envisages giving powers for the holding of a referendum to a person or body but then taking them back and using them himself?
      Mr. William Ross: Amendment No. 126, which stands in my name, is merely a probing amendment. Later in the Bill, the Government state that people on the local election register will be eligible to vote, whereas I suggest in the amendment that the Government should use the
      144
      parliamentary register. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why the Government have chosen one register rather than another. We should be aware that, in Northern Ireland, there is considerable interest in who votes in a particular election, and the reason why the Government have chosen the parliamentary register will be of great interest to many people.
      I wholly support amendment No. 31, which demands the setting out of the question to be put in a referendum. Over the years we have become familiar with how words can be twisted and how questions can be construed in different ways because of the ambiguous language that is used. I am sure that the Secretary of State will understand that, in such an important matter, absolute precision of language is needed so that folk are under no illusions about what they are voting for and so that there is no doubt in their minds as to the question that they are being asked. The Government should accept this simple and straightforward amendment because it is central to the whole referendum question. If it is not accepted, there will be grave suspicion that, somewhere along the line, someone will try to use vague, woolly wording, which would be totally unacceptable to the people of Northern Ireland, especially those on this Bench.
      Mr. Dowd: We may get through this batch of amendments in record time, certainly compared with the proceedings heretofore.
      I know that on Second Reading the Minister went through the point that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has just made. He quoted the figures involved and the differences between the registers. The Secretary of State also addressed the point in his Second Reading speech. We understood the numbers, but I do not think that we elucidated precisely the reason for the preference. If the Secretary of State reiterated it now, I am sure that it would allay the qualms of the hon. Member for East Londonderry.
      To reiterate the query raised my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), under clause 4(4) it looks as if the Secretary of State can assume powers from other individuals. We would like to know in what circumstances that would take effect and to what purpose.
      On amendment No. 31, the point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) about the wording of any referendum that may be held is extremely valid. The notable referendums on the border in 1971 and the European Community in 1975 were introduced through primary legislation and went through the normal processes in the House. The opportunity was therefore given to hon. Members to amend the question therein. Under subsection (4), not only would the question to be put be implemented by secondary legislation, under which, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann says, Members would not have the chance to reconsider or amend the wording, but there would not even be an opportunity to know what the question was.
      If an order were laid before the House that maintained that a referendum would be held but the question was not set out in it, would it be laid before the question had been decided or would it be passed and the question decided subsequently? Under either of those two permutations, what process of consultation would the Government undertake in attempting to determine the precise wording of the referendum question?

      145
      The hon. Member for East Londonderry said that words are important. They clearly are. The answer to referendums across the world—we are not that used to them here in the United Kingdom—has often been almost totally determined by the question asked. The question of the words to be put on any ballot paper is critical.
      12.30 am
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall first deal with amendment No. 31. The question that I have been asked is simply whether the order will contain the words of the question. The answer is yes, it should do. I am advised that under the existing wording in the Bill it would be so required, but in case there is any doubt, I am very happy to accept the amendment. So that is that out of the way. I am glad that the hon. Member for Upper Bann was sitting comfortably.
      Mr. William Ross: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I must have shaken the hon. Gentleman. I am coming to his amendment; I cannot do quite the same in respect of him. On amendment No. 126, I can understand the hon. Gentleman's case that there is no real need for the Secretary of State to have discretion in the area and that it would be as well to put the issue beyond doubt on the face of the Bill. However, the provision is common. Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 also confers such a discretion on the Secretary of State in respect of border polls.
      The House of Commons would have the opportunity to vote down any order under clause 4(2) that applied any improper franchise for any referendum. The hon. Member for East Londonderry asked why a selection was made of the parliamentary franchise. We went into this on Second Reading. There is a very slight difference—about 70—in the number of electors. The difference is accounted for by the fact that the parliamentary franchise includes 79 registered overseas voters, but excludes nine peers resident in Northern Ireland, which seems rather a pity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?] Exactly. Why?
      In principle, it might be thought more appropriate for the franchise for any referendum to reflect the potential implications for local residents. On that basis, the local government register rather than the parliamentary franchise would be more appropriate, which perhaps illustrates the value of leaving the issue to be dealt with by order rather than on the face of the Bill.
      I can also accept amendment No. 86, tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West. Subsection (4) was put in as a safety net, but as the drafting of the elections order has proceeded, it has become clear that it is unnecessary. I do not wish to prolong matters at this stage of the evening. Two out of three is not bad.
      Mr. Cash: Would my right hon. and learned Friend be good enough—
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Is the Secretary of State giving way?
      Mr. Cash: Would my right hon. and learned Friend be kind enough—
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have accepted amendments Nos. 31 and 86.
      Mr. Cash: Would my right hon. and learned Friend be kind enough to address the point—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Secretary of State has not given way.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: If I may have the indulgence of the Committee, I shall answer my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). My hon. Friend asked whether clause 4 would enable the Secretary of State to hold a referendum on any matter, including a single currency or any matter connected to the European Union. The strict answer to that is yes, as drafted, it would. It would have to be said that such a matter would be a matter relating to Northern Ireland. However, the power is time limited, expiring in May 1999, and the power to direct a referendum rests with the Secretary of State. I am in no position to give any binding undertaking, but I can give a very firm expectation that a referendum, if any, connected with any European matter would be introduced on a United Kingdom basis and not on a Northern Ireland-only basis.
      Mr. Canavan: I thank the Secretary of State for accepting my amendment. I hope that it is a portent of things to come.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 86, in page 2, line 25, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Canavan.]
      Mr. Dowd: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (5).
      That was one of the most productive 15 minutes since we began our consideration of the Bill. I shall be brief. The elections—
      Mr. Ancram: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman—
      Mr. Dowd: I did not think that I would be quite that brief.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman inspired me by his remarks about being productive. It may help him to know that, although there is nothing untoward about subsection (5), it is clear from the Second Reading debate that there is a broad and possibly sufficient consensus ranged against it. I am prepared to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Dowd: I am completely fazed, Sir Geoffrey; one does not even have to work for a living in this place any more. However, I am delighted that our previous rate of progress is being continued, and I accept the Minister's assurance.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5

      "NOMINATING REPRESENTATIVE" OF A PARTY
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 141, in page 2, line 39, leave out from 'person' to end of line 41 and insert
      'whom that party in Northern Ireland itself determines to be its leader.'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 92, in page 2, line 39, leave out from 'who' to end of line 41 and insert
      'is nominated as such by that party'.
      No. 82, in page 2, line 39, at end insert 'chairman or'.
      No. 9, in page 2, line 40, after 'party', insert 'in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 80, in page 2, line 40, after 'party', insert
      'in Northern Ireland or in an individual Northern Ireland parliamentary constituency'.
      No. 123, in page 2, line 40, after 'party', insert
      'in Northern Ireland in cases where the party has its Headquarters elsewhere in the United Kingdom'.
      No. 33, in page 2, line 40, leave out from 'party' to end of line 41.
      No. 81, in page 2, line 40, after 'person', insert
      'in Northern Ireland or in an individual Northern Ireland parliamentary constituency. '.
      Mr. Robinson: Two of the amendments in the group stand in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and myself. The intention of amendment No. 141 is clear. The Secretary of State, for some reason so far unknown to us, believes that he has a better knowledge and capacity to determine the leadership of political parties in Northern Ireland, and no doubt beyond, than the membership of the parties themselves.
      I can think of nothing more absurd than the Secretary of State in the full exercise of the powers that he seeks for himself in the clause, determining that the leader of a political party should be someone other than the leader that the party itself has chosen. Yet under the clause the Secretary of State will be able so to determine.
      Can anybody imagine the difficulties that would be presented if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were to exercise that power? I think that the temptation should be taken from him, and that instead we should have within the clause the sensible provision that the party itself should be able to determine who its leader should be at any given time.
      Also in connection with the amendment, we should recall the fact that some of the parties that contest the elections in Northern Ireland may not be parties exclusive to Northern Ireland. Some of them may be parties that range over the whole of the United Kingdom, and some may be parties that range over the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State therefore determine who should be designated the leader of parties whose main leadership lies in the Republic of Ireland? If so, should not their leader in Northern Ireland be
      148
      determined for the purposes of the Bill to be the person properly to exercise the functions of the leader, or "nominating representative"?
      I do not want to tread on the Secretary of State's toes, but the provision is there for a specific purpose; it has to do with some local difficulties in the Conservative party. Clearly the Secretary of State is concerned that a "native view" of the Conservative party could be represented by the people who would be elected in Northern Ireland by one means or another—by the constituency lists or through the rigged regional lists—and that those people might present themselves to the negotiating process and put a view that was not in line with the view of Ministers. Indeed, theirs might be a view contrary to that of Ministers—and that might be no bad thing.
      Clearly the Secretary of State wants to be able to step in at that stage and say, "Look, you boys can't come. The person I am designating as the 'nominating representative' of the Tory participants in the talks will be the chairman of the Tory party. Although you have been elected to take part in the process, he may determine not to nominate any of you."
      Indeed, outside the Chamber the threat has already been made that, although people may win a place in the election in Northern Ireland, they will be barred by the chairman of the Tory party from taking their places in the negotiating process.
      That would lead to the absurdity of the Conservative party being represented at the talks by people who had not been elected by the people of Northern Ireland—indeed, I suggest, by people who could not get elected by the people of Northern Ireland—while those who had been so elected were kept outside the door. I am sure that the House would not want to do something so undemocratic.
      By this route, the Secretary of State is attempting to overcome problems in his party; but in doing so, he is creating several other problems. Will Proinsias de Rossa, as the leader of one of the other parties, be a nominating representative? Will a Dublin Minister make nominations for parties that would be elected in Northern Ireland and decide whether they come to the negotiating process? Are they to have double representation in the negotiating process? Both the Government and one of the partners in Government in the Irish Republic could be represented twice—locally in Northern Ireland, and through their Government as part of the large team that they wish to bring to the negotiating process.
      The basic principle for democrats is that they should accept the democratic decision of political parties as to who their leaders should be. If the Secretary of State interferes with that, it will cause great anger in Northern Ireland, and not only in the party that would be affected by it. I therefore trust that he will, on reflection, recognise that the problems that would be caused by this provision, which is designed to overcome some of his own difficulties, mean that it would be better left out. He has accepted amendments from almost every body of opinion except my party, and this may be an opportunity for him to accept one of ours.
      Mr. Trimble: I agree with the principle that underlies the amendment of the hon. Member for Belfast, East because it also underlies amendment No. 33, which I have tabled. I disagree with him about the detail, but the important thing is the principle. Both

      149
      amendments attack the attempt in clause 5(1) to reserve to the Secretary of State a power to disregard the leader of any of the political parties in Northern Ireland.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, East is right about the origin of the provision. It has been put in because of the structural difficulties that the Secretary of State's party has in Northern Ireland. His local difficulties with the Conservative party cannot justify giving him a discretionary power to select, in effect, who will be the leader of other parties. Other parties have their own procedures for electing leaders, and there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to accept the people who they have elected as their leaders. It is improper for him to give himself a discretionary power to disregard the leadership of a party and select someone else as the nominating representative. He must accept one of the amendments to remove that discretion.
      The only question is about the manner in which it should be done. Amendment No. 33 would oblige the Secretary of State to accept as the nominating representative the leader of the party concerned. That means that the Conservatives in Northern Ireland would have to rest content with their party's method of identifying their party leader, who would, of course, be the Prime Minister. I see no reason why he, as the leader of the Conservative party, should not act in the same way as other party leaders.
      That is a detail. The detail is one thing; the principle is a matter of considerable importance. It is improper for the Secretary of State to take unto himself a sweeping power that is potentially disruptive of the internal order of all political parties in Northern Ireland. It must be withdrawn.
      Mr. Wilshire: I was touched by the concern for my party's welfare shown by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—so much so that he might care to consider joining my party: his moderating influence within it would be useful to us.
      12.45 am
      In the past hour, it has become deeply fashionable for my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench to leap up and say, "We'll accept it." I have three amendments in this group, and I have carefully drafted a two-hour speech. To get to bed early, I will willingly give way if a Minister wants to leap to his feet and say that he will accept them. Perhaps he will not, so I shall explain that amendment No. 80 defines the word "party" in the Bill as meaning that part of the party that is in Northern Ireland or one of the individual constituencies. Amendment No. 81 defines "leader" in this context as the leader of the party in Northern Ireland or in one of its individual constituencies. Amendment No. 82 clarifies the fact that "leader" does not necessarily mean what the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said. Here it has a small "1", and it could be the chairman or the leader, rather than a specific office holder.
      Amendment No. 80 is the key, as far as I am concerned. It makes it clear that it is the party—whichever party—in Northern Ireland that does the nominating. I need to explain why I consider the amendment necessary.
      As I read the suggestion, my party is once again having a little local difficulty with the way in which it goes about its affairs in Northern Ireland. There has been a continuing disagreement between the party hierarchy and the grass
      150
      roots. The party is finding it difficult to decide whether we should fight the elections and, if we should, to sort out who should select the candidates.
      Of course we should fight those elections. A political party exists in a country to fight elections. Northern Ireland is part of my country, and we exist to fight elections in that part of it as well as everywhere else. The fact that people might not vote for us is another matter, but it is up to the people to decide, not the party hierarchy.
      The justification is that, as a Conservative party, we have decided, for better or worse, to organise in Northern Ireland. It is our right and privilege, and if other people choose not to do so, that is their privilege. On the back of that decision, we have agreed to accept subscriptions from individual citizens living in Northern Ireland to join our party. When I first came into the Conservative party, I was always taught that we owed it to our members to allow them to stand up and be counted if that was what they wanted to do.
      We owe it to the people where we organise to give them the privilege of voting for us or rejecting us, once we are an organised party in that area. If that is so—I believe it to be—as I have always maintained, one of the things that we hold particularly dear within the party is that it is a cardinal principle that each constituency association selects its own candidates. I cannot speak for any other party, but all of us on the Conservative Benches owe it to our constituency to decide that it is us and not another Conservative whose name appears on the ballot paper. That principle should be followed in this case.
      The Government have chosen to say that the elections will be run in individual constituencies. For me, that shows where the final responsibility for the decision to put forward candidates lies, and who those candidates shall be.
      My amendment No. 81 takes that argument one step further. Another difficulty which has been touched on is that, even if local people can decide to fight the elections and are able to select their own candidates, the Bill still says that the leader nominates the negotiating team. The hon. Member for Upper Bann put his finger on the problem exactly. The Bill says that someone on the mainland, not in Northern Ireland, will be the person who puts forward Conservative names for the negotiations. In my judgment, that loophole has to be closed.
      Amendment No. 81 says that the person who puts forward the names is the chairman or the leader of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland, if there is such a person, or, if there is not, the leader or chairman in the individual Conservative associations.
      There is another loophole, which was touched on a moment ago. It is possible to put forward names from people living on the mainland, not in Northern Ireland. Although it is not in this group, I have tabled another amendment which says that a person cannot be nominated to take part in the negotiations if he or she lives on the mainland. That, I hope, will deal with that loophole.
      Amendment No. 82 is technical: it says that a chairman or a leader can do the nominating. My own party prefers to have chairmen within local parties rather than leaders.
      Amendment No. 141 says that Northern Ireland elects its own local leader. I agree. I would happily support that amendment instead of my own, if it was necessary. Amendment No. 92 says that the party shall decide who

      151
      puts forward names, not the Secretary of State. If I have watched events clearly over time, I have noticed that the Secretary of State gets himself into all sorts of difficulties, tangles and troubles with matters with which he properly has to deal. So why should he be so keen to take on something which is guaranteed to cause even more aggravation—determining who is the leader of a party, when by far the safest way is to spare himself that aggravation by leaving it to the party itself to decide who its leader or chairman is?
      The way in which we can put the matters that I have raised to rest is for my right hon. and learned Friend to answer three questions. All he needs to do is to say yes to each one. Can he confirm that the Conservative party will be fighting the elections in Northern Ireland? Can he confirm that the Conservative parties in Northern Ireland will choose their candidates? Can he confirm that the Conservatives in Northern Ireland will nominate their own negotiators for the talks that will follow? All that my right hon. and learned Friend has to do is say yes, and we can all go home.
      Mr. Canavan: Unity is breaking out all round. I agreed with almost everything that was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, East when he moved amendment No. 141, and with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. My amendment No. 92 would make clause 5(1) read:
      "In this Act 'nominating representative' in relation to a party means the person who is nominated as such by that party."
      My understanding of the Bill is that the nominating representative does not have to be an elected delegate. The Secretary of State would have discretionary power over who was to be the nominating representative.
      The nominating representative has the important function of, in effect, choosing the party's team of negotiators. In the interests of democracy and decentralised democracy, the parties in Northern Ireland should decide who their nominating representatives and their negotiators are. In this instance, the amendment of the hon. Member for Belfast, East is better worded than mine. Therefore, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment in the interests of his amendment.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: The most reassuring and succinct way in which I can begin my reply to this short debate is to say that there is absolutely no funny business involved in the wording of the provision under discussion. I think that the amendments stem from a misunderstanding of what the provision says and what it intends to achieve.
      The Bill does not allow the Secretary of State to decide the leader of a party. Under the Bill, he has to make a sensible judgment—which he will do in consultation with the party concerned, because that is the whole point—as to who is the leader; that is, who has been chosen by the party through its procedures, or, because some parties do not like to have leaders and make a point of not having leaders, who is the most appropriate person to act for the party.
      Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall expand on my point and then give way to the hon. Member.
      152
      Because we foresaw in the circumstances of Northern Ireland that we might be confronted by assertions that this was to discriminate against a party that did not have a leader, and made a point of not having a leader, which might lead to all sorts of unnecessary complications, in drafting the Bill we sought to approach this point in what I believe to be a sensible way that would enable the Secretary of State to make a choice that is no more than a means to an end.
      The Secretary of State will get lists, which can be validated, of negotiating teams from the delegates. There may be perfectly good reasons why a party might want to say, for example, "In making your choice, Secretary of State, please take account of the fact that we want our general secretary to be our nominated representative." We have consulted in this regard, and some parties suggested names that were not their leaders. Some parties may take exception to the concept that they should have a leader. This Bill does not force them to do so, but the amendment would. That is what it is all about.
      Mr. Corbyn: The Secretary of State seems to me to be making heavy weather of a ridiculous power that he has taken on himself. Why does he want to get involved in who should be the leader or the representative of a political party? Obviously, if they choose one person and he decides to choose someone else, the person he chooses will have no credibility either within his own party or within any other party. Why does the Secretary of State want to get involved in all of this?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not wish to get involved in who is the leader of a political party—I want to get involved in who shall be a validating nominator for the purposes of the Bill. I want to be able to select someone, to invite someone, who will be able to do the job with credibility. I am very happy when a party says, "We have a chairman or a leader, and we wish them to undertake these functions." Naturally, I am very happy to say, "Of course, that is the person I shall invite."
      As I sought to explain, it is where a party has no leader that I wish to be able, within the wording of the Bill, to choose someone who would be the appropriate person to act on behalf of the party for purposes of its own. If it is of any reassurance, I am happy to repeat that that is the sole purpose of the provision.
      Mr. Wilshire: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
      Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way again?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I think my hon. Friend got in first.
      Mr. Wilshire: I hear what my right hon. and learned Friend said. He has advanced an argument to say why one should not specify "leader", and certainly why one should not accept my amendment to specify "chairman". He has advanced no argument to say why one should not invite a party to specify someone. Will he therefore tell us that he is prepared to table an amendment on Report or in another place that simply says that a person in the party shall put forward the names, and leave it to the party to

      153
      describe who that person is? Surely that clears up his worry and does not land him with the difficulties of trying to make choices for independent parties.
      1 am
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I doubt that that is necessary, because we are dealing with a party and, under the scheme of the Bill, we wish the party to identify to the Secretary of State someone who shall be invited as its nominating representative to perform the functions for which the Bill provides. It is for the party to be consulted on these matters, and I give an undertaking that in every instance I shall consult the party. That is the sole purpose of the wording.
      I understand why these points are being taken, but I very much hope that, in the light of that explanation and of my undertaking, hon. Members will be reassured.
      Mr. Corbyn rose—
      Mr. William Ross rose—
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I give way to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
      Mr. Corbyn: I am sorry to tell the Secretary of State that I am not in the least bit reassured. He is taking unto himself the sort of powers that Stalin had to decide who was regional secretary of the Communist party of the Soviet Union in whatever republic he happened to remember it was. There are plenty of similar examples throughout the world.
      It is nonsense. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and me says that the party shall nominate a representative. It does not say leader; it says representative. If the amendment is all to do with the Conservative party, why does not the Secretary of State table his own amendment, saying that he shall nominate the leader of the Conservative party, but all other parties may nominate their own leader?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: Tremendous speculation and a great deal of amusement derive from references to the Conservative party in this. I do not want, at this hour of the night, to delay the Committee by repeating what lies behind the wording.
      If I may take up the points—
      Mr. William Ross: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: No; I am just about to deal with what my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said.
      Amendment No. 82, which my hon. Friend tabled, would define "nominating representative" for the purpose of the Bill as the person who appeared to the Secretary of State
      "to be the chairman or leader of the party or otherwise"—
      to be
      "the most appropriate person".
      I believe that that is an attempt to provide a basis in the Bill for the designation of a specific person in connection
      154
      with the Conservative party. That is not germane to the reasoning behind the wording.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne asked for three questions to be answered. I shall not recite them. I say only that, under the wording of the Bill, the Conservative party is entitled to stand in these elections. The answers to those questions are the responsibility of those other than myself, and I cannot take the answers to those questions any further.
      Mr. Wilshire: I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's reluctance, but, as we know that the Conservative party in Northern Ireland wants to fight, to choose its own candidates and to put forward its own names, surely my right hon. and learned Friend can tell us whether that will happen. Surely there are lines of communication with others in the Government who can answer this; I gave notice some days ago that I intended to ask these questions.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend has lines of communication with everyone in our party—that is one of the great strengths of our party—and I advise him to use them. I am unable to take the answers to those questions further.
      Mr. Wilshire: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: No; I wish to get on.
      Mr. Wilshire: I was asked to raise these questions with my right hon. and learned Friend.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall respond to the points arising from my hon. Friend's amendments before I give way again.
      Mr. Corbyn: He is only trying to communicate with you.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: He is managing it extremely well, and very frequently.
      I think that the intended purpose of amendments Nos. 80 and 81 is to ensure that someone recognised as the party leader or other appropriate person in Northern Ireland shall be the nominating representative. However, mention of an individual parliamentary constituency involved is an added complication, which would make the election and subsequent naming of teams for negotiations unworkable within the scheme of the legislation.
      In light of my comments, and realising the limitations that—poor vessel that I am—I labour under when dealing with his questions, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw his amendments. I end as I began, by saying that there is no funny business involved: the Bill is worded as it is in order to avoid a quite unnecessary complication.
      Mr. Wilshire: My right hon. and learned Friend protests again that I am causing him unnecessary grief. I did as he urged, and put my questions to far more appropriate people. Interestingly, they advised me to speak to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I have done that, and I have been pointed in a different direction.

      155
      If my right hon. and learned Friend cannot or will not answer my simple questions, would he care to have a stab at telling me whom I should ask?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I did not realise that I had given way, but evidently I did. The matters do not lie within my field of responsibility. I am always ready and willing to take on new responsibilities in addition to my own, but no one has vested them in me at present.
      Mr. William Ross: We have heard some very interesting exchanges while debating this group of amendments. I have tabled a small amendment, No. 123, and I had concluded that the drafting is pretty sloppy, as it is clearly incomplete. I am now convinced of that as one of my manuscript amendments which I suspect would have completed the process has gone astray. Therefore, my amendment must be treated as a probing amendment as it is only part of a whole. In light of the Secretary of State's comments, I think that we are entitled to probe a little further.
      For instance, during the to-ing and fro-ing with his hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), the Secretary of State said that he had consulted the parties in Northern Ireland. However, in relation to the Conservatives, he did not make clear whether he had consulted the Northern Ireland branch of the Conservative party, its headquarters in Smith square, the Prime Minister or the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). The people of Northern Ireland are very interested in that issue and I feel sure that the Secretary of State will want to make clear whom he consulted in relation to the Conservative party in Northern Ireland. Perhaps he consulted his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Northern Ireland Office. We would like to clear up that point.
      Although it pains me to do so, I must disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann who said that the leader of the Conservative party—in other words, the Prime Minister—should deal with the problems of that party in Northern Ireland. Earlier this evening when responding to my other amendments, the Secretary of State gave good reasons why the local franchise should apply. If the local franchise applies, the local branches of the party, rather than the national headquarters, should be consulted when necessary. It is plain from the remarks made by members of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland that they are at variance with party headquarters as to the party's Northern Ireland policy.
      I am sure that since the Secretary of State is in favour of free speech and the rights of people to put forward an alternative policy, and since the alternative policy on Northern Ireland in the Conservative party is based largely with the members of the party in Northern Ireland, it is but fair and right that those members should be allowed to run on their version of Conservative policy rather than Smith square's version. That is only fair and reasonable, and there is no good reason why the Secretary of State should not say that those members are free, not only to stand for election but to put forward the solution that they, as residents and citizens of Northern Ireland, believe to be right for the Province and the people living there. Since that is so, I cannot understand why the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) involves himself in the matter at all.
      The Tory party is, of course, a very broad church and it is nearly as broad as the Unionist party. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) may laugh, but the Labour party is becoming quite broad as well. If I may say so, the hon. Member for Spelthorne has tabled some neat amendments and he made a powerful and clear speech. His arguments were very clear, and the Government should follow the excellent advice contained in his remarks, which flowed naturally from the amendments. That would allow the people in the
      158
      Conservative party in Northern Ireland to pass judgment on whether the policy pursued by the party should be that which emanates from the Secretary of State, Smith square and the Prime Minister or that which is set forth by the party in Northern Ireland. That could make the difference whether the Conservative party is represented through being elected in Northern Ireland. If the party went forward with the policies of Smith square, it is unlikely that it would be elected. We do not have that much against the Conservatives and we wish them well, especially in the United Kingdom as a whole at times, but perhaps they should expand into Northern Ireland by adopting policies that are acceptable to the people who live there.
      The general thrust of the amendments is fairly clear. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, because that would be a reasonable course of action.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: When a Cabinet Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and attempts to assure the House that no funny business is going on, the alarm bells start ringing. The Secretary of State
      "doth protest too much, methinks".
      When one considers the wording of clause 5, it is impossible to conceive that any competent draftsman, when tasked with the apologia that the Secretary of State offered to the House, would have produced this result.
      It is clear that if the Secretary of State simply wanted to take care of the situation in which a political party may not want its nominating representative to be its leader, he could have worded the clause so that the political party itself would determine its nominating representative. Instead of doing that, he will give himself the power to determine who is the leader or other appropriate person. That does not seem to be the route that any draftsman would have used to secure the end result that the Secretary of State has now told us he wants. I believe that the Secretary of State has plucked a fig leaf to try to cover his nakedness in relation to his problems with the local Conservatives. Nothing that he has said has convinced me that clause 5 should not be amended in the way that has been suggested.
      I am willing to give way if the Secretary of State will give an undertaking to reconsider the matter, take into account the views that have been expressed from both sides of the House and deal with the matter on Report. In the absence of such an undertaking, we will take the opportunity to divide the House.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 121, in clause 5, page 2, line 43, after 'Gazette', insert
      'and the Northern Ireland regional press'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 120, in clause 5, page 2, line 44, leave out 'an initial' and insert 'a'.
      No. 119, in clause 5, page 3, leave out lines 1 and 2.
      Mr. Ross: The amendments are simple and straightforward, and I have no doubt that the Minister will feel able to accept them.

      159
      Here we have the word "shall" again. Clause 5(2) provides that the Secretary of State "shall", not "may", cause the information to be published.
      Although it is an admirable publication, I do not think that The Belfast Gazette is widely read in Northern Ireland.
      1.15 am
      Mr. John D. Taylor: The Ulster Gazette and Armagh Standard is more widely read.
      Mr. Ross: My right hon. Friend is plugging another paper, but I have no interest in it. I have never seen the blooming thing: it is in the wrong part of the country. As for The Belfast Gazette, it does not appear on as many tables as the Belfast Telegraph, the Irish News or the Belfast News Letter.
      I am merely asking the Secretary of State to make the information available to the widest possible circle of people in Northern Ireland. Perhaps he would be kind enough to tell us the circulation of The Belfast Gazette, its print run and how many people read it. If he does that, and then gives us the sale figures for the Irish News, the Belfast Telegraph and the Belfast News Letter, we shall have some idea of the number of households that receive those papers, and it will be clear that the information should be published far more widely. Those who might well object to the nomination of a spokesman for their party would then be able to read what is proposed in the press, and make their objections known.
      As for amendment No 120, I feel that the concept of an initial list means saying to the parties, "You can present a name, but we shall not necessarily stick to it. We could go for someone else next week, who might want a different list." Surely, if there are to be no hiccups on the way to the elections, it would be better to accept the amendment and have a fixed list of nominating representatives. If the Government cannot get a simple matter like that right at this stage, they have little chance of getting anything else right as we develop the talks process through the forum and negotiations. Surely, if the Government really want speedy progress, they will accept the amendment.
      My third point relates to the two lines at the top of page 3, which refer to
      "notice of any change in the nominating representative of any of those parties."
      If the Minister accepts the second amendment, amendment No. 119 will follow naturally because there would be no need for the power. I have done a much neater job on these amendments than I did on the last lot. The Secretary of State should accept these, simple, straightforward tidying-up amendments and hasten the process leading to the election and negotiations.
      Mr. Ancram: My right hon. and learned Friend has delegated me to respond to the amendments. I am a little surprised at their tenor because the hon. Member for East Londonderry has been chastising us for some time for undemocratic methods in the electoral process that we have proposed. We have successfully refuted those charges, but the hon. Gentleman suggests a process that
      160
      is at least questionable because his amendment would require us to force our will on a free press. We would obviously resist that. He would require us to publish in newspapers that have to decide whether to publish advertisements or material, and they are not at the command of the Government. The amendment suggests that they are.
      The hon. Gentleman fears that no one reads the Belfast Gazette. I am fairly certain, as I suspect is the hon. Gentleman, that the regional press in Northern Ireland will get copies and will reproduce the lists because they will have considerable news value. But that would be their choice: we could not make them publish anything.
      Mr. William Ross: The Minister can cause them to be published in the Northern Ireland regional press if he takes advertisements. None of the newspapers will refuse an advertisement.
      Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Member for Strangford is nodding sagely at that. A free press is entitled to make its own decisions, but the hon. Gentleman suggests that the Government should require newspapers to act irrespective of their views. It would create a risk of challenge to the whole process if someone thought that we had got it wrong. We intend to put all the necessary information in the public domain. In practical terms, the amendment is unnecessary.
      In the light of our last debate, I do not think that the hon. Member for East Londonderry realises the effect of his subsidiary amendment. The point of referring to an initial list for publication of changes is to allow the Secretary of State to respond to a party's democratic wishes. For example, it would be ridiculous to have a nominating representative who no longer enjoyed the confidence of his or her party or who might have been voted out of office but could not be changed by the Act because of the amendment.
      The amendment would place an undesirable block in the Bill. I am certain that the block is not intentional, given what the hon. Gentleman said about the other amendments. I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. William Ross: Somewhat unwillingly, because the Minister has only to write to the parties and ask them who their nominating representatives should be, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6

      ALLOWANCES AND SECRETARY OF STATE'S EXPENSES
      Mr. McGrady: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 3, line 5, after 'otherwise', insert
      'and may provide other assistance for the negotiating teams'.
      The amendment is not earth shaking and I shall not dwell on whether a word should be "may" or "shall". I leave that to the discretion of the Secretary of State. Clause 6 (1) gives the Secretary of State power, permissive rather than mandatory,
      "to pay allowances to delegates returned in accordance with Schedule 1, whether by reference to days on which they attend the forum or participate in negotiations or otherwise."

      161
      The amendment simply extends the "otherwise" to suggest that the Bill should
      "provide other assistance for negotiating teams".
      It is a simple matter. The amendment enlarges the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland's ability to provide, where necessary and appropriate, some support for the parties, especially the smaller parties, in relation to secretarial back-up, research facilities or other matters that would enable them better to fulfil their function at the negotiating table. It is no more than that. It allows the Secretary of State to consider any problems in the matter and to have, therefore, provision in the Bill to extend additional aid or assistance.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I can deal with this matter promptly and, I think, shortly and satisfactorily. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has made a valid point that, to ensure an effective negotiation, negotiating teams must be properly supported. We acknowledge that and are keen to make whatever financial arrangements are reasonably necessary to enable that to happen.
      We propose to pay allowances to delegates for attendance at either the forum or for the purpose of the negotiations and to pay travel and subsistence allowances, including for support staff and research grants. We have asked for comments on what would be an appropriate level of research grant to make available to the parties.
      That would all be in line with the payments made to the parties in the previous talks in 1991 and 1992. Additionally, however—I think that this is of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman—in response to representations, we are considering whether it would be appropriate to make payments to parties participating in the negotiations to help to defray the cost of additional support staff and to meet the expenses of people who may, under paragraph 11 of the ground rules, support their party's negotiators without themselves being elected delegates. We will also consider what other practical assistance might be feasible.
      Such allowances and payments would be in line with what the hon. Gentleman has in mind in his amendment. He can be reassured that our thinking is already on the right lines. It will be informed as it develops by what he has said. In the light of that, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. McGrady: In view of what the Secretary of State has said—that the ambit and purpose of the amendment are covered—I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 7

      DURATION OF SECTIONS 3 AND 4
      Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 118, in page 3, line 9, leave out 'Section 3' and insert 'this Act'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendment: No. 135, in page 3, line 10, leave out 'Section 3' and insert 'this Act'.
      162
      No. 124, in page 3, line 11, leave out 'or'.
      No. 39, in page 3, leave out line 12.
      No. 38, in page 3, line 13, leave out '1998' and insert '1999'.
      No. 35, in page 3, line 13, after 'order', insert
      'but only if such provisions have the support of a clear majority of members of parties representing respectively the nationalist and unionist communities as defined in accordance with paragraph 24 of Command Paper 3232'.
      No. 133, in page 3, line 14, leave out subsection (3).
      No. 131, in page 3, line 19, leave out 'section 3' and insert 'this Act'.
      No. 130, in page 3, line 20, leave out subsection (5).
      Mr. Ross: This is a fairly interesting group of amendments in that it tries to tidy up the legislation to some extent. Instead of dealing just with "section 3", we should be dealing with "this Act" because, as soon as a job that has been set up under the Act is completed—or fails, as the case may be, although we certainly hope that it will be completed successfully—the Act will cease to have any force and should not be left cluttering up the statute book. At that stage, it should disappear.
      The amendment is simple and straightforward and I should be grateful if the Secretary of State will give a clear and detailed explanation as to why we should not go down that route. My hon. Friends will deal with the other amendments. The aim of my amendments is plain and I hope that the Secretary of State will accept them, or at least give me a clear explanation as to why he cannot.
      Mr. Trimble: I want to comment on the amendments that I tabled. They deal with two particular issues, but unfortunately amendment No. 36 has been separated from amendments Nos. 39 and 38. Amendment No. 36 has been selected for debate in the next group whereas, in terms of drafting, amendments Nos. 39, 38 and 36 all hang together. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
      1.30 am
      Amendments Nos. 39, 38 and 36 endeavour to deal with two inconsistencies. The first clear inconsistency relates to dates. Clause 7(5) states:
      "Section 4 shall cease to have effect at the end of May 1999",
      whereas the last possible operation of clause 3 is May 1998. Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry, I think that the whole Act should hang together and operate on the same lifespan. We should not be dropping some parts of it before others. There needs to be consistency in the dates.
      Amendment No. 38 seeks to replace "1998" with "1999", but I would be content if the Secretary of State preferred it the other way around and limited the date in clause 7(5) to 1998. I see no particular reason why we should envisage a three-year process—two years is quite sufficient—but there must be consistency, which I hope the Secretary of State will provide in his answer. That consistency should apply to the entire Act, and one part should not be separated from another.
      Other amendments were directed to the coming into force again of the legislation. My concern is that the way in which clause 7(2) is drafted may mean that if, for some reason, clause 3 ceases to have effect before May 1997,

      163
      it would not be possible to revive it until after May 1997. Clause 7(2) is drafted in a way that limits it. In the rather unlikely event of clause 3 ceasing to have effect before May 1997 under the discretion provided in clause 7(3), amendment No. 36 would provide an unfettered discretion to bring clause 3 back into force.
      My two aims are, first, to get the dates rationalised and, secondly, to ensure that the power to revive clause 3 is always available to the Secretary of State and that he does not find himself unable to revive it before 1997.
      Mr. McGrady: I shall speak to amendment No. 35, which relates to section 7(2). Subsection (2) gives power to the Secretary of State to continue the forum beyond May 1997 or, it having lapsed, to bring it back into force. Amendment No. 35 provides that such action can be taken by the Secretary of State only if it has
      "the support of a clear majority of members of parties representing respectively the nationalist and unionist communities as defined in accordance with paragraph 24 of Command Paper 3232."
      Obviously, we are anxious that the principle of consensus be applied to the continuation or the reinvigoration, as it were, of the forum. That consensus is essential for the good order of business. The matter should not be left solely to the personal judgment of the Secretary of State. Those two important and potentially far-reaching powers should at least have the consent of the majorities of the two groups of parties that will be participating in the forum. I therefore urge the Secretary of State to accept the amendment as a reasonable expression of the democratic right of that body to exercise, as it were, its own existence.
      Mr. Ancram: This group of amendments is complicated. The hon. Members for East Londonderry and for Upper Bann have done a valuable service in explaining their intentions so clearly and highlighting the main features of the amendments, which are fairly difficult to understand. I shall take the points one by one.
      The hon. Member for East Londonderry argued that in his view it was inappropriate for clause 7 to focus exclusively on clause 3 and that, effectively, if I understood his argument, the whole exercise—the forum and the negotiations—should stand or fall together. In fact, the amendments would fail to achieve the effect that the hon. Gentleman seeks. Clauses 1 and 2 deal only with the elections and the entry to negotiations, so they will, in effect, become spent provisions—if I may use that expression—at a very early stage.
      Thus, the only effects of amendments Nos. 118, 135 and 131 would be to provide that, if the Secretary of State needed to terminate the forum, he would also terminate the power to hold referendums under clause 4—a power which, earlier, the hon. Gentleman wanted to be made a permanent feature of the statute book, but which would be removed by these amendments—and to bring to an end the Secretary of State's power to pay allowances to delegates in respect of participation in the negotiations.
      The negotiations might not last much longer if allowances were not paid, but that might not be the strict intention of the hon. Member for East Londonderry in moving the amendment. In practice, however, it is clear that his objectives have already been met. The life of the
      164
      forum and the negotiations will be closely bound together. The forum will continue in existence while the negotiations continue.
      I can assure the hon. Members for East Londonderry and for Upper Bann that there is no intention that the Secretary of State should use the power in subsection (3) to bring the forum to a close while allowing negotiations to continue. Regardless of the Government's views on the matter, I imagine that certain parties which are represented in the House and which are likely to be represented in the forum and the negotiations would be bound to protest vigorously and effectively if such an attempt were ever made. In practice, therefore, it is not a danger. Given those points and reassurances, I hope that the hon. Members will not press amendments Nos. 118, 135, 124, 39, 133 and 131.
      I also listened with interest to the arguments for extending the maximum life of the forum by a further year to May 1999. The Government are not persuaded that that would be sensible or appropriate. May 1999 refers to the referendum clause, which in practice we all appreciate may have an effect and may require to have an effect after the negotiating process has ceased. It is for that reason that the extra time is allowed.
      We believe it right at this stage to set a realistic deadline for the completion of the process. If agreement is not reached within a maximum of two years, it would be necessary to question the utility and value of keeping the process in being. If the participants were on the brink of a settlement at the cut-off date, I am sure that the House would, if necessary, look favourably on extending the life of the process. I do not think that we would be justified in creating an expectation at this stage that the process could not be completed by May 1998 at the latest. Again, I ask the Committee not to support the amendments, but I hope that they will not be pressed.
      The hon. Member for Upper Bann raised a concern that I think is covered by the proposed legislation. Clause 7(2) gives the Secretary of State power to revive the forum at any time before May 1998. That should satisfy his concern. He has raised it with me before, and I have said to him on a previous occasion that that was certainly my understanding of the construction of the clause.
      The hon. Member for South Down referred to amendment No. 35. In his statement to the House of Commons on 21 March, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that the life of the forum would be time limited to 12 months, renewable up to a maximum of a further 12 months. He also stated that the forum would not continue in existence if the negotiations were no longer in process. The clause expresses that policy position.
      Subsection (2)(a) empowers my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to extend the life of the forum from its initial expiry date at the end of May 1997 up to a maximum period to the end of May 1998. Subsection (2)(b) enables him to revive the forum up to the maximum period if it has already ceased to exist at the end of May 1997 or if an earlier extension order has expired. The purpose of the provision is to ensure that while negotiations continue, the forum also continues.
      If the negotiations end, the forum also ends. For example, clause 7(3) requires the Secretary of State to terminate the forum earlier than the date in an extension order made under clause 7(2) if it appears to him that the

      165
      negotiations are concluded or suspended. I hope that that in terms satisfies the concerns of the hon. Member for East Londonderry. I hope, again, that on that basis he will not press his amendment.
      Mr. William Ross: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'or suspended'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 36, in page 3, line 19, at end insert—
      '4(A) If Section 3 ceases to have effect at any time before May 1999, the Secretary of State may by order provide that it shall come into force again.'.
      Mr. Trimble: I do not propose to associate amendment No. 37 with amendment No. 36, because it is quite different. I am speaking solely to amendment No. 37 which would remove from clause 7(4) the words "or suspended". It is merely a tidying-up provision which achieves the object that the Government have in mind in a much more effective way.
      Under clause 7(4), there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to provide that section 3 shall cease to have effect; in other words, there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to wind up the forum. Under the clause, he "shall" make such an order. Subsection (3), however, gives him discretion to wind up the forum. Looking at the two possibilities mentioned in subsection (4)—that the negotiations are concluded or that they are suspended—I believe that one should draw a distinction between the two.
      The negotiations may be suspended. That suspension could be for a short period, with an expectation that the negotiations were about to be resumed, or it could be more serious. It would be appropriate, as the term "suspension" can cover a range of possibilities, for the Secretary of State to exercise discretion in respect of a suspension rather then being under a duty to wind up the forum. There is a distinction to be drawn between the negotiations being concluded, in which case it might be reasonable for the Secretary of State to be under a duty, and a suspension covering a range of situations, in which case the exercise of discretion would be more appropriate.
      My proposal achieves the object the Government have in mind by giving them discretion in the matter. They can then decide matters in the light of the circumstances that obtain rather than being under a duty.
      Mr. Ancram: I have listened with care to the comments the hon. Member for Upper Bann. Although he is right in saying that the provision could apply in a separate and different scenario, I am not certain that the point of principle to which he refers has not already been covered. It is the Government's view that if the negotiations are not taking place, for whatever reason, including a suspension, the forum should not continue during that period. My understanding was that the hon. Gentleman's original concern was that, following the end of such a suspension, for whatever reason that suspension
      166
      had taken place, the forum would not be capable of being revived. I had hoped that I had satisfied him on that point in my remarks on amendment No. 118.
      Mr. Trimble: What happens if there is an adjournment for a week or two, for some reason?
      Mr. Ancram: My right hon. and learned Friend would have to be satisfied that there had been a suspension, and obviously an adjournment is not a suspension in those terms. Subsection (4) makes it clear that it would have to appear to the Secretary of State that the negotiations were suspended. He would have to take such factors into account in reaching a view. Having come to a view, if he regarded the interruption as an adjournment rather than a suspension, or vice versa, he would base his decision on that judgment.
      I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that what is important is the fact that there is the ability to ensure that the forum and the negotiations are run at the same time, but that neither runs without the other. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
      1.45 am
      Mr. Trimble: In view of the lateness of the hour, I do not wish to push the matter further. In the light of the clear undertaking that the two will run together, and that no attempt will be made to use the provision to separate the forum from the negotiations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New clause 1

      SPECIAL REGISTRATION DRIVE
      'The Secretary of State shall take such measures as he sees fit to maximise the number of people entitled to vote under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to this Act by means of a special registration drive before the electoral roll is finalised.'.—[Ms Mowlam.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Ms Mowlam: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 79, in page 4, line 28, leave out from 'who' to end of line 33 and insert
      'would be entitled to vote at a General Election.'.
      Ms Mowlam: The new clause stands not only in my name but in that of the right hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed (Mr. Beith), who cannot be with us at this time. Its subject—increasing the rate of voter registration—has been close to both our hearts since the days when we both taught at the university of Newcastle.
      The particular problem in Northern Ireland that we hope that the new clause addresses is the low registration rate, especially the rate among young people, which is lower there than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. We want to support and encourage higher participation in the coming election, just as in any other.

      167
      Is it possible for the Secretary of State to take any steps now to allow registration for those who have not yet prepared themselves for the election? If not—it seems from our discussions with the chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland that it is not—we are bound to ask why no action on the issue has been taken before now.
      Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Lady understand the measure of surprise caused not only in my party but among the SDLP Members by her allegation about a low level of registration in Northern Ireland? It is my understanding from the chief electoral officer that the quality, standard and rate of registration in Northern Ireland is far higher than in many other parts of the United Kingdom.
      That is because of the methods used to ensure that the maximum number of people are on the electoral register there. The chief electoral officer takes great care each year to employ many registration officers and to ensure that the household forms are collected. He also takes care to use the various opportunities under the law to apply for a vote if someone has been missed. There are opportunities to object to names that appear wrongly on the list.
      In my own household, one of my sons was left off the register this year, despite the fact that he had formerly had an entry under the household, and I had to attend the registration court myself to have his name placed on the list.
      Not only does the chief electoral officer take care to have an accurate register but individuals in Northern Ireland take an interest in the matter. The political parties, too, take a keen interest, and I am astonished—I am sure that this astonishment is shared beyond my party—that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) should have made such an allegation. In any case, citizens and parties can examine the electoral register and place names on it. I suspect that it is too late to do that for the election on 30 May, but people have known that it has been coming for a considerable time. I am sure that parties, or the individuals concerned, have looked into the cases of people who were missed.
      Ms Mowlam: The amendment is no reflection on the work of the chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland. That office informed us that voter registration in certain parts of Northern Ireland among young first-time voters was very low, and we wanted every effort to be made to allow the people whose future much of this debate is about have the maximum chance to have their voices heard.
      Mr. Ancram: I applaud the spirit in which the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) moved new clause 1, because I know the purpose behind it. Equally, I agree with the hon. Member for East Londonderry. The hon. Lady will be delighted to know that Northern Ireland's electoral registration is the highest in the United Kingdom, routinely running in excess of 90 per cent., according to the chief electoral officer's statistics. That is probably due to postal canvassers collecting registrations from households, but the CEO is also empowered by law to apply a process of continuous registration.
      Anyone who wishes to be on the electoral register in Northern Ireland must be resident there for three months from 16 June until the registration date of 15 September.
      168
      The draft register is published around 20 November so that claims and objections can be made. The final register is published by 15 February. Throughout that time, additional names may be added.
      Every year, the CEO prepares a timetable for the next 12 months that shows the cut-off date each month for the receipt of claims and the later date scheduled for hearing claims. The CEO provides the political parties with copies of that timetable and the continuous process of claim and hearings is widely used. That facility, coupled with the Northern Ireland parties' awareness of the forthcoming election—and, I suspect, the public's awareness of it—renders a special registration drive unnecessary.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: What is the last permissible day for registration for the 30 May election?
      Mr. Ancram: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman offhand, but if I get the chance, I will try to let him know tomorrow.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I generally agree with the Minister about the registration rate, but at least one person in my constituency was told that he could not be on the register because he was not living there on 28 September. Surely that was wrong in the light of the information that the right hon. Gentleman has given?
      Mr. Ancram: Perhaps I could look into that matter. I have been told that the last date for registration was in mid-April, so it has passed.
      Ms Mowlam: In view of the reassurances given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  PETITION

    Canvey Island
    1.53 am
    Dr. Robert Spink: Canvey Island has suffered from chronic overdevelopment for many years. I have consistently fought against the local council and the developers who threaten and spoil our environment. Mr. Blake, Eileen Gough and many others have collected 1, 500 signatures for a petition to fight off the latest threat. The petition states:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the residents of Canvey Island and the surrounding area,
    Sheweth
    That we, the undersigned, are deeply concerned by the overdevelopment of Canvey Island and, in particular, by the proposed inappropriate development of land around Thorney Bay Road and East and West of Craven Avenue, Canvey Island. We call on the Councillors of Castle Point Borough Council to resolve to make an immediate application to the Secretary of State for the Environment for the extant 1951 planning permission relating to the said land to be revoked forthwith. That, in any event, the original planned density of housing for the said land should be considered a

    169
    maximum for any future development on any part of the said land and that the total number of houses built on the whole of the site, will not exceed the total number of units approved in the original 1951 permission.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray, that your Honourable House do urge the Right Honourable John Gummer MP, Secretary of State for the Environment, to use his powers to revoke the 1951 planning permission and to restrict further house building on the said site.
    And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Hospital Services (Thanet)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  1.55 am
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Even at this late hour, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of hospital services in Thanet. Unlike most Adjournment debates, the purpose of tonight's debate is not to air a grievance, complaint or criticism, or even to cajole the Government into righting some wrong or remedying some defect.
  Instead, my purpose is simply to express appreciation and gratitude for a great national health service achievement in Thanet and to pay tribute to the doctors, nurses, managers, staff and others who have played their part in bringing that achievement to fulfilment. Their combined efforts have made a dream come true for the people and patients of Thanet in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who I am delighted to see in his place and who is hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The dream come true that I am talking about is the opening of the new Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital in Thanet. It happened only a few days ago, when the first patients moved into its dazzling new facilities, which consist of a £20 million investment in state-of-the art medical technology and the new wards, operating theatres and buildings that go with it. With the medical and managerial innovations that I shall describe, the new hospital complex marks the beginning of a new era in high-quality hospital care for Thanet.
  For more than 25 years, Thanet has been campaigning for its own properly equipped and resourced district general hospital. The campaign has been a long and, at times, arduous struggle, sometimes against forces of obstruction within our own NHS district and region.
  Thanks in no small measure to the long-term tenacity of the local campaigners and to the more recent success of the Government's NHS reforms, the new Thanet Healthcare NHS trust has been able to match the local vision with an appropriate allocation of more than £20 million of nationally funded resources. The result is the finest hospital in east Kent and one of the finest in the United Kingdom.
  The Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital has no fewer than eight operating theatres on site, four of them high-tech theatres, including two laminar flow rooms for orthopaedics. Those new facilities will give the patients of Thanet the lowest waiting list time for operations in the South Thames region and some of the best post-operative care.
  One of the most notable features of the new hospital, to which I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Under—Secretary of State for Health, is the critical care floor. It is a specialist complex consisting of four theatres, an intensive care unit, a cardiac care unit and a high-dependence unit, all in close proximity on the same floor and managed as a single medical unit.
  I am told that the facilities on that floor are matched by only one other hospital in Britain—Addenbrookes in Cambridge. We are proud in Thanet to be one of the pioneers of that relatively new hospital concept.

