Sitting of 23 April 1996

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

    Habitual Residence Test
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many outstanding appeals there are under the habitual residence test; and if he will make a statement. [24669]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): Statistics on appeals are collected by the Independent Tribunal Service which does not record the reason for the appeal.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister agree with the view of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux that, because there is no straightforward definition of the habitual residence test, many cases have to go to the adjudication officer and are ultimately revised? Is that not an absolute waste of money and time, and does the Minister agree that it prevents people who are entitled to benefit from getting it as speedily as they should? Should not there be an urgent review to remedy that?
    Mr. Evans: It is not a waste of time: it is an important measure to save public money and to prevent the kind of abuse that happened when Spanish holidaymakers were claiming income support in England. The habitual residence test is well founded in European law and we are entitled to introduce it to protect the British taxpayer. Nobody has come up with a better alternative suggestion, and I can only conclude from the hon. Gentleman's words that his party proposes to abolish this necessary protection for the British taxpayer.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that most people believe that ending benefit tourism is a great bonus for the taxpayer? Is it because of a desire to help benefit tourists that the Labour party proposes to get rid of child benefit for those who are over the age of 16?
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend speaks on St. George's day for England, as ever. The second part of his question contains a most interesting challenge, and we wait to see what Labour Front-Bench spokesmen can possibly give by way of an explanation.
    Mr. Bradley: May I press the Minister a little further on the figures that are contained in the excellent report by
    180
    the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux? Is he aware that well over 5,000 British nationals have been left without financial support because of the habitual residence test—a test that the Government said was meant to root out only benefit tourism? Is it not clear that the test is not rooting out those who do not genuinely deserve such benefits, but that only British nationals who are returning home are being hit by the policy? Will he again review the test to ensure that such British nationals receive income support and other benefits to which they are genuinely entitled?
    Mr. Evans: All aspects of policy are always under review, but this policy appears to be working. Between August 1994 and February 1996, 91,424 British nationals passed the test and 9,191 failed it; 13,392 European economic area nationals passed it while 13,487 in that category failed it. The system protects British interests, and nobody has yet produced an alternative that is acceptable in European law.

    State Pension
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of the state pension (a) at present and (b) in 1979 in real terms. [24670]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Since 1978–79, expenditure on state pensions has increased in real terms by about a third—from £22.6 billion to £30.1 billion in 1995–96.
    Mrs. Lait: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the earnings link was restored that figure would be increased by about £8 billion a year, which is equivalent to some 5p on the basic rate of income tax or to an increase in VAT to 22.5 per cent? Is it not a cruel hoax on pensioners to suggest that that earnings link could be restored, as was promised by the Labour candidate in Hastings and Rye?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It will be interesting to see whether Labour Front-Bench spokesmen repudiate the promises that have been made by Labour candidates in Hastings and Rye and elsewhere which would cost the British taxpayer the equivalent of several pence on the basic rate of tax. Until they repudiate that policy it will hang round their necks like an albatross.
    Mr. Sheerman: What does it say about poverty in our country when, in 1979, the state pension was 23 per cent. of average earnings and is now 17 per cent? That represents something chilling for elderly people in our country.
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member seems to think that pensioners should and do rely solely on the basic pension. I am happy to say that an increasing proportion have additional resources on top of that. As a result, pensioners' incomes as a whole have risen more rapidly than those of the population as a whole. We have made extra provision for those at the bottom: we have provided £1.2 billion a year extra through income-related benefits for people who, by misfortune, do not have any resources of their own on top of basic pension. Our record stands in good comparison with anything that the last Labour Government achieved.

    Pensioner Incomes
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the bottom tenth of incomes was accounted for by pensioners in 1979; and what is the equivalent figure for the latest year for which figures are available. [24671]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): In 1979, pensioners represented 31 per cent. of the bottom 10th of the income distribution, after housing costs. By 1992–93, that figure had fallen to 8 per cent.
    Mr. Butler: That shows that not just in absolute, but in relative terms, under this Government, the treatment of pensioners has been far better than under the preceding Government and far better than pensioners could hope for under any succeeding Labour Government, were such a disaster to hit the elderly population again. When my hon. Friend and I come to draw our pensions, will they be funded substantially by private pension funds, which exist in Britain, but not elsewhere in Europe? Can he put a figure on that?
    Mr. Heald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points. The Government's policy is to maintain the basic state pension's value, to encourage the private sector and to target help on people most in need. The amount targeted has already increased by £1.2 billion since 1988. The number of pensioners with occupational pensions is up from 43 per cent. in 1979 to 66 per cent. among the recently retired, with an average £75 per week for that occupational pensioner. My hon. Friend can do the mathematics himself, but, on such a rate of increase, the Conservative Government have given pensioners a better future than they would have had under Labour
    Mr. Frank Field: Which poor people have stepped into the shoes of pensioners who have left the lowest decile?
    Mr. Heald: There are those who say that a pot is half full and those who say that it is half empty. These days, the hon. Gentleman is obviously putting himself in the latter category. That is rather a change of heart—he used to be a bit more optimistic. During the 1980s, pensioners have improved their position. Their average incomes are up by 50 per cent. That is an answer in itself. The pensioners have done better under the Conservatives.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that one of the greatest contributions that a Government can make to pensioners' real incomes is to keep prices low? Will he remind me at what point in recent years inflation reached a level of over 27 per cent?
    Mr. Heald: I am happy to remind my hon. Friend that the last Labour Government put this country in that parlous position, robbing pensioners of their savings through high inflation. The Government have had the longest period of sustained inflation—[Interruption.] Sorry, low inflation—for 50 years. Opposition Members may laugh, but it would be the longest period of sustained inflation if they ever had a chance to run the country.
    Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that approximately one third of eligible pensioners are not claiming
    182
    income-related benefit to which they are entitled and that, of those, 114,000 are in the north-west? Will he join Age Concern and other pension organisations in an awareness campaign so that pensioners take up their rights?
    Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. This morning, I met Age Concern and was able to discuss that issue, among others. The Government are spending about £25 million on giving information about benefits. They are providing information to 80, 000 outlets about the benefits that are available to people. Obviously, it is important that the information on the new benefit payment cards is clear and helpful to pensioners. We discussed that. Taken together, the measures represent a substantial commitment to telling pensioners what benefits are available to them. The Government are committed to that.
    Mr. Wicks: Is not the Minister deliberately ignoring the facts about the poorest people in Britain? Is it not true that in Tory Britain poverty now wears a young face, often a child's face? There are 3 million families with children—[Interruption.] I shall repeat; there are 3 million families with children in the bottom tenth of income distribution. Would the Minister care to bring up a child on income support levels? Why have the Government deliberately created mass child poverty?
    Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman puts his argument at the most exaggerated level possible, but that is typical of the Labour party. Only the other day the shadow Chancellor explained his ideas about child benefit for 16-year-olds and said that 80 per cent. of the children of unskilled parents leave school at 16. That information is 20 years old. Under the Conservatives, 50 per cent. or more of those children go on to further education. That just shows that the Labour party does not get its facts right. On poverty, under Labour—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be responsible for Government policy.
    Mr. Heald: I was asked about poverty and the hon. Gentleman said that there was poverty in Britain. It is worth making the point that there is a difference between income support levels and absolute poverty. One of the points that is made constantly by Opposition spokesmen, as it was a moment ago, is that poverty can be measured against income support levels. That is ludicrous because it would mean that every time we increased income support, we increased poverty.

    Reforms (Savings)
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what annual savings will result from his reforms by the end of the century; and what estimate he has made of savings by 2020. [24672]
    Mr. Lilley: The major reforms I have announced to date are expected to reduce public spending by £5 billion a year in today's prices by the turn of the century. The level of savings will increase to £11 billion a year by 2020, and to £15 billion in the longer term.
    Mr. Whittingdale: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on those extremely impressive figures, but will he confirm

    183
    that when he seeks to find further savings in his budget, he will only consider reforms in child benefit that would result in leaving more money in the hands of families by reducing their taxes? Will he confirm that he will not adopt any policies that would simply result in the money saved being spent on other public expenditure programmes, as is proposed by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)?
    Mr. Lilley: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Our policies, unlike those of the Opposition which are based on attacking and trying to curb areas of growth, leave money in the pockets of the taxpayers where it can fructify, reward them for work and enable them to look after themselves. The Labour party puts forward proposals only to finance higher spending by Labour Governments. It bases those policies on false facts.
    I reiterate that the recent proposals by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) were based on his claim that only 20 per cent. of the children of unskilled parents stayed on at school. That figure is over 20 years out of date. It relates to the period 1974–78 when there was a Labour Government and when it was true that only 20 per cent. of such children stayed on at school. Now, substantially more than half such children stay on. The Labour party's proposals would cast us back to the dark ages by penalising to the tune of £560 parents who let their children stay on at school. The Labour party does not like it but I challenge the Opposition spokesman to withdraw the false figures given by his colleague.
    Mr. Ashton: The Secretary of State complained about figures being 20 years out of date. What sort of figures can they possibly be for the year 2020? He is using figures that could be said to be more than 20 years out of date. When he produced those estimates, what figures did he include for women having to work beyond 60 before receiving the old age pension? That is where many of the savings come from.
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman may find it difficult to distinguish between the future and the past, but most of us do not. He is quite right that if we equalised the state pension age at 60, which is effectively what the Labour Front-Bench team proposes, instead of 65, which is what we propose, the difference in cost would be £13 billion a year. If he wants up-to-date figures, I should tell him that the other extraordinary mistake made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was to say that 25 per cent. of 17-year-olds staying on at school were in private education. He said:
    "child support is a subsidy for the school fees of the wealthy rather than an incentive to assist the education of the very poor."
    That is nonsense. If child benefit were taken away from school leavers, there would be every likelihood that the proportion of less well-off children staying on at school would be greatly enhanced. Will the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) repudiate the bogus figures given by his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East?
    Sir Norman Fowler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when I was Secretary of State for Social Services, I was told by a long succession of Labour spokesmen how wrong and evil it would be to change, alter or abolish any
    184
    part of child benefit? In view of the Labour party's change of policy, is it not therefore right for those spokesmen to consider their positions?
    Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. For once I entirely agree with the hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Brent, North (Mr. Livingstone), who point out in The Guardian today the fallacy of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East's figures, and agree with us that we should be encouraging people to stay on at school to get the qualifications that will enable them to support themselves and get good jobs, rather than discouraging them from doing so and costing the taxpayer more in the long run by being on the dole.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that his reform of the invalidity benefit system and the introduction of incapacity benefit has so far cost £55 million in bureaucracy? In order to recoup that, 85,000 disabled people who would otherwise have been eligible for invalidity benefit have already lost out. Disabled people are paying the price for the changes. Will he also acknowledge that the introduction of the form for the all-work test and the requirement to return it within six weeks has led to 6,000 people losing the benefit to which they are entitled because they are unable to deal with it? Is that not totally disgraceful?
    Mr. Lilley: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who has had a long-standing concern for issues that affect disabled people, but he must recognise that it is right that we try to focus the immense amount of help that we give in incapacity benefit, the cost of which exceeds the entire amount spent on further and higher education, on those who are genuinely unable to work due to their medical condition. That is the test's objective. We want to help back to work those who are fit enough through the back-to-work benefits. I cannot see how the Gentleman can disagree with that principle.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: While my right hon. Friend searches for benefits to target in order to ensure that we pay social security to people who really need it, does he agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Labour party wants to target the less well-off and to rob 16-year-olds who want to stay on in education of more than £500 a year? Is it not notable that the Labour Front-Bench team will not stand up to defend that today?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. It is very significant that Labour Back-Benchers will not stand up to defend the proposal either. They look extremely embarrassed. Some of them have already voiced publicly their opposition to it. It is a major blunder by the Labour Front-Bench team because it is saying that if parents encourage their children to stay on at school, just one child will cost them £560 a year, and two children in that age bracket will take £1,000 out of their net income. That is a huge penalty for bettering oneself, but it is what the Labour party stands for.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Secretary of State accept that his figures are bogus? In citing figures for young people who stay on in full-time education, he is conflating unskilled families and semi-skilled families. He should

    185
    get his figures right before he starts swinging insults across the Dispatch Box. Does he also accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) is interested in ensuring that more people, rather than fewer, from families with low-income backgrounds can stay on in full-time education?
    In the so-called savings that the Secretary of State is trying to make, will he tell us whether the freeline service that provides advice to claimants will be axed? Will that not be utterly counter-productive, like so many of his other measures? There will be greater difficulty and distress for claimants, and less accurate applications will cause greater difficulty and expense for the Department.
    We know from last week that the Secretary of State believes that poverty exists only in the third world and not here in Britain. The Opposition know how wrong he is. Is it not the case that by closing the advice line, the right hon. Gentleman is not only again ignoring the needs of the poor, but trying to ignore their very existence?
    Mr. Lilley: Oh dear. The hon. Gentleman does need help with the facts. Afterwards I shall be happy to give him a copy of the table from which I obtained my information, and one of the table from which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East obtained his information. He will see that the Opposition figure relates to children who left school between 1974 and 1978, whereas mine comes from the youth cohort study of children dated 1994, which shows that a significant majority of children over 16 whose parents were unskilled manual workers were staying on at school. Things have improved dramatically since the Labour Government were in power.
    As for the helpline, I shall give the hon. Gentleman a copy of the questionnaire that we are sending to individual branches as we examine whether changes should be made in our helpline arrangements. We study such matters and examine them; we get the facts and then we make our policy. I shall not tell the hon. Gentleman what the policy outcome will be until we have assembled the facts.
    If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about poverty, and believes that the basic safety net provided by income support is inadequate, will he tell the House, either now or before the general election, by how much he intends to increase it?

    Fraud
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what priority he attaches to tackling fraud in his social security reforms. [24673]
    Mr. Lilley: Tackling fraud remains my top priority. We are stepping up the fight against fraud with the spotlight on benefit cheats campaign. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already announced month-long anti-fraud campaigns in Croydon, Haringey, Enfield, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Westminster and Camden. More areas will be announced soon.
    Mr. Arnold: My right hon. Friend will be encouraged to know that he has the full support of my hard-working constituents, who resent their hard-earned tax going to support spongers and other people who break the law. Can
    186
    he assure us that increasingly staff will get out of their offices and visit claimants' homes so that they can check out and root out the fraudsters?
    Mr. Lilley: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are increasing the number of home visits and other checks. There were about 1.5 million last year, including fraud visits, and there will be substantially more next year. My hon. Friend is right that the greatest resentment caused by fraud and abuse is felt by hard-working people and honest claimants, who constitute the majority both of workers and claimants. We represent them, because we are the party of the hard-working class.
    Mr. Barry Jones: With the campaign against fraud in mind, will the Government resist the temptation to close yet more benefit offices? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that such closures lead to the prospect of more fraud? In particular, will he consider the Government's plans to close the benefit office in Rhyl in north Wales? Bearing in mind the distress of the staff and the many thousands of people who do not want that office to be taken out of operation, does he agree that if he wants less fraud he needs more offices to tackle the problem locally?
    Mr. Lilley: I shall certainly look closely when and if a decision has to be made about the office in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He has always treated me fairly; I shall happily treat him and his constituents fairly on that issue. We try to make proper judgments about deciding locations. We are trying to get more officers out visiting people in their homes and making more checks to ensure that we are giving the right money to the right people at the right time. We do not automatically assume that a given number of offices has to be maintained in perpetuity.
    Mr. John Greenway: When will my right hon. Friend introduce a benefit payment card to end the abuse of multiple social security benefit applications?
    Mr. Lilley: We hope to start the introduction of a benefit payment card this autumn. I hope to be able to make an announcement about the consortium selected for its introduction under the private finance initiative in a month or two's time. I know that there will be great interest in that and that there is much support for ensuring that we eliminate fraudulent abuse of our present payments system.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further plans he has to reform the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement. [24674]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): I have recently announced a new independent complaints adjudicator, improvements in the agency's compensation scheme, and interest on maintenance payments not passed promptly to parents with care. All those measures build on major legislative changes introduced over the past year.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is not the Child Support Agency still a discredited agency that has lost public confidence? We

    187
    want people to be treated sensibly. What proposals has the Minister for ensuring that CSA personnel treat people sensibly? I have several constituents who, when they ring up to try to find out what is going on, are treated appallingly. Will he ensure that the CSA improves?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there has been a considerable increase in the training that all child support officers undergo. I hope that he will also have seen today's announcement of the Child Support Agency's results for the past year, which show that it has made a massive, clear and significant improvement in virtually all aspects of its work. I hope that he would wish to join the whole House in paying tribute to its chief executive and all its staff. In the light of the figures, they deserve a pat on the back, not least in view of the vile abuse—and worse—that they have had to put up with from organised resisters.
    Mrs. Roe: Can my hon. Friend spell out how much extra maintenance would be required if Labour's plans to deprive parents of pupils aged 16 or over of £500 a year in child benefit were implemented? Would that not mean that children from broken homes would be the least likely to stay on at school to gain essential qualifications?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes her point most eloquently. Last year, the Child Support Agency was set a target to arrange or collect £300 million and get it through to the children. It has exceeded that target. In the past month alone, it collected more money than in the whole of its first year of operation. That is a sign of the huge improvement in the performance of the CSA.
    Mr. Hain: Despite the attentive replies that the Minister gives me on many of the cases that I put to him, does he agree that the CSA still acts very oppressively to many ordinary couples who have been become the victims of a monster that was designed to chase errant fathers? It is still not chasing them, let alone catching them. Instead, it leaves many honest couples at their wit's end as they grapple with the enormous maintenance payments that are forced on them by the agency.
    Mr. Mitchell: I have examined several of the cases that the hon. Gentleman has brought to me. Much of what he says is no longer accurate. In some 77 per cent. of the cases that are taken on by the Child Support Agency, the parent with care is receiving nothing—not a penny. The tremendous strides that have been made by the agency in the past year are getting the funds through to the children. Since the agency began, it has traced 133,000 absent parents, principally fathers. In the past year alone, it managed to trace 55,000 of them. In the key areas where the agency has been required to improve, last year's figures show that it certainly has.

    Pensioner Incomes
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners had
    188
    incomes in the top half of the national income distribution in (a) 1979 and (b) the last year for which figures are available. [24675]
    Mr. Heald: In 1979, 25 per cent. of pensioners were in the top half of the income distribution, after housing costs. By 1992–93, that had increased to 35 per cent.
    Mr. Coombs: Can my hon. Friend confirm that now more than 20 million people receive income from an occupational pension scheme and 66 per cent. of recently retired pensioners receive money from such a scheme, compared with 55 per cent. in 1979? Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Pensions Act 1995 provides a still more secure framework for the regulation of occupational pension schemes?
    Mr. Heald: I can confirm those things. It is worth noting that others have searched the world for a system that would be better, but still have not found one.
    Mr. Denham: While it is true that the wealthiest pensioners today are significantly wealthier than their predecessors—I do not begrudge them their good fortune—the poorest pensioners are not wealthier than their predecessors. Does the Minister have no positive response to Age Concern's "Your Rights Week"? More than 600,000 pensioners do not receive even the income support to which they are entitled. They are going without an average of £14 per week. Why, under this Conservative Government, is it left to charities such as Age Concern to tell Britain's poorest pensioners how they can get the help to which they are entitled?
    Mr. Heald: The bottom 20 per cent. of pensioners have seen their incomes rise in real terms by 20 per cent. under the Conservatives and their savings have not been robbed by inflation as they were under Labour.

    Pensions (Updating)
    Mr. Leigh: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the savings to public funds arising from the decision to update pensions in line with prices rather than earnings. [24676]
    Mr. Heald: If pensions had continued to be increased in line with the higher of earnings or prices since 1980, the additional cost to public funds would be £7.4 billion in 1996–97.
    Mr. Leigh: With the Transport and General Workers Union urging my hon. Friend to restore the earnings link—something which is still Labour party policy and would cost £7.4 billion—does my hon. Friend agree that the advice that he is receiving from the Opposition is not so much to think the unthinkable as to spend the unaffordable?
    Mr. Heald: I certainly agree with that. It is true that Bill Morris has recently written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on behalf of the TGWU calling for the restoration of the earnings link. On a historical note, Jack Jones recently visited me and advocated the same

    189
    thing. So the TGWU, past and present, is united. We ought to bear in mind that the Labour party and the unions are linked, and that that is an unaffordable link for Britain.
    Mr. Cousins: How much has been saved by uprating the allowance for the over-85s not with prices, not with earnings, but with thin air—nothing at all—during the entire period of the Conservative Government?
    Mr. Heald: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government's policy is to target help on those most in need and, through the income support system, the Government have done that. Indeed, £1.2 billion extra has been provided and the pensioner premium for the over-80s is £37 per week for a couple. That provides real help to those who need it.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that taxpayer spending on basic pensions is at a record level even in real terms and that, as a result of the Government's reforms, not only do 66 per cent. of pensioners retire with an occupational pension but 75 per cent. of them retire with savings which are protected against inflation? Will he remind the House that the average income of pensioners has risen faster than the average rate of inflation—and, indeed, earnings—over the past 15 years?
    Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend is right to say that the position of pensioners has been improved because incomes have increased by more than 50 per cent. on average since 1979 and as a result of a change in the living standards of pensioners. Let us take consumer durables as an example. In 1979, only 57 per cent. of pensioners had a telephone; the figure is now up to 93 per cent. In 1979, 46 per cent. had central heating; now almost 80 per cent. do. The proportion who have a fridge freezer has increased to 99 per cent. and those who have a washing machine has increased from 64 per cent. to 82 per cent. So it goes on. The living standards of our pensioners have been protected under the Conservatives.

    Funeral Expenses
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent changes have been introduced to the social security funeral payments fund scheme; and what effects these will have for those bereaved who have need to claim support for funeral expenses. [24677]
    Mr. Roger Evans: The scheme introduced in June 1995 covers the reasonable costs of a dignified funeral where someone has good cause for taking responsibility but has insufficient funds to meet such a large expense. The allowable costs provide up to £500 for the funeral director's charges, plus all the necessary disbursements for either a burial or a cremation.
    Mr. O'Hara: Does the Minister recognise that £500 is not enough to fund a decent funeral? The funeral directors association, in a wide-ranging survey of 658 of its members, found that the lowest cost at which a funeral could be provided was £568 and that the average cost was £700. Is that not the final indignity inflicted on the destitute by the Government? Is the Minister not ashamed
    190
    of that? Will he give a commitment to the House urgently to review funeral costs and the arrangements for funding them through the social fund?
    Mr. Evans: The social fund is paying for one out of every 10 funerals, which is an enormous market share. The cost of funerals financed by the social fund has increased substantially, from £18 million in 1988–89, to £63 million for the year before the one in which we reformed the scheme. Funeral directors were charging fees that were rising considerably faster than inflation. The reformed scheme gives the funeral director a reasonable rate of remuneration, and ensures that the deceased's family can elect for a burial—which generally costs much more than a cremation—if they so wish and that the cost of it will be met in full.

    Old People
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to provide for the effects of the increasing number of old people and declining number of people of working age. [24678]
    Mr. Lilley: The number of people over current pension ages is set to rise from 10.4 million now to 15.8 million by 2030. That would have placed an excessive burden on the working population, with a ratio of one pensioner for every 2.1 people of working age. By equalising the state pension age at 65, we shall have ensured a more sustainable ratio of 2.6 workers for each pensioner by 2030.
    Mr. Brazier: Is not the United Kingdom in vastly better shape to meet this challenge than other parts of Europe because of the £600 billion that we have invested in private sector pension schemes? I urge my hon. Friend to look hard at the Goode recommendations and other possible measures to protect those precious funds from the Robert Maxwells of the world.
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right: we are better placed than most other countries in Europe to meet the pensions burden of the next century because we have invested some £600 billion in occupational and personal pension schemes. That is not just more than any other country in Europe, it is more than all the other countries in Europe put together. It means that we can face the future without the crippling burden of taxation that they will have to put up with. We have tried to strengthen confidence in occupational schemes, which was damaged by Robert Maxwell—a Labour Member of Parliament and the only socialist who has ever taken a serious interest in private pension schemes. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order, as it is much too noisy. That is unfair to hon. Members who are putting questions.

    Child Support Agency
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the length of time taken by the Child Support Agency to process assessments in each year since 1994. [24679]
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Assessments will inevitably take longer if one or other parent raises queries, but

    191
    almost 50 per cent. of maintenance assessments are currently completed within 26 weeks. If both parents co-operate, the agency expects to complete the process in six to 12 weeks.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I believe that the agency deserves a kick up the backside for the way in which it has treated my constituent, Mr. Philip Jones. He has waited for over six months to have his case reassessed. At the moment, he is expected to live on £8.27 a week after he has paid his bills. His house was threatened with repossession because he could not pay his mortgage; he lives in one room because he cannot afford to pay the fuel bills; his parents, who are elderly and on a pension, feed him; and he suffers considerable stress. If anything happens to Mr. Jones, I shall blame the Government.
    Mr. Mitchell: I have looked specifically at the case of Mr. Jones, the hon. Lady's constituent, in view of her concerns about it. I understand that it is currently the subject of an appeal, and I believe that it will not be many days now before she receives the result of the appeal. I shall take a close interest in the facts of the case for her.
    About 90 per cent. of outstanding appeals to the CSA are less than 13 weeks old. That is partly the result of the centralisation of appeals at the end of 1994, and it also demonstrates improved performance. The agency cleared twice as many appeals in the second half of 1995 as in the first.
    Dr. Spink: Bearing in mind the fact that the average maintenance assessment under the CSA has increased from £23 a week to £40 a week, what would be the effect, especially on 16-year-olds who might have their child benefit removed by the Labour party, if the Government were to follow the possible policy of the Labour party and abolish the CSA?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right to expose the wholly spurious figures on which the proposal by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was based—a proposal that would attack the very people whom the Labour party claimed that it was attempting to help. My hon. Friend is also right to emphasise that an increased amount of money is getting through to children as a result of the work of the Child Support Agency, but he will remember, with me, the reforms made by the House last year, which ensured that no one will be assessed to pay more than 30 per cent. of their net income. That delivers a fair level of maintenance, and I am grateful to him for his support for the agency's work.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Kashmir
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister when he intends next to meet the Prime Minister of India to discuss Kashmir. [24659]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I have no plans at present to meet the Indian Prime Minister. I look forward to an early opportunity to do so following the Indian elections, which begin later this month.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Prime Minister share the growing international view that the conflict over Kashmir
    192
    presents the gravest threat to international peace today, given that India and Pakistan have gone to war over Kashmir previously, and that both countries now have a nuclear capability? Against that background, will the Prime Minister and Her Majesty's Government do everything possible to persuade the next Government of India to enter into serious and urgent negotiations with the Government of Pakistan on the basis of UN resolutions, to find an acceptable settlement on the basis of the right of the people of Kashmir to decide their own future?
    The Prime Minister: That is an important matter, as the hon. Gentleman says. We are in touch with our friends and colleagues in India and in Pakistan. We have said consistently to those friends and colleagues that we are prepared to help in the search for a solution, either at the UN or in any other forum, provided that the parties concerned wish us to do so. That remains our position, but there must be simultaneous progress on several fronts—first, self-evidently, bilateral dialogue; secondly, the development of a genuine political process in Kashmir, with an improvement in the human rights position there; and, thirdly, a clear cessation of external support for militants, which has poisoned the atmosphere in Kashmir for far too long.
    Mr. Whitney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent developments in Kashmir have caused many UK citizens of Kashmiri origin much anxiety? His statement that the British Government will continue to press for a stable democratic solution of the Kashmir problem will therefore be most welcome.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I know from my experience that what he says about citizens here in the United Kingdom is true. Our policy is to advocate the development of a genuine political process in Kashmir.

    Engagements
    Ms Armstrong: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April. [24660]
    The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Ms Armstrong: As we once again see Tory Members of Parliament queuing up to express their differences—one with another—over European policy, is not the Government's real problem the widely held view of the Prime Minister, which was vocalised this morning by Sir James Goldsmith when he asked how people could be expected to follow a man who zig-zags so much?
    The Prime Minister: I can think of some prominent politicians who, in the past two years, have made it their life's work to deny everything that they stood for previously. So far as I recall, those politicians enjoy the strong support of the hon. Lady.
    As to Europe, the hon. Lady might care to look at the comments of some of her hon. Friends in response to recent statements that I have made about Europe which

    193
    expose clear differences on the Opposition Benches. She might also care to look at some of the pamphlets that have been produced, in which many tens of Labour Members demonstrate their sharp differences with the Labour Front-Bench policy. They are as split on Europe as they could be.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April. [24661]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that British beef is best and that that remains the case despite the scaremongering by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) which has done so much damage? Will he tell our European colleagues that, until the ban is lifted, there will be no more co-operation from this country, nor any more British money?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that British beef is best. I am also happy to confirm to him and to others that it is entirely safe, and that has been verified by British scientists, by the World Health Organisation and by Commissioner Fischler. There is no justification whatever for the European ban, but I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made some progress this morning and I am delighted with that. We are seeking to get the ban lifted as soon as possible, and I hope and expect that that will happen.
    As to withholding resources, I must tell my hon. Friend that that would be illegal under United Kingdom law, quite apart from European law. I am not sure that either the House or my hon. Friend would wish the Government to behave illegally.
    Mr. Blair: I suspect that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) speaks for many tens on the Conservative side. Will the Prime Minister clarify whether it is the Government's policy to threaten retaliation against Europe over beef, so that the confusion and incompetence at the heart of Government policy may be removed once and for all?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman once threatened to leave Europe, as I recall—it was part of his election manifesto. As the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) might put it, he has clearly zig-zagged from that policy since then.
    Our policy is as I described it a moment ago: to try to seek, by agreement, the lifting of the ban. I hope that the ban will be lifted but, if that is unreasonably withheld, our position is—as it has been—that we shall look at other options.
    Mr. Blair: What does that mean? I suggest to the Prime Minister that a strategy based on the Grand Old Duke of York is not a very good one. The Foreign Secretary is hinting at retaliation, the Deputy Prime Minister contradicts him and he calls his European partners a bunch of something-or-others while the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is negotiating with them.
    194
    Will the Prime Minister kindly take a grip on the situation? If he does not, he will find that his Government are taken seriously neither at home nor abroad.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends played a part in creating this problem. There is not a beef farmer in this country who does not know that the problem has been worsened by the way in which the Labour party has behaved. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has the gall to continue to behave in that way. I set the matter out perfectly clearly for the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago and I am sorry that he was unable to understand it. We are discussing the lifting of the ban, and we are making progress on that. That is the right way to proceed but, at the end of the discussions, if the lifting of the ban is unreasonably withheld, we shall consider other options for action. I hope that is clear enough for the right hon. Gentleman this time.
    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister is to threaten retaliation, he should be clear about what he is saying. At some point, the Prime Minister will have to admit the brutal truth to himself—that the business of his Government is less designed to run an Administration than to appease the factions in the Conservative party. Until that changes, he and his Government will be divided, weak and incompetent.
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is so keen on being clear, perhaps he will be clear about his tax plans. Perhaps he will be clear about why, if children stay on to do A-levels, their parents should lose £500 a year in benefit. Perhaps he will recognise that we operate in Europe in the national interest while he seeks party interest. It is in the national interest to seek, as we are doing, the lifting of the ban on beef, and it is equally in everyone's interest to remind the beef industry which party played a role in worsening the crisis.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April. [24662]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of young people staying on in full-time education since 1979? Does he agree that that considerable achievement, on which our future depends, is put at risk by the plans that we have heard from Opposition Front Benchers for chopping the funding for 16 to 18-year-olds?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. Even among the children of unskilled parents, more than half now stay on in education beyond their 16th birthdays. The claim by the shadow Chancellor, who is probably absent because he is checking his figures, that only 20 per cent. of children stay on at school is years and years out of date. It is based on figures from between 1974 and 1978, under the Labour Government. The fact that the figures are so wrong shows the vast increase in educational opportunities since then. The reality for working-class and other parents is that, if their children

    195
    stay on at school beyond GCSE to A-level, the Labour party will charge them £500 for each child by taking away their child benefit—so much for Labour's concern for opportunities for the poor.
    Mr. Ashdown: We can always tell when the Government are in a real mess—they start to blame everybody else. Given the urgent necessity to get the ban on British beef lifted, have not the past 24 hours been all too typical of the five weeks of fiasco over BSE? The Foreign Secretary launches gunboats over breakfast, Tarzan sounds the retreat over lunch and, by dinner, the poor old Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on his way to Brussels, is shot in the foot again. How on earth can we persuade Europe to believe the Government when the Government cannot even agree among themselves?
    The Prime Minister: I suppose that, one day, it is just possible we might hear something from the right hon. Gentleman about what he would do in any given circumstances. We never hear that: we just get the usual carping criticism. The matter was carried forward in Moscow, when I met Heads of Government on Saturday; my right hon. and learned Friend took it further in the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday; and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is pursuing it today. Each and every day, there are further meetings and more progress is made towards getting the ban lifted. It would be helpful if, just once, the right hon. Gentleman were to think of the interests of the beef industry and of the country, rather than produce the carping criticism that we usually get from him.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April. [24663]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Church-aided schools have a long and proud tradition of providing good quality education? Therefore, is he, like me, shocked to see the specific attacks on Church schools by the Liberal Democrats? Is that not another example of
    196
    the Liberal Democrats attacking parental choice and the right of parents to make their own choice? Does he agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that parents must take that into account when they vote at the next election?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of moral and spiritual education, and I share the views of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). What the Liberal spokesman said was a silly and ill-considered attack on religious education and I can assure my hon. Friend that it will never form part of our policy.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: What further measures of appeasement do the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Conservative party have in mind to placate the patriot across the water, Sir James Goldsmith?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is quite clear—none.
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April. [24664]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Congdon: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will press ahead with the objective of achieving a 20 per cent. rate of basic income tax? Given the reports in the press at the weekend, is it not absolutely clear that, while the Government are rightly moving towards a 20p rate, the Labour party is moving towards a 30p rate?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, one quarter of taxpayers already pay tax at only 20 per cent. and I confirm that, as soon as it is affordable, we shall move further towards a 20 per cent. tax rate for everyone. There is no doubt that taxes go up under Labour Governments. The Labour party does not like to admit that. Today, the shadow Chancellor is trying to gag the City, but the fact is that, because Labour wishes to spend more, it will always tax more at national level, as it is doing today at local level.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (CHARGES)
  That the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 582) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
  That the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996, No. 583) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
  Question agreed to

European Communities (European Court)
3.32 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I beg to move,
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to amend the European Communities Act 1972 so as to provide by Order in Council for the disapplication within the United Kingdom of judgments, rules and doctrines propounded by the European Court.
The Bill that I present today is a simple one. It would amend the European Communities Act 1972 and provide for a mechanism of an Order in Council which had been approved by the House to disapply specific judgments which this Parliament decided were not in the national interest.
I drafted the Act more than a month ago and, at the time that I raised it, we were on the receiving end of a bizarre European Court judgment on Spanish fishermen. But since then, we have seen the European Court throw out our painstakingly negotiated opt-out from the social chapter by imposing the 48-hour working week. I am sad to say that the terrible ban on British beef, which is tearing an excellent industry apart, will not be affected by the Act.
But European integration and the rulings of the European Court now have far-reaching implications, enabling British courts to overturn Acts of Parliament on which we in the House have no say. Yet despite all that, British citizens do not understand the driving ethos of the court. The European Court is a political court, and it sees its role as the architect of European integration. That fact has enabled our courts to throw out such legislation as that on part-time workers—which they did more than a year and a half ago.
In making its judgments, the European Court of Justice often divines the intentions of the Governments who signed it into being many years ago, which gives the court huge licence to make legislation that national Governments must obey. It so often does all of that by guessing at previous political intentions. In so doing, the court has changed general statements on such issues as sex equality or health and safety at work into powerful doctrines, and dramatically extended the power of Community institutions.
We are therefore witnessing a process of judge-made law that goes far beyond the traditional scope of the British national courts and cuts across the vital concept that law makers should be fully accountable to the electorate. Furthermore, once the court makes such a ruling, it has decreed that the relevant power is for ever lost to national Governments by the insidious doctrine of the occupied field.
The recent fishing decision is an excellent example of how this Act would operate. The European Court not only previously overturned a British Act of Parliament—the Merchant Shipping Act 1988—but went further. In the recent European case—Frankovitch—the court created yet a new doctrine: national Governments could be directly liable for damages caused by those who live and work in the Union.
The court applied that doctrine to the Spanish fishermen, yet the doctrine had not been agreed by Governments at an intergovernmental conference or written into the treaty. The court had simply decided that the doctrine was inherent in the treaty's scheme, and, as a result, the British Government may have to pay up to £30 million of taxpayers' money in compensation.

199
The doctrine adds to a common fisheries policy that now allows the Spanish to take a huge proportion of our fish quota, resulting in the demise of a once great British fishing industry. It is ironic that many of our European partners whose implementation of the judgments is much less thorough than ours have constitutional court mechanisms, yet we in Britain are without any such mechanism.
It is high time that this Parliament—which is to be and has always been the guardian of our constitution—was able to review those judgments, and, where necessary, seek to change them politically.
The Government have recently determined to get the fisheries decision changed at the IGC. Although I understand that we have not yet tabled any proposals, I expect—I am sure that we all do—that they will do so very soon. In the meantime, however, we cannot stop British courts ruling on the claims brought by Spanish fishermen. Thus, when the Government succeed—as succeed they must—in getting this judgment overturned, taxpayers' money will already have been spent unnecessarily, not to mention paying the costs of court time.
Parliament should act now to stop those cases going in front of the British courts. It should give itself the power to review not only the fishing judgment but other judgments as they arise, and to decide in each case the relevant course of action.
An Act such as this one would pass swiftly through the House, because hon. Members who oppose it would have to explain to the great British public why they prefer to have British taxpayers' money spent on ridiculous projects in which the British never acquiesced.
The constitutional court in Germany, for example, regularly reviews European Court judgments. It has even confirmed the German Bundestag's authority to decide whether it abolishes the deutschmark and enters a single currency at the turn of the century. That would, of course, breach European law, yet I do not remember anyone on the continent or over here murmuring defiance about the German constitutional court. The Germans had no opt-out in the treaty, but they gave themselves one.
The Germans are not alone. The French, under article 55, have the same power, as do other countries. Those constitutional courts have, in fact, gone even further, ruling in many cases that, when there is a dispute between European law and their own basic laws, their laws will prevail.
The British people have the right to ask why we should not at least be able to choose to exercise similar powers of revision.
Yet there is one thing that the Bill would do which seems to have caused even greater concern—the fact that I am proposing to amend the European Communities Act 1972. Although they will not do so publicly, some people—many of them judges—are saying quietly behind their hands that Parliament cannot amend that Act. They are even beginning to say that Parliament could not repeal the Act without first clearing it with our European partners. They argue that we sacrificed that power when we signed the 1972 Act.
I seem to recall, however, that, at the time of the referendum, the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath),
200
made it quite clear that there was no question of handing over those sovereign powers. I prefer, as I am sure the House does, to be guided by the Father of the House. At the heart of the matter lies a serious misunderstanding of the 1972 Act, because nothing in the treaty we signed then defines our relationship with European law to that extent. It is the European Court, through its various judgments, that has widened its scope through a set of doctrines.
One doctrine is that individuals may invoke Community directives before national courts. That was the judgment in the Van Duyn case.
Another is that national courts cannot question the validity of Community instruments such as directives. That doctrine was set out during the Fotofrost case.
It also said, in the Van Gend En Loos case, that Community law had direct effect in creating individual rights.
Most remarkably, it said in another judgment that the Commission, when creating a directive, must choose an article covered by qualified majority voting, because that now takes precedence over any other article.
Those doctrines are propounded by the court; they are not in the 1972 Act or the amendments to it. It is the court that has legislated. That is not the rule understood since the Restoration in the United Kingdom, where laws have been made and crafted by Parliament, scrutinised line by line, opposed by an official Opposition and then handed to the judiciary for application.
At stake is whether Parliament can make, break or amend its own Acts of Parliament, and whether, entrusted with British rights and freedoms, we are content to do that, or hand over those powers bit by bit to Brussels. We now have an opportunity to put a political court, and what has become political law, in context.
There is a growing realisation among our constituents that we have become supine and powerless because we have chosen to be so. We have before us a mechanism that perhaps enables us at last to question and challenge that. If we do not, how much respect should our constituents afford us? Why should they believe us when we shed crocodile tears for the detrimental effects on their livelihoods, but do nothing? I therefore urge all hon. Members to stay to vote for the Bill. There is no time to act but now—let us seize the moment and pass the Bill.
3.42 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I oppose the Bill, and begin by referring to the position of the Executive. I see that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who is representing our interests—God help us—at the intergovernmental conference, is here, which I welcome.
The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) failed to deal with the Government's rather sensible proposals in respect of the European Court of Justice and what line the Government will pursue in the context of the intergovernmental conference discussions in the coming months. In this instance, I support the position of the Government and the Minister, not that of the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, the Government themselves will want to oppose the Bill, as it goes so clearly and categorically against their own position as outlined in the White Paper that we debated only a few weeks ago.

201
The hon. Gentleman made a characteristically cogent and fair-minded case. None the less, there is a sense in which the Conservatives are bad losers, and we are seeing that in the Conservative party's domestic track record as much as in its European track record. These days, there is a more widespread attack on the judiciary generally. The Government have only themselves to blame, because, since 1979, legislation has repeatedly given more power to Ministers, and that power has been subject to judicial review. The result of that judicial review has often gone against the decisions of the Ministers in question.
The Conservatives are nothing if not consistent. They are showing dismay not only because they are being caught out by the courts in this country but because, increasingly, they are also being caught out by the courts at European level. That is what this attack is all about, and that is why the House should reject it.
First, what about the position of the companies that would be victims of protectionist legislation from the rest of Europe if we passed the Bill, and if we enjoyed no right—no guaranteed say—in the influencing of European law? Two companies, Ladbroke and British Petroleum, currently have important cases before the European Court. They have taken up those cases on the basis of competition policy. If they win—I hope they will—they will expect the rules to stick, but the rules would not even have a chance of being implemented in our favour or interpreted legally if the Bill were passed. Where British interests and British companies are concerned, the legal framework of the European Union is a strength rather than a weakness.
Then there is the charge of hypocrisy. I might not level that charge at the hon. Gentleman, but it can certainly be attached to the Government. The Government are rightly making the case against the European Union ban on British beef—we heard about that again from the Prime Minister this afternoon—but how are they pursuing that case? Via the European Court of Justice. That is a classic example of wanting to have your cake, or your beef in this instance, and eat it. When it suits them, the Government are willing to use the facilities available to them from the European Court; when it does not suit them, they are willing to tear up the entire basis of it, as the hon. Gentleman wants to.
Both in his speech and in a newspaper article published today, the hon. Gentleman has argued that the rulings and legal interpretations of the European Court are somehow at fundamental variance with the British approach. I think that he is wrong, and that his interpretation is misguided. In fact, the European Court's rulings conform to exactly the same pattern as those of the British courts. For example, British courts' rulings can be retrospective if the courts so wish. Moreover, the European Court has shown sensitivity in stating that in, for example, the Barber case involving pensions, the ruling should be prospective.
Attacks such as this suggest that the European Court has nothing to do with us—that it is composed of a bunch of people over there that does not include us. Here is the curriculum vitae of Francis Geoffrey Jacobs, appointed by the British Government to the European Court of Justice.
He was a lecturer in jurisprudence at Glasgow university between 1963 and 1965, a lecturer in law at the London school of economics between 1965 and 1969, a member of the secretariat of the European Commission of Human Rights and the legal directorate of the Council of
202
Europe between 1969 and 1972—[Interruption.] I do not know why Conservative Members are heckling. Their Government made the appointment; it was nothing to do with the rest of us.
Mr. Jacobs was Legal Secretary at the European Court of Justice between 1972 and 1974, professor of European law at London university between 1974 and 1988, and Advocate-General at the European Court of Justice between 1988 and 1995, and has been First Advocate-General since 1995. Clearly, he is someone who just does not know what he is talking about in regard to the rule of law.
So many of the decisions that are not to the liking of the present Administration are unanimous, and have the endorsement of both the learned gentleman to whom I have referred and his predecessor, Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, who served as President of the European Court. That in itself should prompt us to ask why, if we do not take it seriously—as the hon. Gentleman does not want us to do—we are appointing someone of such legal distinction to the office in the first place.
The Conservatives should come clean. If they want us out of Europe, to which the passing of the Bill would be tantamount, they should say so. They do not have the guts to say that, and if they are not prepared to come clean with the House, the House should not be prepared to give this nonsensical Bill a Second Reading.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 77, Noes 83.

Division No. 103]

[15.49 pm

AYES

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Beggs, Roy

Lord, Michael

Bendall, Vivian

Marland, Paul

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Marlow, Tony

Booth, Hartley

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Brazier, Julian

Mills, Iain

Budgen, Nicholas

Moate, Sir Roger

Butcher, John

Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Carrington, Matthew

Neubert, Sir Michael

Carttiss, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Cash, William

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Paisley, The Reverend Ian

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Pawsey, James

Dover, Den

Porter, David (Waveney)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Dunn, Bob

Riddick, Graham

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Gale, Roger

Rowlands, Ted

Gardiner, Sir George

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Gill, Christopher

Shaw, David (Dover)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Skinner, Dennis

Harvey, Nick

Spearing, Nigel

Hawksley, Warren

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Hunter, Andrew

Steen, Anthony

Jessel, Toby

Sweeney, Walter

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

Legg, Barry

Tracey, Richard

203

Tredinnick, David

Wilkinson, John

Trimble, David

Wilshire, David

Twinn, Dr Ian

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Mr. Nicholas Winterton and

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Mr. Michael Brown.

NOES

Allen, Graham

Jamieson, David

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Ashby, David

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Barnes, Harry

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Barron, Kevin

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

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Khabra, Piara S

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Kirkwood, Archy

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

Knox, Sir David

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Burden, Richard

McCartney, Ian

Chidgey, David

McGrady, Eddie

Chisholm, Malcolm

Mackinlay, Andrew

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

McLeish, Henry

Corston, Jean

McNamara, Kevin

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

MacShane, Denis

Dafis, Cynog

Maddock, Diana

Darling, Alistair

Mahon, Alice

Davidson, Ian

Maxton, John

Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

Meale, Alan

Donohoe, Brian H

Michael, Alun

Dowd, Jim

Miller, Andrew

Dykes, Hugh

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Etherington, Bill

Morley, Elliot

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Faulds, Andrew

Pickthall, Colin

Flynn, Paul

Pike, Peter L

Foster, Don (Bath)

Pope, Greg

Foulkes, George

Prentice Bridget (Lewisham East)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Radice, Giles

Golding, Mrs Llin

Rendel, David

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Henderson, Doug

Rooney, Terry

Hendron, Dr Joe

Sedgemore, Brian

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Hodge, Margaret

Tipping, Paddy

Wareing, Robert N

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Wicks, Malcolm

Hoon, Geoffrey

Wigley, Dafydd

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Worthington, Tony

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Tellers for the Noes:

Hutton, John

Mr. James Wallace and

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Mr. Nigel Jones.

Question accordingly negatived
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order to point out that the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Scotland sat through the entire speech of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), obviously wishing desperately that they could join him in the Lobby?
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

European Communities (European Court)

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation)

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    DANGEROUS DRUGS
    That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.
    COMMISSIONER FOR COMPLAINTS (NORTHERN IRELAND)
    That the draft Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 25th March, be approved.
    OMBUDSMAN (NORTHERN IRELAND)
    That the draft Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 25th March, be approved.

    FARM WASTE
    That the Farm Waste Grant (Nitrate Vulnerable Zones) (England and Wales) Scheme 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 908), a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th March, be approved.—[Mr. Streeter.]
    Question agreed to.

    DEREGULATION (LONG PULL)
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
    That the draft Deregulation (Long Pull) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.—[Mr. Streeter.]
    Question agreed to

Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress 22 April].
  [SIR GEOFFREY LOFTHOUSE in the Chair]

  Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill
    Schedule 1

      THE ELECTIONS
      4 pm
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move amendment No. 176, in page 4, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (3)
      This is a technical amendment, which removes a part of the order-making power, which, as it transpires from the drafting of the election order, is no longer necessary. It had been thought that the power to make rules of court in respect of electoral petitions would be transferred from the authority having power to make such rules to the Secretary of State. The power is unnecessary, because the elections order will apply the parliamentary election petition rules with modifications.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 4, line 20, leave out
      'and twenty for Northern Ireland as a whole'.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 17, in page 5, leave out lines 1 and 2.
      No. 47, in page 5, line 1, leave out 'one constituency list' and insert 'three constituency lists.'.
      No. 18, in page 5, leave out lines 5 and 6.
      No. 157, in page 5, line 5, leave out from 'must' to end of line 6 and insert 'not exceed eighteen'.
      No. 19, in page 5, leave out lines 9 and 10.
      No. 20, in page 6, leave out lines 3 to 12.
      No. 12, in page 6, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
      (2) Three candidates from the regional list of each of the three parties with the largest aggregates shall be returned as delegates along with two candidates from the regional list of each of the next four parties with the largest aggregates and one candidate from the regional list of each of the next three parties with the largest aggregates.'.
      No. 21, in page 6, line 14, leave out the words 'or regional'.
      No. 22, in page 6, line 22, leave out the words 'or regional'.
      No. 23, in page 6, line 32, leave out from 'delegate' to end of line 34.
      No. 24, in page 6, leave out lines 35 and 36.
      Mr. Robinson: There are a number of amendments in this group, and several of them are consequential.
      There are two principal amendments in the group, and I freely admit that this is very much a belt and braces operation. I am sure that the Government recognise that the thrust of the amendments is an attempt to democratise the electoral process that they have attempted to rig.
      The two principal amendments are Nos. 15 and 12. Amendment No. 15 seeks to leave out the words
      "and twenty for Northern Ireland as a whole",
      which is a reference to the regional list that the Secretary of State has attached to the 18 constituency lists where elections would be held.
      If, in the view of the Committee, it is not considered appropriate to remove the regional list in its entirety, there is clearly an argument for some scaling within that list. Amendment No. 12 allows some democracy to enter the system. It is not as democratic as some of the other amendments, but given that the purpose of the regional list in the Government's view was to give some weighting to the votes of very small parties, the amendment at least makes a gesture towards the Government's purpose, while at the same time acknowledging the strength of political parties' support in the electorate as a whole.
      The process that gave rise to the Government putting forward a regional list commenced when the Prime Minister said on 28 February:
      "The issues still to be settled include, first, the nature of the electoral system to be used in the elective process. There are strong views for and against different systems. Although the decision is for us, the British Government, we first intend to explore and test all the options in discussions with the parties before coming to our decision on what seems most broadly acceptable."—[Official Report, 28 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 900-1.]
      I emphasise those words, because the Prime Minister set Northern Ireland parties a test to establish the most broadly acceptable process.
      After a period of consultation, for which the Government called, parties emerged with two principal available options. The political parties did not express the view that there were only two options—that was the Government's view. They issued a discussion paper on 8 March, in which they said:
      "The two main realistic options appear to be:

      (a) STV 18 x 5 Member Constituencies

      (b) Party List, Northern Ireland single constituency".