  171
  However good the facilities of any hospital may be, they ultimately depend on the skills of the men and women who work in them. In that respect, we are highly fortunate in Thanet because our new hospital, under the enlightened clinical leadership of its medical director, Brian Cocking, has a first-class team of 40 consultants and nearly 500 trained nursing staff. The collegiate spirit of the hospital showed itself to excellent effect the weekend before last, when almost everyone on the staff worked round the clock to move patients into the new complex from the older wards and from the venerable Royal Sea Bathing hospital in Margate, which will be closing after just over 100 years of fine service.
  Our local paper, the Thanet Gazette, captured the mood of this massive operation with the headline:
  "Hospital switch is a moving experience".
  I thought that that was a rather clever headline, because it subtly recognised that emotions as well as logistics were involved, the principal emotion being pride that, at long last, Thanet had a hospital ready for the 21st century.
  Last Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet and I walked round the gleaming new wards, theatres and recovery rooms of the Queen Mum hospital, as it is already becoming popularly known. We both felt that it was a joy to share in that emotion of local pride. He and I know as well as anyone that the battle to build the new facilities was won, not just after the usual financial infighting in Westminster and Whitehall—important as those skirmishes were—but as a result of the tremendous support given to the project by the local community. Perhaps the most symbolic element of that support was the backing given so wholeheartedly to the fund-raising campaign in Thanet for the hospital's new accident and emergency department which, under its dynamic consultant, Alan Jones, will open its doors in July. It is the focal point of the hospital's range of acute services.
  Neither the accident and emergency department nor even, possibly, the new complex itself would be coming into service this year were it not been for the momentum provided by what was known as the Tear appeal. The campaign, masterminded by an inspirational Broadstairs resident and community leader, Mrs. Maureen Greig, raised more than £650,000 for the accident and emergency department's equipment budget. More important, it gave a kick start to the final phase of the campaign to create a truly modern district general hospital. I pay a particularly warm tribute to Maureen Greig for her pivotal role in making the dream come true.
  If I were to single out one other individual from an earlier era who made a vital contribution to this hospital development, it would be Dr. Margaret Voysey. She held the torch aloft in some of the darkest moments in the, at times, faltering struggle to get the new hospital built, and at various moments combined the role of doctor, campaigner, consultant, advisor, NHS manager, general headbanger and inspirer-in-chief. Both she and Mrs. Greig deserve the congratulations that are flowing to them from all sectors of our community.
  172
  Looking ahead, all thoughtful observers of the medical and hospital scene in Thanet know that the opening of the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital is not a moment for looking back or for resting on laurels. This is the beginning of a new era of steadily improving quality health care for the people of Thanet. Success in that new era will depend on three elements of continuity for the future: good medical staff, good management and good government.
  I have already praised the medical and nursing team at the hospital, but it must be acknowledged that the recruitment of their successors, their juniors and their future leaders is crucial to the hospital's future. In recent years, hospitals in Thanet have suffered from two unjustified difficulties, which are closely linked. They are, first, manipulations by some of the consultants in neighbouring hospitals in misguided attempts to downgrade Thanet hospitals and, secondly, withdrawal of recognition by the royal colleges of some junior doctor posts. I believe that the royal colleges have been led astray by rival consultants' gamesmanship in this regard and I hope that they will swiftly restore recognition now that all their criteria for recognition have been so well met by the standards, facilities and procedures in the new hospital complex.
  The prospects for recruitment and retention of consultants are bound to be enhanced by a new £3 million development at the hospital, which is expected to be signed and formally announced in the next few days. I refer to the development of a postgraduate medical centre and a 23-bed private patient unit, which will be adjacent to the hospital and able to use the new facilities in the hospital. Construction is expected to start this summer.
  Another development will be the building of new accommodation on-site for junior medical staff and nursing staff. Both of these projects are going forward under the private finance initiative—a successful Government reform in which I played some part when I was with the Treasury—which allows private capital to be invested in the national health service and other public sector developments.
  I wish that there was time to say more about the other management initiatives that will come on stream in and around the hospital in the next few months, but the hour is late and I am anxious to make way for my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet, who has been a doughty campaigner over the years for the new hospital complex that serves our constituents, but which is located in his constituency.
  As I said at the beginning of my speech, the hospital development has been possible only because of the success of the Government's NHS reforms, which unlocked both the resources and the management skills that made it happen. Huge credit is due to the chairman and the chief executive of the Thanet Healthcare NHS trust, respectively Mr. Glenn Stone and Mr. Barry Page. Their stewardship of the project and of the hospital has been a beacon of managerial excellence—and long may it and they continue to shine.
  The star that shines brightest of all over this splendid new hospital complex is the simple fact that it is not only a flagship of medical excellence, but that it is a people's hospital that has been built because of popular—indeed, passionate—local support. It is a great NHS achievement

  173
  and a great local achievement. I am sure that the new Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital will serve Thanet long into the 21st century.
  2.2 am
  Mr. Roger Gale: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) on securing the debate and I thank him for allowing me to share it with him. It is more than 200 years since the distinguished John Coakley Lettsom founded the Royal Sea Bathing hospital in Margate. Since that time, it has become internationally famous for its position at the forefront of the treatment of the once prevalent tuberculosis and of orthopaedic cases. Even Mr. Lettsom would be astonished if he were to see the new orthopaedic and other operating theatres at the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital.
  As my right hon. Friend said, the theatres, with their laminaflow ventilation systems, represent a state-of-the-art facility that is unrivalled anywhere in the south-east. The investment—well in excess of £20 million—has produced a hospital that can offer our constituents a standard of treatment and conditions that are quite simply superb. That this is so represents an achievement in the teeth of some medical-political opposition.
  In the 1960s, there was a plan and a scale model for a 1,000-bed hospital on the Margate site. No doubt that model is now collecting dust somewhere on a shelf as the result of the opening of an accident and emergency unit at the Kent and Canterbury hospital, and a campaign in the mid-1960s to close Margate and to centre treatment on Canterbury. It was the fierce opposition of the local council, under Conservative control, that preserved Margate district hospital, as it then was, to fight another day.
  In the 1970s, there were further grand plans for development, which came to nothing as the debate over whether to rebuild or to downgrade the hospital continued. It is largely due to the determination of the local medical team, with the support of superb staff, and considerable foresight that the Queen Mum hospital—as it is already known—is now open for business.
  As my right hon. Friend said, no recognition of this work would be complete without naming Dr. Peggy Voysey, who joined Margate hospital as a consultant anaesthetist in the 1960s and, on the first of several retirements, became the first unit general manager. Peggy Voysey almost literally laid the foundation of the new hospital when, on the back of some works on one ward, she renewed the drainage system and upgraded an antiquated pharmacy. Dr. Voysey's endeavour was continued, and the dream realised, through the hard work of the present management team under Glenn Stone and Barry Page, and as a direct result of the creation of the hospital trust that released local people to make local decisions.
  Local people voted with their mouths and, through their tremendous response to the Tear appeal, through their pockets, and donated generously to demonstrate local support for the 24-hour accident and emergency unit that is needed to serve the population of the large and expanding Thanet catchment area.
  Throughout a time of uncertainty and turmoil, as medical-political opinion was overcome, the consultants and staff of the Thanet district hospital kept their faith
  174
  and determination. My right hon. Friend and I have been privileged to work with them to bring to an end the days when Thanet patients have had to be transported many miles to receive the treatment that in some cases they needed as a matter of life or death.
  I shall never forget the day when Ann Richardson, then the sister on Cheerful Sparrows ward, pointed out of the ward window and told the visiting then regional health chairman, Peter Barker:
  "That's where I want my new hospital".
  "Well you'd better have it then, hadn't you?"
  he said.
  We have had tremendous support also from his successor, William Wells, and Chris Spry at the new regional health authority, from the Secretary of State and the Department of Health and from many other people in addition to those named by my right hon. Friend. I hope that they will forgive me if I do not name them all because of time constraints.
  When my right hon. Friend, who is now the Secretary of State for National Heritage was Secretary of State for Health, laid the foundation stone, we believed that we were at last on our way to delivering the hospital service that Thanet and the coastal towns need. Now, as one of our most prominent orthopaedic consultants told me at the weekend, we have a hospital that has, in only four years, made a quantum jump from the original Margate hospital of the 1930s to the health service of the 21st century, and the X-ray unit, once one of the most antiquated in South East Thames has, following the creation of the trust, been developed into one of the finest.
  As all our services are consolidated on the Margate site, those at the now closing Royal Sea Bathing hospital will be sad that that chapter in their history is ending, after more than 200 years. They will miss the fine old building and the sea views that were the province of John Coakley Lettsom, but I hope that they will be proud to continue to enjoy their reputation for dedication and fine medicine in the Sea Bathing wing of the Queen Mother hospital.
  The rest is not, as they say, history. The Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital now seeks to play a still greater role in care in the community through its outreach clinic, and it has plans for the construction of a general practitioner service alongside the 24-hour accident and emergency unit. That development will extend the waiting space, provide GP surgeries with a triage centre at the core to deal with "walking wounded", keep more patients out of hospital and free accident and emergency beds to handle emergency admissions.
  A programme of refurbishment of the vacated Margate hospital wards will commence once plans have been agreed and finalised, and with that extra space the hospital should be able to handle even the worst winter epidemic flood of admissions. Like the Windmill theatre, it will never close.
  With the review of pathology services in east Kent, the Queen Mother hospital is well placed to offer biochemistry for the whole of east Kent. With histopathy and cystology concentrated at the William Harvey hospital in Ashford, and the haematology services located at the Kent and Canterbury hospital, the area will be provided with much-needed first-rate pathology facilities. I believe that the plan, if adopted, will make the best use of the talents and equipment available at the three major hospitals now serving east Kent.

  175
  My wife and I have good cause to be grateful to our hospital. I have been an in-patient on Hicks ward and my wife's mother was a patient on Viking and Venner wards during her dying days last year. We have experienced personally a standard of medical care, nursing attention and compassion in a hospital, then bursting at the seams, and from a staff whose numbers were depleted by illness, that was and is outstanding by any yardstick. I am delighted that the loyalty and dedication of those nursing professionals has been, and will continue to be, recognised by this investment in their future.
  I hope that I have said enough to make it plain that the work of providing for the needs of tomorrow goes on. I feel honoured to have helped, with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet, to bring about the changes that we have already seen, and I am dedicated personally to seeing those changes through to completion. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister will, in turn, be able to pledge the support of his Department, through Government policy and, when appropriate, financial backing, to that continuing process of development and dramatic improvement.
  2.13 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) on his success in securing the debate, and on its timeliness. As he said, it takes place only a few days after the new extension of the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital in Thanet opened for its first patients. He, together with my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who has also taken part in the debate, have always been stalwart supporters of local health services. That we are able today to celebrate the opening of a new extension is in no small part thanks to their efforts in championing the development from the start.
  I welcome the opportunity to respond to the comments about hospital services in Thanet generally. Hospital services are provided to the people of Thanet principally by Thanet Healthcare NHS trust. Many services are now centralised at the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital, which is the new name for the Margate hospital. The renaming earlier this year marks the realisation of the considerable restructuring that has taken place recently, and heralds what I am sure will be a most successful future for that important hospital.
  The £20 million extension to the hospital is a welcome development. It significantly increases the capacity of the hospital, improves the quality of the fabric and the environment, and creates a fully 24-hour accident and emergency department in that part of east Kent which has the densest population and therefore needs it the most.
  The extension includes in a new block four operating theatres, six wards, a medical imaging department, coronary care, intensive care, and high dependency units, and physiotherapy and occupational therapy facilities. The first patients were admitted to the new block on 14 April, and new accident and emergency and associated trauma services are scheduled to start very soon.
  Construction work on the development began just two years ago, and has been completed virtually on time and on cost—a tribute to the project leadership and to all those
  176
  involved with the work. The majority of the £20 million cost of the development was funded from the NHS capital budged, and I am grateful for the tributes that my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) paid to successive Secretaries of State in that regard.
  There was also a welcome contribution from local public donations in response to the Tear appeal, which was set up in March 1993 by the hospital league of friends to finance a 24-hour accident and emergency department at Margate—clearly showing the determination of Thanet residents to obtain the benefits that such a local service could bring.
  The new development also signifies a very positive commitment to the trust and to the hospital by East Kent health authority on behalf of local residents. The new development represents a significant investment and is the outcome of successful discussions between the health authority and the trust. The new development is but the latest and the most prominent of various capital investments at the hospital in recent years.
  As well as restructuring and the continuous spending on maintenance and minor works that is necessary for any building, I should like to mention particularly the day surgery theatre and endoscopy suite costing £320,000, which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet opened in September 1993. That facility has helped the trust to achieve a remarkably high level of day surgery—last year 63 per cent. of elective surgery was done on a day-case basis—and dramatically reduce waiting times, which is quite unusual in light of the trend across the country.
  Of course, high-quality health care is based not only on excellent facilities but on excellent staffing—both clinical and managerial—and on robust and constructive relationships with general practitioners and with other trusts. There is considerable evidence of the excellent health services provided by the trust, to the credit of the 1,100 or so doctors, nurses and other staff who work for the organisation.
  The trust made quality of care a top priority from the outset. Nowhere is that demonstrated more clearly than in its recent success in being awarded full accreditation under the King's Fund organisational audit scheme. That is a most commendable achievement, requiring a high level of performance across a comprehensive range of exacting quality standards. I am pleased to report that it is one of the few hospitals in this country to achieve that level of accreditation.
  There is much other evidence of quality and professionalism. The trust continues to develop laser and laparoscopic surgery. Surgeons at Thanet introduced the first Holmium Yag laser outside the United States to Europe, and their expertise now draws surgeons from overseas to study at Thanet and hone their techniques. That is good for local residents too, because the techniques being used mean that, even after major surgery, such as a hysterectomy operation, patients spend less time in hospital, recover more quickly and return to work and other activities that much sooner.
  The trust is also at the leading edge in radiography. Its breast screening unit uses the latest high-sensitive, low-dose equipment, and the trust is also equipped with a state-of-the-art X-ray unit, incorporating the latest computerised imaging system—one of the first in Britain—at a cost of more than £400,000. Being perhaps

  177
  rather remote geographically has clearly been no barrier to the trust's achieving excellence at the forefront of technology. It has a tomography scanner on site, and a fully equipped investigative cardiac and lung function laboratory which provides a quick, local, high-tech service with direct access to local GPs.
  During 1995–96, the trust provided more than 18, 000 in-patient treatments and almost 9, 000 day-case procedures. It saw some 96, 000 out-patients, and dealt with some 43, 500 accident and emergency cases. That represents a substantial work load, and the trust is committed to a further growth in activity this year of 8 per cent. That is excellent news for my right hon. Friend's constituents, who will also be heartened to learn that waiting times have reduced substantially and the trust is now well below the 12-month target in all specialties. Indeed, 75 per cent. of patients are treated within nine months.
  Finally, I am glad to say that that has all been achieved with relatively modest management costs. That has meant more money for direct patient care and is reflected in the management cost reduction target, which has been set at 3 per cent. for the trust this year.
  178
  The new development at Thanet is just one of the 70 or so schemes, each costing more than £1 million, that we expect to see completed in the NHS this year. Those are in addition to the 700 such schemes completed over the past 10 years, in a programme worth many billions of pounds. In fact, we have seen the largest sustained programme of capital investment in the entire history of the NHS. By modernising and renewing the existing building stock and building new facilities, the environment in which health care is delivered up and down the country is being continuously improved.
  I am glad for my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet and for my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who have campaigned so hard and for so long with their constituents for that facility, that such a striking example of a new hospital should be opened in Thanet. I wish the new hospital, its staff and the patients who use it every success.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Two o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Vehicle Batteries
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many car and other vehicle batteries are recycled or safely reclaimed each year. [25751]

  Mr. Clappison
  Information on the precise number and weight of automotive—lead-acid—batteries recycled or reclaimed is not held centrally.

  However, it is known that the vast majority of used lead-acid batteries are recycled at three plants in the UK. The industry is committed to achieving a minimum 90 per cent. recycling target for lead batteries.

  Fluorescent Lighting Tubes
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the method recommended by his Department for the safe disposal of fluorescent lighting tubes. [25747]

  Average unmeasured household water and sewerage bills for the ten privatised water companies

  1995–96 prices

  11996–97

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1993–94

  1992–93

  1991–92

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  Anglian

  285

  (3.6)

  276

  (2.0)

  270

  (5.9)

  255

  (5.4)

  242

  (6.0)

  228

  (5.4)

  Northumbrian

  204

  (2.1)

  200

  (4.1)

  192

  (8.1)

  178

  (6.2)

  167

  (5.0)

  159

  (6.5)

  North West

  196

  (4.4)

  188

  (0.6)

  187

  (5.9)

  176

  (6.1)

  166

  (4.2)

  159

  (4.5)

  Severn Trent

  187

  (0.3)

  186

  (0.9)

  184

  (8.6)

  170

  (4.2)

  163

  (5.2)

  155

  (4.3)

  Southern

  221

  (3.8)

  213

  (4.7)

  203

  (6.5)

  191

  (2.4)

  186

  (2.8)

  181

  (6.9)

  South West

  325

  (1.2)

  321

  (2.6)

  313

  (12.7)

  278

  (13.7)

  244

  (13.8)

  215

  (6.6)

  Thames

  176

  (2.1)

  172

  (3.2)

  167

  (5.4)

  158

  (5.4)

  150

  (4.0)

  144

  (4.4)

  Welsh

  257

  (–2.7)

  264

  (0.5)

  263

  (6.5)

  247

  (5.9)

  233

  (6.8)

  218

  (5.9)

  Wessex

  238

  (0.8)

  236

  (2.4)

  230

  (6.2)

  217

  (6.2)

  205

  (3.7)

  197

  (4.6)

  Yorkshire

  212

  (7.7)

  197

  (–0.2)

  198

  (6.4)

  186

  (4.7)

  177

  (2.5)

  173

  (3.9)

  11996–97 and 1995–96 figures take account of rebates provided by certain water and sewerage companies.

  Environment Protection Strategy and Europe Division
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the budget of the environment protection strategy and Europe division of his Department for the 1995–96 financial year. [25621]

  Mr. Clappison
  The division was established on 1 November 1995. It took on most of the work of what was the environment protection central division, EPC, and part of the work of what was the environment protection Europe division, EPEUR. It is not possible to separate the costs of those parts of EPC and EPEUR which are relevant to the work of the new division. For this reason, an expenditure figure for 1995–96 is not readily available. However, the 1996–97 budget for the net administrative expenditure of the division is £1,075,330.
  2
  Mr. Clappison
  Fluorescent tubes must be managed and disposed of in accordance with sections 33 and 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Department does not recommend a particular form of disposal, but the waste management licensing regime ensures that such activities are carried out in a manner that does not harm human health or cause environmental damage.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average cost of safe disposal of a fluorescent lighting tube. [25744]

  Mr. Clappison
  The cost of disposal of fluorescent light tubes depends on the type of facility for disposal, the quantity that is disposed of at any one time and the distance they must be transported to reach the disposal facility. Central Government do not compile such information.

  Water Bills
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average water bill in each household by region for 1996–97; what were the equivalent figures in each of the last five years; and what have been the percentage changes in each case. [24928]

  Mr. Clappison
  The following table provides details of the average unmeasured household water and sewerage bill for the 10 privatised water and sewerage companies for 1996–97 and the equivalent figures for each year from 1991–92 to 1995–96. The figures in brackets show the annual percentage change.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff are employed within the environment protection strategy and Europe division of his Department. [25625]

  Mr. Clappison
  The staff in post on 1 April 1996 within the environment protection strategy and Europe division was 27.

  County Museum Collections
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure the continued effectiveness of county museum collections affected by the local government review in the situations of(a) abolished authorities and (b) relinquished authorities. [25554]
  3
  Sir Paul Beresford
  How best to provide services for museum and records services is a matter for the authorities concerned. However, following discussions with the Museums and Galleries Commission, the Department of National Heritage has issued guidance on the provision of suitable museum services to all authorities involved in reorganisation.

  Waste Incinerators (Fires)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to conduct research into the environmental impact of fires at waste incinerators. [25923]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have no plans to conduct research into this matter.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to issue guidelines concerning fires at waste incinerators. [25924]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have no plans to issue guidelines on this matter.

  Housing Associations
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) minutes of meetings, (d) agendas of meetings and (e) registers of members' interests are published by registered housing associations; and if in each case it is under a statutory requirement. [25966]

  Mr. Clappison
  Registered housing associations are required by statute to provide a copy of their audited annual accounts to the Housing Corporation which holds them available for inspection. All other requirements are non-statutory. The main ones are:The tenants guarantee which requires associations to keep their tenants informed about their housing management performance.
  Housing Corporation programme performance standards under which associations are required to conduct their affairs in an open and accountable way, disseminating widely information about their housing provision and activities.
  The National Federation of Housing Association's code of governance which requires board members to declare conflicts of interest and associations to maintain records of interests of board members and senior staff and to make them available for public inspection.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners serving life sentences were released(a) when their tariff was reached, (b) up to and including 12 months after tariff, (c) up to and including 24 months after tariff and (d) longer than 24 months after tariff during each year since 1990. [25200]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information in the form requested is not recorded centrally. Figures for all the years from 1990 to 1994 are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, a special exercise conducted in 1993 showed 4
  in regard to all life sentence prisoners first released on licence in 1992, 9 per cent. were released before, on, or within one month after, expiry of tariff and 36 per cent. were released before, on, or within 12 months of tariff.

  Examination of readily available information about the 60 mandatory life sentence prisoners released for the first time on licence in 1995 shows the following:

  Time of release in relation to tariff expiry

  Number and percentage

  Before, on, or within one month of tariff expiry

  8 (13 per cent.)

  1-12 months after tariff expiry

  23 (38 per cent.)

  13-24 months after tariff expiry

  3 (5 per cent.)

  Over 2 years after tariff expiry

  26 (43 per cent.)

  Total

  60

  Information about discretionary life sentence prisoners released in 1995 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prison Boards of Visitors
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what organisations were consulted about changes in the retirement age and the limitation to term of office of prison boards of visitors; for what reasons these proposals were not included in the recent review of the board of visitors system; and what representations he has received on this matter. [25220]

  Miss Widdecombe
  In deciding to amend the policy on appointments to boards of visitors, I noted that a number of members of boards felt that requiring all members to retire at the next triennial review following their 70th birthday did not reflect the fact that many people are well able to carry on voluntary work beyond their 70th birthday and are keen to do so.

  On the other hand, it would be inappropriate for any member to be able to serve indefinitely and thus prevent an influx of new members from time to time. It is generally the case in public appointments that reappointment is not automatic and should not be repeated an indefinite number of times. In particular, members of boards of visitors in Northern Ireland have a limit of 12 years on their length of service. However, in view of the larger scale and greater numbers involved in boards of visitors in England and Wales, it seemed reasonable to set a higher limit of 15 years. This limit thus replaces the retirement age which has been abolished.

  The review advisory group which considered and reported in May last year focused more on recruitment of new members and the day-to-day work of members of boards rather than on the question of length of service. Although my right hon. and learned Friend endorsed the recommendations of the report, this cannot prevent Ministers from considering other changes when and if it is deemed appropriate and necessary to do so.

  The new policy was first announced to the National Advisory Council for Boards of Visitors and, following representations from that committee, I agreed to phase the new measures in. I have received a number of letters from boards and individual members whose comments I have noted.

  Fire Services (London Docklands)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account he has taken, or will take, when considering the adequacy of fire appliance coverage in the area of and adjacent to that of the London Docklands development corporation of the planned industrial and business development up to the year 2000. [25542]

  Mr. Sackville
  Statutory responsibility for the provision of an efficient fire service is a matter for the fire authority concerned. Any fire authority wishing to reduce the operational capacity of its brigade, including the number of fire appliances, must seek the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. His practice is to grant approval only where he is satisfied that the nationally recommended standards of fire cover will be maintained. The position would be considered by reference to the category of fire risk of the area as it stood at the time of the application. In the event of future property development, it would be up to the fire authority to take account of the new circumstances. Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire service monitors performance in meeting the standards of fire cover as part of the annual inspection process.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the Criminal Cases Review Commission will be set up; and if he will make a statement. [25567]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission is expected to start work later this year. The chairman designate is Sir Frederick Crawford and the posts of other members of the commission will be advertised shortly.

  General Election Campaigns
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new proposals he has to set limits on the spending on national campaigns by parties in general elections. [26277]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no such proposals.

  Home Country Briefs
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he plans to place completed home country briefs on(a) Somalia, (b) India and (c) Pakistan in the Library; and if he will make a statement; [26235]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of a home country brief on Somalia referred to by a Home Office presenting officer at a hearing in Manchester last year and which was shown to a representative attending the hearing; and if he will make a statement. [26243]

  Kirkhope
  As indicated previously, our aim is to finalise these reports as soon as is practicable. We will then make them available to those concerned with the asylum appeals system and place them in the Library.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appointments to the public bodies listed in "Public Bodies" for his Department were made during 1994–95 from names supplied by the public appointments unit; and if he will list them. [25957]

  Mr. Howard
  The readily available information is as follows: in 1994–95, 13 appointments were made to the public bodies listed in "Public Bodies" from names supplied by the public appointments unit. These were:

  Number

  Parole Board

  4

  Metropolitan Police Committee

  5

  Advisory Board for Restricted Patients

  1

  Animal Procedures Committee

  1

  Police Complaints Authority

  2

  Prevention of Terrorism Legislation
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of people held for(a) 48 hours or under and (b) over 48 hours under the provisions of the prevention of terrorism legislation for each year since 1974. [19069]

  Mr. Howard
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 March 1996, c. 200]An amended and extended table of the figures given for Northern Ireland is given.

  Amendment to table 2 of reply

  In Northern Ireland

  Under 48 hours

  Over 48 hours

  19741

  0

  0

  1975

  3

  5

  1976

  44

  202

  1977

  39

  123

  1978

  7

  144

  1979

  36

  126

  1980

  36

  186

  1981

  94

  401

  1982

  189

  639

  1983

  447

  728

  1984

  375

  533

  1985

  381

  557

  1986

  825

  484

  1987

  1, 008

  451

  1988

  1, 175

  542

  1989

  1, 053

  530

  1990

  1, 089

  460

  1991

  1, 109

  571

  1992

  1, 354

  441

  1993

  1, 186

  455

  1994

  1, 119

  384

  1995

  431

  12

  1From 29 November

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appointments to the public bodies listed in "Public Bodies" for his
  7
  Department were made during 1994–95 from names supplied by the public appointments unit; and if he will list them. [25951]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Two appointments were made to the Legal Aid Board during 1994–95 from names supplied by the public appointments unit. They were:John Crosby: Appointed 5 April 1994
  Colin George: Appointed 3 May 1994.

  Divorce Leaflet
  Mr. Patten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many copies were printed and what was the cost of production of the leaflet entitled "I Want to Get a Divorce-What Do I Do" published by the Lord Chancellor's Department (D184), in the most recent year for which figures are available. [25980]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. John Patten, dated 22 April 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the guidance leaflet entitled "I want to get a divorce-what do I do?".
  73,425 leaflets were printed and distributed to the courts in 1995 at a cost of approximately £10,495.

  Mr. Patten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish a companion leaflet to "I Want To Get a Divorce-What Do I Do?" entitled "I Want To Try To Stay Married-What Do I Do?" [26018]

  Mr. Evans
  My Department and the Court Service will be considering what information should be available in the light of the provisions of the Family Law Bill, particularly the proposed information meeting. This will include information about marriage counselling and marriage support services. Consideration of what information and services can best assist people who want to remain married also forms part of the work of the interdepartmental working party on marriage.

TREASURY

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will deduct from the United Kingdom's net contribution to the EU the cost of compensating the British farmers for measures to eradicate bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the event of the European Union not agreeing to pay such compensation. [24256]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Council of Ministers has agreed that a significant proportion of such costs will be financed from the European Community budget.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people (i) in total and (ii) by sex in England by travel-to-work area are currently in(a) temporary employment, (b) part-time employment and (c) temporary and part-time employment. [24878]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information for travel-to-work areas is not available from the labour force survey. The available information for standard regions for autumn—September to November—1995 is shown in the table.

  (a) Temporary employees by standard region

  (Thousands—not seasonally adjusted)

  All

  Male

  Female

  England

  1, 377

  612

  765

  Northern

  95

  50

  45

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  133

  57

  76

  East Midlands

  106

  54

  52

  East Anglia

  67

  28

  39

  Greater London

  224

  103

  120

  Rest of South East

  324

  138

  186

  South West

  131

  49

  82

  West Midlands

  133

  57

  76

  North West

  163

  75

  88

  (b) Part-time temporary employees by standard region

  (Thousands—not seasonally adjusted)

  All

  Male

  Female

  England

  5, 426

  997

  4, 430

  Northern

  328

  59

  269

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  575

  91

  484

  East Midlands

  479

  73

  406

  East Anglia

  253

  45

  208

  Greater London

  651

  174

  478

  Rest of South East

  1,283

  230

  1,053

  South West

  611

  114

  497

  West Midlands

  588

  97

  491

  North West

  658

  113

  545

  (c) Part-time temporary employees by standard region

  (Thousands—not seasonally adjusted)

  All

  Male

  Female

  England

  624

  170

  455

  Northern

  37

  12

  25

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  56

  12

  43

  East Midlands

  50

  15

  35

  East Anglia

  34

  1—

  26

  Greater London

  95

  37

  58

  Rest of South East

  150

  38

  112

  South West

  70

  14

  55

  West Midlands

  64

  15

  49

  North West

  69

  19

  51

  1Estimate below 10, 000 not shown.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 3 April,Official Report, column 259, if the price of exports has increased faster than the price of imports. [25541]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The prices of imported and exported manufactured goods since 1992, measured on a unit value index basis, have increased by the same amount.

  Business Investment
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on how business investment is calculated. [25549]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 19 April 1996]: Business investment is calculated by the Office of

  UK's gross and net contributions to the EC budget

  £ million

  Year

  Gross contribution before refunds or abatement

  Negotiated refunds

  Abatement

  Gross contribution after refunds and abatement

  Public sector receipts

  Net contribution after refunds, abatement and public sector receipts

  1973–74

  200

  —

  —

  200

  -104

  96

  1974–75

  197

  —

  —

  197

  -232

  -35

  1975–76

  370

  —

  —

  370

  -354

  16

  1976–77

  544

  —

  —

  544

  -320

  224

  1977–78

  941

  —

  —

  941

  -382

  559

  1978–79

  1,323

  —

  —

  1,323

  -555

  768

  1979–80

  1,665

  —

  —

  1,665

  -781

  884

  1980–81

  1,900

  -645

  —

  1,255

  -1,022

  233

  1981–82

  2,330

  -959

  —

  1,371

  -1,146

  225

  1982–83

  2,820

  -774

  —

  2,046

  -1,308

  737

  1983–84

  3,097

  -239

  —

  2,858

  -1,897

  961

  1984–85

  3,614

  -589

  —

  3,025

  -1,892

  1,133

  1985–86

  3,745

  —

  -823

  2,922

  -1,930

  992

  1986–87

  5,121

  —

  -1,343

  3,778

  -2,557

  1,221

  1987–88

  4,906

  —

  -1,137

  3,769

  -1,958

  1,811

  1988–89

  5,167

  —

  -1,600

  3,567

  -2,400

  1,166

  1989–90

  5,804

  —

  -1,317

  4,487

  -2,035

  2,452

  1990–91

  6,411

  —

  -1,838

  4,573

  -2,388

  2,185

  1991–92

  6,129

  —

  -2,428

  3,701

  -2,757

  943

  1992–93

  6,970

  —

  -1,993

  4,977

  -2,810

  2,168

  1993–94

  8,407

  —

  -2,350

  6,057

  -3,865

  2,192

  1994–95

  6,892

  —

  -1,648

  5,244

  -3,603

  1,641

  1995–96

  9,232

  —

  -1,564

  7,668

  -4,135

  3,533

  Inland Revenue (Computers)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the savings to be made from the privatisation of the Inland Revenue's computer system; what figure was provided for contingencies under the original agreement; and how much has been spent of this fund to date. [25883]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 19 April 1996]: In May 1994 savings were estimated at £225 million over 10 years. In January 1996 the last phase of work was transferred to the Inland Revenue's partner, EDS Ltd. Following that transfer, estimates of savings are being
  10
  National Statistics as the sum of all non-residential fixed investment by the private sector and public corporations—except national health trust hospitals—excluding investment in land and existing buildings. The data for business investment are available on the ONS central shared database, which can be accessed via the Library of the House.

  European Union
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the gross payment, receipts and net payment made by the United Kingdom to the European Union in each year since 1973. [25789]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government's estimates of the United Kingdom's gross contributions, receipts and net contributions to European Community institutions for the financial years 1973–74 to 1994–95, together with the latest estimate of our contribution in 1995–96, are set out in the table.

  updated but there is no expectation of any significant change. There is no specific amount allocated for contingencies under the contract with EDS.

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date EDS reached the maximum limit on its earned profit from its contract with Inland Revenue; if excess profits are now being paid back to the Inland Revenue; and if he will make a statement. [25884]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 19 April 1996]: The Inland Revenue contract with EDS includes an annual profit-sharing mechanism. At the end of its financial year,

  11
  EDS provides the department with a statement showing the revenue received from the contract and the costs as included in the company's audited accounts. Where the profit exceeds a percentage target level, calculated in accordance with the contract formula, this is shared between the department and EDS equally.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Iron and Steel Employees Readaptation Benefits Scheme
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the Government's expenditure on the iron and steel employees readaptation benefits scheme in each year between 1979 and 1994. [25825]

  Mr. Page
  The figures requested on the iron and steel employees readaptation benefit scheme are as follows:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Total ISERBS expenditure

  Commission contribution

  1979–80

  22.0

  6.0

  1980–81

  40.0

  6.0

  1981–82

  112.0

  28.0

  1982–83

  106.0

  43.0

  1983–84

  47.6

  31.2

  1984–85

  31.6

  16.2

  1985–86

  22.7

  13.1

  1986–87

  19.6

  8.3

  1987–88

  17.7

  5.6

  1988–89

  5.7

  5.7

  1989–90

  5.2

  1.5

  1990–91

  12.6

  0.5

  1991–92

  31.8

  3.3

  1992–93

  51.1

  5.4

  1993–94

  28.7

  5.2

  In addition, the UK Government received European Coal and Steel Community aid from the European Commission as a contribution towards the expenditure. There is a time lag between ISERBS payments being made and receipt of the contribution for the European Commission.

  Fluorescent Lighting Tubes
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many fluorescent tube lights were manufactured in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available. [25746]

  Mr. Page
  Accurate data are available on the number of fluorescent tubes manufactured in the UK, although total exports of linear and compact tubes are recorded at 23, 767, 365 for 1994.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many major companies in the United Kingdom produce fluorescent lighting tubes. [25749]

  Mr. Page
  Three major companies manufacture fluorescent lighting tubes in the United Kingdom.
  12
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many fluorescent lighting tubes were imported into this country in the last year for which figures are available. [25745]

  Mr. Page
  The information is published by the Office for National Statistics in "Business Monitors" MM20 and MQ20, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Fluorescent tubes are found in section 778.22 of the standard international trade classification.

  Vehicle Batteries
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure the safe reclamation and recycling of vehicle batteries [25750]

  Mr. Page
  A very high proportion of spent vehicle batteries has traditionally been recycled in the UK. Within the context of the Government's producer responsibility initiative, the industry has given a commitment to maintain a minimum 90 per cent. recycling rate.

  The recycling of lead-acid batteries is controlled under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This ensures that recycling activities are not carried out in a manner that harms human health, or cause pollution of the environment. In addition, the movement of lead-acid batteries is subject to separate controls under the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to comply with European Union directives on the safe disposal and recycling of vehicle batteries. [25741]

  Mr. Page
  The GB Batteries and Accumulators (Containing Dangerous Substances) Regulations 1994, SI 1994 No. 232, implemented certain provisions of directives 91/157/EEC and 93/86/EEC, which relate to various battery types, including those normally used for starting, lighting and ignition in vehicles.

  A provision requiring the separate collection of batteries caught by the directives was not transposed into law, since recycling rates in excess of 90 per cent. have traditionally been achieved for lead-acid batteries, and the industry is committed to maintaining this performance.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was his Department's(a) contribution towards and (b) participation in the conference on "One Decade After Chernobyl: Summing up the Consequences of the Accident" summing up the radiological consequences, held in Vienna on 8 to 12 April; and if he will place the papers to, and conclusions from, the conference in the Library. [26265]

  Mr. Page
  The conference on "One Decade After Chernobyl: Summing up the Consequences of the Accident" was sponsored by the European Commission, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organisation. It was mainly directed at technical specialists with the aim of consolidating scientific international consensus on the health and environmental effects of the Chernobyl accident. It also reviewed the social, economic and political aftermath and considered the improvements in nuclear safety which have followed. Of the issues covered by the conference, nuclear safety is
  13
  the only one which falls directly to my Department. The Government's expert representation on that issue was provided by the Health and Safety Executives nuclear installations inspectorate. The IAEA, on behalf of the sponsors, will publish the proceedings of the conference. I will arrange for a copy of the final conclusions to be placed in the Library of the House as soon as these are available.

  Nuclear Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what discussions British Nuclear Fuels has had recently with Japanese electrical utilities or Japanese nuclear fuel companies for the provision of mixed oxide fuel; [26269]

  (2) what proportion of the existing capacity at the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. at the Sellafield mixed oxide plant has been contracted for the next 10 years; which countries have placed contracts for the production of MOX fuel at the plant; and what is the total value of contracts placed to date for MOX fuel production. [26270]

  Mr. Page
  Commercial and operational matters are the responsibility of the board of British Nuclear Fuels.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on(a) the current status of materials accountancy and (b) the application of nuclear safeguards at the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Sellafield mixed oxide plant. [26259]

  Mr. Page
  The Sellafield MOX plants are subject to Euratom safeguards and the terms of the UK—Euratom—IAEA safeguards agreement. The MOX demonstration facility has been in operation since 1993 and is subject to Euratom safeguards, with regular materials accountancy reports being supplied in accordance with regulation 3227/76. The Sellafield MOX plant is currently under construction, necessary documentation has been provided to Euratom and discussions are in progress on the detailed safeguard arrangements.

  Trade (China)
  Ms Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the figures for imports and exports and for invisible and visible trade between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China for each of the past 10 years. [25205]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information on the UK's visible trade with the People's Republic of China between 1985 and 1994 is published by the Office for National Statistics in tables 12.5 and 12.6 of the "Annual Abstract of Statistics", 1996 edition. The same information for 1995 is published by the Office for National Statistics in table 2 of the most recent "Business Monitor", MM20. Copies of both the above publications are available in the Library of the House. Information on invisible trade between the UK and the People's Republic of China for 1994 will be published by the Office for National Statistics in the April 1996 issue of "Economic Trends". Information for previous years is not available.

  Social Chapter
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official
  14
  Report, columns 372-73, what proportion of the difference in unit labour costs between United Kingdom employees and other EU countries' employees is attributable to the effects of the adoption of directives under the social chapter. [25553]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 April 1996]: The impact of directives, individually and collectively, on costs will differ between countries depending on national regulations and practice before the adoption of the directives at a European level. To date, directives adopted under the Maastricht agreement on social policy have not been implemented in member states.

  European Works Council and Parental Leave Directives
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, columns 372-73, what is his Department's estimate of the effect on the number in employment if (a) the European works council directive and (b) the parental leave directive, were introduced; and if he will place in the Library the information upon which his estimates are based. [25552]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 April 1996]: Both the parental leave directive and the European works council directive would impose costs on business and reduce flexibility. This would result in the loss of jobs, both in the short and in the longer term. The number of jobs lost would depend on a range of factors—and, in particular, on how individual businesses respond to the additional cost. It is therefore not possible to make a reliable estimate of the effect the directives would have on employment.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Strangers Gallery Tickets
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what consultations he has had over facilitating the administration of Gallery tickets. [24748]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The Administration Committee, at its meeting on 27 June 1995, reviewed the current arrangements for the allocation of tickets to the Special Galleries and Members' parties on the Line of Route. However, my Committee did not support a proposal that a formal visits office should be established to administer the arrangements for these visits.

  Post Arrangements
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what changes are planned to the system of transfer of post from the letterboard in the Members' Lobby to the internal post; and if he will make a statement. [24750]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The Serjeant at Arms and Black Rod have commissioned a study into all aspects of the mail system for both Houses. This will include examination of the transfer of post which has not been collected from the Members' letterboard into the mail system.
  15
  I understand that the Serjeant at Arms will be writing to the hon. Member.

  Hours and Procedures
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will set up an all-party review of the hours and procedures of the House. [24753]

  Mr. Newton
  The hours at which the House sits were reviewed by the Select Committee on Sittings of the House—the Jopling Committee—in 1992, and changes in procedure designed to reduce sitting hours were agreed to by the House last year. The procedures of the House are also kept under review by the Select Committee on Procedure, which is itself an all-party Committee.

  Oral Statements
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many Government oral statements have been given in the Commons since January. [24755]

  Mr. Newton
  From 11 January until 3 April there were 26 oral statements given in the House of Commons.

  Private Members' Balloted Motions
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the number of private Members' balloted motions debated in each of the Sessions(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93 and (c) 1993–94. [24757]

  Mr. Newton
  The numbers of private Members' balloted motions debated in each of the specified Sessions are as follows:

  (a) 8

  (b) 14

  (c) 19.

  Heads of Government
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to permit Heads of foreign Governments to address the House from within the Chamber. [24754]

  Mr. Newton
  No. I believe that the present arrangements for Heads of State or Heads of Government to address both Houses in the Royal Gallery or in Westminster Hall are satisfactory.

  Legislation
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many Henry VIII clauses have been contained in legislation each year since 1979; and if he will list the relevant clause, Act or statutory instrument in each case. [24528]

  Mr. Newton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he last reviewed the arrangements for dealing with urgent legislation in the House. [24756]

  Mr. Newton
  I have not undertaken such a review, but if the hon. Member has suggestions to make in the light of recent or current experience, I should be glad to consider them or to invite consideration by the Procedure Committee.

ATTORNY-GENERAL

  Anthony Duncan
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's application to Dublin district court for the extradition of Anthony Duncan. [25617]

  The Attorney-General
  Anthony Duncan was arrested in the Republic of Ireland on 11 April on domestic charges. He is wanted in this country to face charges in connection with bombs in Brighton and Bognor in August 1994. Extradition between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland takes place under the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 and the corresponding legislation of the Republic of Ireland. In accordance with the provision of that legislation and following my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General's decision to prosecute, the Metropolitan police delivered an arrest warrant for Duncan and supporting papers to their Irish counterparts on 12 April. The original arrest warrant, however, was not produced in the Irish court. There is a conflict of evidence as to how this came about, but a fresh warrant has now been delivered to the authorities in the Republic of Ireland.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Entry Clearance (Indian sub-continent)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the number of entry clearance officers at British high commission offices in(a) Pakistan, (b) Sri Lanka, (c) India and (d) Bangladesh on 30 March. [25572]

  Mr. Hanley
  The numbers of entry clearance officers serving at the British high commission offices in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are as follows:

  (a) Pakistan:

  i. Islamabad: 28

  ii. Karachi: 5

  (b) Sri Lanka: 4 officers

  (c) India:

  i. Bombay: 10

  ii. Calcutta: 1

  iii. Madras: 2

  iv. New Delhi: 12

  (d) Bangladesh: 12

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current average target time set for the United Kingdom post in Islamabad to(a) prepare and (b) dispatch to the United Kingdom explanatory statements concerning refusal to grant entry clearance; what the target times were in each quarter over the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [26237]

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1989, the target times for the preparation and submission of appeal statements by the high commission in Islamabad have been one month for non-settlement appeals and three months for settlement appeals.

  British Steel
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total value of commercial orders placed by his Department with British Steel plc in each year from 1988 to 1995. [25815]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have no record of any order having been placed with British Steel.

  France (Middle East Visit)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions took place with the French Government before the visit by the French Foreign Minister to Israel, Syria and Lebanon; and if he will make a statement. [25568]

  Mr. Hanley
  France has kept us fully informed of the progress of the visit and negotiations.

  UN Peacekeeping Forces
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries in which the United Kingdom has United Nations peacekeeping forces; and what are the numbers of peacekeepers in each country. [25573]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Four hundred and twenty-two British troops are deployed as follows on United Nations peacekeeping operations:

  Cyprus (UNFICYP): 388

  Kuwait/Iraq (UNIKOM): 16

  Angola (UNAVEM): 3

  Croatia (UNPF, UNMOP, UNTAES): 5

  Georgia (UNOMIG): 10

  Lake Kojanovskoe, Russia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his letter of 3 April to the hon. Member for Linglithgow, what conclusions have been drawn about funding action to counter contamination of Lake Kojanovskoe. [25532]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  It is too early to consider what concrete assistance might be made available to counteract contamination of Lake Kojanovskoe. The conclusions of the EU-financed study are being considered and will be followed up with the Commission in due course.

  Liberia
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the situation of British nationals remaining in Liberia. [25831]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our consular correspondent has reported that, of the 12 British nationals in Liberia, nine have elected to remain in Liberia and one is undecided. They are all well. The whereabouts and condition of the two other British nationals are unknown.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a18
  about the proposal for a second summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe. [26279]

  Mr. David Davis
  We support the principle of a second summit. Such a summit might best be held in 1999 when the Council of Europe will, in any event, wish to mark its 50th anniversary.

  Mrs. Shazia Bi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what decision has been taken on the application by Mrs. Shazia Bi, Ref: IMM/C7321, to the United Kingdom post in Islamabad to join her husband in the United Kingdom; and on what date that decision was taken. [26244]

  Mr. Hanley
  I have asked the high commission at Islamabad for details and will arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit as soon as possible.

PRIME MINISTER

  Sexual Exploitation of Children Congress
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister which Minister will attend the world congress against commercial sexual exploitation of children in Stockholm in August; and if he will make a statement. [26098]

  The Prime Minister
  The congress will be attended by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope).

  Nuclear Safety and Security Summit
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the nuclear safety and security summit in Moscow. [26550]

  The Prime Minister
  I attended the Moscow summit on nuclear safety and security on 19 and 20 April. I have arranged for copies of the declaration and background documents to be placed in the Library of the House. The summit was chaired jointly by President Yeltsin and by President Chirac as the current chairman of the Group of Seven. Other G7 leaders attended, as did President Kuchma of Ukraine for the later part of the summit.

  There was unanimous agreement at the summit on the priority that needs to be given to ensuring the safety of nuclear power plants and the security of nuclear materials. We agreed that the convention on nuclear safety must be ratified and brought into force as soon as possible; the United Kingdom has already ratified the convention.
  19
  At the same time, the summit endorsed the importance of market-oriented reforms in the energy sector, and the contribution this can make to nuclear safety. Investment strategies should be based on least-cost planning, and energy efficiency and conservation have an important role to play.

  We also agreed on the need to work for the early adoption of a convention on the safety of radioactive waste management, which is currently under negotiation. The disposal of radioactive waste at sea is prohibited under the 1993 amendment to the London convention, which the UK and most other countries have accepted; at the summit, Russia gave a firm commitment to accept the amendment. We agreed to work together to identify strategies for the safe management and eventual disposal of fissile material no longer required for defence purposes.

  President Kuchma attended the summit for the discussion on Chernobyl. We welcomed his decision to close Chernobyl by the year 2000 in accordance with the memorandum of understanding signed between the G7 and the Ukraine last year, and we confirmed our commitment to implement the memorandum.

  The summit also discussed the need to prevent any illicit trafficking in nuclear materials. We agreed on a programme to combat any such trafficking, and to increase co-operation to ensure the safe storage and protection of nuclear materials. Existing co-ordination between national agencies will be enhanced.

  The countries at the summit also committed themselves to conclude and sign a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty by September 1996.