      The Government recognised on the foot of consultations arising out of the process they had set up that two main options were open, and only two.
      The Ulster Democratic Unionist party, the SDLP and all the small parties, with the exception of the Alliance party, agreed that the party list system was the best way forward. The Ulster Unionist party and the Alliance party favoured the single transferable vote in a multi-member constituency. It was clear from the criteria set down by the Prime Minister that the list system, under which the whole of Northern Ireland would be a single constituency, was the most broadly acceptable, yet the Government were not prepared to accept it.

      207
      On 21 March, the Prime Minister said that three different electoral systems had been put forward during the consultation process. That was after his own Government representatives in Northern Ireland had already provided a document that said there were only two. To provide an excuse and a cover so that the Government could change their criteria, they decided that there were three systems.
      The Government attempted to magnify the minutiae of the difference between the SDLP version of a list system and my party's version in order to divide and conquer. The Government could quite easily have said that the list system was favoured and was the most broadly acceptable, and that some minor areas needed to be clarified, but they decided not to do so, and instead went for a hybrid system.
      The reason why the Government decided on a hybrid system was that, in the background, on 15 March, they had produced another document, which was again to inform and assist parties on the ground rules for substantive all-party negotiations. Paragraph 8 of that document said:
      "The two Governments may agree, following consultations with the political parties who have obtained representation at the negotiations, that a political party which has failed to obtain a mandate in the elective process may be offered observer status at the negotiations. Such observer status would involve participation in negotiations subject to the same conditions applying to other political parties".
      That proposition was manifestly absurd; those who had lost the election and been rejected by the electorate would be able to present themselves in the negotiating process on exactly the same terms as those who had been successful in the elective process. I am not sure what the other political parties' reaction to the Minister of State was, but I know what ours was—that the paragraph was clearly unacceptable.
      So a hybrid system was born, with a regional list intended to give an entrée to the talks process to those who would have been rejected under any other electoral system. The only way in which the Government could get the unacceptable face of the Unionist community through the door was to provide those people with a free ticket, by allowing the top 10 parties into the talks process with two representatives each from the list.
      Of course, the Government had done their calculations beforehand, and determined that the two loyalist parties from the paramilitary fringes would be able to scrape themselves up sufficient votes across the country to qualify as one of the top 10 parties. That was the means by which the Government sought to secure representation at the table for those loyalist paramilitary parties. There was no reason for the regional list other than to provide a ticket for them.
      I do not doubt that some in the House will say that it is a good thing that those people should be there. Many of us, even those who do not like the elective system, would say that, if people can obtain a mandate, it is a good thing that they should be there; but if they cannot secure a mandate, they should not be there. It would be rather demeaning for those representatives, or for those of any other political party, to find themselves in the negotiating process having come through as second-class politicians tinder the proposed system. It would not give them the same credibility as those who can secure a proper mandate.
      208
      The effect of the schedule, and thus of the regional list that it says is necessary for Northern Ireland, can be explained as follows. If we transferred the votes cast at the most recent election held in Northern Ireland, the European election, into the proposed new system, the top three parties would have secured 81.6 per cent. of the vote, for which they would get 30 per cent. of the places, while the bottom three parties in the list of 10 suggested by the Secretary of State would have secured 1.3 per cent. of the vote—yet for that they too would receive 30 per cent. of the places.
      To put that another way, the top three parties would have to secure 76,450 votes for one place, whereas the bottom three would require only 1,213 votes for one place. No one can suggest that there is the least degree of democracy in such a system. If the Secretary of State is not prepared to wipe the regional list out entirely and rely on the list system within the constituencies, he could at least attempt to introduce some scaling within the system.
      Mr. David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful and compelling case against the unjust arrangements before the Committee, and I agree with him. Does he agree that an even more significant point about the rag, tag and bobtail of thugs whom the mechanism will let in, is the fact that, because the system requires agreement by consent of everybody, the minority of terrorist apologists will have a veto over the 80 to 90 per cent. of properly democratically elected people?
      Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman's point is sound. Further, having jumped through all those hoops for the sake of these groups, it could well be that they would not be entitled to be part of the negotiating process under the rules that the Secretary of State has outlined. We would have distorted the democratic process to try to get a result that cannot be produced.
      Dr. Joe Hendron: I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and agree that there was broad support for the top three parties at the European election. The votes cast in that election for his party and for my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) make a high percentage, but the Government ignored that.
      We must consider the present situation and what can be done. I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about the regional list. It sounds like a farce, but it is important that the representatives of the paramilitaries should be there. It would be unrealistic if, on 10 June, no representatives of the loyalist paramilitaries and, through Sinn Fein, the Provisional IRA, were there. I believe that they should be there, but I take his point.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Robinson: Of course, if the electorate were to support them, those groups would be there. If the hon. Gentleman feels that it is important that they should be there, he can go out and canvass for them. He can go up and down the Falls road and Andersonstown saying, "Vote Progressive Unionist party or Ulster Democratic party." In a democratic society, that option is open to anyone who believes that those are the parties that should be in the talks process. Everyone has the option of supporting them.

      209
      At the end of any argument, a vote is taken by the people. The ballot box verdict must be the final judgment. If people cannot secure sufficient votes to get through the gateway into the process, they do not deserve to be there. They certainly do not deserve to be there on the argument that I think is at the back of the hon. Gentleman's mind—that they can cause destruction. As soon as one accepts that argument, one says that it is important to ensure that those who are prepared to kill have a place at the negotiating table. That only encourages more people to take up the gun and to place the bomb.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I, as the leader of a minority party, endorse his sentiments about the undemocratic nature of the elections, and agree that there can be no basis for these strange electoral arrangements, other than the inclusion of parties that would otherwise be incapable of obtaining a mandate from any representative section of the people of Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member. It says much for him that he is prepared to put the interests of democracy above his self-interest and that of people around him.
      It cannot be argued that those who receive 81.6 per cent. of the vote should get the same number of representatives at the end of the process as those who receive 1.3 per cent. That does not stand up to argument. The party that topped the poll, with almost 30 per cent. of vote, is to get the same number of representatives as a party that got 0.33 per cent. of the vote. The Secretary of State cannot justify such an outcome. If that is to be the case, I hope that at the very least he will accept a clause that will allow some scaling in the system.
      If that is the unfairness of the system, what will be its outcome? Again using the results of the European election, let us see who will be coming through the door to meet the Secretary of State in the talks. At No. 10, he will have the Natural Law party. This is a serious matter. He has provided the system. He wants to ensure that the top 10 parties in Northern Ireland will be at the negotiating table to decide the future of Northern Ireland, its relationship with the Irish Republic and all the issue that he believes are important.
      The Secretary of State is providing a system which, on the last election results, would bring through the door the Natural Law party. It is important that we look at something of the parties that will be there. The Natural Law party believes in yogic flying. It believes that yogic flying produces bubbling bliss for the individual, creates maximum coherence in brain function—that might be useful around this place—and increases harmony and positivity in society, leading to reductions in crime and other negative trends. It is a phenomenon known as the Maharishi effect.
      We as representatives of Northern Ireland will be spending 12 or perhaps 24 months with such people. If they are given the same amount of time as the rest of us, for at least one or two months we shall have to witness the Natural Law party yogic flying around the conference room, giving us the benefits of its proposals for the future of Northern Ireland. What will that do for the standing of the process with the delegates and the electorate? It will make the whole process a laughing stock.
      210
      The Secretary of State has not fully thought out the consequences of the proposal that he has placed before the Committee. It is undemocratic and fatally flawed. Its purpose was to bring in paramilitaries who could not get elected under any other process. It gives rise not only to such vexatious parties as the Natural Law party coming through the door but to an unwieldy conference table.
      The proposal ensures that there will be 10 parties from Northern Ireland at the negotiating table. Those parties will be joined not only by Her Majesty's Government in strand 1 but by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic in strand 2. So there will be 12 parties, each of which will have three representatives as negotiators, and we shall have 36 negotiators. Each of the negotiators for the political parties of Northern Ireland will have the support of three people, and the two Governments will have the support of five. So there will be 76 people around the negotiating table.
      What sort of negotiations will take place in the United Nations atmosphere that the Secretary of State is creating? It just is not reasonable. It just would not work. It is clear that, before too long, the Secretary of State—or perhaps the Minister of State, who might understand it better because he has responsibility for sport—will have to set up a premier league. He will have to decide that the yogic fliers can fly elsewhere, and the serious politicians should be in a room to themselves.
      The Secretary of State is creating further problems down the line for himself simply through the process in which he has indulged in this schedule. I ask him to consider the system more fully than he has, and either take out the regional list system in its entirety or do some serious scaling down to ensure that democracy is inserted into the process.
      The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): We have listened to a robust and fluent speech from the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who denounced the proposals for a top-up system as creating a fundamentally unfair system. Of course it is possible on a formalistic view of a democratic system to mount a case in support of that. It is equally possible to mount a similarly argued case when, in reflection of particular political, social or historical circumstances, it is considered appropriate to have a system of a weighted majority.
      During the discussions that took place over six months in 1992, we found that there was general consent that there should be a system of a weighted majority in any assembly that may come to be devolved as a consequence of an overall settlement. Therefore, while I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Belfast, East is entitled to make, in formal terms, the complaint that he has made, I meet it by saying that similar complaints could be made about any system of a weighted majority; yet all parties, his own included, acknowledged in 1992 that there was a place in Northern Ireland for a weighted majority.
      The hon. Gentleman also said that representatives of parties close to paramilitary organisations ought not to be the subject of this special consideration. Against that, I ask him to consider the reasonably widely expressed view that those who represent those parties—it is acknowledged that they are unlikely to secure a numerous vote of preferences—should be present at and take part in the discussions.

      211
      At one stage—the hon. Gentleman mentioned this—the Government believed that there might be quite a bit to be said for having them present on an observer basis. That suggestion was canvassed, but it met with scant support. In fact, it was denounced by the hon. Gentleman, and by his leader, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), among others. The Government came to the conclusion that those protests were well founded, and that we ought to look for some other way to achieve this representation within an electoral system.
      Mr. David Trimble: The Secretary of State is in the process of confessing that the only reason why we have this regional list system is to give certain paramilitary parties representation. When he devised the system—which provided representation for the top 10 parties—there were only a dozen or so parties on his list. However, his list has now been expanded to 33—soon to be 34. Is he equally confident that the paramilitary parties, which are the sole object of his attention, will succeed in getting into the top 10? Does he feel it necessary to extend the list of the number of parties who will get guaranteed seats to bring in the parties that he is favouring?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is a fair point. There are now more small parties than was the case when the Government published the first list. So be it; let us see what happens. The purpose is to secure that those who will not get a large vote, by reason of small but significant support, will not be excluded from participation in the all-party negotiations.
      It would have been possible to legislate in a way that focused this provision only on small parties, but it seemed appropriate and less likely to attract criticisms of unfairness, to allow the representation on a Northern Ireland-wide basis to extend to those who came within the top 10 of the aggregated votes.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to the Prime Minister's observations. However, I think that he unwittingly gave a misleading account of the Government's original document, which preceded the Prime Minister's statement of 21 March. He said that that document—the consultation document of 8 March—stated that only two systems of election had attracted support, but if he finds the appropriate place he will confirm that that document said that two main systems had attracted support. It was not accurate to say that that those were the only two systems that had attracted support. The two main realistic options appeared to be single transferable vote and the party list.
      4.30 pm
      On 21 March 1996, the Prime Minister told the House:
      "Whatever the merits of each of the three main systems, it is clear that none, on its own, meets that criterion of broad acceptability.
      We have therefore considered how to proceed. We have decided to propose a new system"
      He described it. He said in the following paragraph:
      "I believe that this is a fair and valid system that will produce a representative outcome. The Province-wide element should help to achieve the widely shared objective of making the negotiating process as inclusive as possible through representation of the smaller parties."—[Official Report, 21 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 497-8.]
      212
      Paragraph 8 of the written statement, the paper that was published the same day, contains the following statement of the five factors that the Government have taken into account, in the absence of widespread agreement:

      "its overriding obligation is to ensure the start of all-party negotiations on 10 June;

      the negotiations should be conducted on as inclusive a basis as is compatible with democratic principles;

      it would be wrong to conduct the election, intended to bring all parties together in negotiations, on the basis of any system that was in flat contradiction to the expressed views of one or other of the main communities;

      none of the systems identified by the parties meets this test and accordingly none is acceptable;

      a fair and balanced system must therefore be identified which should secure broad acceptance across the community."

      Mr. Robert McCartney: I am sure that the Secretary of State appreciates that the basic principle of democracy is that people or representatives should be elected on the mandate of the people. Is he aware that some of the representatives of the parties he hopes to include by means of this electoral Caliban, have said that their mandate is the silence of their guns?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am not aware of the particular quotation that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes, but if that has been said by someone who may benefit from the process, who is standing, if the hon. and learned Gentleman makes that known, no doubt the electorate will take that into consideration in weighing their claims. One must accept that a great many things have been said in the past by a great many people which are regrettable but which should not necessarily exclude them from all further participation in any democratic process.
      I acknowledge that this is not a system of which everyone would say, "This is perfection, " but I claim that, by reference to the criteria I mentioned, which the Government have espoused, and by reference to what the Prime Minister has said motivates the Government, the system merits very serious consideration and, in the Government's view, support. I hope that the Committee will take that view if the hon. Member for Belfast, East is not disposed to withdraw the amendment.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course, in a second.
      I wonder, Mr. Morris, whether I might have your guidance as to whether I should conveniently proceed with some observations on the remaining matters that are covered by grouped amendments, as we are allowed one speech only.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): The answer is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should continue.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I refer the Secretary of State to the amendment that gives at least a little democracy to the regional list. Those parties that obtain a large proportion of the vote should have more candidates on the regional list than those that obtain only a tiny percentage. The Secretary of State should inject some democracy into the process.

      213
      I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) needs to go into the constituencies to tell people about the comments of certain men. The loyalist districts—which I represent in another place also—are absolutely disgusted when such men come forward and say, "Our mandate is the silence of our guns." I am reminded of the remarks of the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who is in the Chamber. He said that guns should not be on the negotiating table or outside the door: we should get to that table only by the votes of the community.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall come to that point. However, I shall address initially the purpose of amendment No. 47, which is in this grouping.
      The amendment would deny parties the ability to submit a regional list unless they have submitted at least three constituency lists. At present, the Bill allows the submission of only one list before a regional list can be handed in.
      I can deal with the issue quite quickly, as the Government have considerable sympathy with the amendment. It does not seem unreasonable that those who wish to try to secure delegates via the regional list system should be asked to demonstrate their appeal beyond their traditional areas of strength. I think that it is important that those who seek to secure representatives in that way should be asked to put their case to a wider electorate. Accordingly, the Government are prepared to accept amendment No. 47.
      I turn now to the tapering amendment No. 12, which the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned. The amendment attempts to skew the forum in favour of those parties that have already received a substantial vote—and, in all likelihood, a large number of seats. The purpose of providing for regional delegates is to seek to reward those parties that have obtained a reasonable share of the vote either across a small number of constituencies or across Northern Ireland as a whole, but which have secured either minimal representation or no representation at all at constituency level.
      We feel strongly that the voices of those who have supported such parties should be rewarded also. Those parties that secure a large vote in the constituencies will be rewarded in the constituencies, and will receive regional delegates as well. We believe that that is fair. Therefore, I cannot recommend that the Committee accepts amendment No. 12.
      Mr. Tony Worthington: I shall present the Opposition's view on the amendments. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) is correct: there is a lack of logic and, if one wanted to be purist, one could pursue the same route as the hon. Gentleman. He described the electoral system for Northern Ireland as the most absurd democracy in the world—I can only reply that he has not travelled very far. A short stroll down the corridor might reveal a slight democratic flaw in the United Kingdom Parliament.
      Mr. Ancram: Shame.
      Mr. Worthington: I shall listen with interest to the future comments of the right hon. Gentleman—who, of
      214
      course, has a vested interest in describing it as a democracy. We support the Government in their assertion that there are small, influential parties that have been immensely important in the past 25 years in bringing about and sustaining a ceasefire.
      Mr. Barry Porter: The difference between the other place and the forum is that the House of Lords, by and large, works. It is difficult to see how a body of 76 people, with disparate and apparently irreconcilable views, can work.
      Mr. Worthington: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but I would point out that, in this context, the PUP and the UDP, which have been rightly mentioned, are seen as significant in having brought about a Protestant ceasefire and, perhaps much more significantly, they have used their influence after the breakdown of the ceasefire on the IRA's part to maintain the ceasefire by the loyalist community. That is very significant.
      The party that might, with justice, complain about giving the PUP and the UDP the opportunity—not a guaranteed place, but an opportunity—to be in the top 10 parties might be the SDLP. In context, the regional list will mean the addition of extra Protestant Unionist parties to the list.
      Mr. Eddie McGrady: The debate about the regional list system seems to have lost the focus on the purpose of the legislation. Does my hon. Friend accept that the purpose of the exercise is to create a negotiating table that will have the best opportunity of succeeding? In the SDLP, we are prepared to accept that mathematics will not provide what is necessary on the basis of democracy, but it is important that those who have an important contribution to make are at the table, be they supporters of the SDLP, nationalists, Unionists, extreme loyalists or whoever.
      Mr. Worthington: That is exactly the point that I was making. If one pursued the issue mathematically rather than by seeking to provide the right opportunity for peace, one would set back the chances of a peaceful settlement. I am grateful to the hon. Member for clearing up that matter.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Member really saying, in terms, that people should be at the negotiating table because they have the guns, Semtex and bombs to make a settlement unworkable otherwise? Is that democracy at work in the mother of Parliaments?
      Mr. Worthington: No. I am saying that it is important to recognise the contribution that has been made by those small parties and to ensure that the contribution that they have made so far can be continued, if they receive sufficient support to be in the top 10 parties, and only in those circumstances.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those parties are linked to organisations that are carrying out beatings? The beatings are not all on the part of the IRA. The most atrocious beating and maiming of people continues, and the hon. Gentleman stands at the Dispatch Box and tells us that those parties are making an

      215
      interesting contribution. They are. One of their leaders broke the head of a Roman Catholic and killed him with a concrete brick. Should such a person be given the right to sit at the negotiating table?
      Mr. Worthington: As the hon. Member knows, all parties to the negotiations will have to face and can be challenged on the Mitchell principles, including the sixth principle. I am sure that the hon. Member will, in his formidable way, put that challenge. It is right that that should be so, but a judgment has been made by the Government, which we support, that we should try to make the talks as inclusive as possible, to ensure that all significant players are there. But the PUP and the UDP will not have a guaranteed place, because only the top 10 most popular parties can be represented at the talks.
      The choice of number has been made—it has to be arbitrary—and 10 parties will be there. The hon. Member for Belfast, East is fond, rightly, of quoting the South African experience, which was also an inclusive arrangement. People were invited not simply from the major parties, the big boys of the African National Congress and the National parties, but as outsiders to leaven the mix. Those people may have not have had a huge mandate, but they had to be included if there was to be a successful settlement. That is the point behind the regional list. It is to ensure that those who have met constantly for 25 years—the large parties—will be leavened by others. We support the regional list and are pleased that the Government have resisted the amendments.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Trimble: The Downing street declaration set out—importantly, in the context of what we are debating now, and it has been repeated in other documents, including the ground rules—as one of the qualifications for inclusion in the process, the need to obtain a democratic mandate. It referred to democratically mandated parties and set out various conditions for moving into a dialogue with other parties.
      The phrase "democratically mandated parties" has some meaning. On no reasonable meaning of the phrase could one regard parties that got only a small percentage of the vote—1 or 2 per cent. at most, and perhaps even less than 1 per cent.—and that could not, under any normal electoral system, obtain a seat, as democratically mandated. As a consequence, we have the elaborate concept of a regional list, which the Secretary of State was unable to defend. He frankly conceded that it is solely to enable paramilitary groups, which could not get elected under a normal system, to be brought in. That in itself is sufficient to condemn the concept of a regional list. Consequently, we would have no hesitation in supporting the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), were he to press the amendment to a Division.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: At what level would the hon. Gentleman set the threshold? Would he set it at 5 per cent.?
      Mr. Trimble: The way to set the threshold is to have a normal electoral system, to discover the parties that can
      216
      obtain seats under that system. The reference to thresholds and percentages obviously relates to the system that operates in west Germany and that the hon. Gentleman proposes to adapt for a future Scottish Assembly. There is some merit in that sort of provision, but if there was a threshold, not all the parties that have been mentioned would be at the table. However, that is not the significant factor, because we have had an admission by the Secretary of State that the regional list is proposed simply in order to bring in paramilitary parties that could not get elected under any reasonable system. That is sufficient to condemn the notion and nothing further needs to be said.
      I must, however, record my surprise and pleasure at the acceptance by the Secretary of State of amendment No. 47. I trust that that acceptance signals the beginning of a more sensible approach by the Secretary of State, and we look forward to his reaction to other amendments, especially amendments Nos. 44 and 46, which are linked with amendment No. 47 and which the Secretary of State knows we regard as a group.
      Mr. McGrady: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) gave a clear and mathematical analysis of the situation and the likely consequences of the election based on the most recent European election held in Northern Ireland. I can confirm that we have spent many hours in negotiation with the Democratic Unionist party, the UDP and several other parties to try to obtain a consensus about the approach to the elections, which the Government so ardently urged us to do. I must inform the House that seven of the nine parties involved were able to achieve a fairly broad consensus on how to approach the list system and how the results would be apportioned. We thought that that was a fairly good achievement against the backcloth of the disharmony and distrust in Northern Ireland. Yet the Government completely rejected that consensus approach.
      I want to explain the position of the SDLP regarding the amendments. I re-emphasise that the purpose of the elections is to enter negotiations in order to find a resolution to our problem. Therefore, we approach the matter from the point of view that the people who have contributed to the problem—that includes all of us—must be at the table in some shape or another.
      We have always argued against having any election; against having any forum. We believed, and we still believe, that that was simply a delaying tactic to avoid the negotiating table. That was the precondition of the Ulster Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party for negotiations.
      The legislation is about negotiations; it is not about elections. It would be reasonable for the House to adopt the attitude that the normal requirements of the implementation of the democratic consequences of an election are not germane to this debate.
      At the end of the day we are trying to hold a general election, not to elect a representative Parliament but to bring people to a negotiating table. That table must be as all-encompassing as we, with human ingenuity, and even perhaps with some stupidity, can achieve. But at least let us get those people to that table, to give the community that we represent the opportunity of all-inclusive, all-involving dialogue.
      That is what the legislation is about. It is nothing more and nothing less than a means of providing a negotiating table to which as many as possible can be brought,

      217
      particularly those who have been engaged in violence, having, as a precondition, agreed no longer to support, use or countenance violence for the purpose of achieving political objectives.
      These will be new people when they get to the negotiating table. They will be born-again democrats when they get to the negotiating table, because they will not be admitted unless they have eschewed their previous support of violence. That is what we are about today.
      That is why my hon. Friends and I are not particularly concerned about the numbers game. Numbers will not be able to impose a solution. The solution will be achieved only by the consensus of those who are there; the consensus within the majority of the individual community representations. That is the only way in which we shall go forward.
      No imposition, by way of number or anything else, will resolve our problem. That is why we are not particularly excited about the amendments. We want three or four people around the table from those who are making a contribution to the all-important and final resolution of our problems in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am attracted to the amendments because, in my naive way, I had assumed at the outset of the process that the parties in Northern Ireland would get together and agree on the system that they wanted, leaving the Government simply having to accept the decision of the parties in Northern Ireland. I now see that that was too much to hope for.
      If that is the case, the Government of the day are left with no alternative but to take some sort of a decision. However, I am not over-enthusiastic about the decision that has been taken. If it had been left to me, I would have pursued the ideas of the DUP and the SDLP, and tried to progress those. Nevertheless, the Government have taken decisions.
      Therefore, what I need to say this afternoon is that I am deeply suspicious, as I believe are many others, of any electoral system that gives seats to losers and the unelectable, as this system surely does. I am even more suspicious when I hear people, such as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), explain to us that 80 per cent. of the electorate are likely to have something like 30 per cent. of the say, or whatever were the hon. Gentleman's figures. That is a total negation of what I understand as democracy. I am downright hostile to a system that requires unanimity from all the parties, when some of those parties will speak for less than 1 per cent. of the electorate. That cannot be democratic.
      Despite those worries, I tried hard to find something positive in the Government's decision. If we keep rubbing away at the margins of who can be on the body, with a bit of luck and a following wind, and provided that Conservative central office behaves democratically when it finally gets to grips with the question whether Conservatives can stand, it may just be that the one positive feature of the system that we are being asked to approve is that there will be Conservative representatives on the negotiating body.
      Unfortunately, I cannot say to the hon. Member for Belfast, East that Conservative representatives are any good at yogic flying—I am sure that that will be a disappointment—but I can tell him that Conservative representatives, if they were included, would be good at
      218
      running the country—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should allow me to keep my spirits up on occasions such as this. There is something positive in this. It is an opportunity for us to do in Northern Ireland what we are so good at on the mainland.
      But as I said at the outset, whatever the difficulties, whatever the points of view, somebody had to decide. It is crystal clear that the popularity of the decision will be no test of its good sense. Therefore, when we consider the amendments, we must ask ourselves what test we can use for the quality of the Government's decision.
      The only test that I can suggest is that the Government will have got it right if they are equally unpopular with all the parties in Northern Ireland. I accept that trying to be even-handed in the offence caused is a novel test, but if one listens carefully to what the parties in Northern Ireland are saying, I suspect that the Government pass that test. It is on that basis that I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and to vote for them.
      Mr. Clive Soley: I had not intended to intervene, but as much of amendment No. 15 and the list relate to the argument about democracy, it is important to make the point that if I and others like me thought that all we had to do was to give the democratic system as we know it here back to Northern Ireland, and violence would never return, I would do it tomorrow morning and we could all go home.
      We are here—it is vital to remember this—because the political system in Northern Ireland broke down. It would be entirely out of order of me on this amendment to say why I think it broke down, but in those circumstances the argument is not about simple democracy. One must consider things such as list systems.
      I would rather not be in that position. I would rather have handled the situation differently at an earlier stage. But the reality is that we are all here today because the political system in Northern Ireland broke down and successive Labour and Tory Governments decided to impose direct rule. We still have direct rule in Northern Ireland. The system broke down, and we must get it working again. That is difficult.
      It is important that, however unpopular politicians may be from time to time—we know that the Government are particularly unpopular at the moment—when all the political veneer is stripped away, the reality is that politics is the alternative to violence. There is violence when political systems break down, and that is what is happening in Northern Ireland. If we want to go back to that violence, we can pretend that this is a simple matter and merely say that whoever receives the most votes can run the show. Political systems do not work like that, however, and such an answer would be a recipe for continuing violence.
      There is so much agreement between the Labour party and the Tory party on this issue because hon. Members on both sides of the House are determined to do something about it. That is why the British and Irish Governments are determined to do something about the issue, and it is why the Government have proposed this structure—some aspects of which I disagree with.
      I would rather not be in the situation that we are in, but the reality is that the political system in Northern Ireland has broken down and we must replace it, which means getting talks started in Northern Ireland among people

      219
      who would not normally want to talk to each other. That is our problem and, although we cannot solve it, we can help those people talk about issues and return to the practice of conventional politics. If we do that today, I shall be delighted to have participated.
      5 pm
      Mr. William Ross: I have listened to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) in these debates with considerable respect, because he has made a fair number of very powerful, clear-headed and incisive speeches on the Bill—as he has on Northern Ireland in general over the years. But I must tell him to think again and to apply the logic that he normally applies to Northern Ireland, when he expresses the view that it is sensible and nearly right for the Government to take the central position between the competing opinions and positions of the parties in Northern Ireland.
      The hon. Member for Spelthorne knows, as we all do, that no political party—not least his party—would simply apply that principle to the policies that the Government have put before the people or promoted and passed in the House. The reality is that, to go down the road that he mentioned—which the Government have followed for many years—would be to desert the need to make a reasoned judgment between what is right and what is wrong. It would also be to desert normal standards of logic and reason. I do not believe that we should accept that option.
      The reality is very often that, when we are reaching a reasoned judgment on a question—not least a question such as that which confronts us in Northern Ireland—we must make clear and definite decisions. Such decisions will very rarely be in the middle of the road or in the middle of the competing demands of the parties. Every time another party is brought into the process, of course, the Government's central position changes, which is plainly wrong and cannot be defended.
      I say right away that I welcome the Government's acceptance of amendment No. 47 because, when accepting it, the Minister said that one constituency list is not enough and that the parties must jump the hurdle of demonstrating wider support. We have asked for three lists, but one could have required half a dozen and the parties would have had to find one or two candidates to stand in each constituency. This requirement tells the parties in Northern Ireland the first hurdle that they must jump, and I am happy to see that the Government will insist on it.
      My name is also attached to amendment No. 15. I did not, however, support it for the reasons that led the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) to table it. I supported that amendment in conjunction with amendment No. 155, which, sadly, has not been selected. That amendment stated:
      "Twenty delegates shall be deemed elected from Northern Ireland"
      and then divided proportionately. I think that that matter has been dealt with by a Liberal Democrat amendment, which is in a slightly different but less clear context later on in the Bill.
      220
      I take the liberty of touching on that matter—skating lightly over it, you will note, Mr. Morris, because I want to remain strictly in order—to draw attention to the fact that I want to introduce proportionality, as do the hon. Members for Belfast, East and for North Antrim, although in a rather cruder fashion.
      I also wanted to introduce the hurdle of 2 per cent., which is low enough to allow anyone who is a serious contender in any constituency to be elected, but not so high as to make it extremely difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) mentioned a requirement of 5 per cent.; it is a matter of debate and argument.
      We believe that there must be hurdles. The Government have introduced and accepted one hurdle. We are simply saying that one cannot drop one's sights so low that the normal standards of democracy and the elective system become distorted out of recognition—yet that is precisely what the Bill does. Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that the only reason for the distortion is to bring into the process the people who have weapons. Those people not only have weapons and explosives, but they have demonstrated by their murders and violence over the years that they are willing to use them in pursuit of constitutional objectives.
      So this will not be a real election. It will be an attempt to create a forum in which the gunmen and the murderers will have a reserved place. The Government would be far wiser to tell the people of the United Kingdom that that is exactly what they intend, and the people of the United Kingdom would then realise the extreme difficulties that the Government are creating in Northern Ireland because of that system.
      I have tabled amendment No. 157, which I do not intend to press. Under certain circumstances, I believe that there would be merit in changing line 5, page 5 to state that a regional list could comprise up to 18 candidates, without a lower limit. It is a matter of debate and argument as to how one would wish to create a regional list, if at all. I tabled the amendment because it would allow the parties to select one extra candidate per constituency, if they so desired—but I shall not press it.
      There are many able and constructive people in each constituency in Northern Ireland. They are busy people who are perhaps not all that interested in the hurly-burly of politics and the elective process, who would not normally take part in an election. If we are opening the doors to the gunmen and providing places for them, I do not see why we should not open the door rather more widely than the Bill does to such constructive people.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: There have been a number of very valuable speeches on this issue, which follow on from our very useful debates yesterday.
      I must say that I and other hon. Members were very angry at the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) on BBC radio this morning, when he suggested that Unionist Members were attempting to filibuster and nit-picking. He said that Unionist Members should not be trying to change the legislation, because the Government have presented a balanced Bill. That should not be the Government's attitude.
      Mr. Trimble: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the attitude of the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N.

      221
      Scott) to the Bill, which provides for elections, might have something to do with a notorious statement that he made on the eve of an election, when he was a Northern Ireland Office Minister? He told the people of Northern Ireland, "It doesn't matter how you vote; it won't make any difference."
      Mr. Robinson: Yes; there seems to be a bit of an echo of that statement. I sat through almost all the proceedings yesterday and recall that there was a very short period in the debate when the shadow of the right hon. Member for Chelsea was in the Chamber. He left it as just as speedily as he left another scene.
      However, leaving the right hon. Member for Chelsea to one side for a moment, I deal now with the Secretary of State's remarks about weighted majorities. I wish to make it clear that the weighted majorities that have been approved by a number of Unionist representatives have never in any instance been based on the composition of an elected forum. They have always been allowed for on a controversial or constitutional issue, when it is recognised that a vote of more than 50 per cent. is required.
      As for what is broadly acceptable, I noticed that the Secretary of State was wriggling to get out of the criteria that had been established. The truth is that both the Unionists' proposal—the single transferable vote system—and that accepted by the DUP and the SDLP—the list system—were broadly acceptable. Something being acceptable is different from something being preferable.
      The UUP would have preferred the STV system, and we would have preferred the list system, but I doubt whether either of our two parties would not have been fighting an election called under the system preferred by the other party. To that extent, both systems would have been broadly acceptable. I suspect that either would have been more broadly acceptable than the system that the Government have devised. As the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said, their system is broadly unacceptable, which is not a good thing—far from it. The Government's duty is to gain the widest support from representatives in Northern Ireland for the proposals.
      He has now left the Chamber, but the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said in a brief intervention that we should not concern ourselves too much with this democracy thing, and that what really matters is that we solve the problems. Of course, it is vital that the main aim is a resolution of the conflict. No one doubts that, but we still have to answer the question: who is going to be at the negotiations? What is the test to determine who should sit around the table?
      There has to be a criterion on which to make such a decision, and if it is not the number of votes or the level of support within the community, it has to be that which the hon. Member for Hammersmith did not dare mention—the causing of trouble. Those who will sit around the table will be those who, if not mollified in some way, will bomb or shoot. We should never accept that as a criterion for sitting around the negotiating table. As soon as we accept such a criterion, we introduce for the future the proposition that those who, like the paramilitaries, are prepared to shoot and bomb, have found the way to get a ticket to the talks process.
      I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) was as disappointed as my colleagues and myself about the Government abandoning
      222
      the criteria relating to broad acceptance. It is an ominous sign for the future that the Government, having set out criteria for broad acceptance, abandon them. It gives no encouragement to political parties in Northern Ireland to pursue broad acceptability—the trendy terminology is now "sufficient consensus"—if the parties do not feel that, if they create that sufficient consensus, the Government will accept and run with it. This has been a bad example set by the Government, and I hope that it will not be repeated in future.
      As for the amendments, I harbour no expectation that hon. Members who have not listened to our debate but who will go through the Lobbies to vote will understand the weight of the argument. I satisfy myself that we have won the argument, although I suspect that we shall lose the vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 321

      Division No. 104]

      [17.15 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

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Mr. William Ross and

      Smyth, The Reverend Martin

      Rev Martin Smyth.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Butcher, John

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Butler, Peter

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Amess, David

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Canavan, Dennis

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Ashby, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cash, William

      Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Chidgey, David

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Church, Judith

      Baldry, Tony

      Clappison, James

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Barnes, Harry

      Coe, Sebastian

      Bates, Michael

      Congdon, David

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Conway, Derek

      Bellingham, Henry

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Couchman, James

      Betts, Clive

      Cran, James

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Booth, Hartley

      Davidson, Ian

      Boswell, Tim

      Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Bowis, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Dover, Den

      Brazier, Julian

      Dowd, Jim

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Duncan, Alan

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Burden, Richard

      Evennett, David

      Burns, Simon

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Burt, Alistair

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      223

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Keen, Alan

      Flynn, Paul

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Forman, Nigel

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

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

      Forth, Eric

      Khabra, Piara S

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Knapman, Roger

      Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

      French, Douglas

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

      Fyfe, Maria

      Knox, Sir David

      Gale, Roger

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Garnier, Edward

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Gill, Christopher

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Legg, Barry

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Lidington, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Gorst, Sir John

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Lord, Michael

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Luff, Peter

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Grocott, Bruce

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      McFall, John

      Hain, Peter

      MacKay, Andrew

      Hall, Mike

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Madden, Max

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Maddock, Diana

      Harris, David

      Mahon, Alice

      Harvey, Nick

      Malone, Gerald

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Marland, Paul

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Marlow, Tony

      Hawkins, Nick

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Heald, Oliver

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Maxton, John

      Henderson, Doug

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Hendry, Charles

      Meale, Alan

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Merchant, Piers

      Hicks, Robert

      Miller, Andrew

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Mills, Iain

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Horam, John

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hunter, Andrew

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Hutton, John

      Mudie, George

      Illsley, Eric

      Murphy, Paul

      Ingram, Adam

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Jack, Michael

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Jessel, Toby

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Norris, Steve

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Page, Richard

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Paice, James

      Jowell, Tessa

      Parry, Robert

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Pawsey, James

      224

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Stott, Roger

      Pickles, Eric

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pope, Greg

      Sweeney, Walter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Sykes, John

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Timms, Stephen

      Reid, Dr John

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Rendel, David

      Tracey, Richard

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Tredinnick, David

      Richards, Rod

      Trend, Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Trickett, Jon

      Robathan, Andrew

      Turner, Dennis

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Tyler, Paul

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Walden, George

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Wallace, James

      Sackville, Tom

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Wareing, Robert N

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Waterson, Nigel

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Watts, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      Welsh, Andrew

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Whitney, Ray

      Simpson, Alan

      Whittingdale, John

      Sims, Roger

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wilkinson, John

      Soames, Nicholas

      Willetts, David

      Soley, Clive

      Wilshire, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Wood, Timothy

      Spring, Richard

      Worthington, Tony

      Sproat, Iain

      Yeo, Tim

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Mr. Gary Streeter and

      Stern, Michael

      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Eric Illsley: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 4, line 25, leave out from 'on' to end of line 26 and insert '30th May 1996'.
      The purpose of the amendment is to insert a definite date for the elections. There has been considerable speculation, but the Government have suggested 30 May as the date, and that seems to have been accepted. We therefore want to know why the Government have not seen fit to specify 30 May in the schedule. Setting a date in the Bill would impart some certainty to our proceedings; it would allow the parties to prepare for the elections, and it would also make it possible to make general preparations in regard to, for example, staffing and the organisation of security forces and police. It would convince the communities in Northern Ireland that elections would take place on that specified date, and would remove the fear that the Government might allow a delay.
      Given that the Bill concerns entry to negotiations and that elections are the passport to those negotiations, we want the Northern Ireland communities to be reassured. We want the Government to tell us why the date cannot be included in the Bill.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I understand what has led the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and

      225
      others to table the amendment. Let me make it clear that the Government intend the elections to take place on 30 May, so that all-party negotiations can begin on 10 June. There are, however, technical reasons for not including the date in the Bill. Doing so would leave no room for manoeuvre in the event of delay caused by, for example, an election petition. We would be obliged to include a saving provision in the Bill to allow an election court to set another poll date, and that would be very troublesome. For that technical reason alone, I am unable to accept the amendment. In the light of the assurance that I gave the hon. Gentleman earlier, I hope that he will feel that moving the amendment has served its purpose and that he will agree to withdraw it.
      Mr. Illsley: In view of the Secretary of State's reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move amendment No. 94, in page 4, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert
      'All parties may participate in the elections.'
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 74, in page 4, line 37, leave out from 'those' to end of line 38 and insert
      'that can produce the written assent of not less than 500 electors'.
      No. 14, in page 4, line 38, at end insert
      'and those which subsequently register in accordance with arrangements prescribed by an order under paragraph 1'.
      No. 67, in page 7, leave out lines 1 to 33.
      No. 42, in page 7, leave out line 5.
      Government amendment No. 142.
      No. 11, in page 7, line 9, leave out '—DUP' and insert '(DUP)—Ian Paisley'.
      No. 48, in page 7, line 26, after 'Party', insert '(SDLP) '.
      No. 49, in page 7, line 27, leave out 'Robert McCartney'.
      Mr. Canavan: Amendment No. 67 has been tabled in the names of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and me. What a team! The amendment has a broad church of supporters. Amendment No. 67 is consequential on amendment No. 94, because if all parties are allowed to contest the elections there will obviously be no need for the list of 30 parties in schedule 1.
      It is surely a basic principle of democracy that any party, however large or small, should be allowed to contest elections. That has certainly been part of the tradition of British democracy. I do not know of a precedent in UK elections—I doubt that there is one—for a Government drawing up a list of approved parties which can contest an election and, by implication, saying that there are other parties or organisations which cannot.
      Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will give a reason for the inclusion in schedule 1 of the list of parties, and will also explain how that list was arrived at. I have heard it said, although I do not know whether there
      226
      is any truth in it, that the Government thought that it was necessary to draw up a list of parties to contest the election because some of the larger Unionist parties were apparently thinking aloud about the possibility of subdividing themselves into various groupings, regional or otherwise, to try to maximise their representation at the negotiating table. If that is true, it would be more reasonable to look at the electoral system that is proposed in the Bill to see whether it could be amended to prevent such abuse—if indeed there was a risk of such abuse. I await with interest the Minister's reply.
      In our debates on earlier amendments, suspicion and concern were expressed that, under the Government's proposed scheme, people who are or were associated with paramilitary organisations might get to the negotiating table. In some people's eyes, I suppose that the list in the Bill contains several examples of parties that in the past have been—some people might say, still are—associated with the paramilitaries on both sides of the conflict.
      Over the past quarter of a century, many senseless, violent deeds have been perpetrated by paramilitaries on both sides, some of them in the names of the communities that the paramilitaries purport to represent. Like all hon. Members, I absolutely condemn those atrocities. We particularly condemn the murderous acts that have led to the loss of so many lives and to the injury of so many innocent people over the past 25 years or more.
      We could adopt a purist approach by saying that none of the paramilitaries or former paramilitaries or their representatives should get to the negotiating table, or we could adopt a more realistic approach and say that if there is to be a lasting peace it is important to bring those people on board, especially if they have an electoral mandate. In that way, they would, we hope, learn to have more faith in the democratic process instead of resorting to violence or to the threat of violence that has been used all too often in the past.
      He who is not without sin should not cast the first stone. Not long ago, some politicians crossed the border into the Republic of Ireland to engage in some kind of unlawful sectarian activity. Not long ago, another Unionist politician organised a mass demonstration of people holding gun licences to emphasise the power of the gun. But that is water under the bridge and it is important to look ahead. I hope that those politicians have learnt the error of their ways and that they will come to the negotiating table in the spirit of peace and reconciliation. I hope that they will try to encourage other politicians and people who were, perhaps, formerly engaged with paramilitary organisations to see the error of their ways, and will try to teach them the importance of using exclusively peaceful means to achieve their political objectives.
      Any party, large or small, should be allowed to contest the elections. I hope that the negotiating body that will result from the elections will be sufficiently broadly based to ensure a peaceful and lasting solution.
      Mr. Wilshire: I should like to speak to amendment No. 74, which stands in my name, and to amendment No. 67 which, as the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said, is in my name as well as his and that of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Provided that neither he nor his hon. Friend do what happened last night and mention Stalin in support of their

      227
      cause, I shall be grateful for their support. As the hon. Member for Falkirk, West has said, amendment No. 74 seeks to remove the concept of an approved list and would allow all parties or any party to stand. It would provide a mechanism for weeding out what can be described only as the nonsense parties that make a mockery of ballot papers.
      Amendment No. 67 is purely consequential in that if one removes the concept of an approved list, the list is no longer necessary. The amendment would simply remove the list of approved parties.
      My amendment No. 74 proposes that any party that can gain the support of 500 electors should be able to stand. I freely accept that the mechanism of 500 signatures may not be the best way of curbing nonsense parties, and I would be happy to contemplate a different mechanism. The group of amendments on deposits is clearly an alternative way and that may be more popular with the House than my mechanism.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: Just as a matter of clarification so that I can more easily follow the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument, when he asks for 500 assentors, does he mean in each of the eight constituencies or in Northern Ireland as a whole? I am not sure whether that is entirely clear.
      Mr. Wilshire: Clearly, as the Government will press ahead with two lists and two mechanisms, it would be 500 in both cases, but, again, I freely admit that 500 might not be the right figure. The main point that I wish to make, however, is that, although the mechanism and the number of electors could differ, I am wedded to the principle that it is wrong for any Secretary of State to take power to decide which parties may stand in an election and which parties may not.
      In simple terms, it is undemocratic to seek to do that. It is also bound to lead to gratuitous and unnecessary grief for a Secretary of State who sets out to decide which parties he approves of. As I said in the debate last night, the Secretary of State has enough trouble that he cannot avoid. Therefore, it is silly for him to seek to take more trouble unto himself in that way, which he can avoid.
      At the heart of this matter is my strongly held view that it is dangerous for democracy if a Government license political parties, which is, in effect, what the proposal amounts to.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: Has the hon. Gentleman considered whether the provision might be contrary to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which states that a Government shall not discriminate, and therefore subject to judicial review?
      Mr. Wilshire: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Any mention of judicial review tempts me down a great avenue that I would rapidly find was unacceptable to you, Mr. Morris. My views on judicial review do not bear printing in Hansard at the moment, so perhaps I may just note the point. Others might want to pursue it. I would be interested to hear what the courts might say, and, if they also hold the provision to be undemocratic, on this occasion I say, "Power to the courts."
      228
      At the heart of the matter is the concept that it is dangerous for democracy to go down this route. Governments should never forget that they, too, are political parties and that a Government hold power—any power—because of their success as a political party. It follows, therefore, that, whatever a Government may say about their neutrality on these occasions, their input into such talks is the input of a political party as well as of a Government.
      That may seem a fairly abstract point, but I suspect that it is not as abstract as it may seem to the Government. It probably starts to explain why the Government, knowing that they are also a political party, are making such heavy weather of handling its members in Northern Ireland. The "A Government is a political party" dilemma might explain why they are nervous about their representatives in Northern Ireland speaking, in effect, on behalf of the same party.
      Whatever it might be, it is wrong for the party of Government to decide which parties they will recognise and which parties they will not. The only people who are entitled to decide which parties should be recognised are the electors. That is the essence of democracy: it is the people, not the ruling class, who should take that decision. That is why, therefore, the Bill's provision is fundamentally flawed.
      The Government may decide that, when the people make their choice, it will be impossible for the allies of unreformed and unapologetic terrorists to be included in talks, but the correct way to deal with that is not to license political parties, but, as we said at length yesterday, to decide the terms for admission to the talks. Deciding which parties will be recognised and which will not is not the right way.
      I accept that using signatories to determine whether there is any basis for support does not appeal to some people and that there are other ways, especially calling for deposits, but, on occasions such as this and even on other occasions, if I had to choose, I would prefer the route of seeking people who are prepared to sign a nomination paper than of allowing people with big bank accounts to put members forward, whether or not they could get any signatures. I do not consider 500 to be too high. Even my own party, when it was allowed to stand, received about 40,000 votes, so 500 does not seem to be an unrealistic target.
      If we listen carefully to what the Government say, we note that the purpose of the elections is to establish for all to see who speaks for Northern Ireland's people, so I urge the Government, if they are trying to establish that, to reconsider accepting that it is wrong for them to try to impose control over who may stand to gain the support of Northern Ireland's people. The only acceptable control of the process must, if it is to be genuine, lie with Northern Ireland's electors.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Trimble: I understand the argument made by the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). We are dealing with some strange concepts hitherto unknown in terms of British electoral law, and I understand their distaste for the system that we have. I have every sympathy for the view expressed by the hon. Member for Spelthorne that it is dangerous for Governments to license political parties.