  The summit also provided a timely opportunity to discuss the main international issues, particularly Lebanon and Bosnia. On Lebanon, we agreed on the need for an immediate ceasefire and a political solution to end the present crisis and enable the wider peace process to resume. We endorsed current diplomatic efforts to bring this about. On Bosnia, we agreed that the deployment of the implementation force and implementation of the military part of the Dayton agreement had gone well, but that more rapid progress was needed on key issues such as elections, reconstruction and the return of refugees.

  Before the summit, I visited Prague and Kiev for discussions with the Governments of the Czech Republic and Ukraine. In Moscow I had meetings with President Yeltsin, Prime Minister Chernomydin and others. I also took the opportunity to have bilateral meetings with Prime Minister Chretien and President Clinton and to discuss our problems with the European Union over beef exports informally with the other EU leaders present.

  In sum, therefore, the Moscow summit made a major contribution to nuclear safety, through agreements reached and endorsed. It was also an invaluable occasion to take forward other significant issues informally with my fellow Heads of State and Governments, and to reinforce with them. It was a success on all counts.

  Monarchy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce a measure to abolish the monarchy. [26282]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what response Her Majesty's Government are suggesting to the United Nations as a reply to the initiative to the United Nations from Libya to send an inspection team to the alleged chemical weapons site at Rabta in the Libyan desert; and if he will make a statement. [26287]

  The Prime Minister
  We believe that if Libya seriously wishes to dispel concerns about chemical weapons activities at this or any other site, she should accede to and comply fully with the provisions of the chemical weapons convention.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many advisers seconded by the British Government to sub-Saharan Africa are advising on the reorganisation of(a) health services and (b) education services; [25580]

  (2) how many advisers seconded by the British Government to sub-Saharan Africa are advising on the reorganisation of (a) police, (b) army and (c) civil service; [25579]

  (3) if he will list (a) the number of British advisers presently serving in sub-Saharan Africa, (b) their job description and (c) the length of their contracts. [25583]

  Mr. Hanley
  The ODA currently employs the following professional advisers in its overseas offices in sub-Saharan Africa:

  Professional discipline

  Number

  Health

  4

  Education

  1

  Government institutions, including the civil service and the police

  1

  Others

  27

  It also employs technical co-operation officers to work on specific programmes and projects. The number of such personnel currently engaged is:

  Professional discipline

  Number

  Health

  18

  Education

  24

  Government institutions, including the civil service and the police

  52

  Others

  91

  In addition to the above, there are 47 military and civilian personnel advising on a range of defence issues deployed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and MOD on behalf of the British Government to sub-Saharan Africa.
  21
  Individual terms and job descriptions vary widely between discipline, location, programme and project and can be provided only at disproportionate cost. The FCO and ODA also contract with consultancy services to provide advisers whose individual contract terms can also be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Liberia
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the situation in Liberia. [25834]

  Mr. Hanley
  We condemn the recent fighting in Monrovia and call on all factions to re-establish the ceasefire and abide by the terms of the Abuja agreement. We support international efforts to restore order.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of the humanitarian requirements of the population of Liberia; [25832]

  (2) what reports he has received about the withdrawal of aid agencies from Liberia. [25833]

  Mr. Hanley
  Latest UN reports indicate that nearly all aid agencies have withdrawn from Liberia and most are temporarily based in Abidjan and Freetown pending an improvement in the security situation. The UN hopes to carry out assessments very soon but, in the meantime, the World Food Programme is achieving a modest food distribution in Monrovia.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current political and security situation in Liberia. [25830]

  Mr. Hanley
  The fighting in Monrovia is a severe setback to the peace process. We welcome the efforts of the UN and the countries of the region to restore order.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) his EU counterparts, (b) the United States of America and (c) the UN regarding the situation in Liberia. [25829]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have participated in discussions in the UN Security Council and are in close touch with our EU partners and the US regarding the situation in Liberia.

  The Gambia
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the timetable for the transition to democracy programme in The Gambia. [25828]

  Mr. Hanley
  We regret that the Gambian Government has been unable to meet have their own timetable for transition to democracy, despite help from the donor community. We have urged the regime to press ahead and to lift the ban on political activity and release or bring to trial all detainees.

HEALTH

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has received on the health effects of the incineration of BSE-affected cattle; and how many suitable incinerators are available. [23840]

  Mr. Horam
  BSE—affected cattle are currently incinerated at nine incinerators authorised under part 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for animal carcase incineration. The Act requires that conditions are included in authorisations to achieve the objective of ensuring that the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost are used to prevent, minimise and render harmless emissions.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department were listed incorrectly in the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) on 4 May 1995,Official Report, column 276. [26425]

  Mr. Horam
  I regret that the reply given by my predecessor contained two errors. The Standing Dental Advisory Committee was incorrectly listed as publishing its advice to Government as a statutory requirement; additionally, the Health Advisory Service was incorrectly listed as publishing an annual report as a statutory requirement. In neither case is there such a requirement.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appointments to the public bodies listed in "Public Bodies" for his Department were made during 1994–95 from names supplied by the public appointments unit; and if he will list them. [25956]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 17 January 1995 at column 440.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base, and which(a) publish their advice to Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20098]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 12 March 1996]: The following Department of Health advisory non-departmental public bodies have a statutory basis:

  Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee;

  Advisory Board on the Registration of Homeopathic Products;

  British Pharmacopoeia Commission;

  Clinical Standards Advisory Group;

  Committee on the Safety of Medicines;

  Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation;

  Medicines Commission;

  Standing Dental Advisory Committee;

  Standing Medical Advisory Committee;

  23

  Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee;

  Standing Pharmaceutical Advisory Committee;

  Unrelated Live Transplant Regulatory Authority.

  The following Department of Health advisory non-departmental public bodies are required to:

  Publish their advice to the Government:

  (i) under a statutory requirement:

  None;

  (ii) voluntarily:

  Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy;

  Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee.

  Publish and annual report:

  (i) under a Statutory requirement:

  Advisory Board on the Registration of Homeopathic Products;

  British Pharmacopoeia Commission;

  Committee on the Safety of Medicines;

  Medicines Commission.

  (ii) voluntarily:

  Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards;

  Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food;

  Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment;

  Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy;

  Committee on the Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment;

  Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment;

  Health Advisory Service.

  Lay an annual report before Parliament:

  (i) under a statutory requirement:

  Advisory Board on the Registration of Homeopathic Products;

  British Pharmacopoeia Commission;

  Committee on the Safety of Medicines;

  Medicines Commission.

  (ii) Voluntarily:

  None.

  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of a possible link between the incidence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and forceps deliveries of babies. [25203]

  Mr. Bowis
  Forceps deliveries have not been shown to be associated with the development of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the incidence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children(a) in England as a whole and (b) in each standard planning region. [25204]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on the incidence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is not available centrally. Recent research suggests that severe hyperkinetic disorder, which is one form of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, is found in about one in 200 children.

  Psychiatric Care (Minors)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychiatric beds have been provided for children and adolescents by(a) the NHS and (b) the independent sector for each year since 1979. [26186]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on the number of psychiatric beds provided for adolescents is not available.

  Data on the number of child psychiatric beds are contained in "Bed availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library. The latest year for which data are available is 1994–95.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have been admitted to psychiatric care for each year since 1979. [26187]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is shown in the table.

  Admission to psychiatric care in national health service hospitals: England 1979–1986, 1989–90 to 1994–95

  Age group

  Year

  0–14

  15–19

  1979

  1,910

  5,810

  1980

  2,040

  5,960

  1981

  1,990

  6,030

  1982

  1,890

  5,450

  1983

  1,890

  5,460

  1984

  1,870

  5,530

  1985

  1,900

  5,440

  1986

  1,780

  5,270

  1989–90

  2,600

  5,600

  1990–91

  2,600

  5,000

  1991–92

  2,300

  4,900

  1992–93

  2,900

  5,600

  1993–94

  3,100

  5,700

  1994–951

  3,100

  5,400

  1 Provisional figures

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1979 to 1986 are based on calendar years and are derived from the Mental Health Enquiry.

  2. Figures for 1989–90 to 1994–95 are estimabased on the number of hospital episodes in the financial year. The two sources are not consistent in their definition of admissions so there is some discontinuity in the data. Reliable data are not available for 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Source:

  1979 to 1986 Mental Health Enquiry.

  1989–90 to 1994–95 Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Nursing and Residential Homes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the maximum number of beds permitted by his Department in(a) a nursing home and (b) a residential care home. [26188]

  Mr. Bowis
  We make no such prescription for either category of home.

  Prescription Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the percentages of fatal side-effects of prescription drugs which are not reported under the yellow card scheme. [26276]

  Mr. Malone
  Under the yellow card scheme, reports of suspected adverse reactions to licensed medicines are received from doctors, dentists and coroners. A report of a suspected adverse drug reaction does not necessarily
  25
  mean that the reaction was caused by the drug. The scheme is voluntary and not all adverse reactions are reported. The percentage of all fatal adverse reactions which are not reported through the scheme is not known.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a quarterly analysis of the number of operations cancelled in each region since figures have been published. [19497]

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library figures by(a) district health authority and (b) regional health authority, of the number of operations cancelled on the day of, or the day after, admission to hospital and the number of those patients not readmitted within a month for (i) the second and (b) and third quarter of 1995–96. [19471]

  Mr. Horam
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 March 1996, c. 324]: I regret that my previous reply contained an error. The percentage of operations cancelled in 1994–95 should read less than 1 per cent., not 0.01 per cent.

DEFENCE

  Menwith Hill
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if(a) the squadron leader in charge and (b) other British employees at Menwith Hill have signed the US Official Secrets Act. [20631]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our policy to comment on specific security arrangements.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United States personnel are under the command of the squadron leader in charge at Menwith Hill. [20627]

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Joint Rapid Deployment Force (Ferries)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the roll-on roll-off ferries that are to be bought for the joint rapid deployment force, announced on 26 March, will be manned by British seafarers; and if he will make a statement. [25479]

  Mr. Soames
  No decision has yet been reached on the most appropriate manning arrangements for the roll-on roll-off ferries to support the joint rapid deployment force. An announcement will be made in the summer, once all relevant factors have been properly weighed.

  RAF (Commitments)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the capacity of the RAF to meet its commitments. [25797]

  Mr. Soames
  I am fully confident that the RAF continues to have the capacity to meet its operational commitments.
  26
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has introduced to reduce overstretch in the RAF. [25798]

  Mr. Soames
  The Royal Air Force has introduced a number of temporary measures to minimise the burden on personnel during the current drawdown. These include provisions to postpone tactical and operational evaluations and scale down formal inspections and staff visits. Such measures are a sensible way of ensuring that operational capabilities are maintained over this transitional period.

  British Steel
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of commercial orders placed by his Department with British Steel plc in each year from 1988 to 1995. [25819]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In the years concerned, the value of the orders placed directly with British Steel plc by the Department was:

  £

  1988

  36,000

  1989

  836,000

  1990

  168,000

  1991

  80,000

  1992

  2,330,000

  1993

  297,000

  1994

  42,000

  1995

  37,000

  All figures are approximate.

  Most steel for the Ministry of Defence will be procured via MOD prime contractors for shipbuilding, tanks etcetera.

  NATO
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of the decision by the Chief of the Air Staff to postpone tactical evaluations and operational evaluations on the United Kingdom's ability to fulfil its NATO obligations. [25587]

  Mr. Soames
  The planned postponement of Tacevals and Opevals in the period to March 1997 will have no detrimental impact on the UK's ability to fulfil its obligations to NATO.

  Oral Communication Classes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance he is giving Air Chief Marshall Sir Michael Graydon in implementing oral communication classes at the Royal Air Force's officer training school, Cranwell; what plans he has to recommend these classes to the other armed services training establishments; and if he will make a statement. [25565]

  Mr. Soames
  Oral communication is already taught at the officer training colleges of all three services. The syllabuses are kept under constant review and are subject to change as appropriate by the respective commanding officers. Contrary to recent reports in the press, there are no plans to change the existing oral communication syllabus at the RAF college, Cranwell.

  Beaufort's Dyke
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what explosions recorded by the British Geological Survey in the immediate vicinity of Beaufort's dyke in 1995 were related to his Ministry's activities. [25720]

  Mr. Soames
  From the data supplied by the British Geological Survey, one explosion in the immediate vicinity of Beaufort's dyke corresponds to the record of a controlled detonation of a second world war mine on 7 February 1995 on a beach in the West Freugh range area.

  Battle of Trafalgar Bicentenary
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what preparations his Department is making for the commemoration of the bicentenary of the battle of Trafalgar and the death of Nelson. [25915]

  Mr. Soames
  It is too early for any arrangements or plans to have been considered by my Department for this important event in October 2005.

  Trident Submarines
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the costs quoted in the original bid and what are the current estimated costs of(a) Project DI54 and (b) the nuclear refitting process for Trident strategic submarine ballistic nuclear; what are the reasons for the difference; and from what source additional expenditure will be met. [25616]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In respect of Project DI54, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 April 1996,Official Report, column 458. The financial projections which underpinned the 1993 decision to place nuclear work at Devonport took into account capital costs and total operating costs associated with conducting both nuclear and non-nuclear refitting work over a 15-year period. These amounted to some £5, 284 million for the option selected. The cost of the Trident refitting programme will be influenced by the outcome of negotiations on the sale of Devonport royal dockyard and the actual duration of refits. The information is not available in the form requested.

  Laser Weapons Protocol
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of(a) the practical interpretation and (b) the implications of the laser weapons protocol, with particular reference to intentional and unintentional blinding. [25206]

  Mr. Soames
  We welcome the adoption by the UN weaponry convention review conference in October 1995 of the protocol on blinding laser weapons. We believe that the protocol meets humanitarian concerns without adversely affecting normal military uses of lasers. Our interpretation is that it would prohibit the employment of laser weapons specifically designed, whether as their sole combat purpose or as one of their combat purposes, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision.

  As to the employment of other lasers, states parties are required to take feasible precautions to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness to unenhanced vision.
  28
  The user's intention—or lack of it—to cause blindness is not, as such, material. We are currently studying the implications of this protocol and will take a decision on whether to ratify it following the final session of the review conference.

  RAF St. Athan (Training Flights)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the times and the days that training flights have been undertaken from RAF St. Athan indicating the land bearings below the airspace used for training. [25418]

  Mr. Soames
  Three types of flying training are undertaken from RAF St. Athan:

  (a) Elementary flying training for the members of University of Wales university air squadron using Bulldog aircraft.

  (b) Air experience flying for air cadets using Bulldog aircraft.

  (c) Air experience and training for air cadets using gliders.

  The station is also used as a forward operating base for Hawk aircraft from RAF Valley using the Pembrey range for advanced fast jet training.

  Hawk aircraft flying takes place during the station's normal hours of operation which are 0830 to 1700 hours Monday to Thursday and 0830 to 1600 hours on Fridays. Bulldog aircraft and gliders also operate outside of these hours during the summer months and at weekends throughout the year.

  Training flights use much of the available airspace. Details of land bearings and the specific time and date for flights could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made in the international discussions aimed at outlawing the use of land mines. [9385]

  Mr. David Davis
  [pursuant to the answer, 17 January 1996, c. 579]: In order to make greater progress in achieving international agreement on effective measures to reduce the dangers to civilians from land mines, we have taken a series of national decisions following a review of our policy, as follows:
  The UK will work actively towards a total, world-wide ban on anti-personnel mines. Should such a ban be agreed, we would give up our anti-personnel land mine capability, and would destroy our stocks accordingly.
  All our current anti-personnel mines are non-self-destructing. We intend to destroy almost half our current stockpile as soon as practicable. Until a world-wide ban on all anti-personnel mines is agreed, we shall also pursue current procurement plans to replace our existing mines with self-destructing ones.
  We shall also pursue, as an interim step, early international agreement on the elimination of all non-self-destructing anti-personnel mines, which pose the greatest danger to civilians.
  The UK's armed forces do not currently use anti-personnel mines operationally, anywhere in the world. Nor will they use our current stocks of non-self-destructing anti-personnel mines in future operations unless, in exceptional circumstances, Ministers are satisfied that their use is essential to ensure that British troops are properly protected and there are no alternative ways of achieving that end.

  29
  In such exceptional circumstances, we would use non-self-destructing anti-personnel mines only in marked, fenced or monitored areas; would clear them as soon as feasible; and any use would be strictly in accordance with the laws of armed conflict, including the strengthened protocol II to the UN weaponry convention which we hope will be agreed shortly.
  We shall also, as a matter of priority, pursue the development of alternatives to anti-personnel mines. Should viable alternatives emerge—none has yet—we would cease to use all anti-personnel mines, of any type, and would destroy all our stocks.
  In addition, we shall with immediate effect extend the scope of our export moratorium, to prohibit the export of all types of anti-personnel mines to all destinations.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Lancashire received(a) income support and (b) housing benefit in each year from 1979 to 1996. [24879]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of income support is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ursula Brennan to Mr. Peter Pike, dated 19 April 1996:
  As Peter Mathison is away from the office on annual leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people in Lancashire received (a) Income Support (IS) and (b) Housing Benefit (HB) in each year from 1979 to 1996.
  The information is not available in the format requested. IS statistics are collated by Benefits Agency (BA) Districts and not for specific geographical areas. The areas covered by some Districts may fall outside of the County boundaries. Additionally, data prior to 1991 is only available on a national basis. Information has been provided for the BA Districts of Blackburn and Accrington; Blackpool; Bolton; Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale; Lancashire and South Cumbria; Preston; West Pennine; and South West Lancashire. Further breakdown of District information is not possible. Available IS statistics are in the attached Table 1.
  HB statistics are collated by Local Authority area. Information is only available from 1988. For 1988 and 1989 some information has been estimated as some Local Authorities did not provide statistical data. Information has been provided for the Local Authorities of Blackburn; Blackpool; Burnley; Chorley; Fylde; Hyndbum; Lancaster; Pendle; Preston; Ribble Valley; Rossendale; South Ribble; West Lancashire; and Wyre. HB statistics relate to claims from both IS and non-IS recipients. Available HB statistics are in the attached Table 2.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Table 1: Income Support Live Claims for Lancashire from 1991

  Income Support live claims

  May 1991

  212,329

  May 1992

  228,417

  May 1993

  248,700

  May 1994

  252,941

  May 1995

  251,972

  30

  Table 2: Housing benefit claims for Lancashire from 1988

  Housing benefit cases for Lancashire

  May 19881

  80,570

  May 19891

  77,550

  May 1990

  82,080

  May 1991

  81,240

  May 1992

  86,720

  May 1993

  88,840

  May 1994

  93,970

  May 1995

  96,880

  1Estimated figures.

  Information refers to the number of benefit units, which may be for a single person or a couple.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many persons were receiving sickness benefit and invalidity benefit on 31 March 1995; [25801]

  (2) how many persons are currently receiving incapacity benefit. [25802]

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table.

  Number (million)

  Persons receiving sickness and invalidity benefit at 12 April 19951

  21.88

  Persons receiving capacity benefit at 31 March 1996

  31.81

  1Information from the day before the introduction of incapacity benefit, the nearest date to the 31 March 1995 for which information is available.

  2From 1 per cent. sample of all claims in Great Britain.

  3100 Per cent. count of all claims in Great Britain. Excludes a small number of cases paid clerically.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have(a) passed and (b) failed the incapacity benefit all-work test in the City of Durham constituency since its introduction. [24917]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of incapacity benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ursula Brennan to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 19 April 1996:
  As Peter Mathison is away from the office on annual leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how many people have (a) passed and (b) failed the Incapacity Benefit's all-work test in the City of Durham constituency since its introduction.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Statistics are not kept which are specific to Parliamentary Constituencies, but are kept for Benefits Agency (BA) Districts. The BA District of North Durham comprises the BA Offices of Durham, Chester-Le-Street, Peterlee, Seaham and Stanley.
  31
  The information available for North Durham District is contained in the table below:

  Allowed following reference to BA Medical Services (BAMS) on the all work test

  Disallowed following reference o BAMS on the all work test

  7,512

  1,787

  Notes:

  1. The information is for the period 13 April 95 to 29 February 96.

  2. Data is only available for cases counted by computer system and therefore does not include details of any cases paid clerically, the numbers of which are very low.

  3. Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people who have been found capable for work under the all-work test of capacity have subsequently signed on as unemployed(a) in total and (b) for each month since April 1995; [25364]

  (2) how many people who have been found capable of work under the all-work test of capacity who have subsequently signed on as unemployed receive (a) unemployment benefit only, (b) income support only and (c) unemployment benefit and income support. [25365]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the period 1995 to February 1996, 33, 454 people who have been disallowed incapacity benefit following the all-work test have made a claim for unemployment-related benefits. A monthly breakdown is given in the table. No figures are available regarding the type of unemployment benefit that these claimants have received.

  April 1995 to February 1996

  Month

  Number of claimants

  Cumulative total

  April

  153

  153

  May

  275

  428

  June

  510

  938

  July

  1,448

  2,386

  August

  2,880

  5,266

  September

  3,708

  8,974

  October

  4,519

  13,493

  November

  5,059

  18,552

  December

  4,366

  22,918

  January

  4,801

  27,719

  February

  5,735

  33,454

  Equality Monitoring
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what changes he has made to the funding of equality monitoring in his Department; for what reasons; and what representations he has received in respect of these changes; [25944]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of reduction in equality monitoring in his Department and its agencies on (a) promoting equal opportunities and (b) eliminating discrimination; [25946]

  (3) what factors underlay his decision to abandon ethnic origin re-survey exercises among staff in (a) the Child Support Agency and (b) the Contributions Agency. [25945]

  Mr. Burt
  There is no separate resource allocation for equality monitoring. The great majority of equal opportunities monitoring is carried out as an integral part 32
  of the wider monitoring of the Department's personnel policies and practices. This monitoring will continue in order to highlight both best practice and areas of concern, and to work to improve equality of opportunity for all staff.

  Along with other civil service Departments, this Department has been looking at ways of reducing costs and, as part of this wider review, has looked at its work plans for equal opportunities. We have decided not to undertake any ethnicity follow-up surveys within the Department or its agencies in the next three years. The Department already has a very good overall response rate of 86 per cent., and this action will not affect our ability to promote equal opportunities and eliminate discrimination in the workplace.

  Representations about changes to equality monitoring have been received from the trade union sides in DSS headquarters and the Contributions Agency.

  Benefits Agency Advice Line
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what date the review of the Benefits Agency's freeline benefit advice line service will be published; when he evaluated a preliminary draft of the report; and if he will make a statement on the future of this service; [26280]

  (2) on what date the review of the Benefits Agency's freeline benefit advice line service will be published; and what evaluation he has made of preliminary drafts of the report. [25440]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ursula Brennan to Mr. Frank Field, dated 22 April 1996:
  As Peter Mathison is away from the office on annual leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking on what date the review of the Benefits Agency's freeline benefit advice line service will be published; what evaluation he has made of preliminary drafts of the report; and if he will make a statement on the future of this service.
  This is an internal review, which is still continuing, and I cannot comment on any possible findings in advance of its completion. Once the review has been completed, the results will be evaluated in the context of the Agency's overall benefit advice services and running costs.
  hope you find this reply helpful.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for, Social Security how many appointments to the public bodies listed in "Public Bodies" for his Department were made during 1994–95 from names supplied by the public appointments unit; and if he will list them. [25961]

  Mr. Burt
  There was one such appointment in the year ending 31 March 1995, Mrs. Nicole Davoud OBE, to the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on public revenues
  33
  in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of allowing families in receipt of family credit to claim a child care disregard for each dependent child. [18241]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 March 1996, c. 477]: The estimated cost of disregarding all child care expenses for recipients of family credit would be in the region of £40 million in the long run, without allowing for behavioural effects. If all such costs were disregarded, there would be a strong incentive for people not paying for child care at the moment, to declare some payment. There are around 100, 000 people on family credit who would be faced with such an incentive, which could lead to very substantial further costs.

  Notes:
  Estimates based on data 1991–92 and 1993 family expenditure surveys, and the 1994 annual statistical inquiry, uprated to 1996–97 and 1997–98 levels adjusted using data on child care in the 1993–94 family resources survey.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social security what has been the annual expenditure on cold weather payments for each of the last five years. [22779]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table:

  Year

  Expenditure (£000s)

  1990–91

  8,600

  1991–92

  23,000

  1992–93

  15,000

  1993–94

  12,400

  1994–95

  77

  1995–961

  63,000

  1. Up to and including 19 March 1996.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proportion of his time is spent on(a) presiding at Cabinet Committees, (b) other Privy Council duties and (c) his duties as Leader of the House of Commons; and if he will make a statement. [24752]

  Mr. Newton
  As much time as the respective duties require.

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what savings to date have been made by his Department as a result of outsourcing arrangements made with the EDS computer system; what assessment he has made of the equivalent costs for carrying out this work in-house; and if he will make a statement. [24234]

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 28 February to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle),Official Report, column 612.

TRANSPORT

  Railways (Safety)
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on safety arrangements for the railways. [24728]

  Mr. Watts
  We have implemented in full the Health and Safety Commission's recommendations for an enhanced safety regime. The independent Health and Safety Executive will continue to enforce health and safety requirements.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to take to increase freight traffic on the rail system. [24733]

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Government have to increase rail freight. [24738]

  Sir George Young
  Privatisation and liberalisation are essential if rail is to attract and retain freight customers. British Rail's trainload freight subsidiaries and rail express systems have been sold; final bids for Freightliner are being evaluated. Two companies have set up own-account rail freight operations using powers in the Railways Act 1993. We continue to provide targeted support for the industry through the two freight grant schemes.

  Motorways (Repairs)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the state of repair of(a) the M4 and (b) other motorway routes. [24736]

  Mr. Watts
  Over the last 12 months there have been no representations on the state of repair of the M4 in England.

  On other motorway routes there have been a total of four representations, relating to the M11 in Cambridgeshire and near Bishop's Stortford, the M25 between junctions 2 and 3, the M69 in Leicestershire and the M42 in the west midlands.

  Rail Franchising
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress on franchising passenger services in the south of England. [24737]

  Mr. Watts
  Franchises have been awarded for South West Trains, Great Western, Gatwick Express and Network SouthCentral. Grants will reduce from £243 million paid to British Rail in 1995–96 to £95 million in year seven for private operators.

  All franchises will operate at least the existing number of trains with some service enhancements. London and South Coast Railways, which has been awarded the Network SouthCentral franchise, intends to introduce new off-peak and Sunday services to south London.
  35
  Invitations to tender have been issued for other south of England franchises—South Eastern, Chiltern and South Wales and West—and LTS Rail has been re-tendered to previously shortlisted bidders.

  Road Fatalities
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the trend in the numbers of road fatalities in the past 10 years. [24740]

  Mr. Norris
  In the 10 years to 1994, fatalities have fallen by 35 per cent., from 5,599 in 1984 to 3,650 in 1994.

  Public Transport (Investment)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To the Secretary of State for Transport what increases in the level of investment in public transport have taken place following reductions in the roads budget within the last year. [24742]

  Mr. Norris
  Our priority, as far as possible, has been to maintain funding for public transport in the face of an overall reduction in the transport budget. Rail investment is expected to increase significantly above the £1 billion spent last year, following privatisation of Railtrack and other businesses, while investment in London Transport this year will be at around last year's historically high level of £1.1 billion. Details are set out in the Transport report 1996, CM 3206.

  Buses (Standing Passengers)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about standing passengers on buses. [24744]

  Mr. Norris
  I have received representations over the past 12 months which reflect concerns ranging from safety to the comfort of standing passengers. They have been in the context of both the current United Kingdom legislation and the effects of possible harmonisation of bus and coach construction requirements across the EU.

  East London Line
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has recently had with London Transport on the East London line; and if he will make a statement. [24745]

  Mr. Norris
  I often discuss the East London line with the chairman of London Transport at our regular meetings.

  Robin Hood Line
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet local authorities in the east midlands to discuss the completion of the Robin Hood line. [24741]

  Mr. Norris
  My officials are in regular contact with officers of Nottinghamshire county council and partner local authorities about the line. We currently await further information in support of the value for money case for stage 3. I would be happy to meet the local authorities myself if such a meeting would serve a useful purpose but have no current plans to do so.

  Supplementary Track Access Charges
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much additional subsidy has been made available to train operating companies and freight operating companies to cover the cost of supplementary track access charges. [24548]

  Mr. Watts
  The level of grant paid by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising to passenger train operating companies takes into account all factors, including likely financial efforts of the introduction of the track access performance regime and the expected level of compensation payments from Railtrack.

  Overall the level of grant paid by Opraf to the first five franchises by year seven will be one third the current funding paid to BR.

  Crash Barriers
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what studies he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into (i) the need to erect a barrier fence to prevent vehicles coming into collision with mature trees planted on embankments and verges, (ii) hazards posed by the installation of an intermittent barrier, (iii) means to prevent the impact of vehicles with lighting columns installed on verges and embankments and (iv) the use of barriers to prevent vehicles coming into contact with adjacent roads, waterways and other hazards; [25144]

  (2) what his policy is on the installation of crash cushions; [25148]

  (3) what criteria determine whether the drop on verge side of a road or carriageway should be protected by a verge barrier; and when such criteria were last revised; [25142]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the effect of installation of crash cushions on (a) the Birmingham ring road, (b) the Aston expressway, (c) the Stourbridge ring road, (d) the black country route and (e) the Queen Elizabeth II bridge; [25150]

  (5) if he will commission a study to consider provision of a continuous verge barrier on roads, motorways and dual carriageways (i) with traffic flows of greater than 10, 000 vehicles per day and (ii) with an accident incidence rate of more than 1.5 times the average for that class of road. [25145]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Patrick Nicholls, dated 22 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent questions about the use of crash cushions and safety fences and barriers at the roadside verge.
  Where a safety problem is identified on the highway it is the Agency's practice to consider what the range of options are for dealing with it. These options would embrace both measures that would help to avoid the risk occurring in the first place and those that would mitigate the effect of an accident should one occur. Thus, should a situation arise where the use of crash cushions was an option, then it would be considered alongside other possible options. It is difficult to generalise as to where and in what circumstances they would be used since this depends to a large extent on the local situation in terms of type of problem, highway layout and other local factors.

  37
  The Highways Agency has made no assessment of the crash cushions installed on the following roads since none of them form part of the trunk road network:

  (a) Birmingham Ring Road,

  (b) Aston Expressway,

  (c) Stourbridge Ring Road and

  (d) Black Country Route.

  Since 1991 the operator of the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge has reported 9 incidents of vehicular impact with the crash cushions installed at the toll booth buffers.
  Regarding the use of vehicle restraint systems along the verges of highways, the criteria for their application, last revised in 1985, are given in the Highways Agency Standard TD19/85 "Safety Fences and Barriers". A copy is in the House of Commons Library. Prior to this revision a study was carried out into the need to protect vehicles from mature trees on the embankments or verges of highways as well as the need to protect adjacent roads, waterways and other hazards. The results of this study were incorporated into the advice given in TD19/85. This Standard is currently under review to see whether any changes are required to cater for example, intermittent safety fences and barriers and protection to lighting columns. In making the review we will be taking account of international best practice.
  Regarding your question on the use of continuous verge barriers, I would point out that nearly all trunk roads have traffic flows greater than 10,000 vehicles per day. The cost of providing continuous verge barriers on all motorways and trunk roads is estimated at over £500 million and unlikely to be cost effective. Where accident rates are above average along a stretch of road, or at a particular site or junction, they are investigated to determine if there is an identifiable cause that can be remedied. Verge barriers would be provided if that was the appropriate solution.
  The present policy of only providing vehicle protection at identified obstructions and hazards is well tested and considered to be cost effective. It is reviewed from time to time and amended in the light of changing circumstances if this was cost effective to do so. In the circumstances I see no need to commission a study to consider the provision of continuous verge barriers at the moment.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated value of each of the publicly owned assets which will be handed over to London and Continental Railways in respect of the channel tunnel rail link. [25594]

  Mr. Watts
  The two Government-owned companies, Union Railways and European Passenger Services, will be transferred to London and Continental Railways. The net assets of these companies are contained in their annual report and accounts, copies of which are in the Library of the House. Valuations of certain specific assets—including valuations for the King's Cross and Stratford railway lands and St. Pancras Station, which are to be leased or transferred to London and Continental but which do not form part of Union Railways—were given in answers to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 12 March 1996,Official Report, column 572, on 13 March 1996, columns 606-607 and on 14 March 1996, columns 720-21

  Parking
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of local government control of parking; and if he will make a statement. [25033]
  38
  Mr. Norris
  The enforcement of on-street parking restrictions by London boroughs since they assumed this responsibility in July 1994 has proved a success. Enforcement has been more effectively directed to support traffic management priorities, and traffic flow has improved as a result. Local authorities outside London have been invited to apply to the Secretary of State to assume this responsibility.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many heavy goods vehicles on Department of Transport contracts in relation to(a) the second Severn crossing and (b) other contracts have been found to be in breach of transport regulations. [26278]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many appointments to the public bodies listed in "Public Bodies" for his Department were made during 1994–95 from names supplied by the public appointments unit; and if he will list them. [25962]

  Mr. Norris
  One such appointment was made—Mr. Kenneth Ashcroft, who was appointed to Trinity House lighthouse authority in April 1994.

  Rural Bus Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the provision of rural bus services; and if he will make a statement. [24739]

  Mr. Norris
  The provision of rural bus services has been monitored and evaluated in an extensive programme of research undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory on behalf of the Department of Transport.

  Transportation Links (North-west)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from industry regarding improvement of transportation links to the north-west. [24731]

  Sir George Young
  I regularly receive representations from industry about the improvement of transportation links to the north west.

  Pollution
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to reduce(a) the number of vehicle journeys and (b) pollution from motor vehicles following the two most recent reports from the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants; and if he will make a statement. [24743]

  Mr. Norris
  Following the publication in November 1995 on "Non Biological Particles and Health" by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, the Government issued a preliminary response. The response set out policy measures from all sectors including road transport to abate emissions of particles to address both the findings of this report and the recommendation for an
  39
  air quality standard for particles from the expert panel of air quality standards published at the same time. The Government undertook to progress the matter in the context of the air quality strategy being prepared under the Environment Act 1995 which will be issued for consultation later this year.

  The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants report, "Asthma and Outdoor Pollution", was published in October 1995. The report found that the link between air pollution and asthma in the United Kingdom was much less definite than has been suggested. Further research will be carried out as a part of a programme of
  40
  work into air pollution and respiratory disease funded by the Department of Health, the Department of the Environment and the Medical Research Council.

  Network SouthCentral
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the levels of investment in Network SouthCentral. [24729]

  Mr. Watts
  Earlier this month, the Network SouthCentral rail franchise was awarded to London and South Coast Ltd. The company plans to invest some £10 million over the next three years, the bulk of it in rolling stock and stations.

WALES

  Neighbourhood Hospitals
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which neighbourhood hospitals have general practice beds; on what terms; in what numbers; and if he will make a statement. [26242]

  Mr. Hague
  As there is no official definition of "neighbourhood hospital", all hospitals which had general practice beds during 1994–95 are listed in the following table. Information on the terms on which these beds are administered is not held centrally.

  Hospital

  GP beds1

  Aberbargoed

  6.5

  Aberdare

  3.7

  Abertillery

  16.2

  Amman Valley

  14.0

  Barry Community

  30.0

  Blaenavon Health Care Unit

  10.0

  Blaina and District

  17.2

  Breconshire War Memorial

  40.0

  Bridgend General

  10.1

  Broddyfi Community

  14.0

  Bronllys

  11.0

  Bronygarth

  10.2

  Bryn Beryl

  23.0

  Builth Wells Cottage

  23.0

  Cardigan and District

  30.0

  Chirk Community

  31.0

  Colwyn Bay Community

  42.0

  County

  17.7

  Deeside Community

  31.0

  Denbigh Community

  50.3

  Dewi Sant

  12.0

  Dollgellau and Barmouth

  20.6

  Ebbw Vale

  13.8

  Ffestiniog Memorial

  17.0

  Flint Community

  18.0

  Holywell Community

  19.0

  Knighton

  15.0

  Llandovery

  18.4

  Llandrindod Wells

  36.0

  Llangollen Community

  18.0

  Llanidloes and District War Memorial

  17.0

  Llwynypia

  2.7

  Maesgwyn

  10.0

  Maesteg General

  44.6

  Mold Community

  40.0

  Monmouth General

  15.0

  Montgomeryshire County Infirmary

  25.1

  Mount Pleasant, Gwent

  20.0

  Mountain Ash General

  35.8

  Mynydd Mawr

  0.3

  Nevill Hall

  6.8

  Prestatyn Community

  11.8

  Redwood Memorial

  11.0

  Royal Alexandra

  23.0

  Royal Gwent

  11.1

  Ruthin Community

  46.2

  South Pembrokeshire

  41.8

  Stanley Sailors

  16.0

  Tenby Cottage

  16.0

  Tredegar General

  9.5

  Treherbert

  33.0

  Tywyn and District War Memorial

  14.7

  Valley

  12.7

  Victoria Memorial

  23.0

  42

  Hospital

  GP beds1

  Withybush General

  7.9

  Ysbyty George Thomas

  10.1

  Ystradgynlais Community

  14.0

  1Average daily available.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which Welsh NHS community health care trusts employ salaried dentists. [26288]

  Mr. Hague
  At 30 September 1995, the following Welsh NHS trusts employed community dental officers:

  Cardiff Community Healthcare

  Carmarthen and District

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  Clwydian Community Care

  Gwent Community

  Gwynedd Community

  Llandough

  Llanelli Dinefwr

  Pembrokeshire

  Powys Health Care

  University Dental hospital

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what(a) was the gross public spending for each year since 1990–91, in 1995–96 prices and (b) is the projected expenditure for each year to 1997–98, in 1995–96 prices, of training and enterprise councils. [25977]

  Mr. Richards
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested. Expenditure by Departments on training and enterprise services delivered via TECs in Wales since their inception in 1990–91, together with planned expenditure on such programmes over the next two years, is given in the following table.

  £ thousand

  1990–911

  44,912

  1991–92 outturn

  112,199

  1992–93 outturn

  113,299

  1993–94 outturn

  106,564

  1994–95 outturn

  108,404

  1995–96 provisional outturn

  103,585

  1996–97 provision

  102,480

  1997–98 provision

  101,206

  All figures at 1995–96 prices. Figures exclude any EU funding claimed by TECs on their own behalf.

  1Development phase of TECs in Wales. Network completed in April 1991.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many appointments to the public bodies listed in "Public Bodies" for his Department were made during 1994–95 from names supplied by the public appointments unit; and if he will list them. [25963]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Of the appointments made by the Secretary of State during 1994–95, none was of a candidate whose name had been supplied by the public appointments unit.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Industrial Research and Technology Unit
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how much money was spent on the Industrial Research and Technology Unit of the Department of Economic Development in each year since 1990–91; and what is the planned spending for(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98; [26225]

  (2) how much money is spent on technical clubs established in the textile and food sectors to promote the level of environmental awareness; [26222]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the nature business of the technology development programme in the Department of Economic Development. [26224]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Industrial Research and Technology Unit under its chief executive, Mr. Greg McConnell. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from F. G. McConnell to Mr. Eric Insley, dated 22 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Industrial Research and Technology Unit (IRTU) to reply to your questions about expenditure on IRTU and on Technical Clubs in the textile and food sectors and about the nature and business of the Technology Development Programme.
  IRTU's total expenditure since its establishment in March 1992 and planned expenditure for future years is as follows:

  £ million

  1992–93

  14.3 (actual)

  1993–94

  18.2 (actual)

  1994–95

  18.2 (actual)

  1995–96

  16.9 (estimate)

  1996–97

  17.8 (planned)

  1997–98

  17.8 (planned)

  1898–99

  17.8 (planned)

  Expenditure on environmental awareness raising for industry and commerce as a whole in Northern Ireland was £29, 339 in 1994/95 and £44, 999 in 1995/96. Within this, the total expenditure on the textile and food Technical Clubs is small (£800 to date) and relates only to the administrative expenses of meetings.
  The Technology Development Programme (TDP) is administered by IRTU and funded through EU Structural Funds. The total allocation for TDP is £19.4 million for the period 1994–99. To date £11.4 million has been committed to 9 projects; a further £8 million will be committed in October 1996.
  The aim of TDP is to assist industry and the universities to develop their ability to undertake leading edge, industrially exploitable and commercially focused research. The programme concentrates on five main areas of activity—R&D Facilities, Demonstration Projects, Physical Infrastructure, Collaboration and Calibration, Testing and Standardisation.
  I hope you will find this reply useful.

  New Housing and Roads
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what mechanisms facilitate formal consultation between the various Departments in Northern Ireland regarding the building of(a) new stock by the Housing Executive and (b) new roads. [26196]
  44
  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Planning Service under its chief executive, Mr. T. W. Stewart. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from T W. Stewart to Mr. Eric Risley, dated 22 April 1996:
  Mr. Moss has asked me to reply to your Question about what mechanisms facilitate formal consultations between various Departments in Northern Ireland regarding the building of (a) new stock by the Housing Executive and (b) new roads.
  All formal consultation on new developments including housing and roads proposals are dealt with through the normal planning procedure set out in the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. This involves a wide range of consultations with statutory and non-statutory bodies including local district councils, the Department of the Environment and its various Agencies (Roads, Water, Environment and Heritage), plus the public and interested community groups. There is also wide consultation at the inception stage through the Area Plan consultation process for each local district area.

  Community Projects
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons there is a planned decrease in spending on community projects within the Department of Economic Development in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [26203]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. Eric Illsley, dated 22 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your question about the funding of community projects.
  The decision to reduce the budget allocated to the Action for Community Employment (ACE) programme was taken against the background of the very encouraging performance of the Northern Ireland economy. With unemployment now at its lowest level for 14 years, employment opportunities increasing and with record numbers of job vacancies being notified by employers to Training and Employment Agency offices, the need to maintain community based temporary work programmes at former levels has diminished. Public Expenditure priorities have moved towards measures which will further encourage and sustain these very positive economic trends.
  This Agency recognises a continuing need to assist job seekers and, in addition to its many other services and programmes, still expects to spend £46 million this financial year to provide over 8000 places for the long term unemployed on community based projects funded under ACE and the pilot Community Work Programme. In addition, £2 million is available under the package of support for ACE schemes announced by Baroness Denton on 19 February 1996.
  I hope that you find this reply helpful.

  Out-of-town Retail Centres
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what formal public consultation is required in respect of plans to develop out-of-town retail centres. [26205]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Planning Service under its chief executive, Mr. T. W. Stewart. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  45
  Letter from T. W. Stewart to Mr. Eric Illsley, dated 22 April 1996:
  Mr Moss has asked me to reply to your Question about formal public consultations in respect of plans to develop out of town retail centres.
  Where an application for planning permission is made, except in certain minor cases, Article 21 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 requires that a notice of the application is published in at least one newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land to which the application site relates is situated. In addition, occupiers of land adjoining the application site are notified by means of a non statutory Neighbour Notification Scheme. The appropriate local District Council is also consulted on all applications.
  Certain major applications are subjected to special procedures under Article 31 of the 1991 Order which may involve the holding of a local public inquiry by the Planning Appeals Commission for the purpose of considering and reporting on representations made in respect of an application.

  Political Organisations
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the evidence he has collated about the existence of(a) the British Ulster Unionist party, (b) Democratic Partnership, (c) Independent Democratic Unionist party, (d) No Going Back, (e) the Northern Ireland party, (f) the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, (g) Ulster Christian Democrat party and (h) Ulster's Independent Voice; and which have functioned as political parties. [25979]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Each of these organisations responded to the consultation paper issued by the Government on 3 April, and made representations to be included on the list of political parties eligible to contest the forthcoming elections in Northern Ireland.

SCOTLAND

  Barlinnie Prison (Asbestos)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date the Scottish Prison Service chief executive received the report of the Institute of Occupational Medicine on residual asbestos remaining in Barlinnie prison. [24871]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. John McFall, dated 22 April 1996:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question asking about the date on which I received the report of the Institute of Occupational Medicine (TOM) on residual asbestos remaining in Barlinnie Prison.
  The report was received in SPS HQ on 25 January and was passed to Barlinnie on 26 January. Subsequent tests which the IOM undertook on Barlinnie's behalf during March confirmed that asbestos levels were well within the safety limits. Tenders are now being sought for the immediate removal of what has been classified as "poor" quality asbestos. Other areas where asbestos is present but is classified as being either in a good or fair condition will be removed as part of an action plan being prepared by local management. In the meantime such areas will be monitored regularly at 3 monthly intervals, and where there are any signs of deterioration, arrangements will be made immediately for appropriate removal.

  Electricity Generating Plants
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the capacity utilisation of electricity generating plants in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [25315]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The total electricity generating capacity in Scotland is approximately 10 GW. This total excludes the oil-fired generating station at Inverkip which is presently under care and maintenance. Scotland's peak winter demand is about 6 GW.

  Gas-fired Generating Unit (Gartcosh)
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the consequences for the Scottish coal industry of the proposed gas-fired generating unit at Gartcosh. [25314]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  PowerGen's application for consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to build a gas-fired generating plant at Gartcosh is at present the subject of a consultation exercise. It would not be appropriate for me to make any assessment of the possible impact of PowerGen's proposals until the consultation exercise is complete. It may be appropriate to hold a public inquiry.

  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to make a decision on a public inquiry into the application under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 by Powergen to construct a gas-fired generating unit at Gartcosh. [25316]

  Mr. Forsyth
  The relevant planning authority has a statutory period of four months in which to submit a report to me on PowerGen's proposal to build a power station at Gartcosh. Once the report is received, I will consider it together with the advice of my consultees and any representations I may receive from other interested parties. I will then decide whether it is necessary to hold a public inquiry. Such an inquiry is mandatory if the planning authority formally objects to the proposals.

  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he plans to hold before reaching a decision on the application under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 submitted to him by Powergen. [25317]

  Mr. Forsyth
  Before determining PowerGen's application, I shall follow the procedures set out in the Electricity Act 1989 and the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1988, which entail giving due consideration to the views of the relevant planning authority. I shall also consult other interested parties, including Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. It is open to interested parties to respond to the proposals. I shall take account of all representations received.

  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to make a decision on the application by PowerGen for consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to construct a gas-fired generating unit at Gartcosh. [25318]

  Mr. Forsyth
  PowerGen's application for consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 was received in the Scottish Office on 5 March. It is not possible at this stage for me to give an idea as to when I will be in a position to reach a decision on the application.
  47
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the applications for consent he has received under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989; and what decisions he has made on those applications. [25319]

  Applicant

  Application date

  Proposals

  Decision date

  Decision

  Hydro-Electric

  4 March 1991

  Extension to Peterhead power station

  5 June 1991

  Approved

  Scottish Nuclear Ltd.

  1 may 1992

  Dry Store for spent fuel Storage, Torness, East Lothian

  Application withdrawn 10 May 1995

  —

  ScottishPower

  16 September 1992

  Extension to Valleyfied Ash Lagoons, Valleyfied, Fife

  12 May 1994

  Approved

  Global Energy Ltd.

  24 March 1993

  Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle power station (75mw) Westfield, Fife

  15 July 1993

  Approved

  Hydro-Electric

  6 April 1994

  Extension to Lerwick power station

  31 May 1994

  Approved

  Scottish Power

  1 July 1994

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation Plant at Longannet Power Station, Fife

  23 February 1995 Approved

  Norweb

  10 March 1995

  Hydro electricity generating scheme (3.2mw), Inverbroom, Wester Ross

  Under consideration

  —

  Highland Light and Power

  22 December 1995

  Hydro electricity generating scheme (2.1mw), Gairloch Estate, Wester Ross

  Under consideration

  —

  PowerGen

  1 March 1996

  Combined Cycle Gas Turbine power station (350mw x 2), Gartcosh, Near Coatbridge

  Under consideration

  —

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the present arrangements for the electricity interconnector between England and Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [25321]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The arrangements for the operation of the electricity interconnector between Scotland and England are a matter for its owners, those who have contracted to use it and the regulator.

  Charities
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what restrictions are placed on the activities of registered charities which bring financial benefit to private companies. [25450]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  If a Scottish charity that is a recognised body under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 were to apply its funds to bring financial benefit to a private company, the Inland Revenue would consider the extent to which its tax exemption would be restricted. In addition, the Scottish Charities Office has power to investigate any alleged misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of a Scottish charity.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many consultants have been engaged by the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department to monitor the implementation and operation of environmentally sensitive area plans; and what is the cost of such monitoring operations; [23013]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the remit of consultants engaged by his Department to evaluate the existing management plans in environmentally sensitive areas; [23014]
  48
  Mr. Forsyth
  The information is set out in the table, which lists all section 36 applications received the Scottish Office since the Electricity 1989 was introduced.

  (3) steps have been taken by his Department to identify the extent to which locally based farmers or crofters may be employed by his Department for the purposes of monitoring and evaluating environmentally sensitive area plans. [23015]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: A 10-year contract for monitoring the environmentally sensitive area scheme was won in competition by a consortium comprising the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland and AOC Scotland Ltd. Their remit is to assess the impact of the scheme on the biological, landscape and archaeological interest within each area. The average annual cost is £300,000.

  To complement this work, local agricultural staff undertake an annual review of individual farm and croft conservation plans to ensure that the requirements of the scheme are being met and the conservation objectives achieved. I am satisfied that this co-ordinated approach represents the best value for money.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training Allowance
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much the present minimum weekly training allowance for youth training would be currently, if it had been uprated in line with inflation since 1990. [25443]

  Mr. Paice
  The present minimum weekly training allowance for youth training, which may be supplemented by employers, would be £37.93 for 16-year-olds and £45 for 17-year-olds and above if it had been uprated in line with inflation since 1990
  49
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will give the number and percentage of young people in Sunderland who are participating in youth training and the percentage who are receiving more than the minimum allowance from employers or training provider. [25444]

  Mr. Paice
  Some 2, 100 young people in Sunderland are currently participating in youth training. Of the 16-year-old cohort eligible to leave school in the summer of 1995, 25 per cent. in Sunderland went into youth training. Information on those who are receiving more than the minimum allowance in Sunderland is not available.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to increase the minimum weekly training allowance for youth training. [25442]

  Mr. Paice
  There are no plans to increase the minimum weekly training allowance.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which TECs have set(a) higher minimum levels of training allowance non-employed trainees than the minimum permitted and (b) more than the 19.5 days per annum holiday. [25445]

  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils are free to set allowances above the minimum. Information on TEC practice in this connection is not held centrally.