      229
      However, that consequence flows inevitably from the choice of a party list system. It is not a desirable or necessary consequence. It is inevitable only in the current circumstances, where a party list system is being introduced quickly, with inadequate time to put the necessary legislation and procedures on the statute book.
      In a party list system, the focus is on the party. There must be some procedure to regulate political parties, or at least to regulate the use of their names. In every country where there are party list systems, which are common, there are procedures to regulate the use of names and to provide a regulation scheme for political parties.
      Mr. Wilshire: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but can he not see that there is a big difference between regulating the name of a party that freely forms itself and regulating the formation of the party?
      Mr. Trimble: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. If he would allow me to develop my argument, he will find that we are not that far apart. The essence of my point is that we have arrived at this position because of a decision to introduce a party list system without there being sufficient time to do it properly. Therefore, it is being done in an undesirable way. At that point, the arguments of the hon. Gentleman and myself are probably getting close to each other.
      The use of party names should be regulated by establishing a judicial procedure whereby a party that believes that its name is being used improperly can challenge the existence or the use of that name by other persons or parties. Looking at the list, I find that an obvious example is the body that suddenly came into existence in Northern Ireland—if it did so at all, which is not known—calling itself the British Ulster Unionist party. That name is close to that of the Ulster Unionist party. Under a system to regulate the use of party political names, which exists in some countries, it would be open to our party to commence proceedings against that other party for the improper use of its name. So there could be some form of judicial process dealing with the regulation of parties. If that course is taken, it is done outside the political circle. Some form of judicial or quasi-judicial procedure could be set up, which would not have the dangerous implication involved in Governments licensing political parties—a system which, like the hon. Member for Spelthorne, I believe that we should avoid.
      Unfortunately, I believe that the decision to adopt a party list system was wrong and that it results in an unsatisfactory situation. Having reached that unsatisfactory situation, we must try to find a solution. That suggested by the hon. Member for Spelthorne was to have a number of assentors, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is not far away from one of the suggestions in our amendment No. 46, which has been selected for debate later. I merely want to draw attention to the similarity in principle between that amendment and amendment No. 74. Our amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are directed towards the same issue, and we shall debate them later. All the amendments stem from the problems caused by a party list system. Our amendments Nos. 42 and 49, which are included in this group, draw attention to the problem.
      We have no evidence that the British Ulster Unionist party exists, but those associated with it may feel that it is unfair for us to concentrate the ire of our amendment
      230
      on them. We could easily have selected another body. In the list of 30 persons and parties, there are a number of bodies with which we are not familiar. Consequently, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland asking what evidence he had as to the existence of those groups and whether they were functioning as political parties. The answer has not yet appeared in Hansard, but my recollection of the reply that I saw yesterday evening—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—suggests that the only evidence was that the Northern Ireland Office had received a letter claiming that the party existed and wanted to be on the register.
      While the hon. Member for Spelthorne considers it dangerous for the Government to license political parties, they are issuing licences to anyone who writes a letter. That is rather curious. It appears that the Government made no effort—again I look to the Minister to see whether he wishes to respond—to find out whether those who wrote the letters represent genuine parties. Those who write letters have, hitherto, got their name on the list, but those who do not write letters do not have their names on the list. That may cause some interest to various parties and may be behind the comment made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). As the legislation now stands, those who write the letters will not be required to do anything else to prove that they are genuine except to find the names of two persons prepared to be submitted initially to a constituency list and then possibly elsewhere.
      That is unsatisfactory, and something needs to be done. We wait to hear from the Minister what that something should be. He knows that we have made various suggestions in later amendments which are directed to dealing with this. Something must be done to alert the public to what are and what are not genuine names.
      In normal elections, the ballot paper presents the voter with the names of candidates and the description. In normal British elections, the focus has always been on the names of the candidates and little concern has been taken over the description. I think that I am right in saying that there was an election in England and Wales when six people who claimed to be members of the Social Democratic party, which no longer exists, all appeared on the ballot paper. That occurred because, as I have said, under British electoral practice, the focus is on the names of the candidates who will be active in their constituencies promoting themselves.
      There is a potential solution there, and it arises in an amendment that has been selected for discussion later. I shall not discuss the matter further now. We need to move the procedure involved in these elections closer to that of normal elections. That would be a solution. Failing that, something else needs to be done and we want to hear what the Government have to say.
      I should make some comment about amendment No. 49, which deals with a specific anomaly which must be cured. The present list refers to parties and independents. For independents, their name is given and for parties, the party name is given, but with one exception. Without any reflection on the person or the party concerned, we need consistency. I wait to hear what the Minister has to say. The purpose of the amendment is to draw attention to the inconsistencies in the way in which the Government are proceeding. That inconsistency is wrong in principle. If we

      231
      have a party list system—although we disagree with that concept—the focus should be on the party, and if there have to be names, they should be the names of the candidates.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 14 and 11. I can see at once the difficulties that the Government had in framing legislation around the principles in the Bill, particularly in the schedule listing political parties. There are two factors which suggest that it is not as complex and cumbersome as it might look in the schedule. I rather suspect that there will be very few, if any, constituencies where the 30 names in part II of the schedule will appear on the ballot paper. Some of those parties will not present themselves in various constituencies.
      The real test of whether we have produced a difficult system depends on the electors. They have a fairly simple task and have only to scan the list of parties and put a cross beside the party of their choice. So, with one exception, it is not too difficult for the electors. Where there are party names that can cause confusion, the elector can make the wrong choice and vote for a candidate unintentionally. Therefore, we must look at the list on the basis of what principles should determine the parties on it and how they appear. That is the basis of the two amendments in my name.
      Amendment No. 14 is similar to that of the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). I do not think that it is for Parliament to limit the political parties contesting an election. That would be a bad principle to establish. We are saying that, for ease, there should be a list of established parties in the schedule, but there should be a mechanism whereby others can be registered and duly nominated as a political party if they meet the criteria.
      Amendment No. 11 is simply an attempt to fulfil the principle, which I intend to outline, of how parties should appear on the list. I can well understand the concern of hon. Members who represent the Ulster Unionist party that a political party called the British Ulster Unionist party might be confused with them. It is altogether reasonable for them to believe that, but the answer is not to wipe out the British Ulster Unionist party before it is born. Nor is the answer to wipe out the Christian name and surname of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney).
      I would allow any political party to define itself as it wishes and provide the Ulster Unionist party with the ability to put itself on the list in a way that clearly allows the electors to know for whom they are voting. The UUP should be allowed so to do regardless of whether it defines itself through its leader, who has won elections in the past and will therefore no doubt be a vote grabber in future, or by any other way. We have chosen to attach the name of the leader of our party since we believe that there will be very little confusion among voters when they see his name in determining for whom they are voting and what political party they are supporting.
      6 pm
      Mr. Trimble: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is very happy to define his own party by the name of one person, but he should realise that it is not so easy for a party such as ours, which is a broad church.
      Mr. Robinson: There are many different definitions that one can use for division, and "broad church" is undoubtedly one of them. I understand that all the members of the hon. Gentleman's party may not be as delighted as he to see his name on the ballot paper. I do not want to go into that or take a vote among those around him on the name on the ballot paper that defines his party. I do not want to provide the Ulster Unionist party with difficulties in determining that, but it does not have to define itself by the name of its leader. It can define itself in such a way that it is clear to electors which party they are voting for.
      It would be altogether wrong if we were to disallow the hon. Member for North Down to present himself and his party on the ballot paper in the way in which he chooses. Equally, it would not be right to exclude the British Ulster Unionist party. Equally, the SDLP is entitled to place itself on the ballot paper as its amendment proposes. The party is known as the SDLP, so it would clearly be an advantage to have that name on the ballot paper, to remove confusion among the electorate.
      The basic principle is that parties should be entitled to present themselves on the ballot paper in the way in which they choose. The Government might want to set down criteria for appeals against a political party stealing the clothes—even the name—of another political party. That would allow the Ulster Unionist party the right to appeal and be heard if it felt that someone was getting too close to its name. I trust that the Minister will accept that there has to be a principle—rather than simply a mechanism by which the Minister chooses and decides how parties should be defined on the list. That would be an altogether bad way in which to approach the issue.
      Mr. McGrady: As many hon. Members have said. amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are an attempt to tidy up the somewhat lengthy and difficult list of parties that have been born recently and not so recently in Northern Ireland.
      I am not sure whether I can claim total proprietorship of amendment No. 49, since I see that the name of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party tops it, even though I did not invite his signature to it. Perhaps it is some printing error. I should like to assure the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) that there is not a gang of parties to remove his Christian name and surname from the list. The two amendments, and amendment No. 40, which has not been selected, aim to remove the anomaly of independents listed in lines 13 to 18 of part II of schedule 1. Their purpose is simply to clarify matters and to provide an even playing field for the parties in the electoral contest.
      The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, clearly described the difference between the proposed election and the normal type of election. That difference was brought about by his request and that of his party that there be a test of party strengths in Northern Ireland, not of the strengths of individual candidates, which would in total amount to the strength of a party. The proposed system is because of the request of parties that thought that the electorate should be given a chance to show their support for the party rather than for the individuals who may or may not participate in negotiations.
      Perhaps a proposed system could have dealt with that situation most efficiently. Certainly, nothing could be more mathematically accurate than having the entire

      233
      Northern Ireland electorate voting for a party of their choice, which would not be influenced either by local personalities or local difficult members of parties, but would be a genuine assessment of the support across Northern Ireland for individual parties.
      As the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) generously said, amendment No. 48 simply identifies my own party by that which it is commonly known: the SDLP. The Committee will appreciate that the Social Democratic and Labour party is quite a mouthful and would not fit into a soundbite on television or elsewhere.
      Although we are not allowed to debate amendment No. 40, which would remove the independents, I should like to refer to it because the independents do not represent parties. I understood from listening to the comments on the radio by, for instance, independent Kerr and independent McMullan—I am subject to correction—that they did not want to be listed as parties for the purposes of the election. They simply wrote to the Northern Ireland Office asking questions about the election and what would happen.
      The independent Kerr went so far as to say on radio that he had not made up his mind whether he would participate in the election, but that now he had been given the opportunity, he might consider it. In making that decision, he might be under the shadow of his former party membership, but that is a problem for him, not me.
      That shows that, by public proclamation by independents Kerr and McMullan, two parties on the list do not exist. How can we legislate to include parties that do not exist?
      Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman assist me?
      Mr. McGrady: I do not know until I hear the question.
      Mr. Ross: Are any of the other parties listed also figments of the imagination of the Northern Ireland Office?
      Mr. McGrady: I am not able to advise the hon. Gentleman, but I thank him for his intervention.
      I did not contact anyone, I merely listened to radio reports on which the two independent party representatives spoke. There seems to be a No Going Back party. I wish we had a party that was going forward rather than backwards.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: There is—the DUP.
      Mr. McGrady: Well, perhaps.
      Will the Minister tell us whether, if it is proper to do so, the nomenclature in the schedule is statutorily bound to be on the ballot paper, or whether the list is an indication of parties that may describe themselves on the ballot paper as they so wish, as is normal, although the descriptions should be one-liners, without a plethora of names attached to them.
      On the basis of simply tidying up, I recommend amendments Nos. 48 and 49. I apologise to the leader of the Ulster Unionist party for the fact that his name has been unwittingly, and perhaps unwillingly, associated with the SDLP in connection with amendment No. 49.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: I shall respond to amendment No. 49, as my name has been bandied about. By my presence, I physically demonstrate that I am not a figment of anyone's imagination; as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is aware, I really do exist. As for the nomenclature to be assigned to the individual parties, I simply submitted to the powers that be a name: "UK Unionist Party—Robert McCartney". Until what I have described as an electoral Caliban was thrust upon me through the medium of the Bill, it had not been my intention to stand as a party at all—[Interruption.] No, I had no intention, despite the aspirations of the hon. Member for South Down. If he wants to intervene now, I will give way to him.
      I simply submitted the party name under which I wished to contest the election, and the Secretary of State included it in that form in the list in part II of schedule 1. It seems somewhat surprising that using one's own name as part of the basis on which one seeks to be elected should be the subject of even a mild degree of odium from the two largest established parties. It is rather surprising to find the Social Democratic and Labour party in some sort of association with the Ulster Unionist party, saying that it wants a level playing field. Premier league giants are battling with someone who in terms of electoral support is a fourth division minnow. I can conclude only that the fear—
      Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McCartney: Not at the moment.
      I can conclude only that those giants of the electoral circus must think that they have something to fear. However, being a true and proper democrat, I wish to make an offer to them, and to make it clear that I have no objection whatever to their being afforded any indulgence that the Secretary of State may unwittingly or otherwise have afforded me.
      Let us take the Social Democratic and Labour party, for example. Incidentally, amendment No. 48 reveals that that party wishes to be described by another title—"SDLP", which is not anyone's personal name. If the Social Democratic and Labour party wished to append a description to its name, so that it read, "Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP)—Mr. John Hume", I should be happy to indulge it. And if the Ulster Unionist party wanted to have the name "Mr. Trimble" emblazoned in high colour after its normal title, I should be happy for that to be done.
      Apart from those who deliberately try to confuse or mislead, I believe that everyone should be entitled to whatever description he or she wishes. I would certainly want all the other parties to be afforded the right to be described in whatever manner they think will best advance their opportunities with the electors. That seems to me the basis of the democratic principle. I therefore invite the House to oppose amendment No. 49, which seems to be without fairness or principle.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Wilshire: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman finishes, may I ask him, as an eminent lawyer, to help me out of a legal difficulty? He appears to be suggesting that in wanting his name to remain, he is really standing as

      235
      himself. I am pleased to see that. However, my understanding of a political party is that it consists of more than one person. It seems like a legal conundrum if an individual stands as himself, keeping his name, yet also stands as a party. I am sure that there is a wonderful explanation, and I think that we would benefit from hearing it.
      Mr. McCartney: I must take the scales from the eyes of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who seems to have an intellectual difficulty. That difficulty should be ascribed to the procedures that the Government have offered for the election, rather than to me. If I am to contest the election I have a twofold function. First, there is the question of being elected as a constituency representative in one's own constituency; then there are the bonus brownie points—the possibility of collecting two additional seats from the 20 freebies that are undemocratically oscillating in the distance, even in my own seat of North Down. It therefore becomes necessary for me to become somewhat diffuse and to form myself into a party, so that I can have listed members in a constituency and people will have the opportunity to vote for me in that constituency. I could then boost my Province-wide vote, creep unwillingly into the top 10, and secure an additional two seats.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: By virtue of the amendment that has been accepted, the hon. and learned Gentleman will now have to stand in more than one constituency.
      Mr. McCartney: I accept that under amendment No. 47, I will have not only to bifurcate but to triplicate—[Interruption.] I shall try to jump over the four and get into the five bracket, at least.
      For the reasons that I have explained, it has become necessary for me to describe myself as a party. But—the hon. Member for Spelthorne has finally tumbled to the fact—because of the format of the election I shall have to have other people in other constituencies. That is why I have, as it were, turned myself into a company.
      Mr. Wilshire: A limited company?
      Mr. McCartney: Unlimited, for the purpose of the election. I hope that that explanation will assist the hon. Gentleman in his deliberations.
      Mr. William Ross: This has been an entertaining debate, but it has been entertaining simply because of the farcical situation that faces us. I was rather sorry that the hon. and learned Member for North Down did not give way to me earlier—we have all been giving way to one another a lot—because if he had I would have tried to assure him that we would not in any way try to down him as a minnow. What we wanted was a system that accurately portrayed the party, so that the electorate to whom he was appealing would know clearly for whom they were voting. We would not want any of his votes to go astray.
      Mr. McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Ross: No, I shall not return the pleasure.
      236
      At the end of the day, the farcical situation concerns a very serious subject. The amendments highlight the confusing nature of some of the names now being used. I have no doubt that if the matter is forced to a vote we shall carry the Liberal Democrats with us, because they have the most vivid memories of the "Literal Democrats". I would have thought that, in this case at least, they would want to ensure that a sensible arrangement is made.
      The Liberal Democrats, like hon. Members in every other party in the House, are aware that an argument has been raging on the subject at United Kingdom level for several years. A Home Office committee has been trying to resolve the question of party names and the right of individuals to them. The legal position on party names in the United Kingdom was set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I commend his remarks to the House because this is a serious issue. People are reputed to be changing their names to challenge sitting candidates. There is no end to the ramifications. This is a United Kingdom problem that must be resolved in a sensible fashion so that people know for whom, and for what policies, they are voting.
      I was astonished at some of the remarks in the debate. We were told about the system of letters coming into the Northern Ireland office. Hon. Members will know about two parties that are missing: the Ulster Popular Unionist party, whose sole Member of Parliament died some time ago—
      Mr. Trimble: It still has two councillors.
      Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend tells me that that party still has two councillors, but its name does not appear on this list so it is apparently prepared to give up the ghost. The Ulster Liberals seem to have vanished into the mists of time—there is no sign of them. However, two parties that should have appeared on the list are missing. First, there is that wonderful character who keeps writing to hon. Members and signs himself "anonymous". There is also the writer of unsigned letters. We do not have anonymous or unsigned on the list. I wonder how they come to be missing. I am not too worried because they will probably turn up before we get to the end of this process.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: There was a statement in the newspapers a few weeks ago that the Ulster Popular Unionist party has decided to close. I think that there are now two independents, while one member wisely joined the Democratic Unionist party
      Mr. Ross: He is no doubt hoping to be elected. Let us see how he gets on.
      Mr. McNamara: Has not the hon. Gentleman missed out disgusted of Tunbridge Wells?
      Mr. Ross: He does not live in Northern Ireland. We also miss the United Kingdom Labour party.
      Mr. John D. Taylor: And the Irish Republican Socialist party.
      Mr. Ross: We are also missing the IRSP but I do not want to go on with this because I am getting too far from the amendment.

      237
      The House will have noticed at least six parties that use the name Unionist in their title in the list in the Bill. That is because of the connotations and attractions of that name in Northern Ireland. It is attractive because it sets out the basic philosophy of the great preponderance of folk who live in Northern Ireland—hence the use of the term "Official Unionist" when there have been quarrels within the body of the Unionist party about who was the correctly selected candidate.
      Every party has its rallying banner. For the Unionist electorate, it is the word "Unionist". There might be a blue torch or a red rose overhead. For the DUP, there is not only the word "Unionist" but the name of its leader. The name of the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) also features. The SDLP has its preferred option. No doubt the Alliance party would want its name to appear on a yellow background. Those things are used by parties as aids to electoral success. That is why they want to use specific titles and symbols. They should be all treated exactly the same. Whatever is put down for one party should be put down for the others. This debate draws that problem to the attention of the Government and we expect some action from them to ensure that all parties enter the process on a level playing field and that there will be no attempts to confuse the electorate.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Ross: I shall give way if the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to finish this point. I tabled an amendment, which was sadly not selected, saying that the Secretary of State should have the right to refuse a party.
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that if an amendment is not selected he cannot talk about it.
      Mr. Ross: If the Government had considered the possibility of refusing to accept names which might have caused confusion and taken upon themselves the full weight of the burden that they have partially accepted, the merits of the view that I was trying to express would have been apparent. That might have been the way around the problem of confusing names on the list. Some of the names, which I believe are figments of the imagination of certain individuals, would not have appeared on the list. They would have had to appear as independents or under another name.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can he think of anything less than confusing to the electorate of Northern Ireland than a candidate standing under his own name?
      Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should examine the telephone book: he would find a dozen other Robert McCartneys.
      Miss Kate Hoey: We are breaking much new ground with the elections in Northern Ireland and their procedures and we are changing the rules as we go. As far as possible, we should try to stick to some basic principles. One basic principle is that political parties of whatever shape or form should have the right to call
      238
      themselves what they like. That is especially true of the main political parties, which over 25 years have had to face great challenges and deal with problems that mainland parties have not had. To legislate that the Social Democratic and Labour party cannot have SDLP after its name or that the United Kingdom Unionist party, which has admittedly not been going so long but nevertheless has a representative in the Commons in the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), should not be allowed to call itself what it likes, amounts to nit-picking.
      I hope that the Minister will say that the parties which sit in the House should at least be given the right to put their names on the ballot paper in whatever way they wish. If the Democratic Unionist party wishes to have its leader's name on, or if the Social Democratic and Labour party wants to be known as the SDLP, that should be allowed. I hope that we shall have sense and not nit-picking.
      Mr. Trimble: On that principle, would the hon. Lady accept that on the constituency lists the names of the parties' candidates for those constituencies should appear on the ballot papers?
      Miss Hoey: I favour the electorate knowing as much as possible about who will represent them at the end of process. It is a pity that we are not able to do that more. I would be happy for that to happen if it satisfies people, but I expect that the Minister will come up with some reason why it cannot happen.
      We are getting more and more away from a system of elections that most people understand. This Parliament should not try to legislate against Northern Ireland parties calling themselves what they want. I hope that the spirit of the amendments will be accepted by the Minister so that the matter will not be decided by the votes of hon. Members who have not listened to the debate—few have been listening—and who will vote as their party tells them. I hope that the Minister will accept that parties represented in the House, which have already gone through the electoral process, stood up for the people of Northern Ireland and been democratically elected, should have the right to call themselves what they wish.
      Mr. McNamara: We are avoiding considering the position of the electors—the people who are being asked to make the choice. It has to be our duty to give the greatest possible amount of information to the individual elector and to seek to avoid confusion. There have been examples in Great Britain of how confusion has been deliberately caused by candidates. There was the famous case in the south-west of England which affected the Liberals.
      Our duty must be to do what will most help the electors. In an ordinary election we have first the name of the candidate and then whatever party description he wants, so that people are generally not confused. However, in this particular case we shall have the names of the parties, some of which can be confusing. We have heard the list of six Unionist parties. All those parties could claim parts of the titles of the other parties. Depending on how they regard the British Unionist party, I am sure that the official Unionists would regard themselves as British and part of the British Isles—
      Mr. Ken Maginnis: There is no official Unionist party.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. McNamara: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am sure that the Ulster Unionists would object to the use of the word "British" as if it were a description that did not apply to them. I understand that. If we are to help the electorate, we must give them as much information as possible, particularly if we are theoretically electing parties and not candidates.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and the leader of the official Unionist party, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), asked correctly why people should not know who is the candidate in their constituency. That was the question that I intended to ask the Minister. If the names are not to appear on the ballot paper, what directions will be given to the electoral registration officer for Northern Ireland to ensure that there is sufficient information in the polling station so that people can be aware who are the candidates for particular parties? The selection of a candidate, especially if he is near the top of the list and may be elected, might be a reason why an elector may not want to vote for a particular party and may switch his vote. He may have a personal thing about the candidate. So it is important that the elector should be given the fullest possible information.
      We cannot have the information on the ballot paper, so what will happen in the polling station to ensure that information is brought directly to the attention of the elector in a way agreed by the parties? How will we ensure that the information is not lost in the great mass of close black writing on white paper which people will have to spend hours going through? There is a duty on the Government to take sufficient time and effort to ensure that the individual elector has the fullest possible information.
      To return to the point that was originally raised, it should be for the parties to decide the name by which they go. It should not be the decision of the Secretary of State. If sufficient information is readily and easily accessible to the electors at the polling station, in a form which they can easily read, they should be able to distinguish among the names of the candidates which party most meets their needs.
      Mr. Ancram: We have had an interesting and, on occasion, entertaining debate. There has been a large number of broad churches floating around the Chamber—rather more than usual—and some strange alliances have been formed. The question that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked at the end of his speech will arise under amendment No. 43, and I would rather respond to it then than do so out of sequence now.
      It is fair to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne who is not in his seat, made a strong case on why a Government should not decide who is a party—"should not license parties" was the phrase he used. The comprehensive nature of the list printed in part II underlines the fact that the Government sought not to prescribe or license parties but to put in legislation, for reasons which I shall come to, as comprehensive a list of potential parties as possible, so that people were not
      240
      prevented from putting themselves forward as parties because a Government had decided that they should not do so.
      It was in that spirit that, on 1 April, I sent to a number of parties a consultation document. We also published it so that other parties were aware of it. We made it clear that we were trying to meet the sort of problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has outlined, and to do so in a way that would satisfy the need for parties, in the words of the hon. Member for Vauxhall, to have a say in how they would appear in the legislation, and, as a result—to answer the point made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady)—how they would appear in the election documentation and on the ballot papers.
      In paragraph 6 of the consultation paper, we said:
      "The Government intends that the list in the legislation should be as inclusive as possible of parties likely to be able to attract a significant degree of support, and to contribute to that process".
      I had referred earlier to the process.
      "Subject to representations, the Government will incorporate in the legislation that is presented to Parliament the list of the parties in the form in which they appear in Annex 1."
      That was the rather shorter list. We continued:
      "Names of the parties will be set out on ballot papers, and in other election documentation, in precisely the form in which they appear in the legislation."
      As a result of that consultation paper, a number of representations were made to us, some from parties which did not appear in the original list and others from parties which did and wished to have the name altered. Everyone had the chance to respond. We made it clear in the consultation that we required the information by 10 April so that we could proceed to legislate.
      The hon. Member for Vauxhall cannot accuse us of nit-picking, when we gave an open and public opportunity to parties to make representations to have the name altered or to be included in the process. Those parties which failed to do so cannot now sit in the Chamber and complain that they were not given that opportunity.
      The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) took advantage of that opportunity and made representations to us about how he wished his party's name to appear. So I hope that the House will accept that this has been not a surreptitious exercise on the part of the Government but an open exercise, with full consultation and every opportunity for the parties to make representations.
      It is true to say that the amendments reveal disquiet in the Committee about our decision to name parties that may participate in the election provided for in the Bill. I use those words advisedly, because all that the schedule does is allow parties to participate. It does not force them to participate. The fact that they are on the list will not mean that they will appear on every ballot paper. It does not mean that we are convinced that they are parties.
      As the hon. and learned Member for North Down rightly pointed out, to be a party one has to have more than one candidate. I should be loth to argue that a political organisation that can pull together two or, in this case, up to eight candidates to apply for all the available representation in the forum and negotiations is not a party. So it is right to underline that fact.
      We have done it in this way for a simple reason: we have no system of political party registration in the United Kingdom, as the hon. Members who tabled the