  British Steel
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total value of commercial orders placed by her Department, and by the Education and Employment Departments prior to merger, with British Steel plc in each year from 1988 to 1995. [25813]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is not available without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the providers participating in phase 1 of the voucher scheme will be inspected(a) within three months, (b) within six months, (c) within nine months and (d) within 12 months of beginning to operate under the voucher scheme. [25605]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Inspections by registered nursery education inspectors cannot begin until after the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill has received Royal Assent. The Office for Standards in Education's initial planning estimate is that all voluntary and private providers will be inspected within their first year of operation—that is, by April 1997.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many providers 50
  who have been given initial validation in respect of phase 1 of the voucher scheme will provide (a) one session a week, (b) two sessions a week, (c) three sessions a week, (d) four sessions a week and (e) five sessions a week; [25601]

  (2) what proportion of vouchers in phase 1 of the voucher scheme have been redeemed in respect of places (a) in the private sector, (b) in the voluntary sector and (c) in the maintained sector. [25598]

  Mr. Squire
  Information on where parents have chosen to redeem nursery education vouchers, and on the number of sessions provided, will be available once vouchers returned from providers have been analysed.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will set out the calculation which underlay the ministerial statement that under the scheme of vouchers for pre-school education a local authority will be better off if just one additional four-year-old is able to use its provisions. [25851]

  Mr. Squire
  In phase 2, the deduction from each local authority's budget will be the voucher value multiplied by the number of four-year-olds in maintained provision in that local education authority area in the 1995–96 academic year, taking into account the number of terms for which each child attends. If the LEA recruits the same number of four-year-olds in the same termly pattern, all this money will be recovered. If the local authority provides for an additional four-year-old, an additional voucher, or a portion of that sum, depending on the number of terms that child is in school, will pass to the LEA. The arrangements in phase 1 are similar, except for an adjustment to allow for four-year-old pupils resident outside the phase 1 areas and who therefore do not hold vouchers.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many institutions in the(a) private, (b) voluntary and (c) maintained sectors have applied for initial validation in phase 1 of the voucher scheme; and how many such institutions did not previously provide places for four-year-olds. [25604]

  Mr. Squire
  Six hundred and twenty-eight private and voluntary sector and 494 maintained sector providers have been initially validated to date. Forty of these did not have any four-year-olds on roll at the time of registration, but had capacity to provide for them.

  Implementation Group on Information Technology
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what were the total preparation and publication costs of the Follett report; [25596]

  (2) what have been the total operational costs of the Follett implementation group on information technology; and to whom that money was awarded. [25597]
  51
  Mr. Forth
  These are matters for the higher education funding bodies. I have asked the chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England to respond in writing to the hon. Member.

  Sight and Sound
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will investigate the award of contracts to Sight and Sound by the former South Thames training and enterprise council. [26285]

  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils are private companies. The award of contracts by TECs to providers of training is a matter for the companies concerned.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will investigate the quality of courses being operated by Sight and Sound through through training and enterprise council. [26284]

  Item

  Tax satisfied £

  Conditions as to destination

  Date of MGC recommendations

  George I pier glasses

  128,086.00

  Conditional

  20 January 1994

  Reynolds' Count Ugolino

  121,067.00

  Conditional

  15 December 1994

  Three Nicholson paintings, two Hepworth drawings and collection of miscellaneous

  225,400.00

  Conditional

  17 November 1994

  Chattels from Killerton

  206,816.65

  Conditional

  31 October 1994

  Two silver gilt steeple cups

  84,000.00

  Conditional

  6 September 1994

  Drais gold snuff box

  8,750.00

  Conditional

  1 June 1995

  Eddison collection of theatre material

  117,660.00

  Wish

  20 December 1994

  Paris Bordon "Return from the Flight to Egypt"

  430,794.00

  Conditional

  25 April 1995

  Luca Cambiaso "Christ brought before Pontius Pilate"

  70,000.00

  Unconditional

  29 August 1995

  Yves Tanguy "La Journée Bleue"

  280,000.00

  Conditional

  22 May 1995

  Lord Keeper's Cup

  47,985.15

  Unconditional

  27 April 1995

  Langford-Brooke Archive

  42,000.00

  Wish

  26 July 1995

  Aboriginal Bark paintings and prints

  12,201.00

  Unconditional

  15 August 1995

  Joseph Wright "Two Girls Dressing a Kitten"

  31,339.41

  Conditional

  1 March 1996

  Bottger Teapot

  35,000.00

  Unconditional

  20 April 1995

  German Stoneware

  140,000.00

  Unconditional

  1 June 1995

  Gell Family Papers

  79,359.79

  Wish

  7 March 1996

  Stubbs "Lemon and White Spaniel"

  840,000.00

  Wish

  28 July 1995

  French Furniture

  2,170,000.00

  Conditional

  18 July 1994

  Six works of art including paintings by Dubuffet, Hodgkin, and Caulfield and a sculpture by Brancusi

  4,336,500.00

  Wish

  27 April 1995

  The total expenditure in respect of the AIL scheme for the financial year 1995–96 was £9,406,959. Three offers, for which a total of £7,346,500 tax was forgone, and for which the DNH accordingly paid the Inland Revenue, were met by calls on the reserve.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agriculture Council
  Sir Jim Lester
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Luxembourg on 1 April; and if he will make a statement. [24702]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement to the House on 3 April 1996,Official Report, columns 405-408.
  52
  Mr. Paice
  This is for the training and enterprise councils to investigate under the "TEC Quality Assurance: Supplier Management" framework.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Acceptance in Lieu of Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the objects and property accepted in satisfaction of inheritance tax during the financial year ended 31 March; and if she will specify(a) the amount of tax satisfied in each case, (b) which offers carried conditions as to destination, (c) the date in each case of the recommendations received by her from the Museums and Galleries Commission for the acceptance of objects, (d) the total for the financial year of the tax thus satisfied and (e) how much of this total was covered in the public accounts by means of resort to the reserve in accordance with Government policy as announced on 26 July 1985, Official Report, column 779. [25516]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information requested is follows:

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money was spent, under the common agricultural policy, on set-aside in the United Kingdom in 1995; and how much will be spent in 1996. [26230]

  Mr. Baldry
  Payments for set-aside in the UK in the 1995–96 financial year are estimated to total £214.6 million. The estimate for payments in 1996–97 is £226.3 million.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of CAP fraud were reported in each year since 1993, in Great Britain. [26216]

  Mr. Baldry
  Fraud is difficult to define, being a matter of criminal intention. However, the United Kingdom, along with all other member states, is required to report to the Commission cases of irregularity in CAP schemes,
  53
  exceeding 4, 000 ecu. An irregularity is an overclaim on the part of the claimant, either deliberately or through error. The information for the period in question for the United Kingdom is as follows:

  Number of cases

  Year

  Totals

  1993

  179

  1994

  228

  1995

  219

  Source:

  UK CAP scheme irregularities reported under Council regulation 595/91.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which(a) the Government are required to consult prior to legislative proposals and (b) the Government are required to publish their response to advice supplied by them. [21852]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 21 March 1996]: Under section 62(3) of the Medicines Act 1968, Agriculture Ministers are required to consult the Veterinary Products Committee before making an order. There is no requirement to consult our other advisory non-departmental public bodies prior to legislative proposals nor to publish our response to advice supplied by them, or the Veterinary Products Committee.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many appointments to the public bodies listed in "Public Bodies" for his Department were made during 1994–95 from names supplied by the public appointments unit; and if he will list them. [25949]

  Mr. Willetts
  Seventeen new appointments were made in 1994–95 to the public bodies sponsored by the Departments and agencies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible. None was as a result of information supplied by the public appointments unit.

  Public Appointments Unit
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many people from each region appear on both the public appointments unit central and reserve lists. [25964]

  Mr. Willetts
  It is not possible to give fully accurate information as individuals may be counted as being in more one region if they live in one area and work in another, or if they have homes in different areas.

  Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also maintain their own central lists.

  The available information requested is as follows
  54

  Region

  Number of people on the public appointments unit list

  East Anglia

  708

  East Midlands

  258

  West Midlands

  315

  South East

  2,622

  Northern

  174

  North West

  282

  South West

  401

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  286

  Northern Ireland

  19

  Scotland

  1130

  Wales

  1106

  Elsewhere

  236

  Total

  5,327

  1Individuals in this category are those who are currently living or working overseas.

  2This figure is higher than the total number of people currently on the public appointments unit's list (5, 085 at 18 April 1996).

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the public appointments made in 1994–95 were public appointments unit nominees; and if he will list these appointments. [25947]

  Mr. Willetts
  The public appointments unit believes that 180 appointments were made following nomination by the unit during 1994–95. A list of these appointments is as follows:Nationalised Industries and Public Corporations:

  Commonwealth Development Corporation—1 appointment

  Independent Television Commission—1 appointment

  Radio Authority—4 appointments

  Executive Bodies:

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council— 2 appointments

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe— 1 appointment

  Broadcasting Standards Council— 1 appointment

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (UK)—2 appointments

  Coal Authority—3 appointments

  Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council—1 appointment

  Equal Opportunities Commission—1 appointment

  Gaming Board for Great Britain—1 appointment

  Home Grown Cereals Authority—1 appointment

  Housing Action Trust—1 appointment

  Legal Aid Board—2 appointments

  Marshal Aid Commemoration Commission—1 appointment

  Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council—3 appointments

  Police Complaints Authority—1 appointment

  Public Health Laboratory Services Board—1 appointment

  Regional Flood Defence Committees—3 appointments

  Remploy—1 appointment

  Royal Armouries Board of Trustees—1 appointment

  Sea Fish Industry Authority—1 appointment

  Teacher Training Agency—1 appointment

  Trinity House Lighthouse Board—1 appointment

  Water Customer Service Committee—1 appointment

  Welsh Consumer Council—1 appointment

  55
  Advisory Bodies:

  Advisory Board on Restricted Patients—1 appointment

  Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations—2 appointments

  Advisor Council on Public Records—1 appointment

  Armed Forces Pay Review Body—1 appointment

  Agricultural Marketing Act Committees of Investigation—1 appointment

  Animal Procedures Committee—1 appointment

  Business Advisory Committee on Telecommunications—1 appointment

  Committees for the Employment of People with Disabilities—10 appointments

  Council on Tribunals—1 appointment

  Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board—1 appointment

  Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body—2 appointments

  Electricity Consumer Committees—2 appointments

  English Advisory Committee on Telecommunications—1 appointment

  Nurses', Midwives' and other NHS Professions' Review Body—4 appointments

  Parole Board—1 appointment

  Race Relations Employment Advisory Group—4 appointments

  Schoolteachers' Review Body—1 appointment

  Senior Salaries Review Body—3 appointments

  Standing Committee on Postgraduate Medical Education—1 appointment

  Transport Users' Consultative Committee—1 appointment

  Tribunals:

  Employment Appeal Tribunal— 3 appointments

  Financial Services Tribunal— 7 appointments

  Social Security Appeal Tribunals—1 appointment

  National Health Service Bodies:

  District Health Authority—1 appointment

  Family Health Service Authority—2 appointments

  National Health Service Trusts—6 appointments

  Special Health Authorities—2 appointments

  56
  Executive Agency and other Management Boards:

  CCTA Programme Management Advisory Board—3 appointments

  Driving Standards Advisory Board—1 appointment

  Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency—1 appointment

  Ordnance Survey Management Board—1 appointment

  MOD Disposal Sales Agency Management Board—1 appointment

  MOD Management Audit Board—1 appointment

  Pesticides Safety Directorate Ownership Board—1 appointment

  Prison Service Industries and Farms Management Board—1 appointment

  Security Facilities Executive Agency—1 appointment

  Services Sound and Vision Corporation Management Board—1 appointment

  Other Appointments:

  Advisory Group on Eco Management and Audit—1 appointment

  Assessment Panel for Construction Research—1 appointment

  British Coal Pension Scheme—1 appointment

  Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges Steering Committee—1 appointment

  Charity Commissioner (part—time)—1 appointment

  General Medical Council—1 appointment

  HM Inspectorate of Pollution Advisory Committee—1 appointment

  Insurance Brokers Registration Council—1 appointment

  MOD Review of Service Career and Manpower Structures and Terms and Conditions of Service—1 appointment

  National Theatre Board—1 appointment

  New Horizons for Women Event (Norwich)—1 appointment

  Office of Fair Trading Senior Management Review—1 appointment

  Police Authorities—15 appointments

  Police Authorities Selection Panels—39 appointments

  Public Works Loan Board—1 appointment

  Solicitors Complaints Bureau Adjudication and Appeals Committee—1 appointment

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

Law of Murder Review
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the reasons for the Home Secretary's continuing delay in publishing the report of the review of the law of murder, announced on 24th January 1995, and his conclusions thereon.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, this was always a sensitive and complex issue. However, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced the Government's conclusions on the review of the law of murder on 19th April when a copy of the report was placed in the Library. The Government are not persuaded that an adequate case has been made to change the law.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer and also for her courtesy in sending me a copy of the report last Friday. It was the third time of asking and it demonstrated the validity of the proposition that perseverance doth keep honour bright.
I have two questions of the Minister, the first of which she will probably agree with but the second probably not. The first question is: does she agree that the essential question for the interdepartmental steering group was a short one; namely, where the accused overreacted and used excessive force to defend himself or prevent crime, but believed that such force was necessary and reasonable, he should be guilty of manslaughter and not murder, as recommended by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, the Law Commission and your Lordships' Select Committee and as supported by the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland and your Lordships' Appellate Committee in the Clegg case?
The second question is: does the Minister agree that the Home Secretary rejected those recommendations for a wholly fallacious reason; namely, and I quote from the report,
"because the defendant could only",
and I emphasise the word "only",
"be convicted of manslaughter",
thereby missing the entire point that in manslaughter the judge has the fullest discretion to sentence from life imprisonment down to conditional discharge?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as regards the second question, I certainly do not agree that my right honourable friend has been fallacious at all. As regards the first question, there were four specific questions before the review. The first was whether a person who
892
used excessive force resulting in death in self-defence or the maintenance of law and order should be liable to a charge of murder, manslaughter or some other charge. All previous reports were taken into account in coming to a view about that. The second was whether any specific, complete or partial defences should be provided. The third was whether a new defence or offence should apply only to soldiers and police officers or more generally. The fourth was whether official guidance to soldiers and police officers on the use of firearms should have any status in law. My right honourable friend commissioned that review. The review body has reported and its considerations are before your Lordships.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask a short and simple question? As this is a matter of considerable urgency and great importance, when may we expect a Bill?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is a matter of some importance but not of great urgency because the recommendation is that there should be no change.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister will accept that this is not and should not be a party political issue. Perhaps I may concentrate on one of the issues with which the review was concerned, which is the question of whether there should be a separate law for the Armed Forces and the police? Will the Minister take it that we on these Benches strongly support the view that terrorism should be countered within the existing criminal law and that it would be wrong to have a separate law for the Armed Services and the police? Will she confirm that the Armed Forces and the police representatives would oppose such a change, as stated in the review?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am happy to put on record that the noble Lord has been entirely consistent over this matter. There has been a considerable body of evidence to support the conclusion that there should be no distinction between uniformed personnel and ordinary civilians.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us believe that the Government are extremely sensible not to become entangled in further amendments to the law on this somewhat controversial issue and believe that they are wise to leave things as they are?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's comments. It is worth noting that the conclusion, albeit that it discussed a third option, was anything but unequivocal on the point. It said that it gave rise to considerable debate.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many of us on these Benches have views exactly the opposite to those of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we live in a democracy and everybody has a right to a view. Having read the

893
report, I believe that it is painstaking in its consideration of these matters and that, on balance, the conclusion that it is not an easy subject, but rather a difficult and delicate one, is correct.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the decision in the report strengthens even further the case for the abolition of the statutory mandatory life sentence?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it depends how one reads the conclusions. The report says that it is difficult to make changes in that particular aspect of the law without regarding more fundamental issues. However, the report does not conclude that we should necessarily resort to a fundamental review.

Mr. Jason Mitchell: Inquiry Findings
2.44 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take following the inquiry into the case of Mr. Jason Mitchell, a paranoid schizophrenic, who murdered three people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, this was a local inquiry set up by Suffolk Health Authority. I understand that the authority has agreed to invite the inquiry team back in six months' time to review progress in implementing the local recommendations.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware of the very high level of public concern in relation to this question? There are a great many reports of cases of paranoid schizophrenics killing while released into the community. Is she aware that I know of nine such cases where people in that category have killed while in the community? Is she aware that many of us are concerned about the sheer repetition of such cases? I am sure that the noble Baroness will be the first to confirm the high level of public disquiet. One of the reasons for that concern is the acute shortage of community health nurses. Is she aware that only one out of every five schizophrenics in the community has a community health nurse? In that situation, is it sensible for the Government to propose closing 50 psychiatric hospitals in the next five years?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are very much aware of the public disquiet. However, it is interesting to note that convictions for homicide under Section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 and hospital orders imposed under the mental health Acts are no higher now than they were 20 years ago although of course in that time the total number of homicide convictions has increased substantially. However, we realise that there is
894
enormous public disquiet. That is why we are undertaking a major programme to provide medium-secure beds and secure beds. Indeed, for those who do not require 24-hour nursing care, we appreciate what the noble Lord says about community psychiatric nurses. It is our intention to ensure that those numbers are increased.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness when the report on the independent lay assessors is likely to be published? Those outside independent people seem able to overrule the professional opinions of psychiatrists and doctors in insisting on the release of dangerous mental patients, very often with disastrous consequences.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes. The noble Lord is correct that we are at present assessing the role of lay members on the mental health review tribunals. At present, nearly all members have some involvement with mental health services in either a professional or a voluntary capacity. Sometimes that experience and knowledge are of extreme value. But we appreciate that there may need to be a review of the procedures of mental health review tribunals system and that is being undertaken at the moment.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have served on a mental health tribunal and there was great anxiety about the availability of secure beds for potentially dangerous discharged patients? Will my noble friend assure the House that that shortage is being dealt with as a matter of real urgency?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes. Indeed, since 1980 we have increased the number of secure and medium-secure places by 3,500 and there will be an additional 550. Not a single bed of that nature existed in 1980. The whole development has taken place in the past 15 years.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although this report, like so many others, was the function and responsibility of an individual health authority, there are very important national questions associated with it and the fact that the Mental Health Act Commission is the only national organisation which has some responsibility for mentally ill people? In the light of the report, will the Government take a different view about extending the remit of the Mental Health Act Commission so that it covers people like Jason Mitchell who may wander the countryside? There needs to be a central register and understanding of their needs and case histories to enable them to be fully monitored. That does not happen at present.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this is a very interesting report. In its introduction, Louis Blom-Cooper says that among the plethora of inquiries following homicides he believes that the report is unusual in that no one individual is singled out for blame other than

895
Jason Mitchell himself. He says that the killings could not have been predicted and were not preventable, given the nature of the services supplied to Jason Mitchell. He goes on to say:
"Had different steps been taken at various stages from 1989 onwards, the ultimate outcome might have been avoided. But that is like saying, if I had not changed my airline booking, I would have been killed in a crash of the aircraft on which I had originally booked".
Therefore, we must be realistic about this matter. We cannot always prevent such cases from happening. Nevertheless, I appreciate the view of the noble Baroness that we should try to do so whenever it is possible. Perhaps part of that task might be the review of the Mental Health Act. However, we are anxious not to undertake that yet until we have seen some of the recent developments come to fruition, particularly supervision registers and the new power for supervised discharge.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the reasons for public concern is that the Mitchell case is by no means an isolated example, as I indicated earlier? Is the Minister also aware that this man strangled an elderly couple and, thereafter, murdered his own father and dismembered his body? Finally, is the Minister aware that only this morning a further report was published on yet another case in this category—namely, a man called Mr. Nilesh Gadher—who murdered a woman in a west London car park? Surely the reason for public disquiet is fairly obvious. People expect government action on the matter.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that I acknowledged to the noble Lord that there is disquiet. That is why we have put such a huge investment into providing both secure and medium-secure beds. However, I want to reiterate the fact that one cannot always prevent such things from happening. Indeed, in the most recent case of Nilesh Gadher, although the report identifies some failings in management it goes on to say that the team did not consider that a tragedy of this magnitude was predictable. The inquiry also concluded that no one person or agency is to blame for what occurred. I believe that it is unrealistic of the people of this country to think that we can always avoid such cases. Clearly we cannot; and, indeed, they are not even on the increase.

Police Surveillance Cameras
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many police forces now use surveillance cameras in city centres.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this information is not collected centrally. Most town centre or high street CCTV systems, although not necessarily owned or operated by the police, have links with police control rooms and arrangements with the police to view or use images for evidential, investigative or operational purposes.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. However, can she tell me
896
whether statistics are available on the success or otherwise of these cameras? Further, can my noble friend tell the House whether there have been any complaints from civil liberty organisations on their use?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the statistics that we have so far are most encouraging. I shall quote some of them from certain places at random. In the first year, Bedford, Workington, Llanelli, Brentwood, Strathclyde and Swansea recorded figures respectively of 31 per cent., 57 per cent., 34 per cent., 39 per cent., 21 per cent and 51 per cent. reductions in crime over the previous year when they did not have CCTV. The scheme was so successful in Birmingham that it was used by the police in 458 incidents, with 173 arrests directly attributable to CCTV. Finally, in Newcastle there were 800 arrests, 600 of which came to court, where 99 per cent. pleaded guilty because the evidence was so overwhelming. The remaining six defendants who did not plead guilty were in fact found guilty in court. Therefore, the statistics are seriously encouraging.
As regards civil liberties, almost every survey that has been carried out has revealed overwhelming support for closed circuit television. Indeed, in one survey only 6 per cent. of the people questioned believed that it was an intrusion into their liberty.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the dramatic success of the system, can my noble friend the Minister say whether grants for such cameras are available for those communities which are running and financing their own security schemes?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can confirm that they are. There was a substantial scheme last year and, indeed, there is one running at present where an additional £15 million is being made available to community schemes. I believe that over 700 bids have so far been received in that respect. They are being considered by my honourable friend in another place.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the Minister say what governs the use and the release into the public domain of such films?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no government money is granted to any CCTV scheme unless a code of practice has been put in place. That code of practice covers the proper use of such material, whether it is used by the police or in the courts. There was one incident involving the release of a video about which, frankly, we take a dim view. The public outcry about the release of that film was such that we hope it will be an isolated incident. However, most of the closed circuit television schemes which are in place operate a code of practice and take the release of a film extremely seriously. Indeed, it just should not happen.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does not the success that the Minister reported confirm the importance of collaboration between local authorities and the police? Does it not also confirm that we were right during the passage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act to secure that local authorities had an increased role on police authorities? Further, were we not right—although

897
in this case the Government did not agree with us—to insist that crime prevention should be an active and important part of police objectives?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a central plank of government policy in the fight against crime is that there should be collaboration by the whole community with the police. That includes local authorities; indeed, many of the CCTV schemes are run by local authorities in conjunction with business and commerce in their areas and in collaboration with the police. We have never said that it was not a good thing to have collaboration. I believe that the outcome in both Houses of Parliament on that legislation was the right one.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the reasons why there was such a high proportion of guilty pleas as a result of the Newcastle scheme—a scheme at which I had the opportunity to look—was the fact that, when the police indicate they are prepared to make a video of the defendant's behaviour (when he is kicking someone lying on the ground) available to the court, that person is very keen indeed to plead guilty so as to avoid the video being shown to the judge and jury?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, whatever the views of the offender, I believe that we should applaud the fact that he has been caught and that CCTV has helped to catch him. It may well be that the defendant does not wish the film to be seen. However, the fact that such a film is there to be seen does, I believe, act as a great deterrent.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether the statistics to which she referred about the diminution in crime as a result of such measures have taken into account crime throughout the town or city concerned? I ask that question because there is some local belief that, although crime in the city centres has diminished, crime on the outskirts has increased.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was indeed a commonly held perception. However, the research that has been carried out simply does not support that view. Indeed, none of the recent studies suggests that displacement of crime is a problem; for example, one of the main conclusions of the study in Airdrie is that there was no evidence that crimes were displaced from the town centre to areas without CCTV. One of the reasons for that is that it allows the police to target their men and equipment more effectively because they know that one part of the area is being watched by television.

New Cars: Delivery Charges
2.59 p.m.
Lord Strathcarron Lord Strathcarron asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage motor car manufacturers to include delivery and other charges in their quoted prices for new cars.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the
898
Government have no plans to do so. The Government consider that the legislation which regulates car pricing—namely, the Price Marking Order 1991 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987—adequately protects consumers.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Minister for his reply. However, is he aware that the average delivery charge of a new car is in the region of £450, in addition to which there is the cost of number plates? Indeed, the delivery charge in particular is a great shock to many motorists who buy a new car. Is my noble and learned friend also aware that certain manufacturers already quote what are known as on the road prices? They include the delivery charge, the number plates, the road tax at £140, and also a full tank of petrol. Does he not consider this to be a much fairer way of presenting new car prices?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, first of all I am aware that the average delivery price is about £450. As regards all-inclusive on the road prices, I can certainly envisage that for a number of would-be purchasers that would be an extremely attractive way to buy a car as they would know exactly what is involved. However, it seems to me a matter of commercial policy for those who are selling cars to note that those who have adopted this approach—there is a number of them now—have done so successfully and therefore to follow their example. I am not persuaded that it is a matter for government to determine how these commercial decisions should be taken. What is important, however, is that the law should ensure that people are not subject to fraud or are misled about what might be included.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not wish to disagree with that reply. However, I speak as a consumer when I say that I can think of few practices as irritating as that mentioned in the Question, even though one knows it is going to happen. I am perfectly well aware that once one walks into a shop to ask what something costs the price will be marked up. However, has the noble and learned Lord any explanation for what can happen to car buyers, given how annoying it is? Has he any explanation for the fact that many more sellers of cars do not adopt what one would regard as a much more rational and transparent approach? The only practice I know that is as had as the one we are discussing is the selling of computers ex-VAT. That is almost as annoying. However, the matter we are discussing has been getting up my nose for donkey's years. I wonder why the forces of competition do not somehow deal with it more effectively.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, those manufacturers who sell at an all-inclusive on-the-road price will clearly be of interest to the noble Lord.- However, when people buy and sell cars they are often trading in them and it may be the one transaction where there is an element of haggling. Under the price marking order, if there is to be a price for other ancillary goods or services—for which the consumer must pay in order to obtain the principal item—those additional items and

899
their prices have to be stated with equal prominence. I am bound to say there are occasions when I have some doubts whether equal prominence has been achieved. However, I am also aware that a number of major manufacturers have been prosecuted for failing to meet that requirement.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in these days of deregulation why do we need a price marking order at all?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it is appropriate that there should be such a provision when there are ancillary items. It is important that they should be stated clearly and prominently. It is not a matter of dictating at what levels they should be set, or indeed what should be included, but it seems to me appropriate that they should be clearly stated so that the consumer knows what additional items are involved before he is able to complete the purchase.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not wish to detract from the agreement across the Front Benches about the undesirability of government intervention, but surely if the delivery charge is a genuine charge it ought not to he bundled with the cost of the car? The purchaser ought to be given the opportunity of not paying the delivery charge but of collecting the car instead.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord puts forward his particular proposal for haggling on the purchase of his next car. It may be just that sort of arrangement which could be adjusted. That is why I suggest it is appropriate to leave it to the commercial judgment of those who are selling or buying to discuss whether or not they are prepared to have these items included. For some an all-inclusive price may be the most satisfactory way forward. That opportunity is now available from a significant number of major manufacturers.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, are motor car manufacturers in any way obliged to justify the level of their delivery charges?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords. As I said, it is a matter for their commercial judgment. However, I have no doubt that if they continue to raise the level of the charge they will find that people cease to purchase their motor vehicles.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the delivery charges are not calculated by the manufacturers but by the delivery companies?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not entirely sure just exactly how they are arrived at, but they are certainly calculated by those who deliver the cars. What is of irritation to some people is the fact that if one lives in Wick or if one lives just to the north of London one will probably pay exactly the
900
same delivery charge. I can understand why that is irritating to the consumer but, as I indicated, that again seems to me to be a matter upon which individuals can reach a view as to whether or not they are prepared to pay. If they are not prepared to pay for that separate item, they can look for a car which will be sold to them on an all-inclusive basis.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the actual delivery charge is approximately £110 per car and nowhere near £450? Is he further aware that the original high charge for delivery was a way of getting round the purchase tax regulations at the time, so no one thought of reducing the charges?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that historical explanation of how we arrived at these charges. I may have referred to a delivery charge but I should have said that the £450 charge is the average extent of all the other charges that are sometimes added. All I can say to my noble friend—as he will doubtless recall—is that in 1992 the MMC reported on this matter and concluded that the charges were justified; indeed, it recommended no major changes to the United Kingdom car distribution system. I am bound to say to my noble friend that my department is not aware that there is any significant concern about a lack of transparency in car prices.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I do not have a foreign car but I refer to a certain well known German manufacturer which charges something like £495 normal delivery charge in this country. However, if one collects the car I think I am right in saying that the company provides three days' entertainment showing one round its factories, which helps to reduce the burden and gives one a hit of a holiday.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I can only say to my noble friend that if he is thinking of buying a car in Bavaria he might consider going to Munich in October.

Audit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Rating (Caravans and Boats) Bill
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Rating (Caravans and Boats) Bill, has consented to place her prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

901
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ferrers I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 102 [Construction contracts]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 58, line 14, at end insert ("the extent and nature of which shall be specified in the agreement.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dubs. It may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 122, 123, 124 and 140. The words on the Marshalled List are designed to provide an escape clause—if I may say so—for the Government, who are in some disarray about the process engineering industry.
Ministers have placed much reliance on statements made by a group known as the Process Industries Latham Group (PILG). If I use the acronym PILG, noble Lords will understand what I am talking about. PILG has argued that process industries do not suffer the same problems as the construction industry. It states that statistics concerning the number of requests for appointment of arbitrators is evidence of that. PILG speaks for a small number of clients but appears to miss the point as to who carries out the construction and installation work. As with the construction industry, the majority of work is sublet and carried out by specialist contractors. The principal contractors carry out a management role but the installation work is carried out by the same specialists who work in the construction industry, often on the same commercial and contractual terms which, the Government and we accept after the Latham Report, are unsatisfactory.
The functions carried out by those specialist contractors are the same as those carried out within construction. They include electrical work, pipework, ventilation, structural steelwork and provision of basic building and civil engineering infrastructure.
PILG argues that its industry does not suffer from litigation and claims attitudes. However, members of PILG come from what I call the demand rather than the
902
producing side of the industry. The procurement systems and contract documents used do not ensure that the same standards exist in contractual relationships downstream where subcontractors and specialist contractors are appointed.
The question of whether the provisions of the Bill apply to the process industries should be assessed against whether the requisite protection is provided to all parties operating in those industries. The criterion is not that one part of that sector, the demand side represented by PILG, should see itself excluded, but whether those within the sector have the basic protections described in the Bill. If so, the Bill need not apply; if not, clearly the Bill must apply.
An examination of the conditions of contract and subcontract normally used in process plant work will provide a demonstration of that point. The most commonly used conditions are the Institution of Chemical Engineers' Model Forms of Conditions of Contract for Process Plant, often known as the Red Book.
At main contract level, the Institution of Chemical Engineers' conditions provide a form of adjudication on a limited number of issues, although the parties may agree to refer other matters to the experts. At subcontract level, a totally different picture exists. There is no requirement at subcontract level to use the Institution of Chemical Engineers' subcontract conditions. That creates exactly the same free-for-all as bedevils the construction industry—the point that your Lordships address today. Without a mandatory subcontract, there is nothing to prevent any ad hoc conditions being used where pay-when-paid conditions abound, payment terms are frequently vague, and other rights such as adjudication or suspension are in most instances non-existent.
The conclusion is that the case for the whole of the process industries being excluded from the Bill has not been made by the Government. The PILG solution, which the Government have adopted, denies access to the safeguards of the Bill from the supply side of industry and restricts the ability of parties to contract freely within the safeguarded provisions of the Bill.
The Government can take their pick of the amendments moved by myself and by my noble friend Lord Dubs; they will be spoken to by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. We offer a possible solution to the problem. The parties to a contract may agree to contract out of the provisions of Part II of the Bill when the type of work falls under the definition of "process industries". If one contracting party does not wish to contract out of the provisions of Part II of the Bill, the parties will no doubt wish to agree contract terms which comply with the provisions of Part II of the Bill, notwithstanding that the whole process may be within the context of process industries. Furthermore, if the parties fail to agree on acceptable terms which comply, with the provisions of Part II of the Bill, then the relevant sections of this scheme of construction contracts, which we shall discuss later, will apply.
We believe that this is an honourable compromise between the construction industry and PILG: that those who wish to contract out can do so by contract; and

903
those who wish to contract in can do so by contract; but every point in any agreement should be limited by the definition that is either within or without Part II of the Bill.
Having explained the purpose of Amendment No. 111—Amendment No. 122 is consequential—I do not wish to talk about the amendment which will be spoken to by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. It has the same thrust as my amendment. I believe that my noble friend has drafted it rather more expertly. Nevertheless, the principle is there. Process industries, in particular subcontractors, have a large component of matters relating to Part II of the Bill. It seems to us only right that those who wish by contract to participate in or participate out (if I may use that rather inelegant expression) should be allowed the choice. The important point is that anyone engaged in this business, in particular subcontractors to process engineers, should be protected by Part II of the Bill.
It is an important matter. We discussed the issue in Committee but I do not believe that we focused on the proper terms of subcontractors to the process engineering industry. I hope that the Government have recognised the problem and are prepared to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 122 to 124 and 140. My noble friend Lord Williams has lucidly explained some of the background to my drafting of the amendments which initially came from the Constructors Liaison Group. The amendments reflect something which we discussed at previous stages: the serious concern from subcontractors, sub-subcontractors and the many suppliers involved in the industry. It confirms my long-held view that it does not matter whether you are building a block of flats, a process plant or a bridge, when it gets down to the subcontractor or supplier level, the problems and challenges are the same. Therefore, the protection required for the smaller peopleߞif we may lump them in that inelegant phrase℄is extremely important.
I started by looking at the problems of the process industry. Then I received further information from the people who make steelwork. I was convinced that the answer was to have a much more general amendment to subsection (2) of Clause 103 which at present allows everyone who wants to be part of the scheme to be part of it unless both parties to the contract have agreed to contract out.
I wish to give one or two examples because it is important to understand the problems and concerns of the small suppliers. I suspect that nowadays things are different from when the noble Lord, Lord Howie, and I were young engineers and most of the work seemed to be done by the main contractor employing thousands of people. Now most of it is done by subcontract. The Constructors Liaison Group said that the supply side of the industry, the little people, confirm that the Utopia described by PILG does not exist in the relationship between the principal
904
contractor and the specialist subcontractors. All the specialist subcontractors are fighting hard in competition with others to obtain a small or large part of the order.
We are in danger of splitting the Bill's provisions into the haves and the have-nots. Whatever the type of contract, I believe that the activity remains the same. Therefore, it is important that the same contractual protection on a building project, process plant or whatever should exist. Sadly for the industry generally, at subcontract level it is normal—and there is no prohibition on it—to have the rather frightening "pay-when-paid" clause, no defined payment terms, discharge period or adequate mechanism and, of course, no adjudication. Suspension can happen just like that, for no apparent reason. There was the comment that the form G90 was frequently used in the water industry, which I believe is still part of the definition of the process industry. It contains no adjudication provisions, payment terms are defined and a suspension right exists for non-certification and payment. There is no compatible subcontract.
To round the point off, the subcontract documents are frequently one-off documents on the contractor's own terms. They were probably written five or 10 years ago with little typed or handwritten changes. It is that kind of problem that the building industry seeks to redress. We must consider carefully the comments from smaller suppliers and manufacturers in this instance.
I turn to a comment from the steelwork manufacturers, fabricators or whatever we like to call them. It is reasonable to point out that, unlike the suppliers of brick or cement who are obviously not covered in the provisions anyway, steel is specifically cut, burned, drilled, welded or whatever it is for a specific construction task. It is usually the first thing to be ordered. The shape of the building is known, one orders the steelwork and, as we have seen in many construction projects around the country, it comes first and is put up pretty quickly. Perhaps we should say that it is the first substantial expense on a project. It is usually subject to onerous terms and conditions—perhaps lateness in payment—but it is off-site until 90 per cent. of the value has been spent, which means that it is less easy to get paid. Therefore, that kind of steelwork needs the full protection of the construction Bill, in whatever form.
I have spoken about process plants. We discussed them at length in previous stages of the Bill and I do not intend to speak about blinds, signwriting, security systems or anything else because the amendments that I have drafted will enable, or, I hope, require, anyone who is a party to a construction contract anywhere in the industry either to agree with the other party that they do not need the provisions of this Bill because the terms are already included or, if they are not, that the Bill's provisions should apply.
As my noble friend Lord Williams mentioned, this is a satisfactory and fairly open way of sorting out some difficult definitions with which many noble Lords have been struggling in subsection (2). I hope that other noble Lords will find them acceptable.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I support my noble friends Lord Williams and Lord Berkeley. Unusually for me, I start by complaining. We went through a lengthy, detailed and extremely constructive debate at Committee stage. It was enlivened by a number of contributions, from this side of the House as well as from the other side, from people who knew about the construction industry. Encouraged by the general tenor of the debate and the kindliness with which the Government listened, I wrote a lengthy letter to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in which I drew attention to the comments which he and his colleagues had made on matters which were raised during the debate. I received a Spartan reply.
Looking at the Marshalled List, noble Lords will see that the Government's response has been to produce a trivial number of marginal amendments. In other words, they have paid virtually no attention to the serious points which were raised during the debate. That may have been because they did not understand them or that they ignored them. It is not a happy way to deal with a measure which is not partisan but technical. It is not as complex as the Government make out; it is quite simple. The Government's response was to say: "Here we are and here we stand". That is not the correct way to treat what is thought in the textbooks and in the minds of many of the more naïve among us to be a revising Chamber. A revising Chamber revises; it does not put up proposals which the Government ignore.
That is my ill-tempered beginning. I wish it to remain on the record because I believe it to be correct. But I am not an ill-tempered fellow—though I could and might yet be, who can tell? But I want to support my noble friends.
What is the purpose of the Bill? That question underlines the amendment that my noble friends have tabled. The Bill's objective, as I understand it, was to produce cheaper and more reliable construction. One of the ways in which that was to be done—the route adopted by the Government and included in the Bill—was to regularise the body of dispute that arises between contractors, clients, subcontractors and everybody else involved. The process is very time-consuming and expensive. It keeps the lawyers happy but does not produce the kind of inexpensive building that we want.
That was the whole aim of the Latham Report. Sir Michael Latham thought that the cost of construction might be reduced by as much as 30 per cent. He may be right or he may be wrong. I have my own views on that. A large part of the reduction in cost that Latham sought lay in minimising the conflict between client, contractor and subcontractor. Design may produce cheapness, but the major area where cheapness could be produced is that area of conflict. That is what Part II of the Bill is mainly about.
My remarks are based on very lengthy experience in the construction industry—even longer experience than that of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, who is a mere youngster in these matters. I have seen this whole business of conflict, claims and counter-claims going on
906
and on to no great effect in the end. These are fairly general remarks, and I hope to be more brief in the course of today's proceedings.
I turn to PILG, as it was termed by my noble friend Lord Williams. PILG represents the process industries' desire to be excluded from the Bill. The Government have acceded to that demand. I can see why PILG wants to be excluded; the industries would not have to bother with these matters. My noble friend Lord Berkeley put his finger on the problem. He remarked that PILG represented the "big boys" in the process business. We know perfectly well that in the process industries, as in any other area of the construction industry, there is a long chain of contractual obligations. It extends from the main contractor to the subcontractor, to the sub-subcontractor, and ends up who knows where?
It is not true that the constrictions of Institution of Chemical Engineers' contracts apply to the subcontractors and the sub-subcontractors. That is not so. In so far as PILG says that these contracts apply to the main contractors, it is correct; but they do not go on down the line. And on down the line is where construction contracts come into play—and where the construction subcontractor comes into the Bill.
In Committee, I drew attention to such matters as the foundation for a chemical plant or a power station. That foundation might well be totally, completely and utterly a piece of civil engineering construction. I shall not irritate the House, as I did in Committee, by drawing on my own experience. However, I could mention power stations that have been floated upon civil engineering rafts—constructions like boats, on which the power station sits. The power station might be a process plant—although I am prepared to argue the matter—hut the foundation is wholly a civil engineering conception. The fact that it is on the site of a process plant is totally and utterly immaterial. I find it extremely odd that people as intelligent as Ministers and the whole of Whitehall cannot grasp such a simple concept. I imagine it is not that they are unable to grasp it, but merely that they do not want to.
In another context the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referring to coal-mines, said that such contracts would be treated as civil contracts. If they are treated as civil contracts, with all the ramifications involved in the chain (contractor, subcontractor, sub-subcontractor and so on), why should they be excluded en bloc as though they were somehow extraordinary? They are not. They are extraordinary only in the sense that the Government say they are extraordinary because they appear on a particular site. They are not extraordinary because of their engineering complexity or because of contractual arrangements. In fact, some may well be done under civil contracts, which would nullify the exclusion. We could have an extraordinary situation in which a foundation might be done under a civil engineering contract and will in some magical way be excluded from, the Bill, which would throw doubt on elements in the contract itself. I have no doubt that a lawyer would sort that matter out, but that is not my business.
Obviously, the way round this is for the parties involved to agree that this work should be done under normal civil engineering contracts. That is the natural

907
way for it to be done, and it would be the sensible way. Under the Bill, it need not be done. The contracts for those elements of work in the process industries—however they are described (and to my mind the description is quite extraordinary)—and in so far as these sites can be described as process sites, can be wholly excluded from the Bill.
I suppose this is a revolutionary concept. The Government are not urging people to exclude their work from the normal contracts that have applied for a very long time. However, they are saying: if you do exclude your work from the normal civil engineering contract, you come under the Bill and then, hunky-dory, you can do more or less what you like. It will not do.
Frankly, the Government misconstrued the construction industry. They did so by referring back to a tax Bill for a definition. They were then got at by some big, powerful, important interests in what are called the process industries. They yielded to those pressures and in so doing lost sight of the aim of the Bill. We must not forget that the aim of the Bill is to ensure that the subcontractors and the sub-subcontractors down that enormous chain are properly paid when they complete the work on time and that they have the protection to which they are entitled.
I entirely support my noble friends and I hope that the Minister—a very nice young man—can give me a better reply than he gave me in the charming letter which he wrote to me a few weeks ago.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am attracted to the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, at this stage of the Bill. It is a new approach, as is that of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
At Committee I said that I was persuaded by the Process Industries Latham Group—PILG—and I noticed that the noble Lord grimaced when I used that term at Committee stage. However, I am glad that he is now used to using it. The group has long experience of good relations within that sector of the industry. I do not believe that it is right just to sweep aside or impose upon it unthought-out recommendations. It is not basically concerned with speculative development; normally, it carries out a process which both sides want. At that stage, therefore, I said that I felt that the Government were taking the right tack.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned the problem of the steel fabricators. I agree with much of what he said, and I should like to tackle that point in a later amendment which will cope with the problems that the steelmakers face. But the duty of the Government—the noble Lord, Lord Howie, may put it more strongly—is to try in some way to satisfy the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is trying to square a circle by not making it mandatory that every process engineering contract be excluded from the Bill but, instead, allowing it to be excluded by the words in his amendment.
Therefore, this is not a novel approach; it is a new approach, and my noble friend should consider what is being said. It may be that the industry is trying to speak to him in this way.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the amendments we are now debating relate to a fundamental but simple issue:
908
namely, that hard and fast distinction cannot be made between construction work and process work; that some trades inevitably cross the border.
We now have a number of propositions which introduce flexibility. I am attracted by the wording put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in Amendment No. 140. I would have thought that the Government would be pleased to see that degree of flexibility introduced into something which has proved extremely difficult and which could be made more difficult by the solution proposed in the Bill. I hope, therefore, the noble Viscount having suggested that his noble friend look at the matter sympathetically, that the Minister will do so.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend's amendment, I speak as a mere stripling in the industry compared with my noble friends Lord Berkeley and Lord Howie of Troon.
My noble friend Lord Williams is trying to resolve a problem that we see on the face of the Bill in the distinction between sections of the construction industry. Amendment No. 111 is one way of resolving the problem. It may be that if this one does not find favour with the Government, subsequent amendments may help to bail them out in different ways.
Perhaps I can say a few words about the perception of the process industries and their anxieties. We must recognise that within the construction industry contractual problems arise. To a large extent a number of unpredictable factors bear upon the construction industry which cause difficulties between contractors and subcontractors. Some may be totally outside the realms of human control—things like the weather which can affect contracts; but other factors are under human control. For example, a large contractor may seek to gain advantage over a small subcontractor.
Another factor that must be considered is the variations in demand and workload in the industry. Twenty years ago there was a large degree of unpredictability in the industry. For instance, in the building of a nuclear power station the initial contractor could not tell within half a decade when the job would be completed because he could not predict what would happen—the design parameters might change and so forth. Over the past decade it has become easier for the main contractors in an operation to say how long it will take and what the cost will be.
There have been major advances in the way that large contracts are organised and planned. But one factor that comes into the situation is the fact that there is a great dearth of work in that area of activity. It is relatively easy, therefore, for a large contractor to lay terms and conditions on the smaller subcontractors and be able to plan with a fair degree of precision the timescales and costs involved. But that situation could change. Within the next five or 10 years there could be a complete turnround.
If we look at the state of the water industry, for example, we see a desperate need for major investment. That will increase the demand on the contractors and

909
subcontractors. It may be that the planning and timescales in terms of costs will go out of the window because of competition and changing circumstances. It may be that an industry which operates on a fairly secure basis and does not think it needs a fall-back position to deal with problems of contracts, payment terms and so forth may, in the foreseeable future, find itself in difficulty and needing that fall-back position. That is something else that we must recognise.
The civil engineering and construction industries operate on the basis of contracts. In the normal course of events, everyone would expect that the contracts would be honoured and everything would go ahead but, in practice, what happens is that, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Howie, the Latham report recognised that those contracts fell apart, there was litigation and there were all sorts of problems which added to the industry's costs. That is what we are trying to do with this Bill: to provide that when these contractual positions become difficult and everything falls into the muddy morass of disputes there should be a fall-back position enshrined in this Bill to enable prompt, satisfactory resolution of problems and to enable the business to carry on.
We have recognised on this side of the House—and I think that it has been recognised by a number of noble Lords on the other side of the House—that there is a problem there and the Government are tackling it with this Bill. However, there is a risk that quite large parts of the construction industry will effectively not be covered. While at this point in time they may feel that they do not have a problem, it is quite likely that they will have problems in the short, medium and long term, and they should have a fall-back position, which would be guaranteed by this Bill, to resolve those problems. I hope that the Government will recognise the force of the arguments that we have deployed and, if they do not accept this amendment—I believe it is probably one of the better ones—I hope they will recognise that later amendments propose what we might describe as fall-back positions to try to ensure that the aims of the Bill, which we agree with the Government, are met fully by the Bill itself.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, put his finger on it. Unless these provisions satisfy the industry, or industries—I am learning that, perhaps, there is more than one industry—then they will have failed. It is something of an indictment of the Government that the matter is left to the Pandora's box of this House—and, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, there are not so very many of us who are experts. I am very much not an expert in matters of the construction industry, although I am learning as this Bill progresses. However, I see as a matter of common sense in relation to these industries, as well as to others, that if the Bill does not end up with a procedure and provisions which are generally acceptable then it will have failed, and failed very badly.
910
It will have failed those from outside this House who have put a great deal of work into getting a better Bill than we started with.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, these are four very interesting amendments. Before I deal with them and the problems we have with them in detail, I should like to turn to the general matter which has been raised, which is really a question of whether the process engineering industry should be in or out of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said that he found rather too few amendments.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, the Minister is not listening.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we listen very carefully to what is said in this House. I shall consider carefully all that has been said today, but the noble Lord should be aware that it takes some while to produce amendments. As we go through today's proceedings he will discover that there are things happening beneath the surface for which he may be grateful, but which have not yet poked their heads above it in the form of amendments.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, God bless you for those kind words.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howie, also quoted the Latham Report's finding that construction costs might be cut by 30 per cent. That is not a consequence of this Bill alone; there is a whole series of initiatives being pursued by the Construction Industry Board, and the Process Industries Latham Group believes that it can achieve cost reductions, principally by good practice rather than mainly by legislative means. As has been outlined by several speakers today, there is a difference between the construction industry and the process industry. The construction industry is broadly behind this Bill. There is a consensus. The process industry is not; there is a divergence of opinion, and the Process Industries Latham Group, which is a powerful element within the industry, does not want this Bill applied to it. As my noble friend Lord Ullswater and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, it is important that this Bill operates with the agreement and consensus of the industries, because otherwise it will not work.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his earlier kind remarks, to which I look forward with eager anticipation. But does he not realize—I am sure he does—that, in this matter, when the process industry (if there is such a thing, but let us use that shorthand) objects to certain elements in the Latham approach it is dealing with the relationship between the process industry as a technical client, which-knows very much what it wants, and the main contractor. It is less interested in the relations between the main contractor and the chain of subcontractors which follows thereafter. It is this chain of subcontractors which we, or some of us at any rate, are interested in protecting, rather more than the immediate

911
relationship between the technical client and the immediate main contractor. This is the big split that we have to consider very carefully.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, while not wishing to encourage the noble Lord, Lord Howie, to break with convention at Report stage, I will in this instance reply to the noble Lord and say that, yes, this is something which has been made very clear in the speeches today, of which we shall certainly take cognisance to the extent that we were not aware of it, although I suspect that we were very much aware of it. Nonetheless, there is discord within the process industry at the idea that this Bill should be applied to them. We want this Bill to work; we think that this Bill will work if it encompasses an industry which wants it to work and which goes at it with a will, and that industry is the construction industry.
The process industry is not happy with the Bill. To have them inside would introduce discord and, to our minds, would make it less likely that this whole process would work. However, the provisions are in the Bill to bring the process industry within it later if that consensus can be achieved. It requires only affirmative resolutions to do so, subject to the amendments which I hope will be made later today. That is our approach: to say that the process industry does not wish to be included now, we will leave it out for now, and it can come in later if it can be agreed that it wishes to come in. Indeed, when the construction industry has, as I hope it will, demonstrated how successful this process can be, I would think there will be a clamour from the process industry or, at least from its subcontractors, to come in. The process of including it will be a simple one.
Given our wish to exclude process engineering, there is a process of then drawing the line between construction and process engineering. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, that is an inexact one. We are still thinking hard as to how that should be done, and that will be reflected in much of what I say to later amendments, but there will always be boundaries; you cannot define any industry in a simple way. There are always boundaries, and I can think of boundaries between the construction and telecommunications industries which might be hard enough to draw, let alone between construction and process engineering. We will come back to the House on that issue, but I hope to give further enlightenment later. That will cover such matters as foundation and steelwork, where our view is very clearly that the process plant exclusion only covers plant, machinery and steelwork and would not cover all construction work on the site.
To turn to the amendments in particular, Amendment No. 111 from the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is very similar to one proposed in Committee. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Ferrers advised against it. He pointed out that activities either fell within the definition of construction operations, as specified in Clause 103, or they did not. Clause 103 is the test of what counts as construction, and we would not wish to muddy a situation by putting something in statute which requires parties to specify the construction elements of a particular contract.
912
Of course parties would be quite free, for their own guidance, to distinguish between construction and non-construction activities in a contract. Perhaps one or more of the bodies that look after standard forms of contract might even decide that it was a good practice to do so. That would be all well and good. But if a contract omitted to mention some activity which the Bill regarded as a construction operation, there should be no question of it being "exempted" by the contract. At the end of the day it would be for an adjudicator, an arbitrator or the courts to decide which operations covered by the contract were caught by these provisions, and any contractor who wishes to make sure that everything that is happening is covered by the Bill may do so. Matters can be written into the Bill; they just cannot be excluded from it in the way it is written.
There is a risk with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Suppose we were to accept it, and a party bent on avoiding fair contract terms then failed to identify some task as a construction operation. He could then claim that, although the activity qualified as construction under Section 103 of the Act, because it had not been designated in the contract it was disqualified under Section 102 of the Act. We would then have created an alternative test for what constituted a construction activity and thereby a recipe for confusion, litigation and avoidance. I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is trying to achieve.
The other amendments in the group cover some of the same ground; namely, the question of whether parties should be able to opt out of fair contract provisions by agreement. Their impact would be to make all the operations covered by Clause 103(2) construction operations for the purposes of the Bill. We have already heard that many noble Lords have difficulties with some of the operations on this list. I hope they will accept that, with Amendments Nos. 120, 121 and 137, when we reach them, I shall be going some way to address their difficulties. In Committee we also took a helpful step towards the inclusion of work on warehousing associated with the process industries. When we reach Amendment No. 136 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I hope noble Lords will see that we are again trying to be helpful and make the list of exclusions as lean and precise as possible.
Nevertheless, there are some operations which are clearly not construction operations and where there was a good measure of agreement on that in Committee. I am thinking of examples such as drilling for oil and gas, mining, the assembly of process plant and machinery, nuclear processing, the production of bricks and blocks and works of a purely artistic nature. The effect of the amendments would be to include such operations if any party had a mind to do so. I cannot believe that that would be the right outcome. Around other items covered by Clause 103(2) we are still seeking to draw a line, and trying our hardest, with the assistance of noble Lords opposite, to make it the right line.
We do not believe, therefore, that it would be right to fudge the issue of defining the industry simply by lumping all the difficult areas together and allowing

913
contracting parties to pick and choose whether or not they were covered by this legislation. That is something which the Bill itself must make clear. I hope therefore that noble Lords will not seek to press their amendments.
4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am bound to say that I do not think that he has really understood the problem. The problem is that main contracts between main contractors and clients can be what they are. In the process industries these are what they are. They are governed by certain rules of the associations. The real problem is that where a main contract is concluded without any specification of how subcontractors or sub-subcontractors will operate, the subcontractors and the sub-subcontractors are left completely empty of reassurance.
We accept that the Government do not wish the process industries to be in the Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, expressed it quite clearly. We have come back with what I regard as being a sensible compromise. It is clear to me that the process industries have not achieved the required standards in all their contracting procedures, whatever PILG may say. At the level of employer main contractor, they may well be content. But between main contractor and subcontractor and between subcontractor and sub-subcontractor, if I may go down the chain, all is not well. It is our belief that the minimum standards in the Bill should apply down the line.
No one in your Lordships' House or in any other forum that I can imagine can define exactly where the interests of subcontractors and sub-subcontractors start and where they finish. Nevertheless, anyone taking on a subcontract from a main contract, which is what we are talking about, will be looking at the main contract and asking, "Do the provisions in the contract apply in the context of the Bill?". If they do, the subcontractors and the sub-subcontractors will be reassured. If they do not, that is a different competitive situation, with which people may or may not be happy.
This is not a party political issue. We really do believe that the Government have heard only one side of the debate and that we must find some kind of compromise to respond equally to the views of the supply side, if I may put it in that way, who are the subcontractors and the sub-subcontractors, and the demand side, who are mainly those who form the group called PILG who actually commission contracts. To do anything else would be to impose double standards on the industry.
It is perfectly honourable and honest to say that there is a grey area and that there is difficulty in defining where one thing starts and the other thing stops. I should have thought that the way to resolve that would be to put into the Bill a simple provision, in whatever terms the Government like, saying that this is an area where there is difficulty and that the way to resolve the difficulty is by allowing contracting parties to define in
914
any contract which parts of the contract—and hence, flowing on, to the subcontract and the sub-subcontract— are in the ambit of the Bill and which are without the protection of the Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, made a good point in that originally we were hoping that the process industries in their entirety would be subject to the Bill. This is the compromise which I believe would meet the desire of your Lordships that the Bill should satisfy all elements in the industry, both process and construction.
Having said that, I see from the noble Lord that it probably has written on his brief "Resist" or "Do not listen". However, as we are at a late stage of the Bill, I think it is appropriate that I take the opinion of the House.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 111) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L

Howie of Troon, L

Annan, L

Ilchester, E

Beaumont of Whitley, L

Jay of Paddington, B

Berkeley, L

Jenkins of Putney, L

Blackburn, Bp

Kilbracken, L

Blease, L

Longford, E

Borrie, L

Lovell-Davis, L

Broadbridge, L

McIntosh of Haringey, L

Bruce of Donington, L

McNair, L

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Mason of Barnsley, L

Carter, L

Monkswell, L

Chorley, L

Morns of Castle Moms, L

David, B

Nicol, B

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Peston, L

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L

Redesdale, L

Dormand of Easington, L

Richard, L

Dubs, L

Russell. E

Ezra, L

Sainsbury, L

Falkender, B

Seear, B

Falkland, V

Sefton of Garston, L

Fisher of Rednal, B

Serota, B

Fitt, L

Shaughnessy, L

Gallacher, L

Simon, V

Smith of Gilmorehill, B

Gladwin of Clee, L

Stallard, L

Glenamara, L

Strabolgi, L

Gould of Pottermewton, B[Teller]

Taylor of Blackburn, L

Thomson of Monifieth, L

Graham of Edmonton, L [Teller]

Tordoff, L

Gregson, L

Turner of Camden, B

Grey, E

Wharton, B

Hacking, L

White, B

Halsbury, E

Williams of Crosby, B

Hamwee, B

Williams of Elvel, L

Hams of Greenwich, L

Winchilsea and Nottingham. E

Hilton of Eggardon, B

Winston, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L

Astor of Hever, L

Addison, V

Belhaven and Stenton, L

Ailsa, M

Blaker, L

Alexander of Tunis, E

Blatch, B

Ampthill, L

Boyd-Carpenter, L

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L

Brabazon of Tara, L

915

Bridge of Harwich, L.

McConnell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Butterworth, L.

Cadman, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Milverton, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Munster, E.

Courtown, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Norfolk, D.

Cranbrook, E

Northesk, E

Cuckney, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Oppenheim-Bames, B.

Davidson, V.

Orkney, E

De Freyne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pender, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliott of Monpeth, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Flather, B.

Rees, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Renton, L.

Gainford, L.

Renwick, L.

Geddes, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gisborough, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Sharpies, B.

Gray, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strange, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Srathcarron, L.

Hertford, M.

Strathclyde, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hothfield, L.

Swansea, L.

Howe, E.

Swinfen, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Terrington, L.

Kimball, L.

Teynham, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trumpington, B.

Leigh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Liverpool, E.

Vivian, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Wilcox, B.

Lucas, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wise, L.

Lyell, L

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 58, line 24, leave out from ("capacity") to end of line 25.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment and something which I did not pick up in Committee. It relates to certain activities of Her Majesty under Clause 102. I am sure that the noble Lord will explain to me why Her Majesty,
"in right of the Duchy of Lancaster or on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall"
should be exempt from the particular provisions of this part of the Bill. Although in her private capacity, as a resident, Her Majesty would be exempt, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall are substantial
916
businesses in their own right. I wonder why those are included in the Bill. I should be grateful if the noble Lord can put on the record exactly why they are included in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I support my noble friend by drawing attention to the fact that the Duke of Cornwall, I believe, in this particular context, is a substantial promoter of construction matters, especially in a housing development in south west England. That is a perfectly proper thing for a developer to proceed with and to profit from in the ordinary way of business, but it is not perhaps an area which should be excluded from the Bill. It seems to me that the Duke of Cornwall—if I have mentioned the right chap because he has several names—at Poundsbury is not acting in any way different from any other developer. And why, if he differs in no way from any other developer, should he be excluded from the Bill? I may be wrong about that. I am wrong from time to 'time. Your Lordships will have noticed that. If I am wrong, I am sure that the Minister will explain to me just where I am wrong. If I am right, I am sure that he will accede to me.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the general rule of constitutional law is that an Act of Parliament does not bind the Crown unless, and to the extent, specified in the Act. This Government's current policy is to ensure that government departments and other public offices are not protected by this rule. We were aware that many in the industry were anxious that these provisions should apply to contracts with government departments, and we have made sure that that would be achieved.
We did not seek, however, to hind the Crown in a private capacity or by virtue of its interests in the Royal duchies. I am pleased to see that the amendment would not affect our proposals with respect to the Crown in a private capacity. We will reflect upon comments on work in the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall and I will write to the noble Lord when we have done so. I am afraid that I cannot be more helpful than that at the moment, but we welcome the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for welcoming the amendment. It is, as I said, a probing amendment. I look forward to a considered response from the Government in the light of the comments that I and my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon have made. I understand the complexities of the consultation in which no doubt the Government are engaged. I should not wish to intrude on any of those complexities. In the light of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 103 [Meaning of "construction operations"]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 58, line 26, leave out (", subject as follows.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again this is a probing amendment, possibly a probing drafting amendment. Since I have been following Bills from this

917
Front Bench I have believed in the principle of Occam's razor and "Entia non sunt multiplisanda praeter necessitatem" if I may quote the terms of the razor. The expression "subject as follows" seems to me to be otiose in the context of the clause, but parliamentary counsel may have good reasons for including the words. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, correctly points out, we are in the dark and mysterious world of legislative syntax here. I can confirm that parliamentary counsel like their choice of wording.
"Subject as follows" in the first line of subsection (1) of Clause 103 simply means that subsection (1) must be interpreted in the light of subsections (2), (3) and (4). Without this, the modifications suggested by the later subsections would fail to connect with subsection (1) and might even be seen to conflict with it. The phrase "subject as follows" is necessary to qualify the general definition in subsection (1) by reference to the exclusions in subsection (2), the inclusions in subsection (3) and any modifications made by order under subsection (4). With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. As he said, parliamentary counsel have their own ways of drafting Bills. I am grateful that the Minister produced the reasons that parliamentary counsel have for the drafting. I find it rather odd; nevertheless, if that is the way it is required, that is the way it is required. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 58, line 29, after ("structures") insert ("or parts of buildings or structures").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must offer a kind of apology to the House. It seems that I contravened the conventions by interrupting the Minister in an earlier debate. I did not, and still do not, think that I contravened the conventions, but it has been explained to me by noble Lords opposite that I did. I apologise. The problem is that I did not know what were the conventions. I rather think that noble Lords opposite made up the conventions on the hoof, which is not too bad a way of going about this kind of business. I shall try to intervene, within the conventions, on the hoof, as we go through our business. I apologise if I disturbed the Minister at what was an important part of his reply.
This group of amendments relates to the definition of "construction", about which we had lengthy and, I thought, inconclusive debates at an earlier stage. As noble Lords will remember, the definition of "construction industry" was drawn from, I think, the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 to be used as a framework for the definition in what was then Clause 102.
Many of us on this side of the House, and when I say that I am merely speaking geographically and not politically, because I should be putting forward the same arguments if I sat on the other side of the House, which I once did a long time ago, and who knows, might well do again, although I do not want to anticipate such an event which has nothing to do with our discussion. It has nothing to do with "this side of the House" which is merely a conventional term when I use it, and I always like to be understood.
We tend to think that the clause as drafted left out many things which should have been in. This group of amendments hopes to cope with some at least of those matters. As it stands, the grouping falls into two parts. Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 are different from Amendment Nos. 116, 117, 118, and 119 only in the sense that Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 are general rather than particular. Amendment No. 114 is a drafting matter and may turn out to be unimportant, although it has some reference forward to later parts of the Bill and to some of the matters we discussed on an earlier amendment when I talked about parts of buildings or structures. That hints at parts of projects which are not process but construction matters. I refer to foundations, structures and things of that nature.
It may well be that to refer to parts of buildings or structures is important. It is also important, I think, when we talk about demolition, as the Bill does. Even the most ardent demolisher might not want to demolish an entire building. He might wish to demolish merely a part of it. He might wish to demolish the wrong part; he might wish to demolish the right part. So to refer to the building as a whole does not seem to me to meet that matter. If one wished to demolish a hit of a building, say, a wing of a stately home or a wing of the National Gallery, that would be part of a building and could he construed as being different from the building as a whole.
Amendment No. 115 refers to "civil or building". Here, I try to define the type of structure that is referred to in order to differentiate it from the process industry. Noble Lords with long memories and close attention spans may recall that when the Committee debated the process industries I drew a distinction between parts an oil refinery, for example, in which the process plant was closely integrated with the structure—say, a catalytic cracker or something of that nature where it was extremely difficult to distinguish between the plant and the structure (I go a long way with the Government in making that distinction)—and foundations, ordinary structures and so on. These ordinary construction elements, as opposed to those that are closely integrated into a process plant, like catalytic crackers and matters of that kind, should be distinguished. I believe that this is a serious distinction. I give the Government credit for this. It is a difficult distinction to make. Perhaps I have not chosen the right words with which to make it, but it is a distinction that ought to be made because it is real.
Amendments Nos. 116 to 119 are drawn from a rather elegant amendment that I put down at Committee stage. It was summarily rejected by the Government with contumely, instead of being accepted with grace and dignity. In the Government's list of inclusions in

919
Clause 113 (then Clause 112) a number of matters have been omitted or at best included by inference. The inference is slight, and I do not see it myself. For example, when one talks about harbours one wishes to include structures such as jetties and breakwaters. Those are sometimes, but not always, parts of harbours. Jetties sometimes stand on their own, like the oil jetties referred to at Committee stage. Sometimes breakwaters stand on their own as distinct from harbours. A breakwater may be there for a variety of purposes but it is a construction element in its own right and ought to be included as such.
I have said that tunnels ought to be added after waterways. Some tunnels are included in the sense that there is an implication that if one builds a road or railway one includes tunnels which are inherent in that road or railway or matters of that nature. But that does not include all tunnels. The tunnel that I have in mind—I apologise to the House for reverting again to my lengthy experience in this matter and perhaps becoming the prize bore of the year—is that comprised in the hydro-electric scheme at Glen Shira. The purpose of that tunnel is to convey water from a high level dam to a low level, just outside Inveraray, where the power station is situated. It is a pressure tunnel but not a tunnel in any sense in which that term is included in the Bill. That particular tunnel was constructed under the orthodox civil engineering contracts of the day.
It may be that Amendment No. 118 is a tautology because I have suggested the insertion of "hydro-electricity supply", but I do not apologise for it. Obviously, the example that I have given would be included under hydro-electric supply, but there are a number of other matters which are totally construction in nature and are concerned with hydro-electricity supply but which are not, as far as I can see—the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—concerned with hydro-electricity. I know, or believe, that the Bill refers to dams concerned with water supply, but as far as I can see dams that are concerned with hydro-electricity supply are not included in the Bill. It may be that we will not do much in the way of big hydro-electric schemes in the future, but if we have any sense we may well be involved in a sizeable programme of small-scale hydro-electricity which will demand small-scale dams. I believe that dams in relation to hydro-electricity may well be included. The Minister will be aware that since Britain is not blessed with deep canyons and features of that nature such as can be found in the United States, where a big dam can be built behind which a large body of water is impounded, it has relatively shallow reservoirs into which water is brought from a variety of sources through a body of aqueducts and matters of that kind. These aqueducts are all construction matters. I am not quite sure that they are included in the Bill.
I turn lastly to Amendment No. 119. I do not believe that the Bill deals adequately with the civil engineering aspects of flood control. I expect that the Thames Barrier is included in the Bill. That is a big item of flood control. There are a great many other items of flood control round coasts and so on which are different from coastal protection measures. Coastal protection is not the same as flood control. Although it may be a kissing
920
cousin, it is not the same. I believe that that should be recognised in its own right. I have also added lighthouses. A lighthouse is an important civil engineering artefact. At the top of the coat of arms of the Institution of Civil Engineers is a lighthouse. That is Eddystone Lighthouse, which was designed and built in its modern form by John Smeaton. He was the first man in Britain to describe himself as a civil engineer. Therefore, the lighthouse has an historic significance.
Not only that but, who can tell, we might still want to build lighthouses. We might decide that we need them in order to prevent ships foundering on reefs, rocks and so forth. I dare say that they will not be manned as they were, but they are important construction artefacts. They are all "construction", apart from the lamp, I suppose; the lamps are bought in and will be excluded from the Bill. However, the lighthouse itself is a civil engineering artefact, and that should be recognised in the Bill.
I am sure that the Minister will tell me where these and other artefacts that I have mentioned are covered in the Bill. But I do not believe that they are, and they ought to be. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the amendment proposed by my noble friend and the subsequent amendments to which he has spoken illustrate the difficulties of trying to define what is a construction operation in the Bill. The more the Bill goes into detail the more traps are set. Indeed, my noble friend made a series of interesting points. Whether or not they are to be supported is another matter. No doubt the Minister will explain in what way, if at all, they are covered by the Bill. The argument illustrates that subsection (1)(b) is extremely detailed but leaves out some important details.
I have only one question to ask the Minister. In re-reading that subsection, I imagine that "coast protection or defence" does not refer to defence-related industries. No doubt the Minister will tell us. I imagine that "coast protection or defence" implies the defence of the coastline against, for instance, the intrusion of tidal water or whatever and not against the intrusion of a potential enemy, requiring civil engineering work. I should be interested to know whether that is part of the provision and in hearing the Minister's interpretation of that expression.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howie, raised some interesting matters of detail. Perhaps I may begin with his comments about lighthouses. I thought that lighthouses had been abolished; manned lighthouses certainly have. To a large degree, they have been replaced by floating buoys. One or two, such as the Royal Sovereign, were concrete structures. That buoy was cast ashore somewhere near Eastbourne and floated out with some degree of problem. It did not land on the seabed the first time but it did eventually. I do not know whether that is included. It does not appear to be from the definition that we have had. As one goes down the River Thames one sees steel frames which, I believe, are anti-aircraft batteries from the Second World War. Had they ever been used for the

921
extraction of oil they would be excluded but, if not, any demolition of them would be included—and we go on down the route.
The most interesting project to examine is a combined water supply and hydro-electric project involving a dam, some pipelines, a reservoir, some tunnels, an office block and so forth. If it is a water supply project it is excluded under subsection (2). If it is a hydro-electric project it appears to be included. The reservoir is included and the tunnel might be included if the Government accept the noble Lord's amendment. Presumably the office block is included if the whole thing is demolished but if only half is demolished it will not be included. The pipes are excluded. The same applies in respect of flood controls; if they are water supply they are excluded but if they are for flood control only they are included.
Is there a problem of precedence as well as definition between subsections (1) and (2)? We appear to be getting deeper and deeper into the mire and I certainly do not see any way out.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I hope that it will be possible to find a way out, although I cannot yet enlighten the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, because, as I said, this is a matter upon which we are still cogitating. However, I hope to be in a position to show the House at least the direction of our thoughts, if not the actual wording of amendments, which would be preferable, by Third Reading.
We believe that none of these amendments is necessary. The "construction" in Clause 103(1)(b) is a generality, which is,
"works forming, or to form, part of the land",
and then there is a selection of illustrations. I expect that there are thousands of individual items and ideas which we could include in the list. However, we have tried to include a sufficient number to give a good general idea of what is meant by the first part of the clause. The first part of the clause is the governing part, which enables us to say without fear of doubt that all the ingenious additions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, are unnecessary.
Perhaps I may tackle the amendments in order. Clause 103 (1)(a) deals with buildings and structures, which clearly includes parts of buildings and parts of structures, making Amendment No. 114 unnecessary.
As regards Amendment No. 115, we understand the noble Lord's interest in ensuring that his profession is not overlooked. However, the formidable list of examples of civil engineering works in subsection (1)(b) means that that is hardly likely to happen. Furthermore, all the suggested additions in Amendments Nos. 116, 118 and 119 fall within the meaning of,
"works forming?£part of the land",
in subsection (1)(b). Tunnels are covered in subsection (1)(b), to which Amendment No. 117 relates.
922
I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I have a vague feeling that I ought to be pleased, but I am not sure about that. I ought to be pleased up to a point. I am struck by the thought that if Clause 103(1)(a) covers everything, the other subsections are not necessary. That is what the Minister said. He said that subsection (1)(a) includes all those things, so why list all this lot; or, if we list all this lot, why not list all the others, including the inoffensive items which I have asked to be added? Either the Minister is correct in saying that subsection (1)(a) includes everything or he is not—
Lord Lucas: My Lords—
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, do the conventions of Report stage mean that the Minister can interrupt me but I cannot interrupt him?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we are both allowed, with the leave of the House, to interrupt each other in order to make brief clarifications. The brief clarification that I wish to make is that I said that the first part of paragraph (b) covers all the noble Lord's amendments except for Amendment No. 114, which is covered by paragraph (a), and Amendment No. 117, which is covered by paragraph (e).
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is right, as he is in relation to so many things. However, he referred to the first part of subsection (1)(b). It does not have a first part; there is only one part.
I should have thought that if he can include harbours, he can include jetties and breakwaters. If he can include pipelines, he can include a hydro-electricity supply. It is not too difficult and it would not do a great deal of harm. It would make matters clearer for those who are concerned about it. Therefore, I find his argument unconvincing. But I am sure that the Minister will reflect upon these comments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before my noble friend decides what to do with the amendment, will he ask the Minister what is the response to my question about coastal defence?
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I was about to come to that. My noble friend mentioned coastal defence. There are a number of forts in the lower reaches of the Thames and probably elsewhere, so far as I can recall, which are not unlike oil rigs. In fact, they are more like gas rigs because they were designed by Posford and Pavrey, the same people who designed the first gas rigs. They are undoubtedly part of coastal defence in the sense in which my noble friend used the term, although not in the sense that I used it. I was much more specific.
Those are undoubtedly construction civil engineering matters. They were designed by consultant engineers and built by important construction contractors. They were intended for defence. They have guns and other weapons on them and are not meant for fun. Perhaps

923
we may never have such things again. Who can tell? I sincerely hope that we do not. But, if we do have them, they should certainly be included in the province of the Bill. Therefore, my noble friend is right to raise those matters.
We talk about tunnels as being an integral part of this, that and the other. I can see the noble Lord's point but, in my opinion, that is where the clause becomes redundant and even—if I may use such a word in this House—otiose. I believe that the Minister is right to say that subsection (1) deals with everything. I agree that it does. I should be happy if we had subsection (1)(a) and left out everything else. I may have second or third thoughts about that. The Minister is taking up this point only because the clause was plagiarised from income tax legislation and he does not want it changed because of the embarrassment that that may cause. That is the simple reason; it is not a bad reason. He is being pressed by people from all quarters not to change the legislation. But, in terms of intellectual purity or even ordinary common sense, if there must be a list, it should be reasonably complete, simple and uncomplicated.
The list that we have is not complete, as I have shown, because I have proposed simple additions which a child might wish to add because they are obvious. There are then the operations that form an integral part. I believe that at an earlier stage of the Bill, an unkindly chap described this as a bit of a shambles. I hope that I did not do that, although I might have done, because it is a shambles. Of course, I shall withdraw the amendments. I believe that the Minister wishes to intervene.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I feel that I should reply to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I have a helpful note in front of me which reads: "Williams: coastal defence. Yes, this is just coastal defence". I am not totally enlightened by that but I believe that the note means that that example refers to coastal defence. But, on my reading of the Bill, building a fortress from which to fire guns at the enemy would also be a construction operation. My mind then runs on to consider whether in Clause 103(1)(a), demolition of buildings or structures (whether permanent or not) would include shooting at it with a howitzer. Therefore, if I may, I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on exactly where are the beginnings and ends of the clause in relation to warfare.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention, which seems to have nothing to do with me. However, it gave me some guidance as to the kind of intervention which can usefully be made on Report since I was rebuked earlier. I shall take that as my guide rather than the advice which I received from the noble Lord and his companions earlier. Therefore, he should look forward to lengthy interventions unless I become more kindly disposed towards him.
I believe that the clause is preposterous. Nobody to whom I have spoken in the industry—and I know a fair number of people in it—believes that there is any sense in this clause. People may have had to put up with this
924
when dealing with their income tax but this is a totally different matter. I believe that I could have saved the time of the House by proposing to delete everything after subsection (1)(a) and to leave it at that. But, bearing in mind that that is what the Minister believes although he dare not actually say so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 115–119 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 58, line 37, after first ("of') insert ("fittings forming part of the land, including (without prejudice to the foregoing)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 121 and 137, which stand in my name, and to Amendments Nos. 136, 138 and 139 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
I hope by now it is clear that we have taken the comments made in Committee very seriously. The exclusion of work on seating, blinds, shutters and security systems was challenged then by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and my noble friend Lord Ferrers undertook to consider the point.
This we have now done, and have concluded that there is a case for including the installation of the items mentioned within the definition of construction operations. This requires not only the simple deletion of subsections (2)(h) and (2)(i) of Clause 103, which we would achieve with Amendment No. 137 but also a widening of the list of systems covered by the Bill, as achieved by Amendment No. 120. We also felt it was helpful to add the examples of security and communications systems to those already present in Clause 103(c) to widen the types of system given as examples. This is the purpose of Amendment No. 121.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will recognise the efforts that we have made to meet his concerns and that he no longer feels the need to move Amendments Nos. 138 and 139. However, I understand that the noble Lord wishes me to address Amendment No. 136 now. Of course, I am happy to do so. We did not omit subsection (2)(g) from our scrutiny of the changes that have been suggested. I am pleased to he able to tell noble Lords that we believe that there is indeed a case for much of the work specified in paragraph (g) to be considered as construction operations. Our only hesitation is that we believe it may not be appropriate to include some signwriting activities—such as, for example, painting a pub sign—particularly where there is very high artistic content. However, we have been convinced that work on "signboards and advertisements" is a straightforward construction operation and we shall be bringing forward a suitable amendment as soon as possible. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward Amendment No. 120. I am also grateful for Amendment No. 121. I shall speak to the same group of amendments. We did, indeed, raise

925
such concerns in Committee. I have no difficulty in accepting the Minister's response to Amendment No. 136. No doubt we will have an amendment from the Government at a future stage which meets the concerns expressed. I am glad that the Government have accepted that paragraphs (h) and (i) are really not suitable to be excluded from the operation of the Bill.
I have one small question for the Minister. It is really a question of interpretation upon which we need, if I may put it this way, a ministerial explanation. Amendment No. 120 refers to,
"fittings forming part of the land".
I would be most grateful if the Minister would elaborate as to what that phrase means in very simple English. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to do so without further ado. However, if he wishes to take further advice, I shall be happy to wait.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for bringing forward the amendments. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Howie, I believe that it demonstrates that the Government are listening. They are sensible amendments. My noble friend also indicated that he will look at Amendment No. 136 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I expect that something could be done in subsection (2)(f) to include the artistic nature of the pub signs about which my noble friend was worried. The amendments demonstrate the care with which your Lordships have studied the issues raised in Committee. I am pleased that my noble friend has been able to bring forward such sensible amendments.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, Amendment No. 120 refers to,
"fittings forming part of the land, including (without prejudice to the foregoing)",
whatever the latter may be. I want to ask the same question posed by my noble friend Lord Williams. What does the phrase,
"fittings forming part of the land"
really mean? Does it, by any chance, include such things as jetties which I have mentioned from time to time? I am not sure that they are fittings in the strict sense of the word, and I am not sure that they form part of the land. However, they do connect to the land and therefore might be thought of as being an extension of the land. I am perhaps talking nonsense but I talk nonsense in the search for enlightenment in this case.
Lord Elton: My Lords, would not the instrument which prevents the ingress of unwelcome visitors to your Lordships' car park when it is raised and which forms part of the road when it is lowered be a fitting which is also part of the land?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I share with other noble Lords who have spoken a slight incomprehension as to the meaning of the phrase. I believe that it is intended to generalise that part of the clause. If that is the case, I am very much in favour of it. It has already been made clear
926
that what is stated in Clause 103(1) is not exclusive, and the more that that is referred to throughout the clause the better.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted to confirm everything that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, says. The amendment would indeed make the clause general whereas it was not so before. As to the meaning of the phrase,
"fittings forming part of the land",
the general rule of law is that whatever becomes attached to the land becomes part of it. An object which was attached to the land or which was attached to something which was itself attached to the land would be covered by the provisions. It does not matter whether it is easy to remove, such as something merely screwed to the wall, or whether the attachment is more substantial. Examples of such fittings,
"forming part of the land"
would include a fireplace, panelling, a conservatory on a brick foundation or radiators bracketed to a wall. The dividing line between things which are fixed and not fixed might be the telephone on one's desk which is not fixed to the land and the socket in the wall which is. That is the sort of dividing line I would think of, but of course it is something that would be determined in each individual case.
So far as concerns jetties, if a jetty is installed inside a building then it comes under the clause. If it is not installed inside a building but is outside, it comes under subsection (1)(b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 58, line 39, at end insert (", or security or communications systems").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Broadbridge): My Lords, I must inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 122 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 123 due to pre-emption.
[Amendments Nos. 122 to 124 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 59, line 13, leave out (", or construction of underground works,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall, for the convenience of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 126 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Howie. In Committee we discussed the construction of underground works. I came away from that stage with the feeling that we really had not arrived at any agreement as to what construction operations are properly excluded, perhaps by tunnelling, and construction operations which should be included in the Bill such as the activities of propping up tunnels and various civil engineering works underground.
My noble friend has formulated an amendment—Amendment No. 126—which is perhaps rather better than mine. However, I believe it would he sensible for

927
the House to have another look at the construction of underground works. I feel that there are matters here which are still in the grey area between construction operations and those operations which are not of a construction type, which we have not yet resolved. I very much hope that we shall hear more from the Government what they can do to help the House. If I had been asked to choose between my amendment and that of my noble friend Lord Howie, I would probably have chosen my noble friend's amendment which seems to be slightly better drafted than mine. Nevertheless I believe it is time that your Lordships had a view from the Government after our discussion in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I believe that this is an area which needs to be clarified. My experience of the construction of underground mines is that the civil engineering industry played a major role. I believe that the modifications proposed either in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, or of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, need to be taken seriously into account.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Williams for preferring my amendment to his. I was a little taken aback that he should say such a thing although he and I retain relatively good relations most of the time. I think the Government should reconsider the discussion we had on this matter in Committee, in the course of which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke. He has just spoken briefly, I think rather too briefly in the light of his immense experience of underground working and indeed of placing contracts for underground working. If the Government reconsidered the Committee stage discussion they would recognise, or perhaps begin to understand, our several experiences in the construction of coal mines.
There is a problem here. The construction of a coal mine includes a certain body of surface works, some of which will be railways, roads, bridges and the supply of water for the washery, and some of which will be buildings for water supply, most of which would, I think, in the time when the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, ran the Coal Board, have been placed under civil engineering contracts and would have been happily so placed under the Bill.
However, there is a more difficult part of the problem as regards digging a shaft. The shaft for a coal mine is normally, I cannot say constructed—I suppose that excavated is the word. It is excavated and lined by a civil engineering contractor. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, when he ran the Coal Board that work would have been let under a civil engineering contract; that is, it would have been regarded as part of construction, and it certainly would have been in mining.
I do not think that the Government have really thought this matter out. They think that everything underground is the same. If one digs a tunnel before the extraction of minerals—in the case we are discussing the mineral is coal—that would be a mining operation.
928
But before one can begin the mining operation—that is, digging the horizontal tunnels and the horizons and all of the structures out of which coal is won and extracted from the ground—one must get into a position where one can do this. One gets into that position by excavating a shaft and lining it with concrete. That is a straightforward and orthodox, although quite difficult, construction project. There is absolutely no reason why that part of the effort of winning coal, for example, should be excluded from the Bill. That is why I drafted my amendment in the way I did.
I drafted the amendment myself without advice from anyone. It may well be imprecise and inexact; it may not quite meet the high demands of parliamentary draftsmanship. We have frequently criticised the draftsmanship throughout the Bill. Nevertheless, I make a serious point in that insofar as the work on a site—being the site of the coal mine in this case—is on a site which is directed towards the gaining of minerals and is itself operated under a civil engineering contract, it should be included in the ambit of the Bill. This would not matter where the contract was precise but it does matter where the contract relates to the scheme—which no doubt we shall discuss later—because if the work were not done under a civil engineering contract and the scheme had to come into play, that particular piece of work, in its contractual sense, would be in a kind of limbo.
I shall not insist on the wording of my amendment but I want the Government to say that they have looked carefully at the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, which he made in Committee—I do not think the Government have looked at them closely enough as yet—and the rather less important remarks I made. I hope that the Government will think again about this matter and return to us with some kind of proposal which deals with what is a serious point concerning the delineation between what is actual construction work and what is not. At the minute the Government have used a blanket, blunderbuss approach which is totally inadequate and which no one in the construction industry believes in. The Government should give this matter much more careful thought than they have done to date.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, we discussed this matter in Committee but I am a little worried about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. I am not sure how one recognises a civil engineering or building contract unless it happens to come within the terms of the noble Lord's special scheme. I refer to the words in the Bill,
"tunnelling or boring, or construction of underground works, for this purpose".
It is a matter of trying to get to the site of the mineral extraction. I do not think there is much difference between tunnelling or boring. Usually it is the same thing. It might be a matter of drilling and blasting, boring with a machine drill, or building a shaft or underground caverns, or the kind of thing to which the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, referred.
The real problem lies in defining whether one wishes to extract minerals, or whether one wishes to construct something else, and one uses what comes out—it I can

929
put it crudely—as a mineral. I believe that on Second Reading or in Committee I referred to the fact that all the spoil that came out of the seaward drives of the Channel Tunnel—I declare an interest in regard to the Channel Tunnel—was strictly mineral because Eurotunnel had to pay a royalty to the Crown Estates. That is another good reason for leaving the Duchy of Cornwall out of this.
I can foresee lawyers having a wonderful time in the future defining what was the main purpose of a particular construction activity. It may be to extract coal or gravel. Who knows what will happen in the future? However, the situation is confusing at present. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, goes some way to improving the position. I hope that the Government will look at the issue again because it is extremely unclear.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as noble Lords clearly realise, we are dealing with one of the boundaries here and one can look at the issue either way. One can say, as we have done, that the best way to draw the boundary is for mining to be out. One then gets into the problem outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Alternatively, I can think of another problem: gravel was extracted in large quantities in order to make a boating lake. Was that in or was that out?
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Lord, Lord Howie, have quite correctly pointed out that mining operations commonly involve large contracts which we would all recognise as being construction and that in principle it would be nice to have those within the scope of the Bill. However, we have been unable to devise or to find solutions in the proposed amendments as regards exactly where those lines should be drawn.
The problem continues to rest on the difficulty of distinguishing between mining operations and civil engineering operations. We heard in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—and we heard from him again today—that he had no difficulty distinguishing the two but no one has, as yet, suggested how this may be done satisfactorily in legislative terms.
It is true, of course, that with Amendment No. 126 the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has attempted the task for us. But I am afraid he has run straight into difficulties. It is perhaps worth pointing out that when the Department of the Environment conducted its consultation exercise on fair construction contracts last year, there was broad support for ensuring that the resulting provisions were not restricted to standard form contracts. We have therefore not sought to tie the application of Part II to the use of any particular type of contract, and it would be inconsistent of us to do so now.
It would also throw up all sorts of problems. We would need to establish what was meant by a,
"recognised civil engineering or building contract",
as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, pointed out, and how that recognition could be updated from time to time. We would need to decide how to deal with contracts where provisions had been struck out, or where they had been
930
inserted; and we would still be left with the prospect that, even with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, in place, any party could simply avoid these provisions by insisting on using a bespoke contract. In other words, the noble Lord's amendment would have little effect.
The Government are not unsympathetic to these amendments, but we genuinely believe that in achieving their intent we would throw up too many additional complications. However, we shall look again carefully at what has been said today. If we can offer any prospect of a way forward we shall let noble Lords know by Third Reading.
Returning to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, as regards the use of excavated material, I can do no better than to repeat the advice I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in our letter of 16th April. Where material such as gravel is taken from an area not otherwise involved in the construction process and used in that process, this would count as mineral extraction. In contracts for work involving borrow pits, parties may choose to extend the terms of the legislation by contract to the whole of the process, but the pit which is not otherwise involved would be outside the terms of the construction contract.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful, as always, to the noble Lord for his response to my amendment and for the expression of sympathy from the Government on the thrust of the amendment.
I recognise that this is a difficult area. However, it is for the Government to solve difficult problems. I hope that by the time we come to Third Reading, the Government will have had further thoughts and will have been able to solve the problem with the sympathy which the noble Lord expressed this afternoon. In the light of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 126:
Page 59, line 14, at end insert ("except insofar as this work is carried out under a recognised civil engineering or building contract").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my blood ran cold when the Minister said that he sympathised with my amendment because in my experience that is usually the nail of doom.
The noble Lord is quite right. I admitted that the wording of the amendment was my own and therefore might not have met his high standard. I recognise the difficulty of using the word "recognised" as regards a form of contract. I accept that as a real objection to my amendment. However, I remind noble Lords that in other parts of the Bill the word "adequate" was considered adequate for the Government's purposes. Using the words of the Bill, perhaps the words "an adequate civil engineering or building contract" might be the way to phrase the provision. I put that thought to the noble Lord for further consideration.
I am glad that the Minister's mind is not closed on the matter. With those brief, and I hope not unwelcome, remarks, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 59, line 15, after ("plant") insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment stands in my name and in the names of my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lord Howie of Troon. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 128.
The purpose of the amendment is simple. It is to challenge the exclusion of steelwork from construction operations. I am advised that, unless otherwise specified, steelwork is an essential part of construction activity and construction operations. I see no reason why in the provision,
"construction, installation or demolition of plant, machinery",
and so on, steelwork should be included where there is a primary activity of whatever it may be.
We discussed this issue in Committee. My noble friends Lord Howie and Lord Berkeley introduced several examples of steelwork being part of the construction operation, even under paragraph (c) of the provision. I see no reason why the Government cannot respond to that. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the inclusion of the word "steelwork" in this provision is confusing. Therefore I ask my noble friend to give consideration to Amendment No. 128. I should have thought that the word "plant" would be sufficient to include the kind of steelwork to which we refer. The subsection deals with the process industry.
Perhaps I may put it another way. The difficulty has already been recognised by the Government in the amendment that they put forward at Committee stage. They included—that is, excluded from the exclusion—warehousing when they sought to make clear the meaning of bulk storage, especially when considering its application to food and drink.
I shall wish to speak later to an amendment which deals with steelwork. However, I ask my noble friend to consider carefully whether there might not be some confusion as regards the word "steelwork" in this subsection of the Bill.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I may add a request to what my noble friend has said. Perhaps he will explain to me as a layman what will happen when a high-rise block is built: all the works after the foundations are set are steelworks and the building is put on to the steelwork afterwards. Am I using the term in a sense not intended in the Bill? If not, what will be the effect of the inclusion of the words which the amendment proposes to take out of the Bill on contracts for the construction of that kind of building?
5.30 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The amendment refers to
932
steelwork and plant and machinery in respect of the process plant. We discussed the point earlier when I spoke to another amendment. I was pleased to hear the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, about the problems of the steelwork industry. Its representatives have written to us and said that the industry is beset by bad payment practices. The whole purpose of the Bill is to try to avoid bad payment practices, and they are what the Bill seeks to overcome. That is the strong message from those who put up steelwork—that is steel frames around process plants, water treatment plants and anything else that is included in the provision—and I urge the Government to reconsider the point. It may be perfectly adequate for plant or machinery, but, for the reasons which I mentioned earlier, steelwork needs to be included in the Bill. Therefore, I support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I too support the amendment, not surprisingly, since my name is attached to it. For once I do not think I am confused, but in so far as there is any confusion when we use the word "steelwork" in the construction industry, we mean structural steelwork. We sometimes refer to reinforcing, but when we do so it is in a context where we know what we are talking about. This reference is to structural steelwork, components of buildings. The components will be roof trusses, columns or gantries, the skeleton of a building. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to the skeleton of a tower block. I do not believe that that applies here, although I may be wrong, because it is on site and relates to certain parts. If I am right, it would be odd if the structural steelwork for a tower block were included under the Bill but the structural steelwork on the sites covered in the subsection were excluded. I say that off the top of my head and I hope I am right.
Structural steel elements are wholly different from plant, whether the plant is machinery or what one brings in for heating, ventilating and similar needs. The structural steel elements are an integral part of the construction process. The fact that they are built somewhere else and brought on to the site is immaterial; they are part of the process and are usually ordered under the normal conditions of contract which apply to the construction industry. I have received a couple of letters which have no doubt also been sent to my noble friends and it is probably in order for me to quote one of them. A structural engineer who is in the business of making the structural components I am talking about writes to us in the following terms. I hope that he wrote to the Minister, although the letter does not suggest that. He states:
"steel is specifically cut, burned, drilled, welded to fit a specific construction task",
not another task.
"It already suffers from being one of the first things that entails substantial expense on a project and being subject to onerous conditions making it late in payment, but being off site until 90% of the value has been spent"—
that is, spentby the steelwork provider—
"means that it is less easy to get paid for: and therefore it needs the full protection from the construction bill"

933
The key comment in that quotation is,
"less easy to get paid for".
One of the main aims of the Bill is that it should be easier for subcontractors to get paid for the work which they do. To exclude the steel contractors from the Bill excludes them from one of the Bill's main aims. I cannot imagine that that is the Government's aim.
I have received another letter from the British Constructional Steelwork Association, which I shall not quote, which supports that view. A distinction ought to be made, and has not yet been made in the Government's mind—I hope that the Minister is having an interesting conversation with the Whip; I am sure he will turn his attention to us fairly soon. Of course he will. I am pulling his leg. The Government have not adequately distinguished between what is understood in the construction industry, by both clients and constructors, as construction. They have probably done so under the influence of the Department of Trade and Industry, but I do not wish to go into that.
The Government should think carefully about the amendments and come back to us with a resolution which indicates that if they have not understood the points properly they have at least turned their minds to them and considered them.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, what more can I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, but, yes, certainly we shall return? This is very much one of the areas around the edges of the process industry that still perplexes us but not, we hope, for too long.
I am confident that at Third Reading I shall be able to say more about the point, but for the moment we are still turning it over, discussing it and trying to get the right formulation. I have little more to say other than that we recognise that we must tackle and solve the problem. It has been well discussed and eloquently advocated in the House. We paid great attention to what was said in Committee and will pay attention to what has been said today. I look forward to bringing a resolution to the House in a week's time.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, again I am grateful to the noble Lord for his assurance that on Third Reading the Government will produce a resolution to the problem. As he has heard and, I am sure, understands, it is a difficult problem. The support of the noble Viscount for the amendments will weigh with the Minister in what he has to produce on Third Reading. We look forward to that. In the light of what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 129, I should say that if the amendment is agreed to then I cannot call Amendment No. 130.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 59, leave out lines 17 and 18.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the arguments in favour of my amendment to delete:
"nuclear processing, power generation, or water or effluent treatment, or"
are identical to the arguments which I raised earlier in relation to civil engineering works in mining. All those activities involve a very large element of straightforward old-fashioned construction work. You cannot build a nuclear processing plant I presume that means a power generation plant of any kind—without digging a hole in the ground. The hole you dig in the ground is a straightforward, old-fashioned civil engineering process called "muck shifting". You dig a hole, and in that hole you put the foundation. At the top of the foundation you put a shed of some kind, which encloses the nuclear plant, power station or whatever it happens to be.
Earlier, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, quite properly referred to the Government's decision to exclude warehouses. Thinking about the matter rationally, a power station is just a kind of big warehouse, is it not? It is a shed. You do not pack baked beans in it or anything of that sort, but you pack certain plant in it.
That plant is excluded from the Bill; nobody argues about that at all. But there is an immense body of civil engineering (construction) activity that is involved in producing the "envelope", the shed, in which the processes are conducted. There is no possible argument for excluding the civil engineering works concerned with a nuclear power station, or any other power station or water treatment plant, from the Bill. Those are classic civil engineering operations and are to be included in the Bill.
Why on earth cannot the Government just recognise that? Why can they not quite properly exclude from the Bill those functions that are mechanical or electrical engineering or something of that sort, but leave in those that are quite obviously construction works, such as muck shifting, producing the foundation, building the envelope on top of the foundation and putting the roof on the top? I do not see any problem here.
I sincerely hope that the Government will have second thoughts about this matter. If they will not accept the amendment as it stands, I hope that they will at least accept the thought that lies behind it.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I support the noble Lord's remarks. I have visited many power stations in my time. I supplied most of them in those halcyon days in the coal industry. Anybody who has ever visited a power station will recognise that what is visited is a vast structure which entirely dwarfs the equipment within it: the boiler plant, the turbines and the generators that produce the electricity. It is the structure that you see and the structure that you enter. A vast part of the work is civil engineering.
We are here, I suppose, to try to help the Government as much as we can through this difficult Bill. However, this is another issue which I hope the noble Lord will examine carefully in order to come back with a suggestion at Third Reading.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, given the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, in relation to paragraph (c), if the Government accept the removal of the word "steelwork", which we have just discussed, paragraph (c)(i),
"nuclear processing, power generation, or water or effluent treatment",
could be interpreted as referring only to the pieces of plant or machinery that are brought to the site and put on those lovely foundations that we have built, having done the muck shifting. After that, you connect up a few pipes and wires—which is a very simplistic description of the enormous amount of work that has to take place—and away it goes. It is slightly different and a little more complicated for a nuclear installation. The bulk of expenditure for water and treatment plant is in civil engineering and structural steelwork.
Perhaps the Minister, in responding, can clarify the meaning. Does this subsection refer just to the plant and machinery, which basically come in a box and are plonked on a foundation; or does it include the whole contract, including all the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Howie, referred?
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has put his finger on it. This is the point that we were discussing in Committee. However, we keep being drawn back to structural steelwork and the construction of warehousing and sheds. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, I believe that this part of the Bill is to be interpreted as referring purely to plant and machinery. That is why, in speaking to the previous amendment, I said I thought the word "steelwork" was confusing at that point. I also said that I had another remark to make later about steelwork.
I agree with the comments that have been made. I do not agree with the amendment, since I do not think it is necessary. However, if my noble friend can confirm that we are not talking about shells and structural steelwork but merely about plant and machinery, that will be very helpful.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has got it pretty well right, as one would expect. The phrasing here is,
"construction, installation or demolition of plant, machinery or steelwork"—
as we have just discussed—
"on a site where the primary activity is".
The governing phrase is,
"construction, installation or demolition of plant, machinery".
That is what we are talking about. There are grey areas enough in relation to that, if we think of building a sewerage works, for instance, as to which part is construction and which part is machinery. It is quite clear that the dividing line is there, and that in the wording of the Bill as drafted we confine the process section to that which has to do with plant and machinery.
936
Within that, it is quite clear to us that industries such as,
"nuclear processing, power generation, or water or effluent treatment",
are at their heart, when it comes down to machinery, process industries and ought to be within the exclusion. But the construction operations that go with them, subject to the inevitable grey area, should be without the exclusion.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may offer to the Minister a point of clarification. What has confused me, and possibly some other noble Lords, is the use of the word "construction" in this instance. I do not think that you ever "construct" plant or machinery. You fabricate it, and then you install it. It may be that we are so used to "construction" being civil engineering construction that we are becoming confused. (Perhaps it is I who am becoming confused.)
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we shall certainly take that point on board.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, as always, I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for pointing out the hole in my argument, which he did with what might be called unerring aim. I agree with him.
My purpose in tabling this amendment was to have on record, which is important, an admission by the Government that those construction elements as we understand them in the various process plants are included within the Bill. Having received that assurance—it should have been clear to me; but then I struggle with these matters—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 59, line 17, leave out ("or water or effluent treatment").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment reflects an amendment moved in Committee and is rather more narrowly focused than the amendment we recently discussed in the name of my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon.
It is our continuing contention—in spite of the arguments put forward by the Government—that water and effluent treatment are fundamentally construction activities; that is, they are activities which properly fall within the construction industry. We contend that such treatment involves not merely the installation or demolition of plant and machinery. Much of the work is carried out by firms which we recognise as being part of the construction industry.
The water industry frequently uses what is known as form G90, which offers a reasonable form of protection for main contractors. However, subcontracts are frequently one-off documents on the main contractor's own terms which produce problems for subcontractors in the building industry which the Bill seeks to address.
We come back to the difficulty of main contractors, subcontractors and sub-subcontractors. Main contractors may be reasonably protected, though form G90 does not contain any adjudication provisions. However,