      241
      amendments know. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said that that matter should be looked at urgently. However, that is the position at the moment. Therefore, it is not possible to legally define who is a party and who is not a party. On this side of the Irish sea, we have the advantage that we stand as individuals, and whether the Labour party decides to call itself the Labour party or new Labour is not a matter of legal challenge at elections.
      When a list system is used, it is important that the names of the parties are securely registered in one form or another before an election takes place. It is simply not possible to say—as does the amendment of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)—that all parties should participate in the election, because the word "party" has no basis in law. Our task was to devise a method of getting those who wished to participate on to the ballot paper, if that was their desire.
      The hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked—I shall paraphrase their amendment—why we could not have provided for a party registration scheme under subordinate legislation. We closely examined that, but we could not introduce such a scheme without risking the close attention of parties that might simply be out to spoil the election.
      I wonder what the hon. Members would think if they arrived at the place of registration to register their party and found that they were the sixth person to arrive that morning to register as the DUP. Under United Kingdom law, they would have no more right to that name at that point than any other group of individuals. Of course, the hon. Gentlemen would protest at the hijacking of their label.
      The legal advice we received was that we could not have got that matter before the courts and resolved in time for the election. We were told that the poll would go ahead with whatever names had been lodged via the registration process, and there would have been a recipe for potential chaos had we proceeded in that direction. Reference has been made to the Liberal party and its experiences with the Literal Democrats. I should have thought that, rather than sympathising with the amendments, they would see the purpose in operating in the way we have.
      A decision was taken to include in the Bill those who may participate. We sought to be as inclusive as possible in this elective process, and we opened up the inclusion procedure to consultation. A number of individual groups responded, and the names that appear on the list under part II are there as a result of the responses.
      It is adequate testimony to our desire that the election should be as inclusive as possible that we have accepted those representations and left it to practical reality as to how parties put forward names to decide who are parties in terms of who will stand at the election. The list seeks to set out those who are eligible to be parties if they so wish to proceed.
      To an extent, I agree with what the hon. Member for Upper Bann said; that is, that in the time available—we had time constraints in this and I make no secret of that—we have pursued the best solution possible so far as making the process inclusive is concerned. I regret that, although we looked for more democratic ways of doing this, we could not find any that were workable within the
      242
      time. I think that there has been sufficient time for all who were interested to register their views on participation. We had a reasonable period of consultation, and many people took advantage of it.
      The Government amendment in this list is a result of a failing on our part. I refer to amendment No. 142, which inserts the Communist party of Ireland on to the list. It made representations, but, due to an administrative error in my Department, it was left off the original list. It then made further representations to us to point out that it had made its representation in time. Because its letter was mislaid, it has now been put on the list. I believe that it would have been wrong not to do so.
      6.45 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has an amendment that refers to assentors. We gave some consideration to this matter. I think that we are all concerned to see that, in the actual practice of the election and the way that it works out, we do our utmost to prevent frivolous parties from standing.
      It was for that reason that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was pleased to accept the amendment of the hon. Member for Upper Bann that sought to provide that parties that wished to be on the regional list should put up at least two candidates in three constituencies, thereby indicating the seriousness of their intent. I hope that hon. Members will accept that that was a genuine response to a concern that is reasonably widely felt.
      The question of assentors is difficult one. The hon. Member for Spelthorne said that 500 assentors might be too many. I think that, in our parliamentary elections, we have to put down 10 assentors—one proposer, one seconder and eight others. I have fought seven general elections, and I know that quite often there is considerable difficulty in ensuring that those names are right—they have to be validated by the returning officer. I would have sleepless nights if I were the person who had to produce and validate 500 names.
      I refer to the general purpose that we have been pursuing in relation to these elections—that is, we are trying to make the elections inclusive. We are trying to reduce the burden on the smaller parties in relation to them standing. Elections are not very difficult for a big and well-organised party—there tend to be party machines that are ready to go into operation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) laughs at the idea of party machines. In the 20 years that I was involved in Scottish politics, a well-oiled machine worked in his part of the world. It would be wise for him not to make much more comment about the value of party machines in politics.
      I am making the point that there are many parties that should have the ability, if they so wish, to stand in these elections, but that they would regard a number of the things that we take for granted as burdensome, and, in some cases, they would stop them standing. We have tried to reduce those burdens to a minimum. I think that the imposition of a requirement for assentors—whether it be 500 or fewer—would discriminate against the smaller parties in terms of the clerical work involved.
      Mr. William Ross: The Government are saying that they do not want 500 assentors or 100 assentors. How

      243
      many assentors will they require? Surely it will not be a case of people going in with a nomination form with their name on it and nothing else.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman must remember that this is a party list system—it may be on a constituency basis, but it is a party list system. Therefore, he must take cognisance of the concession willingly made by my right hon. and learned Friend in accepting the need for parties to put up in three seats to qualify for the regional list. That was an attempt, in a non-discriminatory way—one that merely sought out the seriousness of the commitment of the party—to ensure that the frivolous parties were excluded. For that reason, we are not looking at the number of assentors, because we think it is burdensome.
      I have listened to some of the representations made about the amendments. I think that I was invited by the hon. Member for Vauxhall to be generous and to accept the amendments, but some of them counter each other. That indicates some of the difficulties that would have arisen had the Government decided to operate on the basis of exercising our judgment rather than allowing parties to make representations to us and putting them on the desk.
      Mr. McGrady: I asked the Minister a specific question, and I hope that he will not sit down before he responds to it. I asked him whether it is the intent that the way that the parties are listed and described in part II of the Bill is how they will appear on the ballot paper. Will he take any exception to that? In other words, he appears to be rejecting my party's simple amendment to use the letters SDLP. Will he answer that question before he sits down?
      Mr. Ancram: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I answered it earlier, and referred to him when I did so. I said that we made it clear in the consultation document, and I was confirming again today, that the names that would appear on the list in the Bill would be those that would be set out on the ballot paper and used in other election documentation. The hon. Gentleman or his party was sent the consultation paper with that in it. Other parties took advantage of the consultation period to change the designation that would appear on the ballot paper.
      Mr. McGrady: It was not made clear in the communications that the name of the party that was to respond would be the description and detail that would appear on the subsequent ballot paper. There is no connection between a piece of correspondence and a piece of legislation regarding these elections. It is totally unreasonable of the Government not to accept a simple amendment, inserting "SDLP" either in substitution for Social Democratic and Labour party or in addition to it. It harms no one; it affects no one. It shows the prejudice with which the Government are approaching this part of the schedule. It is appalling.
      Mr. Ancram: We set this out clearly and for good reason, because we accurately foresaw that, if we did not follow that procedure, when the Bill was considered in the House of Commons, one party would say, "Remove this" and another would say, "Do that," and ultimately a
      244
      subjective judgment would need to be made, and one party would accuse those who took the decision of having favoured another party.
      We deliberately set matters out very clearly. I sent out the document—with a covering letter to the hon. Gentleman's party and to other parties—saying:
      "Subject to representations, the Government will incorporate in the legislation that is presented to Parliament the list of parties in the form in which they appear in Annex 1"—
      and that is what has happened in regard to the hon. Gentleman's party.
      "Names of the parties will be set out on ballot papers, and in other election documentation, in precisely the form in which they appear in the legislation."
      Mr. Trimble: We have the basis for some misunderstanding here. The Minister has read from the letter, and the sentence that he just read refers to the names of the parties. We rest content with the name of our party, but we tabled amendment No. 49 to confine party names to party names. Consequently, because of the way in which the Minister has interpreted the response to that letter, we are in an unbalanced situation.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman heard the speech by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who said that that was the name by which he wished his party to be known for the purposes of this election. That position was available to all the parties.
      Mr. McNamara rose—
      Mr. William Ross rose—
      Mr. Hume rose—
      Mr. Ancram: May I finish this point?
      I am reading from the letter I wrote covering the consultation document. I said:
      "The Government are of course ready to listen to representations on the proposals relating to the designation of parties and individuals; but because of the tight timescale for legislation, they would need to be received by noon on 10 April."
      Many parties took advantage of that.
      Mr. McNamara: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making about his legislation, but we are here today to examine his proposal, hear argument and discover how best to meet the needs of electors and the parties involved.
      Now that the Minister has met his timetable, received representations and presented his prepared legislation to Parliament, Parliament is able to adopt a broadly non-partisan position and allow the parties to say what position they want to hold. Then the DUP can have what it wants, the SDLP can have what it wants, and the Ulster Unionists can have what they want. It is not a sufficiently major issue for the Minister to stand so forcefully on it that he pre-empts the right of Parliament to change it.
      The Minister may say that, if that is the way we feel, we should force our amendment to a Division, but we know what powers there are. We do not seek to do so. We seek general democratic agreement. We ask the Minister to reconsider, and, if he does not feel that he can do so now, consider giving an undertaking to introduce

      245
      an amendment in another place to meet the representations made by the parties. I know that he has a tight timetable in the other place, but I am sure that all Government amendments would be taken.
      Mr. Ancram: I think the hon. Gentleman realises that it is not as simple as that. There are other amendments in the group. Were Ito take the view that the hon. Gentleman takes—if those parties want it like that, let them have it—I suspect that I would meet strong opposition from other parties in the House.
      Miss Hoey indicated dissent.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Lady shakes her head, but we believe that other parties would object strongly to some of the other amendments that have been tabled.
      Mr. Peter Robinson rose—
      Mr. Hume rose—
      Mr. Ancram: I give way to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume).
      Mr. Hume: Are you telling me, Minister, that we cannot call ourselves the SDLP on the ballot paper? Is that what you are telling me? You are asking me to believe that this is a serious election. Given that the Democratic Unionist party is DUP, the Progressive Unionist party is PUP, the Ulster Unionist party is UUP and the Ulster Democratic party is UDP, I am sure that none of the other parties would object to us calling ourselves the SDLP. That is the amendment that we have tabled—amendment No. 48. Is there some other reason that you will not allow us to call ourselves what we are known as?
      Mr. Ancram: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will accept it, that we were trying by this consultation to avoid a specific situation. I have to say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—[Interruption.] I have to say to the—
      Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ancram: I will in a second.
      I have to say to the hon. Member for Foyle—and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, now that he has returned to his seat—that we adopted that procedure to avoid the tabling of competing amendments in the House of Commons. Ultimately, the House of Commons must and can decide, but we chose that procedure to avoid the need to take invidious decisions, which might lead to accusations of preference or favour. If hon. Members are telling me that they believe that all or some of the amendments are acceptable and no one opposes them, I should be very interested to hear it.
      Mr. Peter Robinson rose—
      Miss Hoey rose—
      Mr. Robert McCartney rose—
      Mr. Ancram: I give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, East.
      Mr. Robinson: I support the view expressed by the SDLP that it should be entitled to define itself as it wishes. The Minister's argument against the SDLP is that it did not respond to his communication requiring an answer by 10 April by saying that it wanted to be described as the SDLP. My party did respond, however, and the communication that I have before me from my party—[Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.
      Mr. Robinson: The communication that I have before me asked for the Democratic Unionist party to be described in terms as it is in the amendment, with the party leader's name on it.
      Mr. Ancram: I shall hear the other hon. Gentleman before replying.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: When I received the correspondence to which the Minister referred, I understood it on the same basis as the Minister now suggests, and for that reason responded positively. Nevertheless, I believe now that, if there is unanimity in the House among the major parties concerned that they wish to be described in a specific way that they are now prepared to specify, it would be the wish of all those parties, including myself, that they should be permitted to do so. If amendment No. 49 is withdrawn, we are all of one mind that people and parties should be able to describe themselves as they wish.
      Mr. McGrady: Sir Geoffrey, I propose to assist the Committee at this juncture by indicating that my party is prepared to withdraw amendment No. 49.
      The First Deputy Chairman: I shall take note of that. I do not know whether it is intended to move that amendment.
      Mr. Ancram: It may be helpful to hear from the Opposition at this point.
      Mr. Worthington: There is much agreement, but the situation remains a bit of a mess, and we will not sort out the problem with competing amendments. Perhaps the major parties could get together before Report stage and agree to a formula that would command general approval.
      Mr. Ancram: Sir Geoffrey—
      Rev. Ian Paisley rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Minister must be allowed to respond.
      7 pm
      Mr. Ancram: I want to make a little progress. I said at the outset that we had heard about a number of broad churches during the debate—I think that another broad church is beginning to operate here. I think it is important

      247
      to take into account the feeling of the Committee. We have witnessed an interesting exchange, and the general view appears to be that the SDLP nomenclature was left out inadvertently.
      As the SDLP is one of the parties that did not respond to my consultation paper about the issue, I am prepared to accept—but it must be on the basis that it is an exception; otherwise we shall get into all sorts of problems—amendment No. 48 tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and his colleagues, which would allow them to insert the initials "SDLP" in the Bill. I do so in recognition of the fact that that is the name under which that party is usually known. I think that that distinguishes the amendment from the others that we are considering at present.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman must come clean about the issue. I have said nothing in the debate so far. I attended the Minister's first meeting, when we made strong representations to him that the name of a person—specifically, that of the party leader—should appear with the party name. The right hon. Gentleman knew that that is what we wanted, and he told us that there was no difficulty: he said that parties could describe themselves as they wanted, but that the Government were not of a mind to include any names of party leaders on the ballot paper.
      We were then asked to respond to the consultation document in writing, which we did. We pointed out that it was essential that the name of the party leader be included with the party names on the ballot paper, and we asked that that be done. The Minister has just said that he complied with the wishes of the parties who responded to the consultation document.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) led a deputation to the Minister, and he was astonished to see that the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) was on the document, but that mine was not. The Minister said that there was no reason why the problem could not be resolved. However, when the Bill was published, we were amazed to see that the Minister had not done as he promised. He must be fair to all of the parties in this place.
      I support the SDLP's argument: people will be looking for the initials "SDLP" on the ballot paper. The Minister knows that my party faces an enormous difficulty as another political party—the Ulster Democratic party, UDP—has adopted a name whose initials are as close to those of my party as they can get. Therefore, we must distinguish ourselves. There is also the Independent Democratic Unionist party—though the Lord only knows who they are.
      The Minister has said that he will allow the SDLP's amendment. I have proof that we wrote to the Minister about the matter, and that we did everything he asked of us. He is now saying that he will make a concession to the SDLP, but not to us. He must be fair.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The last thing I want to do is stifle debate, but the interventions are becoming increasingly lengthy—they are almost mini-speeches.
      Mr. Ancram: I accept that, in a letter written by the party secretary, the DUP made representations that party
      248
      leaders' names generally should be included on the list. I think that the hon. Member for North Antrim will accept that that is what he asked for. However, all parties did not agree that that was the way it should be done—that is how the hon. Gentleman phrased it in the letter that I have in front of me.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: Read the letter.
      Mr. Ancram: I shall not begin reading out letters that I receive. The DUP accepted the designation of "Democratic Unionists—DUP". We have accepted that, like the other parties on the list, the initials of the SDLP should appear after the party name.
      We decided that it would not be appropriate to include party leaders' names on lists of that sort. We took that decision not only for our own reasons, but because other parties made strong representations to us that they did not wish that to happen. We must try to draw the debate to a conclusion. I shall give way again to the hon. Member for North Antrim, as he has a right to be heard.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: My party did everything that was asked of it. As the Minister knows, we said that other party leaders could do whatever they like—their names do not have to appear. However, we believe that it is vital to distinguish the DUP in that way. We made that point clear to the Minister. Why did he say at the next meeting that it was not a problem? As the name of the hon. Member for North Down appears on the list, the Minister said that he did not see why my name should not appear also. It is an important point: the Minister cannot make fish of one and flesh of the other.
      The Minister has said that the SDLP did not reply to the consultation document when it was asked to do so. I accept the point that SDLP Members have made: it is not simply a matter of replying to a letter, but a serious matter involving the Committee's right to make a decision. If parties fail to respond by letter, will they be ruined for ever? I hope that the other parties will support the DUP on this important issue of principle. I repeat that we did everything that was asked of us. We said that we did not care what other party leaders did, but that it was essential for us. The Minister knows that.
      Mr. Ancram: I accept that the hon. Gentleman made representations that party leaders' names should be put on the list. However, others made strong representations opposing that proposal. The last 10 minutes of debate have fulfilled my predictions—I arranged a consultation process in order to sort out the matters before the Committee stage, and avoid this type of situation.
      I have listened to hon. Members, and I accept that the Committee wishes to see the letters "SDLP" appear after that party's name. The Government are prepared to accept amendment No. 48. However, I repeat—before the situation deteriorates further—that I am not prepared to accept any further amendments.
      Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Sir Geoffrey. Almost all hon. Members are trying to achieve the same end, but we are in grave danger of legislating on the hoof. If the amendments were withdrawn, would you give an undertaking that you or Madam Speaker would certainly

      249
      allow the matter to be considered again on Report in an hour or so? That would allow common sense to break out and legislation to be drafted more sensibly.
      The First Deputy Chairman: I would never dream of committing Madam Speaker to any action on Report.
      Mr. Ancram: With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, the consideration of amendments is part of the process, and I have listened very carefully to what hon. Members have said. If I have got the feeling of the House wrong, the House has the ability to rectify that in the Lobbies. If the hon. Member for North Antrim feels that I am wrong not to accept amendment No. 11, he is entitled to test that in the Lobbies. I have said as much as I can on the issue. I am prepared to accept amendment No. 48, but I ask the hon. Members involved to withdraw the other amendments.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give way?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Minister has just said that he will not give way.
      Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Sir Geoffrey. The Minister has sat down. Do we have the leave of the House to continue the debate, having heard what the Minister has said, because points arise from—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need the leave of the House. The debate may continue.
      Mr. McNamara: We have had a generous response from the Minister with regard to the SDLP, and I am grateful for the fact that the Government have accepted that point. However, the point that we were making was that it was the right of the parties to decide by which name they wanted to be known. The position now will be that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and his party will be able to put down the party leader's name for all to see, but another party, which specifically asked for that same right, will be denied the right. That cannot possibly be right.
      I understand that there may be other reasons why it was felt that the party leaders' names could not appear, and that may have something to do with the success of certain individuals in elections. It may have been felt that if a certain person's name appeared, appended to a party, that party might get more votes because of past history than another party might perhaps get. It is a political and tactical way of dealing with the problem to say that no party leaders' names will appear, just the parties, but that principle has been breached by the position of the hon. and learned Member for North Down. In equity, and whatever one may think about the political opinions of any person or the political advantage that any political party may gain in any elections, everybody must be treated the same.
      The Democratic Unionist party met each and every one of the criteria laid down by the Minister. Failure to accept the party's request would give it a cause to cry foul and say that the House is failing, in the drafting of electoral laws, to achieve equity among all candidates and all parties. I therefore urge the Minister to think carefully.
      250
      Once he allows the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Down to appear on the ballot paper as the leader of a party, the principle that he has laid down will be breached. He has not thought the issue through, and he will have to live with the consequences. I believe that the Minister must grant the same rights to the DUP.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister said that if everybody agreed that the SDLP should have its initials after its name, he would accept that. Will he come to the Dispatch Box and say the same for the DUP? Let us have the same test. I am a democrat, and if people say no, I shall accept it. But the Minister will sour relations in Northern Ireland with one section of the community, because one section of the community is now being discriminated against. I ask the Minister to do the same for the DUP as he did for the SDLP, because nothing could be fairer, and he will see the response of the House.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Robert McCartney: A possible way out of this dilemma might be as follows: the proposed legislation allows a nominator of delegates for every party that will participate in the election. That nominator of delegates will be specified by the Secretary of State on the advice, I assume, of the parties concerned. The name of each party could followed by that of the nominator. For example, the name of the Democratic Unionist party could be followed by, "Nominator of Delegates: Rev. Dr. Ian R. K. Paisley", and the SDLP's name by "Nominator of Delegates: Mr. John Hume", and so forth. That would meet the bill by not so boldly setting up a name with a party, but permitting the electors, with whom we should be most concerned, to associate each party with its nominators, as provided in the Bill. That would forward the intention of the legislation and also clarify the issues that are before the House. Most importantly, we would have equity among all the parties.
      I invite the Minister to accept amendment No. 11, of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). It would be a good start to the negotiations if all the parties could agree about something in the House, even if that did not fit in with the Government's intentions.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister, when he referred to the means by which the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) had appeared in schedule 1, said that the hon. and learned Member had appeared in that way because that was the way that he had requested he should appear. The background to the Democratic Unionist party's position is that we met the Minister on 1 April—the day on which he released his consultation document, to which the hon. and learned Member responded and to which the SDLP did not. The minutes of that meeting make it abundantly clear that we asked time after time for the name of the leader of our party—specifically, the name of the leader—to appear on the ballot paper beside our name.
      We argued the case, not because of the Independent Democratic Unionist party—it came along later—but because when the name of another political party was abbreviated to UDP, it was easily confused with the DUP. We wished to make it clear to those who would vote for whom they would be voting. Therefore, the identification of the leader of our party, along with the name of the party,

      251
      would make it clear whether they were voting for us or for the other party, if that were their choice. That was how we wished our name to appear on the ballot paper.
      What rule of democracy is it that will not allow us to appear on the ballot paper and to seek votes from people under the name of our choice? We shall appear under the name of the Minister's choice, and that just is not acceptable. It is the right of every political party, and we have argued for that right for every political party, to add the name of the leader of the party to prevent confusion.
      We have made it clear to the Minister that we want our name to appear as, "Democratic Unionist (DUP)—Ian Paisley." That is our choice and I hope that the Minister will not sour the debate by maintaining his position. That would go far beyond the debate, and I see no point in remaining in the House for the other stages of the Bill if the Minister will not listen to our requests for changes that will affect only our party. The Minister has accepted amendments from everybody else, including the Ulster Unionist party and the SDLP, but he will not accept amendment No. 11 from us about how we appear on the ballot paper.
      Mr. Worthington: I am concerned that the debate is falling away from us a little, and it really does need pulling together.
      Throughout the debate we have been as constructive as possible, and an easy solution is available. We may not agree with the solution, but, basically, all parties on the ballot paper should be on it on the same terms. There seems to be agreement that the parties should be able to name themselves, and there is probably agreement that they should be able to have the initials that they want after their names. Where there may be disagreement is whether the name of the leader should be on the ballot paper.
      I have suggested that on Report—I am sure that with good will it could be organised—a principled proposition should be put forward, rather than alternative votes which will lead us into a greater mess than we are in at present. We accept the list of parties as they are described in the schedule, but a proposition should appear on the face of the Bill about what parties should be able to call themselves and what style they may use. I am convinced that by Report stage we shall not obtain agreement, but we could agree that the matter was being pursued in a principled way. That is what I propose to the House.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: We are discussing a Bill that seeks to establish a forum and negotiations in Northern Ireland in order to bring people together and obtain agreement. Hon. Members from different political parties in Northern Ireland, and probably every other hon. Member who has spoken, apart from the Minister, either want certain amendments to be accepted and parties allowed to use the description of their choice, or the problem to be resolved by some other means and to be dealt with on Report.
      The Minister must respond favourably either to the amendments or to the suggestion that matters can begin to be resolved on Report, and suggest how that will be done. Otherwise, he is setting the process off down the wrong road entirely and a fantastic dispute will emerge from the measure. There is agreement in the House on the areas that
      252
      matter and the Government should respond to the situation. They are supposed to be facilitating agreement on the issue, so that the House can reach a decision.
      Miss Hoey: I rise briefly again because I do not think that the Minister answered the point that I made when I spoke earlier. I do not believe that the principle is about every party on the ballot paper being described in the same way. Surely the principle must be that political parties, particularly the main political parties that are represented here in the House, should have the right to describe themselves on the ballot paper as they wish.
      It would be simple for the Minister to accept that all the parties represented here today could say how they wished to be described. If the Democratic Unionist party wants its leader mentioned, that is fine. If the Unionist party does not want its leader mentioned for some reason, that is fine. Surely the principle should be that individual parties represented here, which have already gone through the electoral system, should have that basic right. That is the principle, and the Minister did not reply to my original point.
      Mr. Canavan: The debate would be unnecessary if the Government were to accept amendment No. 94 in my name, which would allow any party to contest the election, in which case we would have no need of the schedule, particularly part II. The Minister is being inconsistent. He said earlier that he was unwilling to accept that the name of the leader of the party together with the name of the party should appear on the ballot paper. Yet that has already been accepted, and not simply in the case of the UK Unionist party and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). Another seven parties are listed in the schedule, which appear to bear the names of individuals. Although they are described as independents, they are listed under the heading of "The Parties".
      If the Minister is to be consistent, he should allow each party to decide how it will be described on the ballot paper. If he had accepted my amendment, all this could have been taken care of in the normal nomination procedure, whereby nominations would be invited, as they are at a general or local government election, and the various candidates, or in this case the various parties, would put the teams of candidates forward and the names of the parties and, if they wanted to put the name of the leader of the party on the ballot paper, so be it. It is rather strange and unjust for the Minister to be discriminating against some parties in this way.
      The Minister said that my amendment No. 94 was not acceptable to the Government for various reasons which I did not quite comprehend. He said that it is the Government's intention not to proscribe but to get a comprehensive list in order to make the elections as inclusive as possible. If he were to accept my amendment and allow any party to contest the elections, surely that would make the elections far more inclusive than confining them to a list of 30 or so organisations that the Government have decided are parties. Who knows, between now and election day, or what could have been nomination day, other parties or groups of people may wish to contest the elections, but it will be too late to do so.