937
subcontractors, often smaller businesses, need the protection afforded by the Bill. Amendment No. 130 seeks to ensure that water and effluent treatment are accepted as a construction industry activity because all water and sewerage plants are produced and undertaken by construction companies. Any machinery outside their ambit is brought in in the context of a construction activity. Therefore, where the Bill reads,
"construction, installation or demolition of plant, machinery or steelwork on a site where the primary activity is … water or effluent treatment",
our contention is that water and effluent treatment are fundamentally construction industry activities and should not be included here. However, subcontractors should be given the protection of the Bill.
Again, I understand that this is a grey area. We discussed this matter at Committee stage but I hope the Government will look at it again. I am advised by people who know much better than I that this expression in the Bill is something that they would like reconsidered. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend on Amendment No. 130. It may be useful to draw a distinction between water or effluent treatment and the other two elements that are contained in this section of the Bill; that is, nuclear processing and power generation. As an engineer I am concerned that nuclear processing, power generation and water or effluent treatment are lumped together. I can see a great distinction between them and perhaps I may explain my reasoning to the House.
When one looks at nuclear processing or power generation activities, one sees that a large part of the operation of the plant as a whole will be precision engineering. When one talks of nuclear processing or power generation one expects there to be complex and precise engineering and specialist scientific plant that will be part of the whole site. In that sense a large proportion of the value of the whole contract will be concerned with precision engineering, which is rather different from the normal construction site type of operation. Therefore, the pure construction side—concrete laying, steel erecting and so forth—will make up only a small proportion of the cost of the overall project.
When we consider water and effluent treatment, that element of precision engineering which will no doubt be carried out by an engineering company and be built and delivered to the site will make up a much smaller proportion of the cost of the whole project. I hesitate to argue percentages, but it will be generally understood that the construction activities in building a water or effluent treatment plant will make up a large proportion of the total project cost. In that sense it is sensible—that is why I support my noble friend's amendment—to separate the water or effluent treatment activity from nuclear processing and power generation. I hope that the Government respond sympathetically to the amendment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yet again we find ourselves discussing the division between process and
938
construction. The water industry is a particularly difficult area. On the one hand, there is a great deal of construction involved in its activities and, on the other, the industry spends around £500 million a year on processed plant and therefore has a large element of process in it.
We promised to look again at the introduction of subsection (2)(c) to make sure that the right line is drawn between process engineering and other types of construction activity. Until we have done that and reached our conclusions, we do not want to look at how it will work within specific industries. For the moment we want to keep the water industry in the section. To a large extent it is a process industry and we do not want to lose that element in the generality of construction for reasons we outlined when discussing the first amendment this afternoon.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister reaffirmed that the Government are looking at the whole question again. As I said, I received advice from somebody who knows much more about these matters than myself. I am sure that the Government will consult with those who know more about the problem.
This was a specific point which was felt to be particularly sensitive. Nuclear processing and power generation were not brought to my attention but water and effluent treatment were. I am sure that in considering their position the Government will talk to those who advised me on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 59, line 20, leave out ("chemicals, pharmaceuticals,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 131 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 132 and 133. All three amendments stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dubs.
The discussion in Committee took us some way forward. The Government eliminated warehousing from this section. It may be a matter of drafting and of substance as to why chemicals, pharmaceuticals, food and drink are singled out for bulk storage or production purposes. It seems to me that if the subsection which we are now addressing simply said,
"the production, transmission, processing or bulk storage"
of any commodity, that would probably meet the case. I would like to know why chemicals and pharmaceuticals appear where other things which, after all, are stored in bulk do not appear, and why food and drink is singled out as being a specific matter which needs to be mentioned here.
Once we have admitted that warehousing may well be a construction activity and, therefore, within the ambit of the Bill, it does seem to me that almost all food and drink, other than the bulk storage of what goes into the final product, is relevant for the purposes of this section.
Again, these are purely probing amendments to find out why the drafting resulting from the discussions we had is the way it is and whether there is any justification for keeping in these elements here. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I wish to raise a small point: should it not be "food or drink", rather than "food and drink"? Otherwise, I wonder whether it has to be a warehouse with both food and drink in it and, if the warehouse has either food in it or drink in it on its own, whether it falls outside the Bill.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether I should speak at this moment, because "food and drink" does not seem to be included in the amendment, but it seems to be near enough for me to have a go. I see that in line 21 not only food and drink and other things are mentioned, but steel is mentioned. In an earlier discussion we wondered whether we should delete "steelwork" from the same clause of the Bill. I am pretty sure that if we decide to delete "steelwork" it would be quite sensible to delete "steel" as the first word of line 21 as well. I throw that into the air in the hope that it will land somewhere fruitful.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in this clause of the Bill we are trying to get as close as we feel able, at least in the days before we come to our new conclusions, whatever they may be, to the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to keep the definition of the processing industry quite close. Therefore, we have defined the major users of process engineering as being the industries which are excluded. They are, first, food and drink, which spent £1.7 billion on process plant last year; £1 billion of expenditure came from the chemicals industry, with petroleum, oil and gas production not far behind; and pharmaceuticals and steel production—not that there is a great deal of new steelwork building going on at the moment, but the building of steelworks involves heavy use of process engineering. That is, I hope your Lordships will agree, a narrow definition of the process engineering industry, but we hope that it includes the major users of process engineering. It is the best, most useful and finest—in the sense of smallest—definition of process engineering that we have been able to agree for the purposes of this Bill. I really do not believe that there is any justification in trying to take out what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, wishes to take out, which are key parts of the process engineering industry.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I understand it, the Government say that there are certain selected industries which seem, according to government figures, to spend a lot of money on
"production, transmission, processing or bulk storage (other than warehousing)".
Therefore, these are the items which are included seriatim. I understand the position of the Government. Obviously, I shall have to look at the government figures and see whether there are other industries which,
940
in effect, spend more as a proportion of their total capital expenditure because, after all, that is what we are talking about.
I still see no reason why major industries should be singled out in this way if one is going to eliminate or exclude from the Bill the
"construction, installation or demolition of plant, machinery … on a site where the primary activity is … the production, transmission, processing or bulk storage (other than warehousing)".
I see no reason why the Bill should not be left as such without all the rest of it, but I shall rely on the noble Lord to have another look at this, as I am sure he will. It will, no doubt, be a source of further debate as we go along or, indeed, as another place goes along. It seems to me to be incongruous as it stands. However, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 59, line 24, at end insert ("unless undertaken by the contractor or if not specific to the agreement").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 134 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dubs. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 135 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howie.
This is a rather more important amendment. It does not relate to a drafting matter. It was an amendment on which we had some discussion at Committee stage, but it seemed to us that the discussion at the end of the day was somewhat less than satisfactory. I am advised, again by those who know much more about this industry than I do, that there are frequent occasions when a contractor undertakes what is essentially manufacturing work, for instance off-site, and then is responsible for bringing it on-site and constructing it. All those are part of a construction activity. It is probably well summarised by advice that I have received that, after all, a building is essentially a construction activity and everything else that goes into a building, if it is off-site and if it is brought in, specific to an agreement, by a contractor, should be covered by the Bill.
We have to have a let-out here where an agreement may specify that what is manufactured is not to he covered by the Bill. My amendment does provide for that but, apart from that, this seems to us to be essential. Any give on the part of the Government on this issue would be welcome, because it is an important point in the understanding of the contracting industry. I hope very much, therefore, that the Government will look sympathetically at what I have said. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, we have been through this matter before in previous stages of the Bill. For example, I recall discussing the manufacture of a precast concrete beam for a house or a bridge. In my opinion, whether it is done by the contractor or a subcontractor does not make much difference to the problem, because the problem is the same as the problem of the steelwork contractor. The order is placed early; he is producing something, possibly, which is specific to a contract. which he cannot use anywhere else and which he cannot

941
sell anywhere else if the person who has ordered it—the main contractor or the subcontractor, if he is a sub-subcontractor—goes bust or changes his mind or whatever. He will then have a large asset of a large piece of concrete or similar on his hands or in his yard.
I believe that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, goes a good way to improving the clause. However, as I have mentioned before, I hope that the Government might consider introducing words to the effect that the manufacture of the building or engineering components or equipment is specific to the contract being ordered rather than being off the shelf. There is nothing particularly easy about that. If it is just bricks, one can always sell bricks to someone else. But if it is something specific for a contract—a bridge beam or a floor beam—or something that is unique and which the manufacturer off site, be he the contractor himself or the subcontractor, produces and subsequently cannot use, he is in just a kind of situation which the Bill is designed to avoid.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, these amendments, particularly Amendment No. 135, are worthy of consideration. At Second Reading I mentioned the difficulties with off-site manufacture of components, which is very much the modern method and the modern technology of a good deal of construction. In this instance I would particularly mention structural steelwork. During the course of today's discussions we have talked a good deal about structural steelwork and I indicated that I would wish to return to this item.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, quoted a letter from a structural engineer saying that some 90 per cent. of the value of the steelwork is created in the engineer's workshop. If that is delivered to the site and then for some reason it is not used and is returned, the scrap value is minimal compared with the amount that has been invested. There is the difference in the price between the raw steel and the amount that has been invested in cutting it, burning it, drilling it, creating trusses, columns, frames or whatever it may be. Therefore, those who have written not only to me but to other noble Lords want to be included in the Bill not only for the adjudication but probably more particularly for the payment conditions to be followed later on.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was right in saying that we do not want to go further down the chain and deal with what might be called standard components—the industry is trying to work a little more towards using standard components—because that would be going down too far into the Sale of Goods Act area. However, I am informed that most buildings are one-offs. If a 30-foot beam is required, the client usually wants a 31-foot beam. By adopting Amendment No. 135 one would not overcome the Sale of Goods Act. The components, whatever they are, still have to be fit for the purpose for which they are supplied. Bricks that were specially manufactured—in a particular shape or with a particular architectural detail of a building—might fall
942
into this because if they were created especially for that contract they would probably be almost worthless for any other purpose. Therefore, there are other components, apart from steelwork, which is an important component, to be covered by the Act.
As I read it, the Bill would exclude most of the warehouse construction where the steelwork has been fabricated off site. If I am wrong in my interpretation, I hope that my noble friend will put me right. Yet it is intended by government amendment that warehousing should be included in the contract side. So somehow we seem in one way to be excluding it all—if it has been made off site I cannot see that it can be included—yet it is the Government's intention that warehousing, although they refer particularly to the storage of various goods, should be included. At the moment there remains confusion. I hope that my noble friend can help me out of my dilemma.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, perhaps my mind works differently from those of other noble Lords but it strikes me that there will be a difficulty with this exception unless it is sorted out by government action, by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Williams or by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon. A builder might be contracted to knock down a brick wall, clean up the bricks and rebuild the wall elsewhere on the site. If he knocked down the wall and then took away the bricks to his own yard for the purpose of cleaning them up and, in effect, re-manufacturing them and making them suitable for rebuilding the wall, the process of taking the bricks off site to his yard would mean that he was not covered by the Bill. Therefore, the fall-back positions and the requirements that the contractor could normally use to ensure that the contract was carried on in a timely manner would be lost.
One of the main purposes of the Bill is to provide a fall-back position where one party or the other to a contract does not want to carry on and may have to be required to carry on. It may be my devious mind in thinking that someone may not want to carry on in order that he can take a better job elsewhere. If he shifts the bricks off site, will he fall outside the provisions of the Bill? That is another way of looking at the problem which has been mentioned by other noble Lords.
Lord Elton: My Lords, both the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Ullswater have advanced the cause of these amendments with a little more restraint than I would have done. I would ask my noble friend to have in mind that the purpose of the Bill is to secure prompt and adequate payment. It is not just to prevent unnecessary loss. Both the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friénd referred to non-standard items as if those were all one wanted to protect. However, the supplier of the components needs protection from late or non-payment regardless of whether they are standard items which he can sell at a lesser price elsewhere. The principle of the Bill is to secure a proper cascade of payment

943
from the principal contractor down to the smallest subcontractor. That is valid whether or not the items supplied are standard.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, on a point of clarification, when I was talking about the supplies of non-standard materials, I referred to either the main contractor or subcontractor. Possibly I should have said "subcontractor or supplier". It is the same thing. I certainly take on hoard the noble Lord's point because he is absolutely right.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, the more often that he intervenes in these debates, the more I warm to the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, especially as he has just commended my Amendment No. 135. He has commended it more warmly than I would have done. I bow to the inadequacies of its wording. The amendment is meant in good heart and its intention is clear. The problem with Clause 103(2)(d) is that it lumps together,
"components or equipment, materials, plant or machinery",
as though they were all the same thing, but they are not. I can go a good way with the Government in relation to,
"equipment, materials, plant or machinery",
but when we come to components I part company with them. The noble Viscount referred to steelwork and I need not dwell on that. It is an obvious example of a component which is wholly constructional and should be in the Bill.
I seem to recall that during the Committee stage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen—he may have something to say—drew attention to components which were produced off-site by the contractor who is on-site. I have in mind a specific example. The well-known contractors Richard Costain used to produce pre-stressed concrete sleepers for railway work in a factory somewhere near Motherwell. Those components were transported to sites where Costain's was involved. The supply of these components was part of the general contract under which the company worked. It seems wholly appropriate that components made off-site by the on-site contractor should be included in the Bill. I go a little further than that. I have in mind a specific example of components made off-site by a subcontractor.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, was right in reminding us that in this Bill we are concerned with payment on time on delivery and that sort of thing. Let us consider, for example, a dry dock, which is a great civil engineering hole in the ground lined with concrete in a very elaborate and expensive way. At the front end of the dry dock there are the gates which lean on bearings. They are called the quoins, which merely means the corners. These quoins might very well be made of highly specialised, cast, stainless steel made in a factory in a place such as Crawley, remote from the site, but delivered to it and integral to the construction process. The manufacturer of these components delivers them and he might also erect them. He is entirely dependent on the main contractor for his payment. So he is part of the contractual chain which we have emphasised over and over again.
944
Under this part of the Bill, because he is producing a component which is essentially a structural matter rather than carrying out a structural act, he is excluded from the Bill. Therefore, he can whistle for his money unless he can exercise muscle of some sort. That is wholly wrong. I do not believe that it is the Government's intention that such a supplier should whistle for his money, but the effect of the Bill is that he does. I sincerely hope that the Government will consider the amendment of my noble friend, and even my own humble amendment, to see whether they can come up with a solution at Third Reading.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I answer first the point raised by my noble friend Lord Elton. The material and component manufacturers indicated in consultation that they did not wish to be covered by the Bill, although they are covered by the supply and sale of goods Act. One presumes that someone who is just delivering a load of bricks to a construction site, and that is an end of it, feels that they are quite reasonably protected by the fact that, if they have delivered the bricks, they have completed what they were asked to do. That is something that cannot reasonably be argued about. Such a supplier presumably does not have the problems which gave rise to this Bill in the first place. We should respect that exclusion.
Amendment No. 134 addresses in particular a matter of common concern to us. There are those in the construction industry who do a great deal of work off-site and then deliver. They may not even do more than deliver, but they have completed a great deal of the construction contract off-site and, as this Bill is drafted at the moment, they are not included.
We are not happy with the exact wording of Amendment No. 134. I have a little difficulty in understanding it myself. I suspect that the words "if not" should either have commas around them or they should be excluded. If that is right, then I understand what the amendment is aiming at.
We have problems with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, as he will know from a previous amendment, as regards the concept of a recognised civil engineering building contract. But we find ourselves in sympathy with the intention behind both these amendments. It is something which we discussed at length in Committee. My noble friend Lord Ferrers undertook to consider the matter. We are still doing so. We hope to be able to clarify the position at Third Reading. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am again most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for considering these matters carefully. He is quite right in that the amendment, which I drafted myself, is slightly defective in its English and the words "if not" should be left out. The noble Lord is quite right in pointing that out. I hope that he recognises the strength of feeling not only in this House but in the construction industry about this matter and that at Third Reading he will be able to return with something that satisfies all concerned. As we keep on saying—and it cannot he said often enough—we are

945
here to satisfy all in the industry. This is not a party political matter. We are doing our best to get the construction industry back on its feet. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 135 and 136 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 137, I advise the House that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call either Amendment No. 138 or Amendment No. 139.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 59, leave out lines 32 to 34.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 120. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 not moved.]
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 140:
Page 59, line 34, at end insert—
("(2A) When agreeing the terms of individual contracts which relate to construction operations described in subsection (2) above the contracting parties may agree to contract out of the provisions of this Part, but—

(a) if one contracting party does not wish to contract out of the provisions of this Part, then the parties must agree contract terms which comply with the provisions of this Part, and

(b) if the parties fail to agree on acceptable terms which comply with the provisions of this Part, then the relevant sections of the Scheme shall apply.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, before withdrawing or not moving this amendment, perhaps I may make two points—
Lord Elton: My Lords, on a very important but small point of order, one cannot speak except to a Motion. The noble Lord can move the amendment, and having done so he can withdraw it, but he cannot speak to it until it is there to speak to.
[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 59, line 35, after ("shall") insert (" , subject to such consultation as the Secretary of State shall consider necessary,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment states:
"subject to such consultation as the Secretary of State shall consider necessary".
I leave it at that. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sympathetic in principle to the amendment. Consultation has been the mainspring of the exercise to produce fair contracts legislation and the Government have a considerable consultation exercise ahead of them in bringing forward the schemes for construction contracts. Clause 103(4) allows the Secretary of State by order to amend the provisions of subsections (1), (2) and (3). That would allow the definition of "construction operations" to be fine tuned
946
if it were not quite right. It would also allow definitions to be updated in line with developments in the industry. There is no question of any such amendment taking place without consulting the appropriate representatives of any groups affected. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am greatly pleased by the Minister's response to my eloquent moving of the amendment. I am happy to withdraw it, as he suggests.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 142 I should advise the House that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 143 or 144.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 59, leave out lines 40 to 43 and insert ("architects, surveyors or consultants in building, engineering, interior or exterior decoration or in the laying-out of landscape in relation to such operations").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as noble Lords will see, this is a piece of pedantry on my part. I am proposing to leave out certain words in the Bill as it stands and put the same words back in but in a somewhat different configuration. My reason for doing that is pedantic but simple. First, I am asking what is the difference between subsection (3)(a) which talks about the work of individuals participating and subsection (3)(b) which talks about the professional work of people.
As I see it, the professional people mentioned are likely to be the individuals participating in the carrying out of the work. So we have what might conceivably turn out to be tautology, although I am not sure. My second point is different. As we all know, in this part of the Bill the definition of "construction" was cribbed or plagiarised, virtually verbatim, from the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. However, for some reason, in subsection (3)(b):
"the professional work ofx2014;

(i) architects or surveyors, or

(ii) consultants in building, engineering, interior or exterior decoration or in the laying-out of landscape,

in relation to such operations",
is changed. In the original legislation, from which this part of the Bill is cribbed, the wording was, I think, as I have put it in my amendment. The draftsman of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 was, I believe, unable to make a distinction between the professional work of architects, surveyors, or consultants in building, engineering and so forth. I am asking merely what is the distinction which the Government are making which made them change this part of the Bill into, first, architects or surveyors, and, secondly, consultants in building, and the others? There must be some explanation. It is not a great matter, but if we are to use the Income and Corporation Taxes 1988 as a model, we should not leave out the one bit of it that makes sense. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to

947
Amendments Nos. 143 and 144. In introducing Amendment No. 142, my noble friend said that it is a matter of pedantry. My purpose in tabling Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 is somewhat different. I am a little concerned, not that proper interior decoration should be included as a professional job in construction operations, but that interior decorators per se should be included.
It seems odd not that someone who advises on lighting, structure or whether screens should go here or there, or whatever it might be—that is, a professional in that sense—but that someone who, as I read the Bill—I am advised that my reading is correct—comes in and says, "I think you should have a flash of green there and a splash of blue there, and a rather interesting 17th century lampshade on your desk", should be included within the Bill's ambit. I am advised that my reading of the provision is correct, but perhaps the Minister will be able to assure me that that is wrong and that interior decorators—in the way that we are used to them—are not part of the Bill and that it is only those who are professionally qualified to advise on the construction part who come within the ambit of the Bill.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, as a civil engineer and a member of the "Civils", like my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon I feel that we have a situation of sheep and goats here. I suppose that I could call the architects and surveyors sheep as they appear in paragraph (i) as worthy of special mention while everyone else is relegated to the role of consultant. The clause could be rewritten to read, "consultants in architecture, surveying, building, engineering, interior or exterior decoration", or whatever else one might want; or one could have architects, surveyors, chartered engineers, and so forth. I feel like a second class citizen as a chartered engineer reading this provision. I hope that the Minister will look at it again.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, to deal, first, with Amendment No. 142, the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said that he thought that it might be a piece of unnecessary pedantry. I cannot but agree with him. He has rearranged the words on the page and to our mind has made them considerably more confusing. I understand some of the sentiments behind what he is saying. I understand too the sentiments behind what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is saying, namely, that there appear to be a number of classes of consultants who might be in but who are not. We intend to have interior decorators included, and the splash of green and yellow people are intended to be in. I take the noble Lord's point that if they are in, why not others? I can perhaps say that all the others one could conceive of are included in the wording. However, as I cannot provide answers I undertake to come back to the noble Lord before Third Reading or on Third Reading. With that comfort for the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am always gratified when my noble friend Lord Williams is
948
comforted, and I am now. I have only one question to ask. If the words which I have extracted carefully from the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 would be confusing in this Bill, how is it that they are not confusing in that Act? There is something which might properly be called a dichotomy here, or even a straightforward old-fashioned mistake. The Minister has been reassuring. I am sure that he will go back and think about the matter. In view of his remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 59, line 46, at end insert—
("(5) No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 145, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 148 and 176. My noble friend Lord Ferrers indicated in Committee that the Government would introduce these amendments. They reflect the concern of noble Lords that amendment of primary legislation should be a matter for affirmative resolution. The noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Howie of Troon, laid amendments with the effect of Amendment No. 145 in Committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, put forward an amendment with the effect of Amendment No. 148. Amendment No. 176 is consequential. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. They put into drafting language (if I may so put it) amendments moved in Committee. They also respond to concerns raised by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships' House. That committee was worried about the Henry VIII provision in the original draft of the Bill to amend primary legislation by simple order. This shows that the committee set up by your Lordships to scrutinise delegated powers has again had an effect. We are grateful not only to the committee but to the Government for assenting to the important point that it raised.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for responding to those concerns. It occurs to me that, now there are so many provisions for affirmative resolution in the Bill, we shall have to show that we are assiduous in dealing with such resolutions when they come before the House. Of course, they may not do so.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I rise to welcome what the Government have done. I believe that, when discussing earlier amendments to Clause 2, the Government gave assurances about the way in which they would use the power to amend Clause 103. Effectively, the provision says that they can amend any part of that clause: parts 1, 2 and 3. In discussions on the earlier amendments the Government spoke of

949
amending part 2 of Clause 103 in a way that would create an inclusion within the scope of the Bill where it was deemed necessary and operations in the construction industry fell outside the Bill because of the way that the clause was written. Bearing in mind the decision in Pepper v. Hart, would the Minister be prepared to repeat those assurances so that they applied to parts 1, 2 and 3 of Clause 103 to deal with a fear that some noble Lords have that a grey area will emerge as to whether something is a construction activity not covered by the Bill? Is it the intention of the Government to seek to amend Clause 103 with this power to ensure that only construction activity is covered by the Bill rather than to cover exclusions?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not know whether I unnecessarily prolong matters. It seems that the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, are unfounded since the amendment is to ensure that no changes can be made except if they are brought before this House, not merely by negative order, which somebody has to spot, but by affirmative order, where the matter has to be tabled and assented to by your Lordships.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. I believe that I have today given two assurances. First, we will consult before making any such changes. That is inevitable because it is a consensual process in which we are involved. To bounce people in and out of the Bill at the whim of the Government is not in accord with the way this part of the Bill has to work. I also drew attention to the width of the provision and the scope that it gave us to deal with large or small problems that might arise. They will all be dealt with by consultation and by the will of both Houses of Parliament and not otherwise.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 104 [Provisions not applicable to contract with residential occupier]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 60, line 2, leave out ("his") and insert ("a").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 104 deals with contracts concerning residential properties. At the last stage of the Bill an issue arose as to whether the property in question, in order to fall within the provision, was required to be a person's main residence. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said on the 28th March, at col. 1872, that when the Bill referred to a residence it meant any residence. During that debate I had wondered aloud whether the wording now proposed—which refers to "a residence" rather than "his residence"—might make it clearer that reference was being made to any residence and not a main residence. Since it was a matter that I aired at the last stage, I hope that on this occasion I have not, to use his word, bounced the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I am glad that he shakes his head. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we heard in Committee that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was concerned that the reference to a residence in Clause 104(1) might be
950
construed as a reference to a main residence. My noble friend Lord Ferrers reassured her on that occasion that when the Bill referred to a residence it meant any residence. I do not believe that there is any more that I can say or that can be added to the Bill to make that clearer. We also talked about an element of possession being included in the definition. This was a matter brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, he having considered the views of the Law Society of Scotland. The use of the possessive adjective "his" conveys that element. That would be lost if the indefinite article were substituted instead. We have considered what the noble Baroness had to say last time and looked at it again in the context of this amendment. We wish to retain the wording as it is. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Baroness will be content to seek leave to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I moved the amendment on this occasion because I was not sure that the point had been made with any force last time. I am not entirely sure that I follow the explanation, but I certainly shall not pursue it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 147, I advise the House that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 148.
[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 60, line 11, at end insert—
("(4) No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 148 with Amendment No. 145. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 105 [Provisions applicable only to agreements in writing]:
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 60, line 28, after first ("in") insert ("adjudication or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 149 is a very simple matter and I need not detain the House over it for any length of time. It is intended to clarify the constant confusion which the construction industry believes the Government are in throughout a large part of the Bill. I refer to the confusion between adjudication and arbitration. The effect of inserting the word "adjudication" is to suggest that certain written submissions will be appropriate in adjudication, arbitral or legal proceedings. It is hoped that the word "adjudication" will indicate that adjudication is a different matter from arbitration and should be distinguished on the face of the Bill. We will probably return to this matter later. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, when the noble Lord. Lord Howie of Troon, moved a similar amendment in Committee, my noble friend Lord Ferrers undertook to

951
consider the matter. Our first thought was that the amendment was unnecessary. However, we have since been considering whether, if it is necessary, a more comprehensive formula might be better. We have not yet reached a decision and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, will allow us another week in which to complete our deliberations on this admittedly minor phraseology. I hope that with that explanation he will withdraw his amendment today.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am pleased. I had thought that my small amendment, which adds only one word to the Bill, would have done the job. However, if the Government are to produce a more complicated formula which will take a week to devise I welcome that. With the Minister's warm words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 60, line 34, at end insert ("but will not include anything which relates to agreements totalling a sum below £25,000").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important amendment. It picks up a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, in Committee and is a matter which should concern the House. Clearly, it is not appropriate for the Bill to apply to small contracts. On the other hand, I recognise that it is difficult to prevent a larger contract being split up into smaller contracts so that the de minimis provision, which I put at £25,000, does not apply to a larger contract because it appears in several subcontracts.
Nevertheless, I believe that there is a case, if it can be properly worded, for having a de minimus provision in the Bill. I know that the Government have studied the matter and I hope that they will respond constructively. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it would be churlish of me not to rise to say that I made the suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has now produced as an amendment. I made the suggestion in Committee and it prompted a considered written reply from my noble friend Lord Lucas. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has received a copy of my noble friend's letter.
My noble friend indicated some of the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, over the splitting of contracts and the problem of non-payment which bedevils the industry even in relation to small contracts. I understand the problems that we might be putting into the Bill if we insist on the de minimis provision. However, I must stick to my last: I believe that some de minimis provision is required even in the general terms of not trying to wrap the industry in so much red tape that even the smallest contract which happened to be in writing would not be tied up in the scheme. I see the scheme as being a draconian way of dealing with a small problem. Whereas I have some concern about what my noble friend has said, I support some form of de minimis provision, whether or not the figure of £25,000 is the right one.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this is a somewhat confusing amendment in that it attempts to graft a de minimis
952
exemption for smaller contracts onto an inappropriate clause—that concerning agreements in writing. Nevertheless, I am happy to address the principle of an exclusion for smaller contracts without worrying too much about the precise details of how it could be achieved. This revisits the subject of a similar discussion in Committee.
There are several arguments against a de minimis exemption. First, many of those who suffer most in the construction industry are small contractors. Indeed, when one considers that about half the firms in the industry are one-man businesses and two-thirds of the rest employ no more than three staff, it is clear that we would be likely to deny fair contracts provisions to a vast amount of work if this kind of provision were in place.
However, we have done much to ensure that the provisions of Part II would be applied only to contracts where it was appropriate to do so. Clause 104, for example, would exclude a great many smaller contracts where they applied to work for householders. In addition, the right to instalments or periodic payments would apply only to contracts lasting 60 days or more, and this would also reduce the impact on smaller contracts.
Certainly we have not been convinced that fair contracts provisions would leave parties to low-value contracts any worse off. I doubt whether anyone would take a dispute about a broken window to an adjudicator, but if they did we would expect an adjudicator to be able to apportion his costs intelligently. However, I accept that when we came to detailed consideration of the scheme for construction contracts we might need to make sure that the right to adjudication did not obstruct access to the small claims court or other more efficient ways of settling tiny claims.
The main argument against a de minimis exemption is that it would bring with it the danger of unscrupulous contractors simply splitting contracts into smaller packets so that they fell below the threshold. This would be an added complication for all and do nothing to aid on-site relations. We would also need to deal with the problem of contracts whose value fluctuated above and below the threshold as the contract progressed. That is a related complication.
Even if this kind of exclusion were desirable, and we are convinced that it is not, it would by no means he easy to get right. In view of all I have said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of why the Government believe that de minimis provisions are not appropriate. I am bound to say that I first took the line which the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, took in Committee; that a de minimis provision was right. I have subsequently been advised by people who know better than I do that there should be at least a proper discussion of the de minimis provision.
I must read most carefully what the Minister has said and take advice on it because I am still unconvinced that there should not be some provision. How one formulates

953
it I know not at the moment. It is a matter to which I may return on Third Reading or it may be taken up in another place. In the light of the Minister's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 150A not moved.]
Clause 106 [Right to refer disputes to adjudication]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 60, line 37, leave out ("for resolution by an adjudication procedure") and insert ("to adjudication pursuant to a procedure").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 106 explains why construction contracts are defined and dealt with at such length by providing for an adjudication procedure. In Committee your Lordships spent some time on the language used in connection with adjudication, in particular whether it was appropriate to refer to a resolution to be achieved through adjudication since that suggested a permanent outcome.
I was teased by that and believed that there must be a way around it, laterally or perhaps diagonally. Therefore, I suggest that instead of providing for,
"the right to refer a dispute ‖for resolution by an adjudication procedure",
the clause might provide a right to refer the dispute,
"to adjudication pursuant to a procedure".
I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this is the second time that we have seen the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, worried about the word "resolution". She moved another amendment to remove it in Committee. The noble Baroness continues to believe that "resolution" means something which is final; she has not accepted my assurance that this is not necessarily so.
It may be worth repeating that adjudication must have force to resolve disputes. The process is not intended to generate advice or recommendations which parties may or may not choose to accept: it is intended to produce a decision with which parties must comply. The word "resolution" is here quite appropriate.
I also pointed out in Committee that parties would be free to agree whether the decision should be final and binding, or effective for a more limited period. However, I know that noble Lords were suspicious of these assurances when they saw the description of the scheme for construction contracts. This suggested that an adjudicator's decision should have permanent effect unless parties agreed otherwise.
We have considered the views of noble Lords who sought to remonstrate with us on this point, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Howie, Lord Williams and Lord Berkeley. We have also taken into account representations which have begun to emerge from the industry on our description of the scheme. We have concluded that it would be right if disputes which are subject to scheme adjudication could normally be re-opened at practical completion of the contract, and
954
we propose to amend scheme proposals when we consult following Royal Assent. I trust that noble Lords will now go to supper with a light heart. In particular I believe that my words should soothe the noble Baroness's fears that something dark and sinister lurks behind the word "resolution". I hope therefore that she will not press her Amendment No. 151.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my concern was a good deal less than that of other noble Lords who spoke. I addressed the matter as something of an intellectual exercise and I have not lost a great deal of sleep in relation to it. I was merely hoping to be helpful to the process of what is agreed to be a non-party political matter.
I am sorry that my intellect has not shone. I am very grateful for the assurances given about the different approach to the workings of the scheme which, after all, is the substantive matter. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned. In moving that Motion, I suggest that further consideration on Report begin again not before 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Bill [H.L.]
7.3 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Meaning of "trust of land"]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 17, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) The reference to land in subsection (1)(a) does not include land which (despite section 2) is settled land or which is land to which the Universities and College Estates Act 1925 applies.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 is the first of a group of nine amendments, the others being Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 13, 14, 33, 34, 36 and 37. The amendments are very closely interlinked and, with your Lordships' leave, I think it would be appropriate to speak to the whole of this group together in moving Amendment No. 1. This group of amendments will make changes in respect of charitable, ecclesiastical and public trusts involving land, argued for at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. The amendments are supported by the Charities' Property Association and the Charity Commission.
The Bill presently draws no distinction between charitable trusts and what may be termed "private" settlements, where land is limited in succession for individuals. As the Bill is presently drafted, all settlements in existence at the time of commencement

955
would remain untouched by the new regime and subject to the Settled Land Act for as long as they remain in existence as settlements. It has been cogently argued, however, that charities would benefit from the more flexible trustee powers conferred on trustees of land, and that while it would not be right to convert existing "private" settlements into trusts of land and change the position of the tenant for life, there is no such problem in the case of charitable trusts. This group of amendments therefore provides for existing charitable, public and ecclesiastical trusts to become trusts of land on commencement, with two exceptions which I shall explain in a moment.
Amendment No. 2 inserts in Clause 2 of the Bill a new subsection which provides that land held on charitable, ecclesiastical or public trusts shall not be settled land after commencement of the Act (and therefore is no longer subject to the Settled Land Act 1925), even if it was settled land before commencement. Because of the all-embracing definition of a trust of land in Clause 1, this will have the effect that charitable, public and ecclesiastical trusts will be trusts of land, whether created before or after commencement of the Act. Amendment No. 1 provides an exception for land to which the Universities and Colleges Estates Act 1925 applies, so that the trusts of land regime will not apply to such land. This is because land to which that Act applies is in an unusual position, having never been subject to the Settled Land Act scheme but rather having its own detailed, self-contained scheme, and representatives of those who deal with such land have indicated that they would prefer to continue to operate in accordance with that separate scheme.
Amendment No. 4 provides that subsection (1) of Clause 8, which allows the powers of trustees of land to be restricted or excluded by the disposition creating the trust, shall not apply in the case of charitable, ecclesiastical or public trusts. This restores the present effect of Section 106 of the Settled Land Act 1925 for charitable trusts which become trusts of land, in response to concerns expressed by those responsible for the administration of charities, including the Charity Commission.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 ensure that the definition of a,
"trust of proceeds of sale of land",
in Clause 17 meets the new approach under which some trusts now subject to the Settled Land Act will become trusts of land on commencement: the wording will ensure that proceeds of dispositions made before commencement in such settlements will be covered.
Amendment No. 33 ensures that the changes effected by this group of amendments do not apply in relation to the deeds of settlement for the Chequers Estate and the trust instrument for the Chevening Estate, which are set out by statute. The settlements of those two estates are in a very unusual position in that they are not charitable, ecclesiastical or public trusts within Section 29 of the Settled Land Act so as to be part of the class of trusts which this group of amendments sets out to effect; but they are not "private" settlements in the ordinary sense either. Those responsible for administering these
956
settlements believe it would he better for them to be treated for the purposes of the Bill like private settlements, so that they will remain subject to the Settled Land Act in the same way as at present, since it would be a very complex and delicate task to amend the statutory deeds.
Amendment No. 34 replaces the present provisions of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Bill with new provision to ensure that certain requirements relating to dealings with charity land in Section 29 or the Settled Land Act 1925 will continue to apply under the trusts of land regime as they do at present.
Since there is now to be no difference between existing and new charitable trusts for the purposes of the Bill, Amendment No. 34 simply reproduces the necessary parts of Section 29 for those trusts which fall outside the Charities Act 1993, together with the provisions of Section 29 concerning dealings by managing trustees. This means that both Section 29 and the words in Sections 37 and 39 of the Charities Act 1993 which exclude it from applying to charities within that Act can be repealed altogether. Those repeals are effected by the provision inserted by Amendments Nos. 36 and 37. With that lengthy preamble, I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, my remarks on the amendments to which the noble and learned Lord has just referred will be very much shorter. I gather from what he said that all those bodies which are vitally interested in the amendments have been consulted. For the purpose of the record, no doubt the noble and learned Lord will confirm that that has been done.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend was kind enough to mention me at the beginning of his remarks, perhaps before he replies to the noble Lord I may thank him for bringing forward the amendments to clear up certain technical issues affecting a number of old and historic charitable trusts. My noble and learned friend has already said that delicate matters were discussed and formed the subject of meetings between his department and the representatives of the Charities' Property Association as well as the Charity Commission, and indeed the Home Office. I wish to place on record on behalf of the association its thanks to the officials of my noble and learned friend for the courteous and thorough way in which the matter has been handled, and especially for the satisfactory conclusion reached within this most useful Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. I can confirm that those affected as the professional body, together with the Charity Commission and the Home Office, have been consulted and that the amendments are the product of that consultation. I am also grateful on behalf of my officials for what my noble friend said about the nature of the consultations. It is exactly what I would have expected of officials in the Lord Chancellor's Department. However, it is very nice to hear it confirmed by others in such a felicitous way. I am most grateful.

957
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Trusts in place of settlements]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 16, at end insert—
("(4A) No land held on charitable, ecclesiastical or public trusts shall be or be deemed to be settled land after the commencement of this Act, even if it was or was deemed to be settled land before that commencement.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [General powers of trustees]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 5, leave out from ("Where") to second ("the") in line 6 and insert ("in the case of any land subject to a trust of land each of the beneficiaries interested in the land is a person of full age and capacity who is absolutely entitled to the land,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, before I speak to this technical amendment, I should like to make some comments which concern all of the amendments in my name to which I have not yet spoken. They arise in the main from points made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with assistance, it would be fair to say, from the Law Society's representatives. The amendments as they are now before the House follow extended discussions involving the Law Society's representatives, myself, the Law Commission, departmental officials and parliamentary counsel; and I believe there to be general agreement as to the principles which underlie them. In the event that there are still queries as to the wording or precise effect of any of the amendments, I am ready to consider suggestions for revision with a view to arranging, if necessary, for final changes on Third Reading to ensure that the Bill gets everything right as far as that may he possible.
I ought to express here my gratitude to those who took part in the discussions and especially to those who represented the Law Society in such matters, both of whom were extremely technically qualified to discuss the issues. I am most grateful to them for taking the time to do so in the public interest. I am of course also grateful to the Law Commission and to officials in the Lord Chancellor's Department, as well as to parliamentary counsel. Indeed, parliamentary counsel took a great deal of trouble with the technical issues involved in a reasonably short time-scale for such matters. I am most grateful.
As to Amendment No. 3 itself, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, stated in Committee his belief that the trustees' power to convey trust land to beneficiaries under Clause 6(2) is to be exercisable where each of the beneficiaries in question is absolutely entitled; that is, on the basis of concurrent interests, as joint tenants or tenants in common. The amendment to Clause 6(2) is intended simply to make it clearer that the noble Lord's belief is entirely correct. The amendment also makes it clear that the power exists where one particular parcel of land is held for beneficiaries absolutely, regardless of whether absolute interests exist in other land or other assets of the trust. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in regard to the introductory remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, perhaps I may tell him how grateful the Law Society is not only to his officials but also to all those others whom he mentioned as having been consulted since the Committee stage. However, I should like to express a very definite sense of the gratitude of the Law Society and its representatives for the way in which the noble and learned Lord himself agreed to participate in discussions in order to resolve certain matters which were of great importance. That courtesy was very much appreciated.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am most grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Exclusion and restriction of powers]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 10, at end insert—
("() Subsection (I) does not apply in the case of charitable, ecclesiastical or public trusts.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 9 [Delegation by trustees]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 17, at end insert—
("() Where trustees purport to delegate to a person by a power of attorney under subsection (1) functions relating to any land and another person in good faith deals with him in relation to the land, he shall (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) be presumed in favour of that other person to have been a person to whom the functions could be delegated.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 are all concerned with aspects of the trustees' power of delegation in Clause 9 and, with your Lordships' leave, I believe that it would be appropriate for me to speak to them all together.
Clause 9 enables trustees of land to delegate their functions as trustees to a beneficiary or beneficiaries beneficially entitled to an interest in possession in that land. Delegation is by way of power of attorney, which must be given by all of the trustees jointly and accordingly may be revoked by any one of them. Amendment No. 5 carries through an additional element of protection for third parties from Section 29 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which Clause 9 supersedes. A person dealing with a beneficiary-delegate is entitled to assume that the delegate is a person who qualifies to have the function or functions in question delegated to him, unless there is evidence to the contrary, so that he is protected in the event of a mistaken delegation. In the event of revocation of the power, of course, the protection of Section 5 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1971 will be available.
Amendment No. 6 seeks to clarify the position where there is a change in the line-up of trustees. It is intended that the power of attorney effecting a delegation should not be revoked automatically where one of those who jointly gave it ceases to be a trustee because, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said in Committee, there is no reason in such circumstances to suppose that the

959
continuing trustees will necessarily wish the power to terminate at that time. However, the position is different where a new trustee is appointed. In that case, the power is revoked by the new appointment and the new and continuing trustees must grant a renewed power at or after the time when the appointment takes effect.
Amendment No. 7 seeks to clarify the position where functions have been delegated to a beneficiary or beneficiaries and the beneficiary in question or one of them ceases to be entitled to the interest in the land which qualifies him to have such functions delegated to him. In the case of a single delegate, the power delegating the functions to him is automatically revoked. Matters are more difficult where functions were delegated to a number of beneficiaries either jointly, or jointly and severally. In the former case, the power delegating the functions is not automatically to be revoked if one of the joint delegates ceases to have the qualifying interest, so that the remaining joint delegates can continue, together, to exercise the delegated functions, unless of course the trustees take the view that this is inappropriate and revoke the power themselves. In the latter case, the power in effect terminates pro tanto, so that it is revoked in so far as it relates to the beneficiary who ceases to have the requisite interest but remains effective in respect of the remaining delegates.
Finally, Amendment No. 8 is intended to clarify the standard of care to be observed by trustees in deciding whether to delegate any of their functions in this way.I accept the force of the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, put forward in Committee that the question of whether it is reasonable for the trustees to delegate could offer the possibility of confusion because something may be argued to be a reasonable thing to do, even though done without regard to the possible consequences.
The amendment is intended to require the trustees to observe the precautions of a reasonably prudent person in deciding whether to delegate those particular functions to that beneficiary or beneficiaries in the particular circumstances of the trust. That is in line with the well-settled test in Speight v. Gaunt. I beg to move Amendment No. 5. With your Lordships' leave, I hope later to move Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 together en bloc.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take it for granted that, after the talks and discussions that have taken place, there is no opposition to the amendments. However, there are some points which arise out of them. The noble and learned Lord may feel it convenient to deal with them as I raise them, or he may think that it would he very much more beneficial for them to be dealt with in further discussions between the officials of his department and the Law Society. If I may do so in courtesy, I leave to the noble and learned Lord to decide which course he wants to adopt.
I raise a point first of all on Amendment No. 5. The presumption provided for in this new subsection is in favour of a personߞcall him A—dealing in good faith with the attorney or the attorneys. Does the noble and
960
learned Lord consider that any similar presumption is needed in favour of successors in title to A, perhaps even a stronger one to the extent that the successor should be allowed to assume that A did not know of evidence to displace this presumption? As the noble and learned Lord will know, the presumption of non-revocation in the Powers of Attorney Act 1971 proceeds on that basis.
There is another question that arises upon this amendment. Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirm the intention to be that A's position is not prejudiced if evidence to the contrary becomes known to him after his dealing has been completed; in other words, that what matters is whether he deals without notice of such evidence? The present amendment, I suggest, is not entirely clear on that point.
The noble and learned Lord understandably grouped in his remarks Amendments Nos. 5 to 8. I have just spoken to Amendment No. 5. I have no comment to make on Amendment No. 6. I say at once that the wording of Amendment No. 7 is so much clearer than the original Clause 9(3) which appeared in the original Bill. In regard to Amendment No. 8, I was troubled about the reasonableness test and to what it applied, and that amendment suitably deals with that point.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for those comments. I shall look further into the first point that he mentioned. I would assume that this amendment is sufficient to have the result to which he referred in that connection in relation to a successor of A. As regards the second point the noble Lord mentioned, I think it is reasonably plain on this amendment that the relevance, or the time that is relevant, is the time of the dealing, and therefore information that comes to his notice after the dealing has been completed would he quite plain. I think that the clause as drafted meets that point. It is obvious that the intention in relation to the first point is that a successor of A should be protected also. If we have not succeeded in doing that so far, obviously we would wish to consider amplifying that aspect of the matter. I do not believe there is any policy difference between us on that point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8:
Page 4, line 19, at end insert (": and such a power is revoked by the appointment as a trustee of a person other than those by whom it is given (though not by any of those persons dying or otherwise ceasing to be a trustee).").
Page 4, line 20, leave out from ("Where") to end of line 25 and insert ("a beneficiary to whom functions are delegated by a power of attorney under subsection (I) ceases to be a person beneficially entitled to an interest in possession in land subject to the trust—

(a) if the functions are delegated to him alone, the power is revoked,

(b) if the functions are delegated to him and to other beneficiaries to be exercised by them jointly (but not separately), the power is revoked if each of the other beneficiaries ceases to be so entitled (but otherwise functions exercisable in accordance with the power are so exercisable by the remaining beneficiary or beneficiaries), and

961

(c) if the functions are delegated to him and to other beneficiaries to be exercised by them separately (or either separately or jointly), the power is revoked in so far as it relates to him.").