      253
      The Minister also said in justification for rejecting my amendment that the word "party" has no basis in law. That is a poor argument. He can, if he wants, accept my amendment and introduce a consequential amendment defining a party in law if he thinks that that is essential.
      The Minister also said that once one goes down the road of the list system, one must go down the road of some form of registration of parties. That is fair enough. I accept that in principle. But there is no need for a statutory recognition of parties. There is no need for a statutory list of parties. Many countries operate a list system in their general and local elections without some form of statutory recognition of parties. That could be taken care of simply by the nomination procedure, whereby parties go along with their groups of candidates and put them down under a description that they choose.
      I hope that the Minister will think again about amendment No. 94. If he is unwilling to accept it, he should be consistent and allow all parties to describe themselves as they so wish rather than by the diktat of ministerial decree or parliamentary statute.
      Mr. Ancram: I have listened closely to the representations that have been made. As I said earlier, it was on the understanding that there was a feeling within the House that the SDLP should be allowed to add its letters after its name that I said that I would accept that amendment.
      I have to say in all honesty that I cannot at the moment get a feeling for an equivalent degree of consensus in relation to a way forward on the matter that we have just been discussing, so I cannot alter what I said earlier.
      However, I am prepared to suggest that between now and Report my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State should consult the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties to see whether an acceptable formula can be arrived at, which can satisfy the concerns that have been expressed. It is certainly my opinion that we currently do not have that consensus.
      As I said earlier, however, my intention and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is to create an inclusive process in which people will feel able to participate. It is in that spirit that I offer this consultation. If there is consensus, it obviously could be acted on on Report, with the indulgence of the Chair. I make that offer.
      On that basis, I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments, other than those that I have said I shall accept.
      Mr. Canavan: I am still very unhappy about the Minister's response—or, rather, lack of response—to my amendment. I shall certainly not withdraw it, but I do not want to press it to a Division.
      Amendment negatived
      7.30 pm
      Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Did not the Minister invite hon. Members who tabled amendments to say before the vote what their responses would be to the offer that he has just made?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Question has been put and negatived.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I understood the Minister to say that hon. Members could withdraw their amendments now, that the Secretary of State would consult the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties, and that on Report there might be some provision to finalise the dispute that has arisen among us today. I am certainly prepared to withdraw the amendment in my name on those grounds.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We shall come to the amendment mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. He will then have the opportunity to withdraw it, or otherwise.
      Amendment made: No. 47, in page 5, line 1, leave out 'one constituency list' and insert 'three constituency lists.'.—[Mr. Trimble.]
      Mr. Robert McCartney: I beg to move amendment No. 143, in page 5, line 3, leave out 'at least two and'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 156, in page 5, line 3, leave out
      'and not more than five'.
      Mr. McCartney: In general terms, schedule 1 provides that parties will have to field not fewer than two and not more than five candidates to stand in the constituency section of the proposed election. I am conscious of the fact that the Minister said that he was sensitive to the difficulties that face minor or smaller parties in fielding candidates and in complying with the exigencies of an election campaign.
      The purpose of amendment No. 143 is to amend the clause so that parties may field not more than five candidates, which would give them the option of fielding not two candidates but one. It would therefore only be necessary for the smaller parties in the 18 constituencies to find 18 candidates, plus an additional eight candidates for the Provincewide section, which involves another 20 seats.
      I think it is important that the smaller parties should be helped to field at least one candidate in every constituency because that would provide them with an opportunity to increase their Provincewide vote, thus qualifying for a place in the top 10 parties. Under the legislation, that would give them an additional two seats.
      There seems to be no very good reason why the question of the number of candidates, up to the maximum that can be fielded, should not lie in the purview of the parties fielding candidates. Why should there be an obligation on those parties to field two candidates rather than one, particularly as amendment No. 47—which the Government have accepted—means that there is already an obligation on the smaller parties to field candidates in at least three constituencies as an endorsement of their good faith and seriousness of intent?
      In those circumstances, I suggest that it should be made easier for parties that are serious and want to raise their Provincewide vote to a level that would permit them to

      255
      obtain an additional two seats. Such parties should be offered the facility of qualifying by fielding one candidate in each of the 18 constituencies.
      It may be suggested—in some metaphysical manner—that if one is fielding only one candidate, one is not providing a list. That does not answer the issue at all, because one is providing a candidate, who will be one of a number of candidates on a very large list on which the electorate will be able to make their choice. Conversely, by compelling the smaller parties to field 36 candidates instead of 18, one is limiting that party in its appeal to the widest possible spectrum of electors.
      There may, for example, be only 200 or 500 voters in a constituency that wished to cast their votes for the United Kingdom Unionist party—Robert McCartney. Provided that my party is willing to field at least one candidate in that constituency, is there any reason why those 200,300 or more people should be denied an opportunity to vote for it?
      If the object of the legislation is to include as many of the smaller parties as possible—not just my party—insistence on two candidates from each party in each constituency is simply the erection of an unnecessary hurdle for the smaller parties to overcome. Such a hurdle, by its very nature, defeats the object of giving the smaller parties the widest possible opportunity to participate.
      I exhort the Committee to support the amendment.
      Mr. William Ross: I tabled a short amendment which goes in a direction completely opposite to that of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) because I wish to remove the limit of five candidates.
      This is a party list system—a list of parties and not of individuals. I think that the more candidates a party has running in every part of a constituency, the greater its chance of enhancing its vote. It seems a bit ridiculous to say that a party can field five candidates when we know perfectly well that there is not a snowball's chance of any one party winning all five seats in a constituency. Therefore, the limit on the number of candidates has no grounding in logic, and there is no reason why that limit should not be removed or why a party should not field six, seven or 10 candidates in a constituency. Parties would have many people on the streets—knocking doors, talking to the electorate, convincing them of the strengths of their party and persuading them to support their party. All I ask is that that can be done.
      We know that some parties, and I think that the SDLP is one—[Interruption.] Its members might like to stop chattering for a moment and listen. I believe that in the constituency of Foyle it has 15 or 16 people currently chasing three or four places. In those circumstances, why should any of them be denied the right to canvass?
      Mr. Barnes: Might it not work the other way? Instead of attracting more votes, might not the existence of more than five candidates alienate some voters, thus providing more votes for other parties?
      Mr. Ross: I accept that that might happen in view of the divisions between old and new Labour and between the Conservative Euro-sceptics and others, but it could not happen in a united party like the UUP. We would have
      256
      no difficulty finding 10 or 15 people who were prepared to work for the party day and night to ensure its success. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: In response to what the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, it should perhaps be noted that although, theoretically, five candidates may be elected for one party in any constituency—even though that is utterly unlikely—it is abundantly clear that, if six candidates stand, no more than five can be elected. It is absolutely without purpose, therefore, to allow any party to run more candidates than it can conceivably get elected.
      Mr. Ancram: I have listened with great care to the representations that have been made. The answer given to the hon. Member for East Londonderry by the hon. and learned Member for North Down was precisely that which I was going to give. Although running more candidates may be a way of securing more canvassers—if I understood the hon. Gentleman rightly—it is not necessarily logical for a party to run more candidates than it can have elected.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Under this system if, for any reason, any of the candidates deemed to be elected drop out—because of death or illness or for some other reason—does not someone have to come up from the bottom? If a party is enthusiastic enough to win five seats, it might be as well for it to have some reserves.
      Mr. Ancram: We gave some thought to that when considering how to develop the constituency list system and concluded that that argument could be taken to fanciful lengths. In practical terms, limiting the number of candidates to the number of seats seemed to be the appropriate thing to do.
      I understand the concern expressed by the hon. and learned Member for North Down.
      Mr. William Ross: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). Let us suppose that one party has three people elected; they go to a meeting in a car that crashes and they are killed. Under the proposed system, that party would lose out, whereas if it had been able to run six, seven or eight candidates, it could simply take people from the original group. That is a valid point.
      Mr. Ancram: That situation is provided for in the Bill. We are considering the number of candidates rather than the way in which vacancies are filled.
      As I was saying, I understand that the position of the hon. and learned Member for North Down is particular to himself. I heard with interest the fact that he regards an 18-seat campaign as the right way to proceed. Ideally, I would expect to see all parties that wish to be taken seriously stand in a large number of constituencies. That is another reason why we accepted the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, which requires candidature in three constituencies in order to qualify for the regional list.
      I repeat what I said earlier. A party is more than one individual, and we believed it was right that there should therefore be a lower limit. Had we not required a

      257
      candidature of at least two names on a list, it would have been possible for one person to stand in one constituency and claim to be a party. We felt that that was illogical in terms of the principle of parties and list systems. For that reason we set a minimum limit, which is right in logic and in principle. On that basis, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Does not the Minister accept that the principle which he expounds is exploded to some extent by the Government's acceptance of amendment No. 47? Under amendment No. 47, in order to get on to the general list a party has to run a minimum of six people in addition to providing for the general list. Although one person may not be a party, six clearly must be. Even if there were only one candidate for each of the three seats, three plus three may be a small party, but it is certainly a party.
      If that principle were to be applied to a greater number of seats—up to 18—amendment No. 143 would provide for at least 18 candidates for election, plus two on the Provincewide list. There would therefore be 20. I have some difficulty in understanding how 20 people do not constitute a party, even though, in an given constituency, there may be only one candidate. After all, in the general elections to elect Members to this Parliament, all the major parties field only one candidate in each constituency, but no one suggests that they cannot really be called parties. I ask the Minister to reconsider my serious suggestion.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument might make sense if it contained a requirement for each party to put up at least one candidate in all 18 constituencies. However, it removes the lower limit without stipulating the number of constituencies in which a party would be required to stand. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the acceptance of amendment No. 47, but that applies only to a party that wishes to take advantage of the regional list system.
      We are trying to prevent a situation arising in which a one-man party, which does not envisage taking part in the top-up through the regional list system, stands in one constituency on his own. Such a person would not constitute a party. Earlier, we were talking about the parties on the list which are designated as "Independent". That term is followed by one person's name. Whether those so listed are parties in terms of being able to take part in the election, beyond being shown on the list, depends on whether they can show that they have more than one member. I therefore ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. McCartney rose—
      Mr. Ancram: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to offer to table an amendment to require that parties stand in 18 constituencies, my argument will be fairly predictable: it would place an enormous burden on certain parties which I believe have a right to stand and be heard in this election.
      Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the Minister for his exposition, but does not his argument boil down to the
      258
      fact that a single person can still stand in a constituency—all he needs is one dummy piper by his side? The Minister is in effect saying that two people constitute a party, but a party willing to run a candidate in 18 constituencies cannot do so. Is that the de minimise rule taken to extremes? Do two candidates constitute a party, while one in each of the 18 constituencies does not?
      However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 44, page 5, line 10, at end insert—

      'Deposits
      6(B) (1) A constituency list shall not be validly submitted unless accompanied by a deposit of £2,000.

      (2) A regional list shall not be validly submitted unless accompanied by a deposit of £5,000.

      (3) If a party submitting a constituency list fails to obtain 5 per cent. of the valid votes cast in that constituency it shall forfeit the deposit lodged in respect of that constituency.

      (4) If a party submitting a regional list fails to obtain 2 per cent. of the valid votes cast in Northern Ireland as a whole, it shall forfeit the deposit lodged with its regional list.'.

      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 46, page 5, line 10, at end insert—
      '6A. A constituency list shall not be validly submitted unless assented to by 100 persons on the electoral register for that constituency.'.
      No. 13, page 6, line 19, at end insert—
      '(d) he has been convicted of a scheduled offence within the terms of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991'.
      No. 16, page 6, line 19, at end insert—
      '(d) he has been convicted of any serious terrorist offence prescribed in an Order made under paragraph 1.'
      No. 52, page 6, line 19, at end insert—
      '(d) he is not entitled to vote in any constituency in Northern Ireland under the provisions of paragraph 4 of this Schedule.'.
      No. 73, page 6, line 19, at end insert—
      '(d) he is not ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland;
      (e) he is not on the current electoral register for a Northern Ireland parliamentary constituency.'.
      Mr. Trimble: The issue raised by amendment No. 46 was discussed in an earlier debate, owing to its similarity to amendment No. 74, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthorne. Given the Government's hostility to that amendment, I shall deal now with amendment No. 44.
      The Minister said earlier that the Government were prepared to do their utmost to prevent frivolous parties from standing in the elections. I took a longhand note, which may not be entirely accurate, but I think that Hansard will confirm that that is more or less what was said. I agree: we are engaged in a serious business. It is not like a by-election, in which we expect the Monster Raving Loony party and many others to feature, merely in order to advertise themselves.

      259
      The point about self-advertisement is worth considering. The parties that are nominated are entitled to free postal facilities, allowing them to deliver a manifesto to each elector or a leaflet to every household. It is called the postal drop. That allows those who wish to advertise certain issues, or even products, an opportunity that people involved in local government by-elections have been prepared to pay for—but under the Government's proposals they would not have to pay. Having found a person who is prepared to stand for them in a particular area, they would be entitled to the postal drop. I consider that undesirable, but, if it is to come about, we should be allowed the safeguard that applies in electoral law generally—the requirement for a deposit. That, we hope, would act as a disincentive, at least to parties with limited resources. In many respects, of course, that applies to my party.
      Northern Ireland press reports have suggested that one of the parties that would be standing recently helped itself to £1 million from Securicor. We assume that it is fairly flush as a consequence. We trust that it acquired the money solely for the purpose of electioneering, rather than for the activities in which it was engaged before the ceasefire. We would prefer it to spend its money on electioneering: we do not mind about the unfair advantage conferred on it.
      Mr. Jim Dowd: I hope that I have not wrongly assumed what the hon. Gentleman is about to say. He drew attention to the parallel with deposits for parliamentary elections. The return of those deposits depends on a certain degree of performance; I cannot see a parallel with that in amendment No 44.
      Mr. McNamara: It is on the other side of the page.
      Mr. Trimble: Indeed, if my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) turns the page, he will see the answer to his question.
      I may be criticised for pitching the deposit on the high side, but a £5,000 deposit for a regional list that may contain 10 names does not strike me as excessive, given the current £500 tariff for parliamentary elections. It could, I suppose, be argued that that is the equivalent of £500 for each of four candidates on a constituency list, which can in fact contain up to five candidates, but I felt that if we were to provide a disincentive, it should be a serious disincentive.
      As for the saving of deposits, I think that we are being entirely fair. We are saying that a party can save its deposit if it obtains 5 per cent. of the vote. That is a pretty low hurdle, and the hurdle for regional lists is even lower, at 2 per cent.
      Mr. Barnes: Is it not technically possible for a party to receive less than 2 per cent. of the vote, lose its deposit and still have representatives appointed?
      Mr. Trimble: That is one of the ludicrous consequences of having a regional list, which was criticised earlier. If the deposit were forfeited when a party failed to win 2 per cent. of the vote, a significant number of parties would probably be elected, and would
      260
      be able to take part in negotiations although they had lost their deposits. At least the loss of their deposits would mark their failure to obtain support, however, and no doubt others would take the opportunity to remind them of that loss.
      The point of the amendment is to achieve the objective mentioned earlier by the Minister, and to prevent frivolous parties from standing.
      Mr. Barnes: I shall speak to amendment No. 52.
      Schedule 1 contains a paragraph entitled "Disqualification". Disqualification is limited to candidates who are offenders in prison, who are detained on the ground of mental illness and who are not of voting age. That is quite restricted, compared with the requirements for parliamentary candidates. I realise that we are not talking about parliamentary elections, but we should discuss the possible equivalent of a parliamentary disqualification. I refer to the nationality restriction—the legal disqualification of those who are often termed aliens. Those who are not British or Commonwealth citizens, or citizens of the Republic of Ireland, cannot stand in parliamentary elections. Should a similar provision operate in Northern Ireland?
      We are talking about the establishment of a forum, followed by negotiations. Part of those negotiations—strand 1—will involve the British Government and political parties in Northern Ireland. Should we not restrict electoral candidates to people from Northern Ireland? The obvious list, surely, would be composed of those entitled to vote in the elections, who are referred to in paragraph 4 of the schedule.
      We should consider those who belong to the area that is relevant to the decisions being made—people who consider themselves to be part of that community, even if it is a divided community in which different views are held. It would not be right for someone from Great Britain to be drafted in by one of the leaders of the parties that will be standing, including some of the minor parties. It would not be appropriate for people from the Republic of Ireland who do not qualify for inclusion on the electoral register to stand. I do not know whether it is thought reasonable that, if Sinn Fein become involved in negotiations, its representation should be allowed to include perhaps a large number of such people from the Republic of Ireland.
      8 pm
      As I said earlier, for Parliament, the grounds for legal disqualifications are wider than that, and I am not suggesting that any of those grounds should apply. Disqualifications on peers and peeresses will apply, and ministers of religion from the Church of England, the Church of Ireland and the Roman Catholic Church and those who are bankrupt are disqualified, as are many people who hold public office, such as the chairman of the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland or a member of the Northern Ireland Economic Council.
      Obviously, the body that we are debating has specific purposes, and it would not be appropriate to use the list of disqualifications that applies in parliamentary elections. In law, we define those who stand for election by means of disqualification: it is a negative procedure that excludes hosts of people. Perhaps it goes too far and many people should not be excluded. Not even the electoral register is

      261
      perfect, because it includes overseas voters who do not seem to be appropriate people to stand in elections. However, it is unlikely that any of them would qualify.
      People who are interested in standing for election might be appointed by the leaders of political parties, of which the Bill contains a large list. That must have been considered by the Government when they drafted the legislation. It is hardly an oversight that there is no reference to the electoral register, and I should like to know why it was not included in the legislation. Are the reasons for it to do with the development of negotiations and the forum? Is it felt that anyone can stand as long as the disqualifications in the schedule do not apply to him?
      Mr. Wilshire: Amendment No. 73 is in my name, and as it covers much of the ground that has been covered by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), I shall not repeat the arguments. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman realises how close he might be to a particular truth. He may find some of my speech fascinating. My amendment adds two requirements, one of which is a variation on the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I chose being on the Northern Ireland electoral register as one of the qualifications—I understand the weakness of the parliamentary register—and my other qualification is that a candidate must be ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland.
      I had a specific reason for moving the amendment. It is that a rumour has reached me that if I succeed in persuading a certain mainland party to stand in the elections and nominate candidates, punishment might follow. The punishment that I heard suggested was that I might be dispatched to sit on the negotiating panel. As I am the Government's majority of one, it crossed my mind that my absence, except when Northern Ireland business is being discussed, would not be welcome.
      I was not sure how to treat the rumour, but I decided that, just in case it had crossed the Government's mind that that would be one way to deal with those of us who go on a bit about the Conservative party fighting these elections, I would move an amendment disqualifying me from being part of the negotiating team, to close the loophole. I can either pursue the amendment or my right hon. and learned Friend can put me out of my misery by saying that it had not crossed his mind that anybody from the mainland should speak for the Conservative party when they take their place on the negotiating team.
      Mr. Dowd: I thought that the Government's majority of one had already been claimed by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir J. Critchley). I presume that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is on the reserve list.
      I apologise to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) for intervening during his speech. It was my error. The four amendments with which the lead amendment is grouped are at the top of page 500 and I turned two pages at once and missed the remainder of the hon. Gentleman's amendment. He rather gave the game away about the object of the amendments in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). I think that the amendment is designed to show the undoubted anomalies and contradictions in the Bill as a whole. We have spent much time picking over those, but I do not think that anybody
      262
      has suggested that this is a perfect mechanism. However, we fervently hope that Parliament never needs to return to anything remotely resembling this legislation and that the success of the project on which we are embarked will in due course render that unnecessary.
      Amendments Nos. 44 and 46 would in other circumstances seem reasonable. I accept the point that was made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann that no other election for local or national government is without other types of qualification such as deposits or, in the case of local government, a proposer, seconder and eight assentors. The election that we are discussing would be unique in that people could simply declare themselves as candidates and, on the strength only of their say-so, could appear on the ballot paper. In the context of what we are trying to achieve, we shall just have to live with that.
      There is the qualification of the party list. When I wrote my notes for this part of the debate, I thought that, as we had covered party lists, the issue was redundant. However, in view of the previous debate, we have not finished with that issue, but at least we have the essence of a decision about who will be able to declare themselves as candidates.
      Another effect of amendments Nos. 44 and 46, certainly in terms of the cash deposit, would be to militate—not deliberately or maliciously—against smaller parties being able to find a place in the deliberations, which we hope will take place productively, after 10 June. The object of the exercise is not simply to identify the juggernauts of politics in Northern Ireland. They are well known, and they are the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party. We are discussing a deliberative assembly that will have no powers and will simply look at the future that can be made for all the people of Northern Ireland. It will assist that process to have present as many representatives of the strands of opinion of Northern Ireland citizens as possible.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, East made much of the Natural Law party, but perhaps we shall just have to live with that. However the list of parties is finally resolved, it will contain a cross-section of individuals, groups and communities whose voices are not always heard in the clamour of every-day politics. They would be welcome and, I am sure, valuable to the work that the assembly, the negotiations and the forum have before them. To some degree, we are stuck with the dilemma that, in any legal or technical sense, it is not possible to put to Northern Ireland's people the real question that we would want to ask in relation to parties. That question would be, "Which parties would you want to see getting together to discuss the future of the community and its people?"
      That deals with the issue raised by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). He mentioned his preference for wanting to ensure that the voices with whom he does not agree should he there to state the case on behalf of the interests that they represent. It is only by an accommodation with them and between them that progress will be made.
      I shall not dwell on amendments Nos. 13 and 16 because the hon. Members who tabled them are not here, but I shall just say that they would hinder rather than help the process, so we would oppose them if they came up.

      263
      We have much sympathy with those who tabled amendments Nos. 52 and 73—my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and the hon. Member for Spelthorne—because we feel strongly that the solution, or at least the major part of the solution, to the problems that have beset Northern Ireland in recent times lies in the hands of Northern Ireland's people. It is important to ensure that, as far as possible, it is they and only they who take part, certainly in this phase of what is an intricate and delicate process.
      As I mentioned earlier, we must have some regard to what in other times would seem the strange arrangement and legislative formula that is being put before the House, but they are an attempt to break from the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made the significant point that the political process to date has not worked in favour of either the United Kingdom and its citizens or, especially, Northern Ireland's people. We need therefore to try something different and new. Some people are threatened by anything new—it may involve the title of political parties. The fear of the threat of the new is often greater than its implication.
      We must be prepared to pursue different alternatives to find a way through this because, if this process does not work, it will not, by any means, be the end of the matter. A deficiency in many of the arguments advanced during the discussion of various provisions in the Bill has been the lack of any idea of what the alternatives are if we do not proceed with this, warts and all. What can we look forward to? What can the people of Northern Ireland, the UK or anywhere else look forward to if we do not make the best effort to make a success of this?
      As I said yesterday, we do this not with wild-eyed optimism or starry-eyed ambition, but in the sense that progress must be made by reasonable people acting reasonably. Sometimes it means accepting anomalies and quirks that we would not, in other circumstances, accept, but we firmly believe that the effort is necessary.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. William Ross: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), and I think that I heard him say that he believed that these matters should be left completely in the hands of Northern Ireland's people. May I take it from that that he supports amendment No. 73, tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who is so anxious to serve Her Majesty's Government in the House that he does not want to be drafted off, shanghaied and sent to Northern Ireland? I admire his loyalty to his party, but if the Labour party now says that it supports the thesis of the amendment, that makes me happy.
      The hon. Member for Spelthorne must be clearly aware that, if his amendment is not accepted, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his right hon. and hon. Friends, who will be on the Government team, will be in Northern Ireland, yet, if it is accepted, they would be debarred. That would of course be wonderful and truly in keeping with the view expressed by those on the Labour Benches that the matter should all be left completely in the hands of Northern Ireland's people. The amendment would ensure that there would be no interference from interlopers from the Irish Republic. That would also be
      264
      welcome. I am most intrigued not only by the amendment, but by the response and support that it has received from Opposition Members.
      Northern Ireland's people would be capable of reaching sensible agreements among themselves, if only the nationalist population would learn to stand on its feet and not rely as much as it has on the support of Her Majesty's Government, Dublin, the United States of America and all the rest. We in this party have always been more than willing to stand on our feet and defend our position—we are capable of doing so. If the Social Democratic and Labour party did the same, it could defend its case adequately and we would find ourselves a long way down the road towards agreement among the peoples of Northern Ireland. The amendment is therefore welcome and I hope that the Minister will say that the Government accept it.
      The concern about deposits seem a reasonable issue to raise. It has often been debated in the House in the context of deposits for parliamentary elections. No one who is anxious to come to the House ever allowed the tiny deposit that is demanded to stop them. The real difficulty is in the cost of the elections. Such sums will be in a bank. Anyone who is confident and has a real message to put across should easily find the sums demanded, run their candidates and gain sufficient support to get their money back. Therefore, if they have a real message and real support in the community, there is no risk.
      I therefore have great pleasure in supporting the amendments standing in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself and in the name of the hon. Member for Spelthorne.
      Mr. Barnes: May I point out the differences between amendments Nos. 52 and 73—my amendment and the one in the name of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)? His amendment adds that people on electoral registers will be excluded if they are not ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland. That produces a host of administrative problems. We would have to determine who is not ordinarily resident, and could not check just against the register. In the circumstances leading to those formulations, difficulties would arise.
      In relation to who votes in the elections, my amendment refers to the same registers as schedule 4, but the hon. Gentleman's refers to parliamentary constituencies: presumably, therefore, parliamentary registers will be considered. There is a difference of about 70 people. For instance, peers and peeresses are allowed to vote in local government elections, but not in parliamentary elections.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank you, Sir Geoffrey, for giving me the opportunity to support my hon. Friends. The hurdle for election to this place and to the Northern Ireland Assembly, when it existed, was the need for a deposit as well as sponsors and supporters. The need for sponsors and supporters has been omitted from the amendment, leaving only the financial aspect to test the credibility of those who want to stand. It may be that, thinking of the reserves that might be needed, the deposit was set at £2,000 instead of, say, £1,500 for each candidate representing a party.
      I sympathise with the views of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). I was not aware that he was defensive about himself. I thought that he had the courage