Page 4, line 38, leave out ("it was not reasonable for the trustees") and insert ("the trustees did not exercise reasonable care in deciding").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 11 [Consultation with beneficiaries]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 24, leave out from ("in") to ("or") in line 25 and insert ("relation to a trust created by a disposition in so far as provision that it does not apply is made by the disposition,
() in relation to a trust created or arising under a will made before the commencement of this Act,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 9 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 to 12. These together change the transitional provisions in Clause 11, and it therefore seems appropriate for me, with your Lordships' leave, to speak to them all together.
At present, the trustees' duty to consult under Clause 11 will not apply to an existing express trust of land unless the settlor provides by deed within a year of commencement of the Act that it is to apply, but nothing is said about cases where the trust is created by a pre-commencement will but the testator dies after commencement. Since a will speaks from death, this would mean that such will trusts would not be treated as existing express trusts and so the burden would be on the testator as from commencement of the Act to consider whether to take steps to exclude this duty to consult. This could lead to cases where the testator assumed when making his will that the trustees would not have to consult but the trustees are nevertheless put under that duty because the testator for one reason or another did not revisit his will after he made it.
Amendment No. 9 accordingly provides for any trust created or arising under a will made before commencement of the Act to be treated as an existing express trust. The words "created or arising under", which are based on the precedent of paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the Family Law Reform Act 1969, are intended to cover not only will trusts proper but also trusts which may be created by assents by the personal representatives to beneficiaries under the will.
Amendment No. 11 removes the time limit within which a settlor of an existing express trust may opt to bring it within the provisions of this clause, the Law Society believing the limit to serve no useful purpose. That was one of the matters that we discussed at the meeting to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, kindly referred. Consequential on that change, Amendment No. 12 deletes subsection (4) which defines the terms
"transitional period" and
"existing express trust of land",
and Amendment No. 10 replaces the term,
"existing express trust of land",
962
where it occurs earlier in the clause with the precise wording describing such a trust, doing away with the need for a definition. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the same spirit that I spoke on the previous amendment I put to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack two points arising out of Amendment No. 9. This amendment, as he rightly says, protects trusts arising under the will of a testator who dies after the Act comes into force, if the will was made before commencement. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that if a trust of land is created by an assent—when, as he well knows, the executors vest the land in themselves or others as trustees—that would not make the new provisions apply if the will predates the commencement of the Act; in other words, that it is the time of creation of the beneficial trust which determines whether it counts as an old trust or a new one? That is my first point.
The same point would seem to arise where additional land becomes comprised in an existing old trust after the Act comes into force, whether through a further gift by the settlor or through a purchase by the trustees. Which regime does the noble and learned Lord consider should apply to that situation, and is it clear that this result flows from the wording of the Bill? I said when posing these points, which do not go to principle but to clarification, that it may well be that the noble and learned Lord would prefer to take note of them and not deal with them now. However, I repeat that I leave that entirely to him.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall say how I see the matter, subject to correction. I think that Amendment No. 9 will have the effect that the trust will be regarded as coming into existence for the purposes of these provisions at the time that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, stated. The words "created or arising under" refer back to the time at which the original expression of the trust was made, and the fact that there are later assents will not derogate from that.
So far as concerns new land, one might consider new land not to make a new trust. In other words, the fact that you have added land to an existing trust might not make a new trust. I can see an argument also for the view that the trust is defined by reference to the disposition—that is to say, the directions as to what is to happen—and to the subject matter, namely a specific piece of land, and, therefore, that the other option is possible under the provisions as drafted. It may he that we should consider this point. It is one of interest that I would wish to look at further to see whether we should expressly deal with the situation where the subject matter of the trust is enlarged. I can see an argument that until that other piece of land is affected by the trust, even though the trust provisions are the same affecting a different and earlier piece of land, there is no trust in existence in respect of that second piece of land.
With that rather hesitant response at this stage, I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to consider the matter

963
further. It may well be that we should consider an amendment at Third Reading to deal with the second point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 10 to 12:
Page 5, line 27, leave out ("an existing express trust of land") and insert ("a trust of land created before the commencement of this Act by a disposition").
Page 5, leave out line 29.
Page 5, line 35, leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 10 to 12 with Amendment No. 9. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 17 [Application of provisions to trusts of proceeds of sale]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
Page 8, line 35, leave out from ("property") to end of line 40 and insert ("(other than a trust of land) which consists of or includes—

(a) any proceeds of a disposition of land held in trust (including settled land), or

(b) any property representing any such proceeds.").

Page 9, line 6, leave out from ("to") to ("includes") in line 7 and insert ("settled land").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Notice to beneficiaries of proposed appointment of trustee]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 15:
Leave out Clause 19.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 15 through to 32, 35 and 38 together radically change the approach of Part II of the Bill, broadly in line with the approach urged on the Government in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. These amendments are really interconnected in such a way that I believe it would be appropriate to speak to them all together in moving Amendment No. 15, so that the House may have the whole picture.
The approach of this group of amendments is to give a wider power to the beneficiaries, in essence reversing the 1948 decision in the case of Re Brockbank. That decision is to the effect that beneficiaries who are entitled to have the trust property conveyed to them because they are together absolutely entitled to it may nevertheless not control appointment of the trustees other than by ending and reconstituting the trust—which is unattractive because of the tax implications. Part of the new scheme is that Clause 19 should be deleted, since the power now to be given to beneficiaries will be exercisable at any time, not only when the existing trustees are in the position of having to appoint a new trustee, and so the notice requirements in Clause 19, to which the noble Lord drew our particular attention on the last occasion, would be superfluous.
Amendment No. 15 accordingly deletes Clause 19, and this makes it possible to remove a number of subsequent provisions which are only necessary because of the notice requirement, and to avoid attendant complications and possible problems in practice. Accordingly, Amendments Nos. 23 and 26 together delete subsections (3), (4) and (6) of Clause 22. The deletion of Clause 19 and insertion of the new clause effected by Amendment No. 16 necessitate a number of purely consequential changes in Clause 22, to change references to "this Part" or to "Clause 20" into references to the new clause and Clause 21 or to the new clause alone as appropriate, and Amendments Nos. 20, 25, 27 and 28 are concerned with this.
Amendment No. 16 is the pivotal amendment, and the comments which I made earlier about being ready to consider suggestions concerning the precise wording apply most particularly here. It inserts in place of Clause 20 a new clause which confers on beneficiaries, subject to qualifying conditions, a power to direct any trustee or trustees to retire from the trust, or to direct the appointment of a new trustee or trustees of the beneficiaries' own choosing, or to do both. The new clause operates independently rather than by reference back to the Trustee Act 1925, and so certain aspects of Section 36 of that Act must be spelt out since they are no longer incorporated by reference.
The qualifying conditions for the clause to apply, set out in subsection (1), are that no person has been nominated for the purpose of appointing trustees, and that the beneficiaries are all of full age and capacity and, taken together are absolutely entitled to the trust property.
Subsection (2) sets out the directions which the beneficiaries are able to give, and since they include a direction to retire, Amendment No. 22 is necessary, to insert a reference in Clause 22(2) to the person specified for retirement as well as for appointment. Likewise, Amendment No. 35 provides for a consequential amendment to Section 40 of the Trustee Act 1925, so that it encompasses directed as well as voluntary retirement, and Amendment No. 38 amends the Long Title of the Bill by inserting a reference to retirement as well as to appointment of trustees.
Subsection (3) of the new clause is a very important provision. A trustee who is directed to retire may have rights in respect of the trust property, for example rights to reimbursement or indemnity for expenses incurred in relation to the trust, and may need to take action to ensure that he can enforce those rights.
Subsection (3) is intended to apply to a trustee directed to retire, whether or not he is being replaced, and to ensure that he does not have to comply with the direction unless reasonable arrangements have been tendered which will be effective when the retirement becomes effective. It also reproduces the protection afforded by the retiring trustee's involvement in the paperwork which is necessary to make the retirement effective.
Subsection (4) is intended to make clear the persons on whom a direction to appoint a trustee of the beneficiaries' choosing must be served; and subsection
(5) makes it clear that the power is subject to the general restrictions on numbers of trustees, which needs to be spelt out because it is no longer incorporated by reference.
Amendment No. 17 aims to ensure consistency by importing into Clause 21 the same beneficiary qualification as in the new Clause 20. Amendment No. 18 simplifies the drafting of the clause by removing subsection (3) and incorporating the essentials of it in subsection (2). Amendment No. 19 works together with Amendment No. 24 in Clause 22, which makes it clear that subsection (7) of Section 36 of the Trustee Act 1925 applies to a trustee appointed under the new Clause 20 or Clause 21 as if the trustee had been appointed under Section 36. The need to spell this out for the new Clause 20 as well as for Clause 21 arises because the new clause no longer operates by reference to Section 36; and, once this is done by Amendment No. 24, subsection (4) of Clause 21 becomes superfluous and falls to be deleted, which is done by Amendment No. 19.
Amendment No. 21 deals with a point made by the noble Lord,Lord Mishcon, in Committee, and makes it clear that any direction made by the beneficiaries can be revoked if one or more of them withdraws it in writing before it becomes effective.
Amendment No. 29 does, mutatis mutandis, the same thing in respect of the transitional provisions for Part II of the Bill as Amendment No. 9 does in respect of those for Clause 11, providing for the position of pre-commencement wills which become effective on a post-commencement death. Additional changes to the transitional provisions are made by Amendments Nos. 30 to 32, in the light of representations by the Law Society. The new approach provides for Part II of the Bill to apply to a trust created before commencement of the Act unless the settlor by deed excludes it, and for the settlor to be able to make such a deed at any time, so that he may thus stop a direction from becoming effective, but may not thus affect an appointment or retirement already effective. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it does not fall often to Members of your Lordships' House to be able at one stage of the Bill to move that a clause does not form part of that Bill, to withdraw that amendment, and to find the Government agreeing with it in the next stage of the Bill. I happen to be in that happy position, having moved that Clause 19 should not form part of the Bill:
However, I ask for your Lordships' indulgence because, as noble Lords will have seen, many clauses and amendments have been dealt with by the noble and learned Lord in a very succinct manner. They cover a great number of clauses in the one speech that he made on these various amendments. Perhaps I may, therefore, be forgiven if I take some little time in making the points that I wish to make in particular on behalf of the Law Society. Perhaps I may deal with the various points under the appropriate amendment numbers which were covered in the all-embracing speech of the noble and learned Lord.
966
Starting with Amendment No. 16, subsection (1) provides that the first condition for the application of Clause 20 and therefore the whole machinery of Part II is that there is no person nominated for the purpose of appointing new trustees. I refer your Lordships to the wording of Amendment No. 16:
"This section applies in the case of a trust where...there is no person nominated for the purpose of appointing new trustees".
My first query arises out of that wording. What is the position where the person was nominated but is now dead? Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that Clause 20 is intended to apply where there is no person now alive with the power to nominate trustees as well as to cases where no such person was ever nominated in the first place? In making that point, I excuse myself by saying that in the amendment that I tried to put forward in Committee I was careful to ensure that the wording covered the fact that the person concerned was still in existence. There may be many cases where the person originally nominated has been dead for many years.
Subsection (3) deals with the protection of the position of a trustee directed to retire. For example, he is protected against contractual liabilities to third parties and against taxation liabilities which might be enforced against him after retirement. I tried to emphasise in Committee that this was an extremely important topic, given the element of compulsion involved. The wording of the subsection will require him to retire as soon as he has been—I emphasise this word—"offered" reasonable arrangements. That is quite all right in principle, so long as it is clear that the arrangements on offer are to he implemented no later than the time when the actual retirement takes place. Can the noble and learned Lord please consider whether, on Third Reading, there should be wording which makes that clear and gives emphasis to it?
Can it also be confirmed that no trustee who is directed to retire can in practice be removed from office under these provisions, whether or not in combination with existing provisions of the Trustee Act 1925, without himself executing a deed of retirement and therefore having the ability to defer doing so until reasonable arrangements for his protection have been made? That has been agreed as the correct principle, but it is thought that further drafting amendments may be necessary to ensure that the mechanics work properly.
Lastly, under Amendment No. 16 it is not entirely clear what situation subsection (4) is intended to deal with. It appears to specify to whom a notice is to be given in certain circumstances. Some clarification of how the subsection is intended to work would undoubtedly be helpful. In particular, if a direction has been given under subsection (2)(a) requiring the retirement of all the existing trustees, should the direction under subsection (2)(b) not he given to those outgoing trustees since they are the persons who have power to appoint their successors? Here again, I submit respectfully that further drafting may be necessary.
I now turn to Amendment No. 21 which affects Clause 22. The provision makes clear that a beneficiary can withdraw from a direction given under the new provisions at any time before the direction has been

967
complied with. I tried to voice the provision about the risk of undue influence in Committee. I am most grateful, as is the Law Society, for the consideration given to the point. Withdrawal should be possible, whether the beneficiary in question signed a single joint direction or one of several identical ones. It is unclear from the way the amendment is expressed—I am talking in particular about introducing the additional words at the end of line 6—whether that is achieved; in other words, whether the additional wording qualifies just paragraph (b) of Clause 22(1) or both paragraphs (a) and (b).
I turn to Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 to Clause 22. The amendments reverse the present presumption of the Bill, with the consequence that Part II will apply to existing trusts unless the settlor or settlors by deed provide to the contrary. The reversal of the presumption as regards existing trusts is appropriate, given acceptance of the revised scheme for Part II to which the noble and learned Lord referred. The essence of the scheme is that it only applies in circumstances where the beneficiaries could remove the trustees by putting an end to the trust altogether, under the rule in Saunders v Vautier. Were the Bill put forward in its present form it is my submission that it would certainly not be correct to reverse the presumption in this way.
In cases where the settlor or testator has died, the effect of Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 appears to be that the new provisions will not apply if the trust is created or arises under a will made before the Act comes into force, whether the settlor died before or after commencement. They will, however, apply if the trust was created otherwise than by will, even if that was before commencement. The distinction between inter vivos and testamentary dispositions appears to be an anomalous result and is presumably unintended. In view of the reversal of the basic presumption for existing trusts, will the noble and learned Lord consider whether there is still reason, in this context, to retain a special provision relating to pre-commencement wills as set out in Amendment No. 29?
It is with relief, I am sure so far as your Lordships are concerned, that I deal with the last amendment, Amendment No. 30 to Clause 22. The right for a settlor to opt out for his trust at any time raises the question of how this is to interact with anything done under the provisions before he does so. It is clear that it must not be allowed to upset any appointment or retirement of trustees which has actually taken place in the meantime, even if carried out pursuant to a direction given by the beneficiaries. However, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the fact that the provisions have already operated once does not stop the settlor from opting out so that they cannot operate again in the future; and if a direction has been given to the beneficiaries but has not yet been acted upon by the trustees and the settlor disapproves of the action taken by the beneficiaries, he can deprive their direction of any effect by opting out before the trustees act on the direction? That may be of particular significance in the period immediately after commencement when beneficiaries may be seeking to pre-empt action by settlors in respect of existing trusts.
968
I have said quite a lot in dealing with these grouped amendments. I do so only because I believe that these matters are of some importance and use in making the Bill as efficient as we all want it to be. I realise that I have put a pretty heavy burden upon the noble and learned Lord were he to deal with all these matters now and upon noble Lords had they to listen to a very long and detailed reply. The purpose is to put these matters on record.
Lord Meston: My Lords, after that tour de force I wish only to reinforce the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon; namely, that it should be clear in the new clause whether the reference to the person nominated by the instrument is intended to be a reference to someone who is both still alive and still competent.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that point, reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was certainly addressed by parliamentary counsel. I know that for a fact as I was involved to some extent.
The point is that the verb is in the present tense: there "is" no person nominated. Accordingly, that falls to be tested at the time when this section is under construction. Therefore, the policy, as both noble Lords said, based on the advice that I have so far, is that when a person who was nominated is dead before the application of this section is in question, there "is" no person nominated if that person has already died. If the words had been "has been nominated", the situation would be different.
I am in a position to deal in some way with most of the other matters raised. However, I am not sure that it would be particularly useful to do so in detail now for the reason stated by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Perhaps I should just state the intentions and leave aside the arguments. So far as subsection (3) of the new clause dealt with in Amendment No. 16 is concerned, the intention is certainly that the arrangement should be such as to be effective when the retirement is effective. Secondly, the intention is also that the retiring trustee shall not have to comply in all ways with the direction to retire until he is protected; that is to say, he requires to make a deed.
The opening words of subsection (4) are intended simply to cover circumstances in which the beneficiaries exercise their powers. Counsel has specifically indicated a willingness to revisit the wording if there is doubt about it.
To refer again to Amendment No. 16, the intention in regard to retraction of a direction is that once unanimity is broken and a beneficiary makes that clear in writing, the direction falls. We shall see whether more needs to be done to ensure that both (a) and (b) are covered, but that is certainly the intention.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 29 and 30, I certainly have no objection to examining whether will trusts and inter vivos trusts shall be covered differently or in the same way. I will take that matter up with the draftsman to seek his further advice.
In relation to Amendment No. 32, it was not the intention that the settlor should be able to opt in and out. It was intended, because it is simple, that a settlor should

969
be able to stop a direction in its tracks. If there is real objection to that, we shall be happy to look again at the clause. I rather took it from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that he wished the matter to be reasonably clear. I believe the intention we have is probably an intention in common. The only question is whether the wording effectively arrives at that or effectively declares that intention.
I shall certainly consider all these matters in the light of what has been said. If further amendments are required, I hope to put them forward in good time for Third Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Appointment of trustee at instance of beneficiaries]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 16:
Leave out Clause 20 and insert the following new Clause—
APPOINTMENT AND RETIREMENT OF TRUSTEE AT INSTANCE OF BENEFICIARIES
(".—(1) This section applies in the case of a trust where—

(a) there is no person nominated for the purpose of appointing new trustees by the instrument, if any, creating the trust, and

(b) the beneficiaries under the trust are of full age and capacity and (taken together) are absolutely entitled to the property subject to the trust.

(2) The beneficiaries may give a direction or directions of either or both of the following descriptions—

(a) a written direction to a trustee or trustees to retire from the trust, and

(b) a written direction to the trustees or trustee for the time being to appoint by writing to be a trustee or trustees the person or persons specified in the direction.

(3) Where a trustee has been given a direction under subsection (2)(a), as soon as there has been made to him an offer of reasonable arrangements for the protection of any rights of his in connection with the trust, he shall by deed declare that he has been given such a direction; and if his co-trustees by deed consent to his being discharged from the trust and to the vesting in them alone of the trust property—

(a) he shall be deemed to have retired from the trust and shall be discharged from the trust, and

(b) he and the continuing trustees shall do anything necessary to vest the trust property in them alone.

(4) In circumstances in which either section 36(1) of the Trustee Act 1925 applies or a direction is or has been given under subsection (2)(a), a direction under subsection (2)(b) shall be given to the surviving or continuing trustees or trustee or the personal representative of the last surviving or continuing trustee.
(5) This section has effect subject to the restrictions imposed by the Trustee Act 1925 on the number of trustees.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 16 to 32 with Amendment No. 15; to Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 with Amendment No. 1; to Amendment No. 35 with Amendment No. 15; to Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 with Amendment No. 1; and Amendment No. 38 with Amendment No. 15. With the leave of the House, I therefore propose to move Amendments Nos. 16 to 38 inclusive en bloc.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Appointment of substitute for incapable trustee]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 17 to 19:
Page 10, line 27, leave out ("are of full age and capacity and") and insert ("under the trust are of full age and capacity and (taken together)").
Page 10, line 36, leave out from ("appoint") to first ("the") in line 39 and insert ("by writing").
Page 10, line 41, leave out subsection (4)
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 22 [Appointments: supplementary]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 32:
Page 11, line 1, leave out (" 20") and insert ("(Appointment and retirement of trustee at instance of beneficiaries)").
Page 11, line 6, at end insert—
("and is not by writing withdrawn by any of them before being complied with.").
Page 11, line 8, after ("appointment") insert ("or retirement")
Page 11, line 9, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
Page 11, line 17, at end insert—
("() Subsection (7) of section 36 of the Trustee Act 1925 (powers of trustees appointed under that section) applies to a trustee appointed under section (Appointment and retirement of trustee at instance of beneficiaries) or 21 as if he were appointed under that section.").
Page 11, line 18, leave out (" 20") and insert ("(Appointment and retirement of trustee at instance of beneficiaries)").
Page 11, line 23, leave out subsection (6).
Page 11, line 26, leave out ("This Part does") and insert ("Sections (Appointment and retirement of trustee at instance of beneficiaries) and 21 do").
Page 11, line 27, leave out ("it does") and insert ("they do"). Page 11, line 27, at end insert (", or
() in relation to a trust created or arising under a will made before the commencement of this Act.").
Page 11, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert—
("(8) Sections (Appointment and retirement of trustee at instance of beneficiaries) and 21 do not apply in relation to a trust created before the commencement of this Act in so far as provision to the effect that they do not apply is made by a deed executed-").
Page 11, line 36, leave out subsection (9).
Page 11 , line 41, at end insert—
("() Where a deed is executed for the purposes of subsection (8)—

(a) it does not affect anything done before its execution to comply with a direction under section (Appointment and retirement of trustee at instance of beneficiaries) or 21, but

(b) nothing shall be done after its execution to comply with such a direction.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 26 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 12, line 27, at end insert—
("() Neither section 2(4A) nor the repeal by this Act of section 29 of the Settled Land Act 1925 applies in relation to the deed of settlement set out in the Schedule to the Chequers Estate Act 1917 or the trust instrument set out in the Schedule to the Chevening Estate Act 1959.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Provisions consequential on section 2]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 14, leave out lines 37 to 46 and insert—
("4.—(1) This paragraph applies in the case of land held on charitable, ecclesiastical or public trusts (other than land to which the Universities and College Estates Act 1925 applies).
(2) Where there is a conveyance of such land—

(a) if neither section 37(1) nor section 39(1) of the Charities Act 1993 applies to the conveyance, it shall state that the land is held on such trusts, and

(b) if neither section 37(2) nor section 39(2) of that Act has been complied with in relation to the conveyance and a purchaser has notice that the land is held on such trusts, he must see that any consents or orders necessary to authorise the transaction have been obtained.

(3) Where any trustees or the majority of any set of trustees have power to transfer or create any legal estate in the land, the estate shall be transferred or created by them in the names and on behalf of the persons in whom it is vested.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 20, line 7, at end insert—
("() In section 40(2), after the word "appointed" insert "or under section (Appointment and retirement of trustee at instance of beneficiaries)(2)(a) of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 36 to 37:
Page 27, line 30, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 29.")

Page 33, line 20, at end insert—

("1993 c. 10.

The Charities Act 1993.

Section 37(6).

Section 39(5).")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
In the Title:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 38:
Line 4, after("appointment") insert ("and retirement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.56 to 8.5 p.m.]

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 106.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 60, line 39, at end insert—
972
("Adjudication is not arbitration, the main difference between them being that the decision on an adjudication is not binding except with the consent of the parties. It is an interim decision which must be accepted for the duration of the contract but which can be challenged later either by arbitration or through the courts.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I come to this amendment fresh from a dinner in Terrace Room A with the Construction Industry Group, although I was able to stay only for the first course. I hope to get back for the pudding with any luck, but who can tell. The group sent me here with an enthusiastic urge to persuade the Government to do their best, though we are not doing too badly so far.
Amendment No. 152 is by way of definition. I seem to recall that in the Second Reading debate my noble friend Lord Williams drew attention to the fact that, while there was a large battery of definitions in Part I of the Bill, there was none in Part II, which is the part that concerns us here tonight.
The amendment contains a kind of definition. I say "kind of definition because it does not actually say what adjudication is; it says what it is not. However, that is the important part in regard to the findings of adjudication in the whole ethos of the Bill. Everybody in the construction industry and those concerned with this Bill, with the possible exception of the Government, believe that the Government have confused arbitration and adjudication. There is no doubt that the majority of opinion is correct and that the Government are wrong. It would help us a great deal if the Government were to accept Amendment No. 152. I am not sure whether it is in the right place, but it should be included somewhere.
The definition is not complete. I notice that my noble friend Lord Berkeley has tabled a more judicial definition than I managed to; but I have drawn attention to the key factor which runs through a large part of the Bill and which caused so much annoyance within the construction industry. The confusion is on the government side; the annoyance is on the construction industry side.
The key to the amendment lies in the first four words—"Adjudication is not arbitration". On that simple proposition I rest my case, apart from reminding the Minister that the scheme also confuses the two. I believe it does that quite deliberately. It applies elements of arbitration law to adjudication. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, in supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, if it be convenient for the House, I would like to speak also to my amendment No. 152A. My purpose in putting down the amendment is to have the definition of "adjudication" included—exactly the same purpose as that of the noble Lord, Lord Howie. It follows on from the amendment which we discussed earlier this evening, Amendment No. 151, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The amendments have the same objective—to define adjudication. Again, I am not saying that my drafting is the right solution. We have a definition of "dispute"; we have had "construction contracts" defined previously in Part II, and also "construction operations", which we discussed at some length earlier this evening.

973
There should be a short and clear description of what adjudication is. I hope that the words "summary", which, I believe, means quick and easy, and "non-judicial" can also appear to emphasise the importance that the procedure, which we shall be discussing in later amendments, does not involve expensive lawyer time. The wording I have put towards the end of the amendment is my latest understanding of what the purpose of the scheme and Part II is about.
With those few words, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to look at both amendments with a view to putting in some definition which will help to clarify what we are all doing and what the Bill is all about.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as the House will recognise, I am not against purpose amendments. I believe there is a case for saying, in the rubric to the clause:
"Right to refer disputes to adjudication."
There should be some wording about what adjudication, as opposed to arbitration, really means. That would lead us into further discussion about the scheme and all the rest of it but, in supporting either of my noble friends, whichever amendment the Government wishes to accept—I am sure they will accept one of them—it would be sensible, in my view, to put something in as a purpose of adjudication, because the industry, as my noble friends have said, is unclear. We do not know whether the Government mean adjudication or arbitration. They would be wise to put something in Clause 106 to reflect what is meant by "adjudication".
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the difficulty we have with the two amendments is that we do not wish to restrict the contracting parties opting for something close to arbitration. We have discussed at length the difference between arbitration and adjudication; I believe that we are basically agreed on that. However, we do not wish to stop parties opting for arbitration if that is what they want. We believe that, within the context of making things work better, that would be acceptable. We do not therefore want to draw the definition in Clause 106 so tightly that people cannot go down that route if that is what they want to do.
As I said just before supper, we have accepted the arguments made in Committee and subsequently by noble Lords, and we have concluded that it would be right if disputes which are subject to the scheme adjudication could normally be re-opened at practical completion of a contract. That is making the whole scheme very much closer to pure adjudication than it was, and I am sure that that is welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Howie.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene at this stage but, as I understand it, Clause 106 specifies:
"A party to a construction contract has the right to refer a dispute arising under the contract for a resolution by an adjudication procedure".
974
It seems to me, subject to clarification, that if there were something saying: "This is what adjudication is about", that would be the right place in which to put it.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, I entirely agree. We have said as much as we wish to say. The argument behind our not wishing to say more is that we do not want to fetter parties to the contract more than we believe is necessary in order for them to achieve the effect we are looking for; namely, a satisfactory procedure for resolving disputes. If they happen to want something which is close to arbitration, we do not want to force adjudication on them. We want their freedom to contract to be as wide as possible concomitant with their having an agreement which does what we believe it should do in providing a disputes procedure. Clause 106(2)(a) to (d) sets out the limits on adjudication as we see it, with the qualities that the procedure must have. I agree that this need not be adjudication. It need not be adjudication, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie, knows it, as we shall now have it in the scheme; it could be something which is almost pure arbitration if that is what the contracting parties want.
We do not see the need to restrict the contracting parties just to go for adjudication. We do not see why we should draw things that narrowly if they happen to want to go wider. The question of whether there should be a definition of adjudication in the scheme is a matter for a later clause. This clause deals with what is acceptable in contracts and not what should appear in the scheme. That is at the heart of our objection to the two amendments; it is not that we disagree with either of the attempts to define adjudication. But at this stage of the Bill we do not wish to restrict contracting parties in that way.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I listened with care to what the noble Lord the Minister said, and with a great deal of sympathy. It seems to me that he has performed something not unlike the Indian rope trick; he has produced some form of magic. Also, he said that he did not really wish to say anything at this point. I have had periods in my lifetime when I did not wish to say things. I shall not alarm the House by drawing attention to what they were, but I have not always meant my intentions to be absolutely clear, although they were frequently successful or, put another way—to avoid boasting—not infrequently successful. It is not good enough to say that the Government do not wish to say something. The fact is this: we have a substantial clause on adjudication which, let me remind the Minister, is one of the three key factors from the Latham report which the Government have seen fit to legislate upon. Here is one of the key elements of that report—adjudication—and yet the Government are unwilling to say what it actually means.
There is a theme running throughout the Bill. It is most evident in the scheme, but it is also prevalent in the Bill itself. That theme is a confusion between arbitration and adjudication. It was even evident in the reply of the noble Lord the Minister. Let me agree. If the parties wish to go to arbitration instead of adjudication, that is all right. They can do so. There is

975
nothing to hinder their agreeing to do that. But if they want to go to adjudication it should be made absolutely clear that adjudication is not arbitration.
That is what I have tried to do in Amendment No. 152 and it is what my noble friend Lord Berkeley has tried to do in Amendment No. 152A. The Minister has shown a certain amount of flexibility in his replies to us today. We shall hope that that flexibility in his replies is reflected in words on the Marshalled List when we come to Third Reading and eventually on the face of the Bill. I do not want to press the amendment. However, the amendment, or something like it—I shall not go to the gallows for my wording—should be in the Bill. It should be either where I have stated it should he or somewhere in the adjudication clause so that people know what is expected of them.
The Government are setting up parameters. The parameters ought to be clear so that people know the hurdles—if a hurdle can be a parameter or a parameter can be a hurdle—they have to leap over. It should be made clear. The Government have so far failed to do that. They ought to, either in my words or some other words. However, the Minister has been conciliatory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 152A not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 61, line 6, at end insert—
("(2A) The contract shall also provide that the adjudicator is not liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of his functions as adjudicator unless the act or omission is in bad faith, and that any employee or agent of the adjudicator is similarly protected from liability.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 154. In Committee both the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, introduced amendments which included some sort of legal immunity for the adjudicator. Initially it was the Government's view that this was something to be left for parties to cover in their contract but, on reconsideration, we believe that freedom from legal liability for an adjudicator acting in good faith is such an essential feature of the process that it should be specified in primary legislation. I hope that the noble Lords I have just mentioned continue to agree to that.
Amendment No. 154 is partially consequential on Amendment No. 153. However, noble Lords will note that the phrasing of subsection (3) of Clause 106 has also been clarified, since we felt it was vital that there should be no confusion about its meaning. What we are saying—and have always been meaning to say—is that, unless all the conditions in subsection (2) and the new subsection (2A) are met, the provisions for adjudication in the scheme for construction contracts will apply in their entirety. There is to be no "mixing and matching" between the contract and the scheme. One has either the contract operating; or, if the contract falls down on these provisions, one has the scheme in its entirety. Mixing and matching would be risky. We do not wish parties to be in any unnecessary doubt about what adjudication
976
procedures are open to them. I believe this is a helpful clarification. I shall seek to move the amendment when its time comes.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for introducing this amendment. It certainly meets the concerns that we expressed in Committee about the legal liability of those persons who are appointed as adjudicators. It would be absurd if someone were to be appointed as an adjudicator and, in discharging his duties in good faith, were to be subject to legal action.
I prefer to reserve my comments on Amendment No. 154 until we reach it in the Marshalled List because there are points arising on it which I wish to address. I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this amendment which meets our concerns on the legal liability of an adjudicator.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I wish to add my thanks to the Minister for bringing forward the amendment. Several of us brought up this matter in Committee. Lest the noble Lord thinks that my thanks are not double barbed, perhaps I may say that the amendment, which I welcome, would have been very much strengthened if my Amendment No. 152 had been accepted so that an adjudicator knew what adjudication was and knew that it was not arbitration.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, with thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 61, line 7, leave out ("such a procedure, the relevant") and insert ("a procedure which complies with the requirements of subsections (1) to (2A), the adjudication").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already said what we believe this clause to be for. I look forward to listening to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and to discussing the concerns he may have on the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Bill as drafted states:
"If the contract does not provide for such a procedure, the relevant provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts apply".
In place of,
"such a procedure, the relevant",
the Government wish to insert,
"a procedure which complies with the requirements of subsections (1) to (2A), the adjudication".
That seems to be slightly circular. I fully understood the Bill as drafted but I cannot quite understand what is meant by referring back to subsections (1) and (2A) the adjudication. If the Government had accepted my noble friend's amendment on the subject of adjudication, I would be quite clear on the matter. But since we are left slightly in the dark about the status of the scheme of construction of contracts, I should be grateful if the noble Lord could enlighten me on exactly what this amendment produces.

977
My next point may not be relevant to this amendment but it is certainly relevant to the discussions we had in Committee. There is a question of whether the adjudicator, under whatever procedure, is allowed to go beyond what is relevant to the case he is adjudicating on. In Committee we discussed the problem of adjudicators ranging far and wide. I should be grateful if, in the context of responding to Amendment No. 154, the noble Lord could reassure us that adjudicators will not be ranging far and wide in searching out information which may not be relevant either to their charges under Clause 106 or indeed under the amendment moved by the noble Lord. This is quite an important factor in determining what adjudication means and what adjudicators under the clause are allowed to do.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I do not see it as my brief to support the Government on this part of the Bill or, indeed, necessarily to oppose them. I am attracted by the approach which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, used when he spoke to this amendment a moment ago. It is probably right to be clear about what scope there may be, if any, for mixing and matching, as the noble Lord put it. However, we might find it easier to discuss such amendments if we were dealing first with the scheme'. It is perhaps an oddity of the way in which these matters are approached that we come to the substance of it after we have dealt with the way in which the scheme is to be applied or not. I believe that this approach by the Government is probably helpful in practice.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I intervene briefly on Clause 106(3). If I am out of order, I am sure that a noble Lord will tell me, so I give due warning. Subsection (3) states,
"such a procedure, the relevant provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts apply".
But in reading the Bill I notice that the clause understates the case. It refers to "the Scheme", when there are in fact two of them. We shall come to this matter later in the Bill in more detail. But, as I understand it, there is a scheme put forward by the Minister, whoever that person is, for England and Wales and another for Scotland. Each will produce a scheme of their own, but they will not necessarily be the same scheme because of the changes in the law which apply between our two united countries pro tem.
I am merely laying down a marker for a debate which we shall have later. I believe that the Government will have to take a little more care about this part of the clause. I had not thought about it early enough to table an amendment, which would have been kinder. I do not expect the Minister to reply at this stage because I am being a nuisance by inventing an amendment which I have not tabled. But there are two schemes, not one.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by explaining how this new subsection would work. Under the clause as it stands, there is a description of an adjudication under subsection (2)(c) which satisfies the scheme. It states,
978
"impose a duty on the adjudicator to act impartially".
As the Bill is written, if a contract were deficient in that aspect alone, that aspect alone of the scheme would be imported into the contract. As regards the amendment, if a contract is deficient in just that one aspect, the whole scheme is imported into the contract. We are saying that we do not believe that it would be satisfactory to try to mix and match bits of the contract with bits of the scheme and to pick out something which is deficient in the contract and substitute just that part of the scheme. As it emerges, the whole scheme will be an entity which ties in and works together. If one tries to bring parts of it into the contract for which there is no legal control, which is not necessarily related to the way in which the scheme is laid out, that is a recipe for confusion. We have always intended that the scheme as a whole should be imported if something was wrong with the contract rather than to include bits and pieces.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked about the ability of the adjudicator to range far and wide. That is something to which Amendment No. 189 addresses itself to a certain extent. Perhaps I may pre-judge that and turn to it. Amendment No. 189 would have the effect of restricting an adjudicator to consider material presented to him rather than letting him decide procedures. In reply to that, I say that we would not wish to restrict an adjudicator's ability to investigate cases without first considering the views of the whole industry. This is certainly a point that we shall look at, but in consultation with the industry rather than on our own initiative.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I point out that I was under the impression that the whole scheme would be imported into the contract if the contract had one part missing. What is the position if the original contract is drafted in such a way that it is in conflict with the balance of the rest of the scheme and not the part which is in there just to replace the missing part in the contract? One can have the original contract which is drafted in such a way that it conflicts with the scheme, which has to be imported as a whole. I realise that my noble friend would like the whole scheme imported rather than small pieces of it. I wonder whether there could be a conflict between the two. Perhaps my noble friend will give the matter consideration before Third Reading.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, I shall do so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 61, line 9, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) The Scheme may include—

(a) for England and Wales, such provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate, and

(b) for Scotland, so much of the law, practice and procedure relating to arbitration as appears to the Lord Advocate to be appropriate.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Minister referred to mixing and matching. My amendment is intended to seek to understand how much may he mixed and matched of the Arbitration Act for England and

979
Wales and the law, practice and procedure of arbitration in Scotland. As Clause 106(4) is drafted, the scheme may apply the provisions of the Arbitration Act for England and Wales—similar provisions will apply to Scotland—with adaptations and modifications at the discretion of the Minister. Can the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, explain to your Lordships if it is intended that the existing provisions of the Arbitration Act can themselves be altered and then put into the mix of the scheme or if what is intended here is that the scheme may apply to some provisions but not others—that would clearly be sensible—of the Arbitration Act? The reason I am pursuing this matter is that it does not seem appropriate to give power to the Minister to start changing the provisions of the legislation, albeit for the purposes only of the scheme, but without bringing those changes before this House and another place. I beg to move.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, is it convenient to the House if we discuss my Amendment No. 160 at this time? It stands alone in the groupings on the Marshalled List. I shall not pursue it unless the Minister agrees with me. I am asking that we consider two schemes, and not one. If the Minister agrees, then I shall continue, but if he does not, I shall wait my turn with the normal politeness that I always show. I shall babble on while the Minister makes up his mind. Does he find it acceptable? I am suggesting that we discuss Amendment No. 160 with Amendment No. 154, because they seem to have a kissing cousinship at least.
I admit to a certain dereliction of duty here, in the sense that I did not realise that there were to be separate schemes: one for England and Wales, and another for Scotland. Our debate in Committee did not make that clear. I absolve the Government from any blame in this matter, because if one looks closely at the Bill it implies that there are separate schemes produced by separate Ministers. We did not realise that at the time, and the Government did not feel inclined to remind us of it.
I received a letter from the Lord Advocate (the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon), a man whom I do not know, although he seems to be a Member of this House. He may be a recent Member. He wrote me a kind and informative letter relating to matters I had raised at an earlier stage in relation to my native land and the Bill.
I was reading the noble and learned Lord's letter happily until I reached page 2, when I was drawn up short. He explained of course that his department (the Lord Advocate's Department) worked closely with the Secretary of State for Scotland, which did not surprise me because I think that the Secretary of State for Scotland is a man who would insist upon being worked closely with—if that is grammatical. The Lord Advocate went on to tell me that his officials have been in contact with representatives of the construction industry in Scotland,
"in order to discuss the terms of the Bill and the proposals for a Scottish scheme".
That is direct. I am sure it is within the Bill's ambit, although no one reminded us of that. It was not thought to be appropriate, and we did not spot it. He continued:
980
"These discussions will assist in determining the nature of the Scottish scheme, and will in due course form part of the formal consultation exercise which I require to undertake before I make the scheme itself'.
I could go on. There is an interesting paragraph which tells me about Scottish law, and matters of that nature, and things which will apply in Scotland and things which will not. The most important one is the fact that the Arbitration Bill will not apply in Scotland. Yet this "scheme" as we have called it so far, which is in fact a scheme for England and Wales, leans heavily on the Arbitration Bill and quotes from it extensively, without admitting it. The Arbitration Bill does not apply to Scotland, so what is the Scottish scheme to consist of? Will it spatchcock in bits of an Arbitration Bill which does not apply to Scotland? The Minister shakes his head, and I am glad to see that.
That brings me to a question which I must put to the Minister. We asked, I think in Committee, that this famous scheme be presented to the House in draft so that we could consider it, and even think about it, if the worst came to the worst. We may want to consider and think about the Scottish scheme. So is there any possibility that we may see a draft of the Scottish scheme before Third Reading so that we can consider it and possibly think of putting it down as a schedule to the Bill on Third Reading? I chuckle in a demonic way, but this is a serious matter.
If it is right that we should have a sight of the scheme for England and Wales, is it not right that the Scottish Office should lift its kilt just enough to let us have a look at the scheme for Scotland? Because it will he a different scheme. The Arbitration Bill does not apply, and there are all sorts of elements of Scottish law which do not apply. We should see the scheme in draft form before we go to the next stage of the Bill. I should have thought that round about Monday would be a good time.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Baroness has recognised that it is legitimate for the Government to draw from arbitration law in the making of the two schemes for construction contracts. The Arbitration Act is, after all, the most up-to-date legislation on dispute resolution available.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it is not an Act.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is a Bill. I do apologise. We believe that at least some of its provisions may be useful in one form or another when it comes to taking powers for the scheme. I believe this has been superseded by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, but, following full consultation on the scheme after Royal Assent, we should like to give the industry the fallback adjudication provisions which suit it best. It might prove difficult to do that if the relevant Minister were not empowered to make minor adaptations or modifications to arbitration law. That is as far as our English ambitions go.
The Scots may, as their view of their scheme develops—I am afraid that it will not have developed fully by Third Reading—feel that they need slightly

981
greater powers. I am not in a position to say that yet. In short, we want to ensure that we have the powers to make schemes that work for the construction industry on both sides of the Border. That could be difficult if we were to accept the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it, therefore.
Before I leave the Floor clear for the noble Baroness to do that, I should perhaps say that she produced an accurate sting in the tail when she asked why we do not have this back to look at it. Looking at it in that way, why do we not have the whole scheme back, subject to affirmative resolution? That is something that we are prepared to consider.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he satisfy me—I am not difficult to persuade, as he knows—why it is that the English and Welsh—estimable as those people are—should have a look at the scheme before it passes through this House while the Scots—of course we know that they are less estimable in some respects—have to wait until Royal Assent? That is an argument which cannot stand. Surely the Scots can have a peek at it.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the intention is that the scheme should have the same effects north and south of the Border, but because the law is different the way in which the provisions work will have to be different. We have not yet reached our conclusions as to what they should be north of the Border so as to make the proposal one that is suitable for publication.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he can clarify something. From what he said, I inferred that the amendment was right and required. The Minister said that we had a new Arbitration Bill—it is a Bill rather than an Act, as my noble friend pointed out—and when it became an Act the Government would modify it and put it into the scheme.
The reasoning behind the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was that it would be wrong for a Minister to be able to amend primary legislation without recourse to Parliament. That is exactly what the Government have suggested that they will do. I hope that I have not got hold of the wrong end of the stick. If that is what the Minister is talking about it seems to be a travesty of the whole parliamentary procedure.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I believe that I said in my closing remarks in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we were very happy to consider the possibility of making the whole scheme subject to affirmative resolution so that that particular point should be covered.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister has just said. Before I seek leave to withdraw the amendment, I raise one point which I ask the Minister to note, not to respond to at this stage. I ask that he lets me and other noble Lords know before Third Reading whether that is to be proposed by the
982
Government. Otherwise, there will be a number of amendments that I and no doubt other noble Lords will wish to table at Third Reading.
It has crossed my mind more than once during this afternoon and evening that, given that the Government clearly have a number of major amendments in mind, it is a pity that this part of the Report stage could not have been deferred somewhat so that noble Lords could have seen those amendments. I believe that we might have moved faster and more constructively had the Government allowed that flexibility in their timetabling. Having noted that the Minister has heard my request, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 108 [Dates for payment]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 61, line 30, leave out ("adequate") and insert ("effective").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 156 is another short probing amendment. Clause 108 (1)(a) provides that every construction contract shall provide an adequate mechanism for determining payments. I seek to understand a little better what is implied by the term "adequate". The clause could simply have said that every construction contract should provide a mechanism for determining payments. The term "adequate" must mean something. To me, it suggests a degree of quality, but I am not sure about what other than to ensure that the payments can be determined. I suggest the use of the word "effective", not as a synonym, but as a more accurate term for what is intended. I do not seek necessarily to redraft but rather to understand. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am afraid that once again the Government have considered the matter and like things the way they are. To us, an adequate mechanism is one that is proportionate and appropriate to enable the payments mentioned in Clause 108 (1)(a) to be determined; in other words, it is a mechanism that works. In contrast, the effectiveness of a mechanism brings in the concept of quality. Does it work well? Is it the best that there can be? It is a matter that is subjective rather than objective, which may vary according to the preferences and perceptions of the individuals involved. In this context, the word "adequate" is already used in building regulations and therefore has some kind of history. We feel that it is the right word for these circumstances. However, I thank the noble Baroness for raising the question. The Government are glad to have had a chance to look at the matter again.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps its use elsewhere is the most telling point. The argument used by the noble Lord against the adoption of the word "effective" is the one that I would use against the word "adequate". My further concern is that to provide for an adequate mechanism implies a retrospective assessment of that mechanism. However, having sounded off about it, it is perhaps appropriate to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 109 [Notice of intention to withhold payment]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 62, line 10, leave out ("award") and insert ("decision").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 157 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 158. These amendments follow similar ones moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, in Committee, which we undertook to consider. Having done so, we remain unconvinced that the word "award" is wholly specific to the process of arbitration. However, we know that the noble Lord feels strongly on this matter. We are also aware that there are those in the construction industry who share his views. Rather than let the Bill arouse hostility in this way, we propose to remove references to an adjudicator's award and use instead the word "decision". Of course, the terminology in the scheme for construction contracts will be made consistent with this. I beg to move.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for acceding so graciously to my request—I will not say demand because that is too severe—at Committee stage. The noble Lord said that I felt strongly about the matter. I am too mild a man to feel strongly about anything. The reason for using the word "decision" rather than "award" was that it was right to do so. It was not a matter of strong feeling but a matter of lowland Scots pedantry: we like to get it right rather than wrong. I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting this small but proper amendment to the Bill. We are here to improve the Bill, and we have done it in a small way.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 62, line 12, leave out ("award") and insert ("decision").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 112 [The Scheme for Construction Contracts]:
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 63, line 25, leave out ("The Minister shall by regulations make a") and insert ("Schedule (Scheme for Construction Contracts) sets out the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise with a certain amount of alarm. My Amendment No. 159 is a trifling matter. It is a paving amendment. It is coupled with a substantial number of other amendments, some of which are in themselves quite big. At least two of them involve completely new schedules to the Bill. I am a little hesitant because in this House we like speeches to be relatively brief, provided they cover the points at issue in the amendments to which they speak. I cannot see how I can be brief in the normal sense of that word in the face of this grouping of amendments. I see that the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, has his head in his hands. I apologise to him. I hope he will understand that this is not my fault. I was not asked to agree, and did not agree, to this enormous grouping. It has the unfortunate effect that I will not he able to give each
984
amendment its due weight. That worries me a bit. I should like each to be considered fully. I will try to do my best to consider them as fully as is appropriate within decent brevity. If my notion of brevity does not coincide with that of other noble Lords, I hope that no one will be so churlish as to propose the Motion that I be no longer heard.
9 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in an interpolation, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether it is right that a substantial number of his amendments are amendments to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Would it not be easier for the noble Lord to explain his amendments if we heard first what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, proposes to move which the noble Lord wished to amend? Therefore, might it not be easier if, now that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has introduced the subject, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, explained his amendments and then the noble Lord can come back? It is a humble suggestion and if it is confusing I withdraw it.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, it is an interesting suggestion but it comes up against a procedural problem. It is that we are at the Report stage and I am permitted to speak only once, which might take some time. The noble Lord's suggestion is extremely sensible and if there were some way in which the leave of the House could be gained I should not be opposed to such a procedure. Indeed, it would be of great help.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I admit guilt in all this. When my noble friend and I tabled amendments I agreed from this Front Bench to the groupings. I thought that it was appropriate that we should have the debate on one—admittedly long—section because the amendments relate to the same business. I apologise to my noble friend if he was not consulted about the groupings and I hope that on some future occasion I can make it up to him. However, from this Front Bench I am happy with the groupings and moving on to Report stage requirements.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, in view of that I must babble on for quite some time. I do not blame my noble friend in any way for his grouping. It has an intellectual consistency but it causes me a difficulty in that I may have to speak for longer than I normally speak. If any noble Lords wish to go away they are perfectly entitled to do so.
As regards Amendment No. 159, I need say no more about it than that it is a paving amendment. Amendment No. 161 leaves out subsections (2) and (3), which I do not believe are necessary. They deal with the scheme as regards the Minister's actions and relate to my Amendment No. 160, which we discussed earlier out of order. We have more or less dealt with that, therefore.
Amendment No. 162 has nothing to do with me and I wish to say nothing about it, apart from the tact that it is excellent in its construction. Amendment No. 178 goes to the heart of the matter. As the noble Lord. Lord Elton, said, many of my amendments are amendments to Amendment No. 178. Perhaps I may say

985
in introduction that I do not think too much of the scheme, which has been tabled as an amendment in its totality. Your Lordships will remember that we considered doing that in Committee but did not do so. That was a pity but we are doing so now. Had we tabled the scheme in Committee, we could have spoken about it at greater length and in greater detail and given it closer consideration than we are able to give it at this stage.
Perhaps I may say in general terms what is wrong with the scheme. The Government have a strategy which in its aim is wholly correct and admirable. It is that construction contracts should be proper and should ensure that people are paid and so forth. We discussed that matter on Second Reading. The peculiar aspect of the scheme is that that is not its intention. The intention of the scheme is to frighten people into taking up contracts which they do not feel inclined to take up. The Minister and his colleagues admitted that in Committee when they described the scheme as being more draconian than the provisions of Clause 105, which is now Clause 106. That was not my word, it was theirs.
The scheme is more draconian. It has about it all the hallmarks of something that Michael Howard might have conceived. It is a boot camp solution. The Government are trying to frighten people into taking up contracts because if they do not the Government will be obliged to adopt a scheme which is more draconian and will put the frighteners on them. I find that odd. If the Government want people to adopt contracts under the provisions of Clause 106, that is fine and I do not dissent from that in any way. Indeed, I support it, except in detail here and there. If the Government want people to take up the provisions of Clause 106 why do they not make them compulsory or make the scheme the same as the provisions in Clause 106?
I am a great man for an easy life and so is the Minister, I am sure. At this stage of the Government's life they should be in favour of an easy life too and put forward propositions which people will find agreeable and acceptable. The provisions of Clause 106 are generally acceptable to those in the industry, with some minor dissensions, but the scheme is not. It is absurdly controversial and for no good reason whatever.
Those are general comments and I do not wish to detain the House too long. No, that is not true; I do wish to detain the House for quite a long time but I cannot do so because it would be unfair at this time of night.
I turn to Amendment No. 182, which provides that Clauses 20 to 28 of the scheme are needed only if adjudication is actually arbitration. Most noble Lords are agreed that adjudication is not arbitration. Therefore, those clauses should go because they are not needed.
I could go on. I do not wish to detain the House. I shall not go through these matters in any detail because it would he quite wrong for me to do so. The essence of an adjudication is that it should be quick. It should remove a source of disharmony from the contractual arrangements, a disharmony which could affect adversely the conduct of the contract and the successful conclusion of the project. As the Minister knows and
986
as Clause 106 allows, that adjudication produces rough justice but it is a rough justice which can be put right at a later stage. There is absolutely no reason why the scheme should not adopt the same attitude and strategy. I am sure that the Minister will tell me that that is what he has in mind. If he does that, I shall be delighted.
Perhaps I may say a few words now about Amendment No. 191. My reason for tabling it is that it removes all references to the Arbitration Bill. I do that quite clearly in order to ensure that nobody confuses adjudication with arbitration. We had a short exchange about that earlier when we discussed the scheme which would apply to Scotland. We had not realised that there was such a thing, but there is.
Since the Arbitration Bill does not apply to Scotland, it is inconceivable that its provisions could apply to the Scottish scheme. If it did, that would be an act of imperialism far beyond Edward I, let alone the current Government. If it cannot apply there, why should it be imposed in England? Why should the Arbitration Bill be imposed upon a process of adjudication since we are all agreed that adjudication and arbitration are not the same? I have probably said enough at this stage although I have a substantial body of notes and I could go on for some time. However, that would be quite unfair.
I turn now to my Amendment No. 197. That introduces into the Bill as a new schedule a satinised version of the conciliation procedures of the Institution of Civil Engineers. I say that because those procedures are part of the sixth edition of the ICE Standard Conditions of Contract which are acceptable to and used throughout the construction industry. It includes that process of conciliation.
Conciliation is not exactly the same as adjudication but it is near to it. The idea of conciliation is to produce agreement so that the parties involved in a dispute agree to a resolution, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, wanted. Of course, that is an extremely sensible way to proceed. I have adjusted the conciliation process to make it an adjudication process with which the parties do not need to agree but where the adjudicator gives a decision which may be subject later to arbitration or resolution through the courts. The conciliation procedure was first introduced in 1988, which is quite some time ago. It has been in use since that time and has proved its worth in that period. On the basis of experience, the procedure was revised in 1994 and could no doubt readily be revised again, perhaps on the basis of the satinised version that I have tabled.
I have dealt with this rather large group of amendments quite inadequately. I say that because each one of them deserves much more attention and much more detailed consideration than I have been able to give. However, I am well aware of the fact that the House does not want to listen to me all night. Indeed, noble Lords have been most patient. I am most grateful: I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Howie for being so reticent in

987
moving his Amendment No. 159 and, indeed, for his restraint in dealing with the amendments which I confess I agreed to when grouping Amendment No. 159 with a whole series of amendments on the Marshalled List. The substantive amendment with which we are dealing is Amendment No. 159 on which is consequential my noble friend's schedule set out in Amendment No. 197. Therefore, if the Government were to agree, as I hope they might, to Amendment No. 159, it would follow that Amendment No. 197 would also be accepted.
Independently of my noble friend, I exercised the threat which I made in Committee to table the Government's scheme so as to allow amendments to be made to it. However, it is late in the evening and we have had a long day. I do not intend to go through all the pages of notes that I have with me as regards what is defective in the Government's scheme. But if noble Lords opposite wish me to, I will go through them.
Suffice it to say that we believe that the scheme produced by the Government is, first, unpopular; and, secondly, it is full of problems, starting from the procedure in appointing adjudicators, going on to the commencement of proceedings, and then to a stay of legal proceedings, failure of appointment procedure, and so on; indeed, every single provision in the Government's scheme—as set out in the schedule that I have proposed as an amendment—is wrong and has some particularly offensive matters in it. My noble friend is right to say that the Government's scheme as presently produced is more in the nature of arbitration than of adjudication. That is the fundamental problem that we have in the matter.
Noble Lords have tabled amendments to the schedule that I propose. Again, I do not intend to go through them in detail. However, suffice it to say that I substantively agree with the amendments that my noble friend Lord Howie has tabled to that schedule. If by any curious event the House accepted my amendment/schedule I would be most disappointed. I say that because the point of tabling it was to demonstrate to the Government that we do not think that that is the right way to proceed and that the industry does not think it is the right way to proceed. Therefore, I would accept all amendments to the schedule and I would also accept the Government saying, "We do not like this being put into a schedule to the Bill and, therefore, we are not going to agree to it". Indeed, I would vote in the Government Lobby if that were to be the case.
I turn now to my noble friend's schedule, with which I have a great deal of sympathy. There are two principles involved. First, the scheme should be in the form of a schedule to the Bill. It is not enough to put it in the form of regulations, even though the noble Lord may say that it will be the subject of the affirmative resolution procedure. As we all know, the affirmative resolution procedure does not allow us to amend. If we cannot amend, then there is no point in affirmative resolution: it is either yes or no. In this House we have what is sometimes called a "convention" but which at other times is called a "self-denying ordinance" not to vote for or against statutory instruments under the affirmative
988
resolution procedure. The fact that this becomes something which requires affirmative procedure does not impress me.
Secondly, what I believe should happen is that the Government should take my noble friend's schedule away—perhaps together with the amendments of my noble friend Lord Berkeley—and make sure that it is produced as a proper schedule to the Bill before it is enacted, as nothing else will do. The consequence of doing that would be to reassure the industry—we are all trying to reassure the industry—that the Government will not change the scheme for England and Wales and that they are not going to produce provisions which are more dependent on the Arbitration Bill, as it now is, rather than on adjudication. We should all he quite clear what will happen if the parties do not accept adjudication in the first place. When the Scottish scheme finally appears, I would expect that to be another schedule to the Bill.
It is late and there is still much business to get through. That is our position. We believe that there should be a schedule to the Bill and we believe that the schedule spoken to by my noble friend is probably better than anything else, subject to the amendments of my noble friend Lord Berkeley who no doubt will speak to them. Simple affirmative resolution on regulation is not enough. The Government must do much better. They may not do much better in this House but they must do much better in another place.
Lord Elton: My Lords, both the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, have helpfully reduced this to a debate about a major principle, and that is the way in which Parliament will be satisfied—and the industry will know—in relation to what the scheme will contain. Both of them have come to the conclusion, by different routes, that the scheme should be on the face of the Bill. I hope your Lordships will pause over that suggestion and not immediately say that it has the great attraction that it gives parliamentary control over what is happening and gives security to the industry because it will know what will happen for a long time.
As I understand it, the Bill breaks new ground in two respects: first, because it applies to an area which has not hitherto been subject to such legislation and, secondly, because it seeks to be as broadly as possible consensual in its nature. It is dealing with an area of great complexity in which there is insufficient experience in the official world of the relationships which will develop under this legislation. It follows, does it not, that however wise we may be in preparing the scheme we are likely to be surprised in some respects by its effect. As a result of that surprise we are likely to wish to change it. If it is inscribed in the statute, we may have to wait five, 10 or 15 years for an opportunity to do it. If it can be achieved in some other way, we are more likely to remedy defects before they have caused too much damage. The question then is what that alternative should be.
One way is to proceed by a statutory instrument which should be either subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure. That is a change. As I understand

989
it, the Government originally had a proposal that the scheme should be written by Ministers and could be altered by Ministers at will. That has the great advantage that defects can be remedied almost overnight. It has the disadvantage that your Lordships and another place would be surrendering all control as to what happened in the field for the foreseeable future because it would be up to Ministers, and they would not be controlled by Parliament.
believe that we should choose between those two methods. It would be a mistake to inscribe the provision on the face of the Bill with the necessary rigidity and delay that that would cause.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. Schedule 1 of the Financial Services Act has exactly that provision. It can be amended by affirmative resolution. That is what I am proposing.
Lord Elton: My Lords, that is a combination of the two approaches. I thought that a moment ago the noble Lord argued against affirmative action.
If your Lordships are in favour of affirmative resolution, you accept some delay in the effect of your Lordships' wishes in changing legislation. But once it is in print, as the noble Lord said, there is no further power to amend.
The answer to that is surely for the Government to consult extensively before they draw up their statutory instrument. Subject to what my noble friend on the Front Bench will say, my view is that that would be a happy issue. If the Government were to consult both industry and informally among those interested politicians before they drafted such an instrument, I believe that the affirmative resolution would be a sufficient safeguard. However, I would not recommend that it be put on the face of the Bill.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have not intervened at any stage of the Bill until now. It was certainly not my intention to do so until quite recently. I had anticipated a quiet, peaceful evening recovering from the frustrations of an unsatisfactory Answer to a Starred Question.
However, I was telephoned by the head of my old chambers who specialises in construction disputes. He had with him a senior representative of the Official Referees' Solicitors Association. They were both deeply worried about the scheme that the Government proposed. They were joined subsequently by the chairman of the specialist group of the Bar dealing with building and construction disputes—a very experienced QC.
Their concern was a fairly simple one. They reckoned that the Government were misunderstanding what was required by an adjudication. Their concern seemed to me to be wholly understandable. What I have always understood to be required by the adjudication process was a quick, enforceable interim decision which lasted until practical completion when, if not acceptable, it would he the subject matter of arbitration or litigation.
990
That was a highly satisfactory process. It came under the rubric of "pay now argue later", which was a sensible way of dealing expeditiously and relatively inexpensively with disputes which might hold up the completion of important contracts.
What is being proposed here is a speedy, fast-track arbitration which produces a binding conclusion, not open to any challenge after practical completion, but fixed and firm for all time in a wholly unrealistic timescale. I have been shown articles in the press that indicate that the industry is anxious about it and that Sir Michael Latham says that it is quite contrary to what he proposed. Hence the new scheme which has been suggested by the amendments to the schedule.
I invite the Minister to deal with the crucial point of principle. What on earth is the point of rushing through an arbitration which is to be final and binding in a situation probably of great complexity and, what is worse, one where the speed can be frustrated by applications to the court of the kind envisaged by the new Arbitration Bill which will become an Act in 1996? Because of the finality which it is suggested is to he ingrained in the adjudication, the courts will obviously be listened to. So there will be delay and frustration in the sense that payment will be put off and the adjudication process which is designed will be self-defeating for a reason which I find difficult to follow.
The Arbitration Bill is admirable. It has been praised in this House through all the stages which have so far been completed. But it is designed for arbitrations. It is designed to improve the arbitration procedure and to give the arbitrator more power. It is designed to stop the courts interfering in the way that they have been able to so far. That is a non-interference of which the courts thoroughly approve. My respectful submission to your Lordships is that the question of the adjudication ought to be dealt with clearly and firmly by the Government in answering the amendments.
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Clause 106 does not allow adjudication to be struck out of a contract. That is where we started. Under the provisions of Clause 106 certain criteria will have to he fulfilled, and we are all clear about that. So the scheme that we are discussing, the subject of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is very much a fall-back provision. The scheme is still in draft, as everyone will accept, and therefore what we say about it in Parliament is important. However, the consultation that I believe is probably more important, very important indeed, is with the industry.
Before we went to dinner, my noble friend indicated that he was of a mind to bring in a proposal that would make a non-binding form of adjudication in the scheme.. That is welcome, and perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was not in his place to hear my noble friend's words. What is contained in Amendment No. 192 should command respect. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is quite correct in that in preparing his report Constructing the Team. Sir Michael

991
Latham recommended a simple form of adjudication to keep the contracts running and the payments flowing. In his summary, he states—and I paraphrase—that the award of the adjudicator should be implemented immediately; any appeals to arbitration or the courts should be after practical completion and should not be permitted to delay the implementation of the award.
I am, therefore, not in favour of putting a scheme and a method such as is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, into the Bill as a schedule. I understand and agree that it is a very useful way of discussing the contents of the scheme. Not only does the scheme need consultation during the course of parliamentary scrutiny both in this House and in another place, but, as I have indicated, the industry should be given constant access to consultation as the Bill is going through Parliament. Therefore it needs consultation up to and after Royal Assent. As my noble friend indicated, it may be possible to bring the scheme forward under a form of affirmative resolution. I suppose that the regulations to make the scheme in Clause 141 would be under affirmative resolution. That would be the right way of dealing with the matter.
In Committee, I started by saying that the scheme as proposed was draconian. I still believe that to be the case. Therefore I am extremely pleased to hear the way in which my noble friend on the Front Bench feels he can move. That is extremely practical. However, having said that, he must listen very carefully to what the industry says all the way through this process.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I shall speak briefly to my Amendments Nos. 197A to 197N, which support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. I do not need to say much about them. I was heartened by the wise advice from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who has obviously examined the recommendations. I am pleased to hear his remarks about flexibility and speed and the problems of adjudication. All I tried to do in tabling my amendments was tighten up the procedures of the Institution of Civil Engineers, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Howie, used in his drafting, to try to get decisions out of recommendations and a few consequential amendments.
All through the debate this evening and at previous stages of the Bill we have talked about consultation. This is not a political matter. All parts of the House want to see the industry flourish and receive support. As the Minister said earlier, he does not want to raise hostility.
Nevertheless, I have to mention a sheaf of press cuttings I have received in the past week which, frankly, express unanimous hostility, not to the Bill itself but to the scheme. I shall quote one or two:
"Furious construction professionals say they are no longer prepared to support the Bill".
That is from Construction News.
"Latham gives warning on Construction Bill … The ACE [Association of Consultant Engineers] supports the aims of the bill, hut we reject the scheme entirely".
So it goes on. I could continue for a very long time, but I shall not detain the House at this late hour.
992
The Association of Consultant Architects (you can have a consultant architect, returning to Amendment No. 142) says that the Government have,
"ignored the comments made by a large section of the construction industry".
I shall end my quotations with that example. Consultation has to go on. But I have never seen such unanimity of criticism for the scheme that the Government put forward. I have no view as to where it should end up and whether or not it should be part of the legislation. However, I hope that as the Bill moves forward consultation will be wide and that the Government will listen to what the industry has to say. Like other noble Lords, I was very heartened to hear the Minister's remarks just before we broke for supper.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we have now had several opportunities to debate Clause 112, which provides for the appropriate Minister to make a scheme for construction contracts. I hope I need not explain again why we are proposing the power to make such a scheme. However, it might be worth reminding noble Lords that we made it available to the House primarily to illustrate the relationship between the Bill and the scheme and to show what sort of things the scheme needs to cover.
Proposals for the scheme were, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers made abundantly clear when he introduced it, a first shot, a starting point, something to build on. We were not particularly surprised to find that they attracted criticism in Committee. For one thing, as a mechanism designed for use only when a contract is inadequate and for use across a very diverse industry, the scheme must be all things to all men. Such compromises are rarely attractive on first acquaintance. We are also well aware that many had a problem with a procedure which was binding unless parties agreed otherwise. We explained why we adopted that approach, but appreciated that it did not sit easily with current practice in the industry.
It gave me especial pleasure to say, as I did before supper, that we concluded that it would be right that disputes which are subject to scheme adjudication could normally be reopened at practical completion of the contract and that we propose to amend the scheme proposals when we consult, following Royal Assent, because otherwise I would have been faced with the inevitability of going down before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, as I have seen so many other Ministers do on earlier Divisions.
What concerns me rather more today is that certain noble Lords opposite do not seem fully to have grasped the significance of subsection (2) of Clause 112, which reads,
"Before making any regulations under this section the Minister shall consult such persons as he thinks fit".
It is an enormous task to consult the whole of the construction industry. There are some 120 or more major trade groups within the industry, and we propose to consult all of them. We will also consult the major clients and client groupings, and specialists such as construction lawyers, insurers and academics. For the

993
original consultation exercise on fair construction contracts, the Department of the Environment sought the views of around 1,500 institutions, companies and individuals. The exercise planned to follow Royal Assent on the scheme for construction contracts would be on a similar scale. But the noble Lords whose amendments we are considering would like to settle the scheme for construction contracts now, and impose something upon the industry which it has little chance to consider.
The scheme as it stands is in no state to be incorporated in the Bill. It is a document which is entirely open to discussion with the construction industry. We have not laid our life on the line on any aspect of it. It is an illustration of what a scheme has to do. It draws the industry's attention to the points that need to be addressed and we look forward to long and fruitful discussions with the industry so as to produce a scheme that is attractive to them. There is no way in which we can do that. Distinguished as the House is this evening, it is a very small House compared with the number of people in the construction industry with whom we must consult and the time available to us is limited compared with the time we intend to take.
It would be entirely inappropriate to embed into the Bill this scheme or any other possible version of it that we might dream up in the next few weeks and months. That would simply solidify something that would need to be completely changed by secondary legislation shortly thereafter and might well have been settled by secondary legislation anyway. We have no intention of implementing any scheme before a proper consultation exercise has been conducted. Because we were asked to do so by noble Lords, we produced a draft to demonstrate the sort of things which the scheme must cover. However, this is neither the time nor the place for settling matters of detail.
I recognise that noble Lords have legitimate concerns about the general shape of the scheme. By introducing amendments that relate to it, they are giving us an opportunity to consider their concerns and to indicate how they would have us adjust our proposals for the scheme. That strikes me as quite right and proper. On that basis, I am happy to offer some comments on the suggestions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, in Amendments Nos. 179 to 196.
On Amendments Nos. 179 and 183, the noble Lord conceded in Committee that complete independence may not always be desirable in an adjudicator. The Bill would require him to be impartial, and we believe that is clearer and more helpful from a legal point of view than specifying matters of spirit.
We have heard the noble Lord's arguments on Amendment No. 180 several times. What he outlines here may be relatively easy to achieve by contract, but will require careful consideration before we embark on a statutory instrument. However, we propose to provide for a resolution procedure where the dispute may be reopened on practical completion.
Amendment No. 181 would prohibit a firm or organisation from acting as an adjudicator. We have always believed that the adjudicator should he a single
994
individual and, when it comes to drafting the scheme proper, we will make sure that neither a registered company nor a partnership can act as an adjudicator.
Amendment No. 182 concerns the right of a party to question an adjudicator's jurisdiction. We believe this is something for which we must provide. If the scheme were silent on the point parties would be much more likely to question jurisdiction in the courts. The section which the noble Lord, Lord Howie, would have us delete would reduce the prospect of court intervention rather than encourage it, as he seems to fear.
I mentioned Amendment No. 183. Amendments Nos. 184 and 185 concern time limits. These are clearly detailed matters on which we would like to take the views of the industry.
Amendment No. 186 would remove the right for an adjudicator to rule a dispute unsuitable for adjudication. This would be entirely inappropriate. It is a general rule of law that any tribunal required to adjudicate something can and should consider whether the matter brought before it is appropriate for decision by that tribunal.
Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 concern detailed procedural matters which should be left to industry consultation.
Amendment No. 189 would have the effect of restricting an adjudicator to consideration of material presented to him, rather than letting him decide procedures. However, we would not wish to restrict an adjudicator's ability to investigate cases without first considering the views of the whole industry.
Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 appear to concern the right of an adjudicator to award interest, but in fact they would have no effect upon the scheme description as drafted, short of removing the reference to an arbitrator. In Committee the noble Lord criticised us for lifting parts of the Arbitration Bill and "shoving" them into the scheme, but now we find him completing the process for us. Perhaps there are parts of the Arbitration Bill that he likes more than others.
What the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, outlines with Amendment No. 192 will require most careful consideration. However, I would like to point out that our proposals for primary legislation are quite consistent with the intent of the amendment. Scheme details must await full consultations with the industry.
Amendment No. 193 affects paragraph 30 of the draft proposals for the scheme, which would allow an adjudicator to come to a provisional decision while he completed his deliberations. Clearly, any such decision would have to be confirmed or replaced by a final decision, even if the dispute were to be reopened later.
Amendment No. 194 would remove the right of a party to refer a dispute back to the adjudicator in the event that a non-monetary decision was ignored. Paragraph 52 of the draft scheme proposals was intended to allow a party to seek financial redress, through adjudication in such cases, and we think there is much to commend this. However, we will consult the industry on remedies for non-compliance.
Amendment No. 195 rather labours the point that an adjudicator should not he liable to anyone for an action taken in good faith. However, we have already said that

995
an adjudicator should not be liable except where he acts in bad faith, so he could not then be liable to anyone in particular. Amendment No. 195 is simply unnecessary.
Lastly, Amendment No. 196 would give an arbitrator the same powers as the court in the event of a case being reopened. The noble Lord has made an interesting point, and we must look closely at the powers of anyone who is asked to rule on a reopened dispute. I thank him for drawing it to our attention.
I hope that that gives some indication of our openness on matters of detail and, indeed, on matters of principle that are there in the scheme.
I would like to turn my attention to the "rival" scheme of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, since he has offered it to the House, and since it offers my hard-pressed officials a chance to throw back at the noble Lord, Lord Howie, something of what he has been throwing at them over the past few days.
First, the noble Lord criticised the government version of the scheme at Second Reading for its length. A close reading of Hansard suggests that he then believed the whole matter could be dealt with in as few as 14 lines. Now that the noble Lord has tried his own hand, I hope he will agree that the matter is rather more complex than he first suggested. Indeed, I believe that the only reason his scheme is shorter than our own version is that, in many important respects, it is much less satisfactory.
As the noble Lord said, he has based his scheme on the Conciliation Procedure published by the Institution of Civil Engineers in 1994. Indeed, it almost looks as though the noble Lord has been through that publication and crossed out the word "conciliator" each time it appears, replacing it instead with "adjudicator". Perhaps that is why we see the adjudicator making parties meet each other in paragraph 9 and struggling to help them reach agreement in paragraph 11.
We must be quite clear—the noble Lord's scheme has been tailored for use in civil engineering, with little regard to the construction industry as a whole. No doubt this is why it allows upwards of three months to reach a decision, when many smaller disputes require movement within days or weeks. More importantly, it offers conciliation and not adjudication. In his report, Sir Michael Latham distinguished the two quite clearly. His conclusion was:
"Most disputes on site are, I believe, better resolved by speedy decision—i.e. adjudication".
I wish to turn now to another point and one on which the government description of the scheme has been roundly criticised. We have been told over and over again by the noble Lord and others that what the industry wants is for disputes to be resolved until practical completion but that it should be possible to re-open them thereafter. That is what we will provide if—as I suspect it will—that view holds throughout consultation. But the Howie scheme, if I may call it that, makes no mention of the effect of adjudication. According to his scheme, the adjudicator produces a recommendation and then starts collecting his fees. Whether parties are bound by what he says, or for how
996
long, or whether they have rights of appeal, is left entirely vague. That is one of the reasons why the scheme is shorter than ours.
Finally, I should like to consider briefly the nature of the decision-making process, if indeed this rechristened conciliator can be said to reach a decision at all. This is a strange process. In paragraph 10 we are told that the adjudicator may conduct proceedings,
"in any way that he wishes".
In paragraph 11 we hear that the adjudicator may consider confidential information which he is not allowed to divulge. In paragraph 16 we are told that the recommendation,
"need not necessarily be based on any principles of contract, law or equity".
And yet, from this quixotic, covert, inequitable creature—be he conciliator or adjudicator—there is no right of appeal. If parties wish to sign away their rights like this in contract, that is their own look out. But the noble Lord is surely not seriously telling us that we should enshrine it in statute as the back-up for people who do not have a proper contract.
It was with some relief that we saw the amendments put forward at the end of last week by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. They certainly make a bad scheme better, although they still do not make it right. It is helpful that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, should recognise that the adjudication procedure must have some force and be able to produce a result which requires the parties to act. Since the adjudicator must he called upon to resolve the dispute, the term "decision" is much to be preferred to "recommendation". The noble Lord is also to be congratulated on attempting in Amendment No. 197B to offer the industry a means of resolving its disputes which does not focus solely on the interests of civil engineers.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is still asking us to impose a dispute resolution procedure where the parties' legal entitlements are considered only,
"within the practical constraints of a rapid and economical adjudication process",
whatever that may mean. Is this cheap and cheerful, or just quick and dirty? I am also more than doubtful about the adjudicator being asked to take a,
"fair and commercially reasonable view".
Again, these may be matters for a contract, but not for legislation.
In addition, while I welcome the noble Lord's attempts to remedy the deficiencies in proposals that fail to indicate the effect of an adjudicator's decision, I have one or two reservations. In particular I am worried about the effect on certain common law rights of the last sentence of paragraph 16A, and I am also doubtful about decisions which may be immediately overturned by an arbitrator or in the courts. That would not help much in many construction disputes and runs counter to what most in the industry have told us they want.

997
I apologise for replying at such length. However, I thought it appropriate when noble Lords have taken a great deal of trouble to put down these individual amendments.
Lord Howie of Troon: Dear me. I thought the Minister was a little severe about civil engineers—as though they had nothing whatever to do with construction. They are right at the heart of it. The right of appeal is enshrined in the civil engineering contract anyway. My amendment, inadequate though it may be—all the amendments of my noble friend Lord Berkeley are a great improvement on my humble efforts—describes a method of adjudication, not a method of proceeding to arbitration and other things of that nature. So we can forget all that fustian that the noble Lord had written out for him. I cannot believe that he would have approached me in those terms off his own bat. I am perfectly sure that that is not so.
The noble Lord said that he was going to consult people. We in this House feel that in matters of legislation in an area of which many of us know something, we should be consulted and not just the industry as a whole. As far as we are being consulted, the noble Lord should remember that, few of us as there are, as he pointed out, we are the tip of an iceberg. That iceberg is represented by the comments which my noble friend Lord Berkeley produced. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested that this should be a consensual matter. It is anything but that, as the comments of my noble friend Lord Berkeley showed.
I have no more to say except to welcome entirely the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I wish I had been able to put the issue as concisely, correctly, totally and truthfully as he did. I also welcome the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, for Amendment No. 192. It may be that my amendment has certain inadequacies, but we have here a parliamentary system where they can be put right, and they often are, as a Bill goes through both Chambers. I have to take the opinion of the House on this matter.
9.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 159) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 48.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B

Berkeley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Blackstone, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Haskel, L.

Carter, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Donoughue, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Dubs, L. [Teller.]

Judd, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Monkswell, L.

998

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Turner of Camden,B.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Richard, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Kingsland, L.

Annaly, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnock, L.

Lyell, L.

Chesham, L [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Courtown, E.

Cross, V.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Marlesford, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Pilkinpton of Oxpnford, L

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rawlings, B.

Digby, L.

Renwick, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Seccombe, B.

Elles, B.

Skelmersdale, L

Elton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Goschen, V.

Swinfen, L.

Harlech, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Wakeham, L.

Henley, L.

Wilcox, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wynford, L.

Howe, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.4 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 160 to 162 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 163:
After Clause 125, insert the following new clause—
SECRETARY OF STATE TO REPORT ON ANNUAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
(". The Secretary of State shall report on an annual basis on the exercise of his powers pursuant to section 123 including—

(a) the amount of financial assistance given under section 123;

(b) the form of such assistance;

(c) the terms on which such assistance was given;

(d) the numbers of bids addressing each of the activities referred to in section 123(2) at the stages of outline bids, final bids and approved bids;

(e) the role of community and voluntary organisations in the activities concerned;

(f) the methods used to assess priorities for assistance; and

(g) any distinctions between regions in the provision of assistance.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 163 takes us to that part of the Bill which is concerned with regeneration and repeats an amendment that I moved at the last stage but with a number of alterations which I hope reflect the concerns expressed then by the Minister.
The operation of the single regeneration budget is very much lacking in transparency and accountability. My amendment seeks to go a little way—and no further—to rectify that. It proposes that the Secretary of State shall report certain matters on an annual basis in order that the public, including those who hid 14 assistance under the regeneration arrangements, can

999
understand how the scheme is proceeding. Both national and regional regeneration strategies ought to be understood and be the subject of public discussion. I have been in correspondence recently with the London Planning Advisory Committee, which I used to chair. As its name suggests, it is an advisory body. That body tells me it is suspected that the Government Office for London has an internal regeneration strategy but that it is not public. That comment seems to me to encapsulate a great deal of what is wrong with the way in which the single regeneration budget is operated.
The amendment proposes that a number of matters as set out in paragraphs (a) to (g) are reported. In drafting those paragraphs I have taken into account the current procedure. In responding to the report of the Environment Committee on the budget, the Government have produced a helpful document. One item is a table that shows the percentage of bids which address the SRB challenge fund objectives at each stage of the bidding process. Those objectives list matters such as employment, education, economic growth, crime prevention, quality of life and so on. The table shows the percentage of bids which address those objectives. Very many bids will address more than one objective at the outline stage. The table then shows the percentage of bids encouraged by the Government to proceed to the next stage. It shows the percentages at the final stage of bidding and the bids approved. That fairly simple reporting mechanism puts into accessible form information about the workings of the SRB budget which is desirable and necessary. The budget is operated on a "quango" basis. However good the intentions of those who operate it, nevertheless democracy and accountability are quite distant from the operating mechanism.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, at that stage said he was concerned about the imposition of a bureaucratic burden in the reporting provisions I then proposed. I understand those concerns. That is why I have based my amendment on the report that the Government have themselves recently provided, which I understand is likely to be an annual exercise. The noble Earl also said that he thought it was important to encourage people to think of the project as a whole and not in terms of separate activities. Certainly, I would not expect the percentages addressing different objectives to add up to 100. They should add up to several hundred per cent. because many objectives are likely to be addressed by successful bids.
The noble Earl added that the Government were keen to establish precisely what achievements are realised by projects. Therefore, partnerships are required to report regularly on the output of their projects. I hope that the amendment fits neatly with that approach by the Government.
It is important for those whose bids have not succeeded to understand how theirs compared with the successful bids. The process of competition requires considerable effort by people in the public sector and their partners in the private sector. It would be a most unhappy situation if, having put in that effort, an adequate attempt were not made to assist those whose bids failed to understand where they might have failed
1000
by seeing how the Government are spending the regeneration budget and how they are reacting as a whole to the various bids that are made. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the amendment would require annual reports from the Secretary of State about financial assistance given under Clause 123. I am pleased that the noble Baroness seems to have accepted that the information sought in the amendment she tabled in Committee would place a considerable and unnecessary bureaucratic burden on partnerships. However, I have to say that the proposed new clause could lead to information overload of a quite significant degree. In relation to the single regeneration budget, the published annual report of the Department of the Environment gives details of the amount of financial assistance made and the output or results from the projects supported.
In addition, summary information about outline and final SRB challenge fund bids is published by region, and copies of individual bids are made available for public inspection by government offices for the regions. This information includes the type of project supported and the nature of the partnership, including the involvement of community and voluntary organisations.
The methods used for assessing priorities for assistance are clearly set out in the bidding guidance for the single regeneration budget challenge fund, the latest version of which was published on 29th March. The financial allocations to each region are also published. The form of assistance and the terms on which assistance is given are set out in SRB challenge fund guidance notes Nos. I and 4.
All this adds up to a great deal of published information which is readily accessible to those with an interest, including the local authority associations, community and voluntary organisations and other bodies. The Department of the Environment also co-operates fully with the University of Birmingham in compiling a detailed analysis of the challenge fund which, again, is published in full and summary form. We are not at all clear whose interests would be served by having yet another report setting out all this information in a slightly different form.
I am aware that the noble Baroness made a number of detailed arguments to which I may not have replied exactly. I shall study what she said when I read Hansard. If I believe that I might have given a fuller reply I shall write to her. I hope that with that scant assurance the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am afraid that it is scant assurance, but perhaps that is not the fault of the Minister. He suggested that if a provision of this kind were accepted we would be likely to provide for an information overload. He went on to explain the detailed but not statutorily required provisions for providing information in a number of places, not necessarily easily accessible or comparable.
I do not think that it is a good argument to say, "The information is there but we shall not commit ourselves to continuing to provide that information, and, if we

1001
provide it, heaven forbid that we should make life terribly straightforward for anyone who is attempting to use the funds available from the regeneration budget in the best interests of the community".
I feel quite strongly on this subject. On the basis of the noble Lord's scant assurance, I look forward to hearing from him. I hope that he will respond to the points that I have made both in moving the amendment and in responding to it in time for me to consider what to do on Third Reading.
While I accept that the requirements of the budget are evolving and that it is an organic process, nevertheless, I believe that they are considerable and that it is appropriate to seek to find mechanisms for making the whole process a great deal more transparent. There needs to be a degree of accountability, which is sadly lacking. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 164:
After Clause 126, insert the following new clause—
REGENERATION COMPANIES IN WHICH LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAVE INTERESTS
(". Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 shall not apply to any company whose sole purpose is the regeneration of an area in line with the published regeneration strategy of the local authority concerned.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, local authorities may set up companies in order to undertake regeneration work in their localities. The difficulty is that if what they do is constrained by Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, any capital expenditure incurred by a local authority will be set against the local authority's capital limits. That would act as a serious constraint upon the ability of local authorities to fund other capital projects. Therefore, the main purpose of the amendment is to take away that constraint and give local authorities more freedom with which to undertake regeneration in their areas.
However, Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act also has other disadvantages. When a local authority sets up a company by putting in a small proportion of the equity of that company, it may well discourage the private sector from participating because it may sense that the local authority is not willing to make an adequate commitment to the project. Again, I believe that it is right that local authorities should have the flexibility to vary the amount of equity which they put into a company to reflect local circumstances. It may well be that where the private sector sees that the risk is high, the local authority must make a greater contribution to the equity stake of that company.
There is also the further point that there is uncertainty as to whether the private sector controlled companies are eligible to receive European Union funds. Therefore, the effect of the amendment would be to give the same exemption to companies set up specifically by local authorities to undertake regeneration schemes according
1002
to statutorily approved development plans. That would be a sensible amendment and would give local authorities more freedom of action.
Finally, the amendment would have the added advantage that it would avoid the need for the Secretary of State to have to exercise his discretion to give exemptions from Part V on a case-by-case basis. That is a rather burdensome piece of bureaucracy and this amendment would allow a more consistent approach. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, one of the aims of the regulatory regime introduced with Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 is to encourage local authorities to enter into joint venture arrangements where the private sector is in the lead. The exclusion of all regeneration companies from the regime would undermine that objective.
In any case, as has been said, the Secretary of State already has powers under Sections 68(1) and 69(1) of the 1989 Act to exempt local authority controlled or influenced companies from the restrictions imposed by order under Part V. Applications from regeneration-orientated companies will be considered on their merits. A number of time-limited exemptions have been issued to city challenge and SRB challenge fund companies. I suspect that the difference between us on the matter is entirely one based on politics and, therefore, for the purposes of this evening, irreconcilable. However, I shall take up the small point mentioned by the noble Lord about European funding and write to him on the subject.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I was not aware that the difference between us was simply a matter of party politics. I was about to say that the Minister obviously wanted to be helpful on various occasions today. Indeed, I was hoping that he would be equally helpful on this amendment. But, alas, it was not to be. I fear that we shall not make much progress with the amendment this evening. Therefore, as the Minister is being totally intransigent, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 127 [Resolution by local housing authority to pay relocation grants]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 74, leave out lines 5 to 18 and insert—

("(a) consider whether their resources are sufficient for the purpose of carrying into effect a resolution declaring the power to pay relocation grants to be exercisable as regards that area; and

(b) in deciding that question, have regard to such guidance as may from time to time be given by the Secretary of State.

(2) Where a local housing authority decide that their resources are sufficient for that purpose, they shall—

(a) consider whether to pass such a resolution: and

(b) notify every person on whom notice is required to he served under subsection (2B)(a) of section 289 of the Housing Act 1985 that they are so considering and invite him to make representations.

(3) In deciding whether to pass such a resolution, a local housing authority shall—

(a) have regard to such guidance as may from time to time he given by the Secretary of State: and

1003

(b) take account of any representations made by persons notified under subsection (2)(b).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 166. Local authority associations have pressed us to make these two amendments, the purpose of which is to remove the obligation on local housing authorities to consult those who are to be displaced by area clearance about the possibility of giving relocation grants if the authority does not have the resources to make such grants available.
As currently worded, Clause 127 imposes a duty on authorities to consult people in the area clearance before they decide whether they should make the power to give relocation grants available in that area. The requirement could raise expectations that grant might be forthcoming even though an authority then finds that it does not have the resources to pay the grant. Clearly this is unsatisfactory from the point of view both of the authority and of the people who are being consulted.
Amendment No. 165 will enable authorities to consider the question of resources first so that they need only consult if they are satisfied that resources are available. They will be required to have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance on the matter. Amendment No. 166 is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 74, line 25, leave out ("(2)(b)") and insert ("(1)(b) or (3)(a)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 129 [Relocation grants: qualifying persons and qualifying dwellings]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 75, line 23, leave out ("if') and insert ("whether it is new or existing, provided it is considered by the local housing authority to be of a suitable size and condition and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that local authorities have the opportunity to pay relocation grants not only for new build dwellings but also in relation to existing dwellings providing that the local authority considers them to be suitable. As I understand it, without the amendment there would only be the power to pay relocation grants for new build dwellings. That seems excessively restrictive.
The grants about which we are talking can be offered by local housing authorities to people who lose their homes as a result of clearance activity. The grants will supplement existing compensation provisions to enable the people affected to purchase a replacement dwelling within the same clearance area or within any other area designated by the local housing authority, having regard, of course, to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Again, it seems to me that the amendment would add flexibility and make it easier for local authorities
1004
to achieve their aim of clearing areas by offering the wherewithal for decent, alternative housing. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I appreciate that this amendment is intended to give authorities some measure of control over the kind of dwellings which would qualify for relocation grant. The stipulation that the qualifying dwelling should be a new or an existing dwelling is, in our view, unnecessary since, in the absence of any qualification to the word "dwelling", both are implied. That is certainly what we intend, and we shall no doubt make this clear in our guidance to authorities on the new provisions.
The more substantive point is whether it should be a matter for local housing authorities to decide whether a dwelling is of a suitable size or condition for the person applying for grant. Clearly it is important that a person should not be given more funding than is necessary to buy a home which will meet his family's reasonable housing needs. Conversely, it may be a poor investment to fund the purchase of a home which is in poor condition or which is likely to lead to overcrowding. We had intended to meet these concerns by specifying conditions as to the size and physical state of the property using the powers in Clause 128(2)(c). Further, authorities will have the power under Clause 130(1) to decide the amount of grant that they are prepared to give in particular cases.
We believe that these powers should enable us and authorities to ensure that grant is only paid in appropriate cases. However, although I cannot promise anything, we will certainly look at the noble Lord's suggestion more closely to see whether additional local authority discretion would help here. I hope that in the light of that improved forecast compared with the previous amendment, the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am delighted that the Minister has changed tack and is being helpful and conciliatory. In the light of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 131 [Relocation grants: condition for repayment on disposal]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 77, line 24, leave out from ("in") to ("as") in line 25 and insert ("a hospital, hospice, sheltered housing, residential care home or similar institution").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 12 on the first day of Report, but there was some confusion about whether the amendment was on a Marshalled List. To put the record straight, the purpose of this amendment is to extend the list of care institutions to which an elderly or infirm person may go to live without triggering the requirement to repay relocation grant, to include a hospital, hospice or similar institution, bringing Clause 131 into line with the corresponding provisions on renovation grants in Clauses 11 and 48 of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 137 [Home energy efficiency schemes]:
[Amendments Nos. 169 to 172 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 173:
After Clause 137, insert the following new clause—
PROVISION FOR DISABLED PEOPLE IN CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DWELLINGS
(" . The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers under section I of the Building Act 1985 to introduce an extension to Part M of the Building Regulations 1991 in order to ensure that in the construction of new dwellings reasonable provision shall be made for disabled people to gain access to and to use the dwelling, including sanitary conveniences.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a similar amendment to one that I moved in Committee. As can be seen from the wording, it is designed to ensure that, on this Bill becoming an Act, the Secretary of State shall exercise his powers to extend Part M of the building regulations so that,
"in the construction of new dwellings reasonable provision shall be made for disabled people to gain access to and to use the dwelling, including sanitary conveniences".
The Government have already indicated their intention of bringing in regulations under Part M for new residential dwellings. This will bring privately funded new housing into line with publicly funded housing as housing association and local authority housing is already built to this standard.
In January 1995 the Department of the Environment produced a consultation paper with representations to be submitted by the end of April last year. This matter has therefore been under consideration for nearly a year. In Committee my noble friend Lord Lucas stated that he was unable to say when there would be any movement in this matter. Perhaps, three weeks later, he will be able to give the House more encouraging information. I understand that the major concerns over the extension of these regulations to dwellings are, first, a general dislike of regulation. That, of course, is understandable, but unjustifiable in this case. Only a level playing field and clear, simple, minimum standards will bring about necessary change in practice. The construction industry had similar reservations about the introduction of Part M to non-domestic buildings 10 years ago, which have proved in practice to be unfounded.
Secondly, there are worries about cost. The Department of the Environment's cost compliance assessment (for Part M applied to new housing) demonstrated that cost is not a significant factor. It also showed that the application of Part M would not affect valuations—that is, that new housing would retain value vis-à-vis second-hand housing on the market.
Thirdly, there is fear of change. Current house types are popular. Will changes in design brought about by regulation put off potential house buyers? Accessible features are attractive and add rather than detract from the appearance of a new house. A recent user evaluation of Lifetime Homes (by the University of Humberside) established that all 62 respondents who were older but not necessarily disabled people held a very positive view and were impressed with the flexibility of use that the new houses offered.
Fourthly, there is the possible reduction on some sites in the number of dwellings that can be built. This, I think, would be on very few sites. But this was also the case when other regulations on light, air, parking and depths of gardens were introduced.
The question that should be answered then is not whether regulations should be introduced but what prevents their introduction. In recent housing debates the Government have argued that it is difficult to allow special treatment for particular groups of people; for example, the elderly and people with disabilities. Special treatment becomes necessary only if ordinary arrangements do not take everyone's needs into account. It has been amply demonstrated, through Lifetime Homes and the adoption of accessibility standards by housing associations over the past two to three years, that ordinary new houses can provide for most people, irrespective of age or disability.
In replying to the amendment, can my noble friend say whether he would be prepared to arrange a meeting with me to discuss this matter as it may well be the best way to resolve the difficulties? I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, with his usual persuasive powers.
I believe that these arguments have been put forward on a number of occasions during Committee and this stage of the Bill. The Government have moved part of the way towards accepting the force of the argument but have never given the complete commitment that I and the noble Lord would like.
The proposition in this new clause is reasonable. If we do not achieve the aim of the new clause, we run the risk that new buildings will be built; they will not have the facilities for disabled people; and when occupied by people who eventually become disabled the cost of adapting those buildings will be much greater. Alternatively, people will have to leave those buildings and find other accommodation more consistent with their needs and developing disabilities.
There is a backlog. Many buildings in this country are occupied by elderly people who may become disabled and need adaptations. If we were to make the move now and undertake what the amendment provides, we would begin the process of ensuring that all buildings over a period of time are suitable for use by disabled persons.
It is a reasonable proposition. I hope that the Minister will accept it. It represents long-term economy. It represents the proper way of meeting the needs of disabled people and makes complete sense. It does not involve the Government in having to lay out a lot of money. I cannot understand why the Government do not accede to the persuasive arguments of the noble Lord. Lord Swinfen.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, when the noble Lord. Lord Swinfen, moved a similar amendment at the previous stage, at about the same hour of the evening. I felt that the response which he obtained was unhappy.

1007
It combined the astonishment of the Government at the large number of replies to their consultation on the White Paper and the apparent inability or lack of enthusiasm on their part to move speedily in assessing those responses with a request to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, to contain himself in patience. When he asked his noble friend whether he could give an indication of when there would be movement, the answer was entirely to the point. It was "no".
I remember being a little startled that after a response which seemed to be sympathetic to the subject matter of the amendment, the Government could not even produce an emollient and encouraging response. Perhaps one should admire them for their honesty. However, it is an appropriate point to raise again. I hope that this time the Government, having heard the arguments and had an opportunity to reflect on the bluntness expressed last time, may be more encouraging and constructive in their response.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my noble friend asked three questions. He asked whether anything has changed since Committee. No, my Lords. He asked whether we will pre-judge the consultation which is taking place. No, my Lords. He asked whether we would have a meeting with him to discuss this. Yes, my Lords, I shall set it up tomorrow.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, at last we appear to be getting somewhere, for which I am extremely grateful. I have not only raised the matter on this Bill, I have been raising it for a number of years in the House, as have other noble Lords. I am certain that honourable and right honourable Members in the other place have been doing the same. However, with my noble friend's assurance that he will set up a meeting, perhaps we will be able to move forward in that way. I know that it is not essential for the matter to be in the Bill because the powers are already on the statute book. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 139 [Housing action trusts: orders for dissolution]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 82, line 11, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
("(2) In subsection (2)(b)(ii) omit "any person" and insert "the relevant local authority".
(3) In subsection (2)(b)(iii) omit "any person" and insert "the relevant local authority".
(4) After subsection (4) insert—
"(5) When determining the financial terms for any such disposal or transfer mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above, the Secretary of State shall have regard to ensuring that no local authority is financially disadvantaged.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Williams. In moving it, I wish at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 175. The amendments are concerned with housing action trusts, and Amendment No. 174 in particular deals with the requirement that where property is transferred and the rights and liabilities remain with a housing action trust at its dissolution to the relevant local authority the Secretary
1008
of State should be required to consider how to avoid financial disadvantages from such a transfer. Amendment No. 175 is to ensure that property occupied by secure tenants is not disposed of or transferred using the amended dissolution procedure introduced by the clause.
The Government have on a number of occasions given undertakings that when housing action trusts are dissolved, assets should be transferred to the local authority but that the local authority should not have to bear the burden of any outstanding liabilities that those trusts incurred. The housing action trusts were introduced by Part III of the Housing Act 1988. At that time, the Government's White Paper said:
"There are some areas of local authority housing, particularly in some of the inner urban areas, where social problems and housing disrepair are so serious that in the Government's view more direct action involving both public and private sectors is needed to obtain improvements over a reasonable timescale. The Government therefore proposes to take powers to establish bodies analogous to urban development corporations in designated areas to take over responsibility for local authority housing, renovate it and pass it on to different forms of management and ownership, including housing associations, tenant co-operatives and approved private landlords. These new bodies, to be known as housing action trusts, will provide scope for tenants in these areas to have a diversity of landlord and ownership. The HATs will have a limited lifespan. Their remit will be to secure the improvement of the stock transferred to them in their area and then to hand it over to other owners and managers".
As originally envisaged, HATs would have been established regardless of the wishes of the tenants in the local authority housing area affected. Subsequently, that was changed. To cut a long story short, when Sir George Young became housing Minister a different model of housing action trust was established, starting in 1991. That involved significantly improved levels of tenant consultation and involvement, including places on the board and an informal promise that tenants would be allowed to return to the local authority once the work of the HAT had been completed. So we are talking about undertakings given by the Government as regards the HATs that were then established.
With this amendment I want to achieve an easy transfer, and one from which a local authority will not incur any particular financial disadvantage. If that were to be the case, there could be a speedy transfer of HATs that were being dissolved to the local authorities. That is the proper way for such matters to be handled.
Property remaining with a housing action trust at the time of dissolution should be returned to the local authority in the area for a number of reasons. In most instances such property will originally have been in the ownership of the local authority. Therefore it is only right and proper that it should be returned to the local authority. Secondly, local authorities are clearly the most appropriate bodies to determine what part such a property should play in future housing provision for the area. Thirdly, and very importantly, local authorities are democratically accountable for the decisions they take. It is right and proper that housing action trusts should be returned to bodies that are elected and are democratically accountable to local people in the area.
As I said, it is important that no financial disadvantage should attach to the transfer of the property remaining with a HAT at its dissolution. If liabilities

1009
were to exceed assets it is right and proper that the local authority should be fully compensated for that. Indeed, Sir George Young said in the Commons at the Committee stage of what became the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993:
"It might be helpful if I were to make clear at this stage that government policy is that any such transfers will be at nil cost. The local authority will not be required to pay for the properties".
That is a very clear undertaking and the amendment seeks to give effect to it. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, Clause 139 amends the provisions for winding up housing action trusts, making clear that residual responsibilities can be passed to an existing body, such as a residuary body, set up to handle matters from several public bodies. But other arrangements, including transfers to local authorities, are not precluded. In particular, the clause does not affect the right of secure tenants of a trust to return to being tenants of their local authority if they so choose. Those secure tenants have a right to choose where they go to. So most of the assets of a trust in that form are going where the tenants want them to go.
In practice, trusts will not be wound up until they have disposed of most of their assets, including their housing and their liabilities. In all probability what will be left is a mix of miscellaneous liabilities for which someone must take responsibility but which do not justify prolonging a trust's life.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, seek to direct such residual matters to local authorities only and to exclude any secure tenancies from the wind-up process. In my view it would not be sensible to restrict our options in this way; nor would many local authorities be keen on arrangements that see them as sole recipients of a bundle of miscellaneous liabilities, whether on financially neutral or any other terms.
1010
We should retain flexibility to make wind-up arrangements that are best suited to the circumstances we find at the time—though I suspect that local authorities are a very convenient and apposite recipient for these liabilities in many instances. Accordingly, I invite the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I listened to what the Minister had to say. I would just make the point in relation to secure tenancies that Amendment No. 175 provides that,
"Property which is subject to the provisions of this section shall not include dwellinghouses subject to secure tenancies".
I thought I had dealt with that point. However, it is late. I have heard the Minister's response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 175 not moved.]
Clause 141 [Orders, regulations and directions]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 83, line 14, after ("for") insert ("—

(a) orders subject to affirmative resolution procedure (see sections 103(5) and 104(4)),

(b)")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 145 [Commencement]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 84, line 21, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State may by order under subsection (3) make such transitional provision and savings as appear to him to be appropriate in connection with the coming into force of any provision of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lord, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 104. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 178 to 197N not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Architects]:
[Amendments Nos. 198 and 199 not moved.]
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Angola
  Angola
  Former Yugoslavia: Arms Control and Supply of Weapons
  Former Yugoslavia: Arms Control and Supply of Weapons
  European Aviation Authority: Response to Working Paper
  European Aviation Authority: Response to Working Paper
  Law of Murder
  Law of Murder
  Nuclear Safety and Security Summit Meeting, Moscow
  Nuclear Safety and Security Summit Meeting, Moscow