      265
      to face every issue. He has just made a simple mistake in this case by mentioning the parliamentary register because the Bill is based on the local government register; that has been the case all along.
      The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) raised an important issue. It is fascinating to realise that there seems to be concern that some folk from mainland parties in Great Britain may come, or some from the Republic of Ireland. It is equally possible that some people from Islington and from Kilburn might be nominated if the amendment were not accepted.
      Mr. Barnes: There are not just limitations in connection with the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain when it comes to those who might be excluded by the disqualification. It is wide open. Anyone who is of voting age, does not suffer from mental illness, and is not in prison is eligible to stand, from whichever country they come.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome that clarification. It may be that those who drafted the Bill were mesmerised by the Conservative party's recruitment campaign to get voters from overseas. Perhaps the European dimension figured as some European citizens are now able to stand for local government elections in the United Kingdom. That is further argument in support of the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire.
      Mr. Ancram: We have had a useful debate on the amendments. The hon. Member for Upper Bann accepted that we have already debated the meat of amendment No. 46, which differs very little from the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne which was dealt with earlier. The only difference is in the figure. I reiterate what I said earlier, which is that in terms of the burden it may create, we do not believe that that is the way to proceed.
      I think that we all accept that the purpose of a deposit is to seek to introduce into the electoral process a degree of consciousness on the part of those taking part by testing their resolve to contest the poll. I notice amendment No. 44 in the name of the hon. Member for Upper Bann which deals with that issue.
      When considering the case for introducing a deposit, the first point of principle should be the desire to keep the electoral process as open as possible. We considered that matter seriously. We should not seek to hinder those who we believe have a valuable contribution to make in the process. The hon. Member for Upper Bann suggested that the levels he has set are too high. I must tell the House that there are a number of parties which have a voice that should be heard and a valuable role to play which are already concerned about the expense of fighting an election. Those parties will have to deal with that in order to show their commitment to the democratic process. Having given a great deal of thought to this issue, I believe that the amendment would only undermine the case for the inclusiveness of the election, which is important.
      I am particularly concerned that a regional deposit would not serve any real purpose other than to place further hurdles in the path of those who wish to be part of the election but who do not enjoy the financial muscle of some other parties. It is not our intention to create administrative hurdles which would prevent some parties from putting their case to the wider electorate.
      266
      I hope that we have demonstrated in different ways today that we expect parties to approach the process seriously and that it is not our intention to look for frivolous parties. I hope that we have taken on board the meat of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Upper Bann in the amendment that we did accept which relates to the three constituencies. I think that that has been accepted as an indication that we see the spirit of the amendments. However, I feel that the actuality of them would be damaging rather than helpful. I hope that the hon. Member for Upper Bann, through his hon. Friends, will withdraw the amendment.
      I will not dwell at length on amendments Nos. 13 and 16 because the hon. Members who tabled them are not present. However, as they are on the amendment paper, it is right to say that, although I understand the purpose behind them, I would be uncomfortable if I were seeking to cast out from the election process those who fall into the criteria in the amendments, but who—we know that there are many such people in Northern Ireland—now live and work in the community and work hard to take forward the peace process and make their contribution felt. It would be wrong if they were excluded.
      On the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, I feel that those who are nominated by their representative to stand as a candidate should not have to live in Northern Ireland or be on the electoral register there. I gave a great deal of thought to that. I heard what the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said about the Ulster Unionists standing on their own feet. As he knows, I have a great deal of respect for the way in which they stand up for their principles and their causes and fight their corner. However, I remind them that in my early days in the House they had the right hon. Enoch Powell as a valuable member of their team. If I am right, I do not believe that he was born in Northern Ireland and I do not think that he lived there.
      Mr. William Ross: That was for this House. We are happy to consider applications for parliamentary seats in Northern Ireland from any part of the United Kingdom. The mere fact that the Minister is sitting for the seat that he is shows how broad a church his party is in this respect.
      Mr. Ancram: Absolutely. My point, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept, is that however strong his party may be, it has in the past welcomed people from outside the Province in order to strengthen its arguments. We feel that there may be people from outside the Province who, if nominated, might have a valuable role to play. We feel that it would be wrong for us to proscribe that. Such decisions should be made by the nominating representatives. I would be uneasy at limiting their ability to choose by imposing unnecessary restrictions on the qualifying criteria. After all, the criteria are fairly broad in the various electoral systems we have.
      The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) suggested that this was a one-off which might not recur—we hope that it will not recur. However, it is worth looking at other situations. The Act of Settlement 1700 governs the parliamentary candidatures and allows those born in the United Kingdom "and the dominions thereto", Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Republic of Ireland to stand for Parliament. Any citizen of a member state of the European Community may stand as a

      267
      candidate anywhere within the Community for the European Parliament under the terms of the 1994 European parliamentary elections regulations—that is the short way of referring to them. The 1972 Northern Ireland local government legislation, as amended, also allows citizens of the Republic of Ireland to stand for election to a Northern Ireland council, but they must be either on the register of local electors or owning or renting a property or residing in the district. So, various different rules apply to various different elections.
      Mr. Barnes: The different rules apply to different situations. People can stand for elections anywhere in the European Union because the elections concern a European Union of which we are all part. People from Britain can stand as candidates in Northern Ireland for the UK Parliament because the elections relate to the UK Parliament. We are talking about a Northern Ireland forum, and its corner of the discussions is of the most important nature. It would therefore seem reasonable to use the register in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Ancram: I appreciate that, but I say again that it would be wrong for us in this House to say to those who will be nominating persons whom they wish to be on their lists and whom they want to take part in the forum and the negotiations that we will set a restriction. I do not believe that it is justified and it does not apply in other types of electoral system.
      8.30 pm
      We have to be careful. If we exercised the eligibility of total local government candidature, we would make other exclusions, such as bankrupts and people who have been in prison in the past five years. We have to be realistic. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West said that we are trying to create a situation that will provide for a forum and negotiations. In order to do that, we are having to do it in a way that we think will make it most likely to succeed in creating the mandate to allow that process to be taken forward. Having given much serious consideration to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne and the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, it is our view that the Bill as it stands is correctly drafted.
      I do not know where my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne heard the rumour to which he referred, but we certainly value his contributions to Northern Ireland debates here far too much to allow him to dissipate his efforts by taking part in a process. I can also assure him, since he seemed to think that I had ambitions beyond my present concerns, that I equally—I also speak for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State—have no intention of being nominated as the Conservative to take part in the election.
      Mr. William Ross: The Minister told us earlier—it is also in the Bill—that the Government will have three representatives at the negotiations and that they will have a back-up team of five, who could presumably replace one of the three if someone were ill, for example. Will the Minister explain to us so that it is clear in our minds exactly who those three people are, how they will be
      268
      selected, who the five are, how they will be selected, what the role of each group will be and how much they are interchangeable?
      Mr. Ancram: I do not want to revisit the whole of the debate that we had yesterday, but we made it clear that there was no limit on the size of negotiating teams. There are limits on the numbers who can appear at any given negotiating session, and those were the ones that were set out. There is some misunderstanding because those who are described as "behind", as opposed to "in front", are there to advise. I am told that those who were involved in the last set of talks will recognise the configurations.
      Mr. McGrady indicated assent.
      Mr. Ancram: I see the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) nodding.
      Mr. Ross: I was not.
      Mr. Ancram: I know that the hon. Gentleman was not, but I am saying to him that the idea of having advisers and those whose support one needs behind one is not new. It is merely a reiteration because many of us feel—perhaps unwisely—that we need the support of others behind us when we are negotiating.
      I have thought very carefully about whether we should have limited those who could be put on the lists. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will agree that, if we are to enter the process with the best hands that the parties can put forward in their negotiators, it is better that those decisions are left to them. I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Wilshire: When I spoke to my amendment, I raised the personal points that I did because I did not want to repeat those made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). As a result of the debate that has ensued, however, I should add that I agree with all the points that he made. They are far more serious than those I made about myself.
      In response to my points, I am reassured by the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister. I do not know whether he will relish the result of saying that he values my contributions to these debates because it might encourage me to detain the House even longer than I have over the past two days.
      I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Minister failed to persuade me of a case for resisting the amendments because all the examples used about why they would not be sensible were all examples of why the established precedent is for some form of restriction. He cited the European Parliament. If one is resident in Peru or on the Peruvian electoral register, one cannot compete in European Parliament elections, but one can if one lives in the European Community.
      In Northern Ireland local government, the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) rightly said that one could participate if one lived in the Republic, but went on to slip in that one had either to live in Northern Ireland or work there, which is exactly the sort of restriction for which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire and I have been arguing. If one considers any other electoral process in the UK, such as parish, district, county, or as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said,

      269
      parliamentary elections, there is a restriction on where one lives or works too. I do not therefore believe that the case has been made for rejecting the amendments.
      I can however offer one very good reason why I am inclined not to press my amendments. It is not for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Minister has given, but the fact that if I force a Division I know that I shall lose and the punishment of being sent to Northern Ireland would become ever more real.
      Mr. Barnes: The political positions on Northern Ireland issues that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and I take differ considerably in many ways. It is therefore significant that we are arguing a similar case.
      Mr. Wilshire: To clarify matters, I would be perfectly happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman's amendment rather than mine. It is a matter of drafting. I hope that he will accept that I feel not in the least bit strongly that my amendment is better than his.
      Mr. Barnes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. We are both involved in the affairs of the British-Irish parliamentary body. I would press the Unionists very strongly to involve themselves in it too. My arguments do not come from a Unionist camp. I am concerned about other things. The importance of taking Northern Ireland as a unit and involving the people of Northern Ireland in decision making is of paramount importance. Many candidates from outside Northern Ireland, who are appointed by the leaders of the parties, are liable to stand in the election.
      A number of parties in the list in schedule 1 operate on an all-Ireland basis. The Democratic Left operates in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland, as do the Green party, Sinn Fein, the Workers' party and the Communist party of Ireland. There are also often quite close links, or considerable sympathy, about a united Ireland between Fianna Fail and the SDLP. Of course, Sinn Fein operates on an all-Ireland basis. It is important that we consider how to determine who is a part of the political unit that we are discussing, and should therefore be involved and drawn in? That is what my amendment seeks to do.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I shall respond again to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, because he appealed to us as Unionists to join the British-Irish parliamentary tier. As I understand it, the Bill is designed to prepare the way towards a better agreement than the Anglo-Irish agreement. We went down that road in 1992, and Mr. Albert Reynolds lifted the ball when he discovered that things were not going his way. That process has collapsed, and we are now embarked on a course which may lead us to a better agreement. In that situation I am sure that Unionism will be represented, where we need to represent Ulster.
      Having said that, I ask leave to withdraw the amendments in the names of my colleagues, amendments Nos. 44 and 46, but I believe—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The only Member who can seek leave to withdraw an amendment is the person who moved it in the first place—and technically, although the
      270
      other amendments grouped with the main amendment may be debated, they have not been moved; they may be moved only one at a time.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate that guidance, Dame Janet. I was responding to a request from the Minister of State, because our leaders are having discussions at this moment, so they are not in the Chamber.
      The arguments of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire are pertinent. Two Governments will be represented in the negotiations, so it is important that the other people there represent the people of Northern Ireland, and do not come from any other part of the world.
      Amendment negatived.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Before we move on, I have a short announcement to make to the Committee. A manuscript amendment has been tabled in the name of the Secretary of State, relating to schedule 2, page 8, line 3. I have selected that amendment, and it will be discussed with the group led by amendment No. 64. Copies of the manuscript amendment are available in the Vote Office.
      Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Dame Janet. It might help the Committee to know that the manuscript amendment relates to an amendment of mine. I was asked about it, and I think that it makes a great deal of sense.
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 5, line 12, leave out from 'cast' to end of line 2 on page 6 and insert
      'preferentially among the candidates named on the party list on the ballot paper for each constituency.
      (2) Counting shall be conducted by the single transferable vote system to produce five delegates for each constituency.'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 43, in page 5, line 15, at end insert
      'and that party's candidates for that constituency.'
      No. 158, in page 5, line 15, at end insert
      'together with the names of the candidates submitted by the nominating representative of the party for that constituency'.
      Mr. Kirkwood: As someone with no great experience in such matters, it has been fascinating for me, and an education, to sit in on the Committee stage of this important Bill. In preparation, a few colleagues and I were afforded the opportunity by the Minister to go and talk to some of his officials and some representatives of the political parties both in the Province and in the Republic.
      I pay tribute to the Minister for having allowed us that facility—although I know that other hon. Members have been able to take advantage of such a facility as part of the familiarisation programme. I found it extremely interesting. We were received with great hospitality, and learned a lot in the process. I pay tribute to those who assisted in that process, and thank the Minister for arranging it.
      8.45 pm
      I bring an unfamiliar face, but a fresh mind, to such subjects. In the course of our visit, in anticipation of moving the amendment and while researching the

      271
      background to it, I was struck by the optimism in all parts of the community about the progress that has been made recently. To me there seemed to be momentum for change. Certainly there has already been a great deal of economic and social change, which I think will pay dividends in the fulness of time, and feed through into the political process. It is to be hoped that that will assuage some of the fears that we have heard about in Committee.
      I now come to the context of amendment No. 51. It should come as a surprise to no one that, given an electoral system to discuss, a Liberal Democrat will leap forward and grab the opportunity to debate the relative merits of single transferable votes and multi-member constituencies.
      I shall spare the Committee the finer points of the authorised version of that text, because I am sure that everyone is already familiar with them. However, I must ask why the Government did not adopt the system of proportional representation—STVs and multi-member seats. There seem to be several compelling reasons for doing so in the present context.
      The structure that the Government propose is certainly not simple. I understand why it may have to be that way, and I pay tribute to the way in which the Minister has painstakingly, and with great patience, put the thing together. It is a bit of a Heath Robinson apparatus, but the Minister, like the rest of us, hopes that it will bear fruit. We wish him well, and hope that it produces results in the end.
      None the less, the suggested electoral system seems bizarre and complicated to me. If I have interpreted what I have heard in Committee correctly, it also seems to have the disadvantage of being quite unpopular. I certainly have not heard anybody passionately endorsing it.
      Judging by our visit last week, there is much evidence to suggest that not everybody fully understands the system either—and that includes some of the Government officials and some of the people who will preside over it. Confusion still surrounds it. More important, perhaps, is the disturbing evidence that the voters who will be involved in the process cannot easily see how their votes will translate into elected parties and representatives. That is a matter for concern.
      In Northern Ireland, the single transferable vote system is far more familiar. I do not need to tell the Minister that, because in a short space of time he has made himself an expert on all aspects of life in the Province, especially the political aspects. That is what he is paid to do, and he has discharged his duties impeccably.
      So far as I remember, the most recent Assembly elections in 1982 were successfully conducted by a process of single transferable votes. The same system is used in council elections and European elections—in all elections, in fact, except the Westminster elections. The arguments that may be used against a proportional STV system on the mainland do not apply in the Province, because people are familiar with the system and educated in its use. They have used it to good effect in the past.
      Such a system would certainly be simpler. It would cut out clauses 8 to 13 at a stroke, which would be an advantage in a Bill that is already more complicated than some of us would like. Above all, perhaps, an STV system
      272
      would give voters much more effective choice. Instead of voting for one party alone, they could effectively vote against a party, by ranking everyone else higher. They could also vote against the community divide, which is something we should try to encourage.
      Moreover, voters would more easily be able to vote for doves as opposed to hawks in terms of particular problems and cross-community questions in the Province. Above all else, an STV system would be proportional. The Government's proposed system may tend towards proportionality, but only just. There is still scope for wide variations—but perhaps that is what the Minister wants to encourage.
      From our perspective as a party, the onus is on the Government to explain why STV has not been selected as the preferred system for electing this important forum. STV in a multi-member constituency is the only way to achieve a system in which every vote would count the same. I look forward to the Minister's response to this short but important debate.
      Mr. Trimble: I rise to support amendment No. 51 and to speak to my amendment No. 43, which is on similar lines to amendment No. 158, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry.
      In supporting amendment No. 51 in favour of the single transferable vote system, I find myself behaving in a way of which I do not entirely approve. STV is not the best system of proportional representation, because it has serious side effects. Had we the time to consider the matter and the opportunity to choose the best system, we would not choose STV.
      However, we are familiar with it. In Northern Ireland, we have lived with STV since 1973. Although there was considerable concern about the effect that it might have on parties when it was introduced, the political parties and the electorate have learned to live with it and operate it in a sophisticated manner. While some of its effects are injurious to political parties, it is the system with which we are familiar. All the existing arrangements are made for it. The legislation is already on the statute book. No change would need to be made to existing law to operate the STV system.
      STV is a fair system. No system of proportional representation achieves absolute proportionality. There are bound to be some quirks that depart from that no matter what the system. However, STV gets close to proportionality. There can be no objection to it on grounds of fairness. I believe that the Electoral Reform Society, which is based in London, has long been an enthusiastic advocate for it.
      Given the situation that is going to arise in Northern Ireland, there is a particular reason for adopting STV, in that it allows transfers of votes. The list system that we will be obliged to operate has obvious disadvantages. We have just witnessed a clear demonstration of those disadvantages in the Chamber tonight. We saw the disagreement that broke out in the Committee and the ill will and confusion that it created among hon. Members familiar with proportional systems.
      That is partly the result of choosing the list system, and partly of the haste with which the list has been introduced. It may also partly be the result of carelessness and inconsistentcy, especially the latter, by the Northern Ireland Office.

      273
      Even if we get over those problems with the manner in which the list system has been introduced for this election in Northern Ireland, it has another significant disadvantage. Under the list system, there is no transfer of votes. That is all very well where a party's support approximates to or equals the number of quotas. However, if it has more than a particular number of quotas, it will have a fraction of a quota over. There may be several parties with fractions of a quota over.
      In Northern Ireland, with the list system operating on a constituency basis with five seats to be filled, it is likely that the fourth and fifth seats will be filled by choosing the largest fractions as determined by the D'Hondt method, which is embodied in the legislation. The largest fractions will win seats, but the fractions of smaller parties will be wasted votes.
      Had we operated a transferable vote system, those fractions would transfer. They would be transferred not under an arbitrary mathematical formula such as the D'Hondt formula, but in accordance with the wishes of the voter. That will have a significant effect. We do not how the votes will be cast, and any illustration of its effect must be made using previous voting patterns that may not be replicated on 30 May.
      Let us consider the likely voting pattern in Belfast, West, which is a constituency with a nationalist majority. Under the STV system, it is likely that four of the seats would be won by Sinn Fein and the SDLP—perhaps two each: I am not going to make a judgment on that—but that the fifth seat would be won by a Unionist.
      It is likely, come 30 May, that there will be candidates from the Ulster Unionist party, the DUP, the Progressive Unionist party and perhaps even the Ulster Democratic party. There will be an Alliance party candidate, and perhaps even a United Kingdom Unionist party candidate. If we had had STV, all those parties would probably between them have commanded more votes than a quota under the STV system. Transferred votes would have accumulated around one of those parties, which would then have won a seat.
      The party that won the seat would be the party that voters who had given their first preference to, say, the PUP, gave as their second preference. Someone would be returned to represent the Unionists of Belfast, West. The likelihood on 30 May is that, because of the way in which the list system operates, those fractions, as they are divided among so many parties, will be small and consequently will fail to win a seat. The fifth seat will go to the largest nationalist party, which will probably be Sinn Fein in this case. The consequence of adopting the list system in Belfast, West is likely to be that there will be a seat lost to Unionism and gained by Sinn Fein.
      I chose that example because it shows how the list system disadvantages parties that achieve small votes in a particular constituency. That has a bearing on the position of the small parties, especially the loyalist parties, because in that example of Belfast, West, there is a good chance that that Unionist vote would have coalesced around the PUP, thus giving it a seat. Because the list system has been adopted, it is likely that it will not get one.
      We are then forced into the monstrosity of the regional list proposals, which are being introduced purely to bring the paramilitary parties through. Had the STV system—with which we are all familiar—been adopted, the situation would not have arisen. It is not only a matter of
      274
      familiarity with the STV system, and the ease and convenience of it being already on the statute book, but that it would have been fairer to the smaller parties had it been adopted.
      Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend has dealt with the fairly extreme case of west Belfast. One or two other constituencies on either side of the political divide might well produce a similar result. Would my hon. Friend care to reflect for a moment on constituencies in which four seats might be won by various groupings, but the fifth becomes a lottery and there is no possibility of anyone determining to which party it should go? I think that most constituencies in Northern Ireland are in that position.
      Mr. Trimble: My hon. Friend is right: there will be great difficulty in saying where the final seat should go. Under the single transferable vote system, it would be determined by the voters transferring their votes, whereas, under the proposed system, it will depend on a mathematical formula.
      Mr. Ross: It would be completely arbitrary.
      9 pm
      Mr. Trimble: It would not be entirely arbitrary, because the result would relate to the original first preferences cast by the electorate.
      The results are difficult to predict at this stage. The predictions I made for the example I chose may well turn out to be accurate, but in other cases it is extremely difficult to predict. I imagine that, after the event, the election will be a field day for academics who like to write on the subject. They will analyse the results and debate whether they were capricious in any particular case.
      For the reasons that I have advanced—having the legislation on the statute book, familiarity of operation and fairness to the smaller parties, it seems to me that, on the merits, there is an overwhelming case in favour of the single transferable vote system. It also seems to me, and I do not resile from the view that I have expressed previously—I think that it is accurate—that there are no merits behind the alternative proposal that has been adopted. That proposal seems to have come from a certain quarter as a wrecking amendment adapted by others for other reasons. It has produced the confusion and uncertainty that we have seen here tonight.
      In the circumstances that have arisen, we are prepared to support the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on amendment No. 51 should he feel like pressing it.
      We have tabled amendment No. 43, to which we attach considerable importance. While we have a list system, it is said to be one based on constituencies. In those constituencies, candidates will be standing for the parties that are contesting those seats. Under any normal system, those candidates are entitled to be recognised and to have their name on the ballot paper. Some of them may win and some may not, but they are all entitled to be recognised.
      We normally operate under a system in which the names of the candidates in a constituency are on the ballot paper so that the voters in the booth can make their choice knowing whom they are electing. It is essential that we operate on that basis. I attach the greatest importance to seeing the names of the candidates on the ballot paper.

      275
      We had a discussion earlier about what should appear on the ballot paper—names, party names and the rest of it. Our position throughout has been that we want to see the names of our candidates who are standing in a constituency on the ballot paper, together with the party name. People object to that, saying that it will result in too many names; that there might be up to five names for each party and a considerable number of parties, and that there would be scores of names on the ballot paper. Yes, indeed. I do not see that as a problem.
      We are not dealing with the prospect of 60 names on a list each with their own little box for people to mark their X or put 1, 2 or 3 under the single transferable vote system. At the edge of the ballot paper, there will be only one box for each party. We think that it is perfectly possible to put on the ballot paper the name of the party and below that the names of the candidates, all contained in the one box for that party. There is no reason why that cannot be done.
      The Minister will recall a Labour Member referring on Second Reading to a recent election that he had seen in Palestine, in which there were 92 names on the ballot paper. So it can be done. It will not cause confusion. Rather than causing confusion, it will help the situation by letting the voter know for whom he is voting.
      We know from discussions with the Minister that he will say that names will be publicised and notices will be put up to show the names; that there will be notices in the polling station or even in the booth. It has been suggested that the notice in the booth will be covered by perspex to stop people annotating it. I suppose that, if the information is to be in the booth, it jolly well ought to have perspex over it. I can imagine some of the ways in which people might annotate it that might add to the enjoyment of life for some people, but perhaps not for others.
      However, this is not a sensible way of proceeding—a sensible way of proceeding is to make this novel provision correspond as closely as possible with what people are accustomed to. The obvious thing to do is to put the names of the candidates and the parties on the ballot paper. That is what people are accustomed to seeing, and when they vote for the party of their choice, they will know exactly which candidates they are endeavouring to elect. This is something to which we attach the utmost significance, and it is what we have wanted to see with regard to this issue right from the outset.
      Mr. McNamara: I refer to the actual voting system. I have considerable sympathy with what the Liberals have said—
      Mr. Maginnis: And the Ulster Unionists.
      Mr. McNamara: If I may be allowed to make my own speech—I was going to say what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said. I am concerned about the actual formula that is going to be adopted, because I do not understand it enough. Will the Minister confirm that the d'Hondt formula is being used in the Bill?
      Mr. Ancram indicated assent.
      Mr. McNamara: The Minister nods; I am pleased that is so.
      276
      For the convenience of hon. Members, will the Minister prepare some worked examples of mythical constituencies and how the formula might work, so that we can look at it in more detail? Perhaps he could arrange for it to be placed in the Library. We could then see how matters have been arrived at by the Northern Ireland Office.
      There is one difficulty with d'Hondt. If we had a remainder system on quotas, it would help some of the smaller parties—perhaps the Alliance party, perhaps Sinn Fein, or perhaps the UK Unionist party—Robert McCartney, to give its full title. The d'Hondt system will tend to favour the larger parties, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has said. I am not sure whether the Government, by adopting this system, have defeated the object of their exercise in having the extra 20 seats.
      If we had a remainder system, we would have a greater representation of some of the more middling parties, but we might not get some of the more extremist loyalist parties that the Minister is looking for on his list of 20. I should be grateful if we could have some worked examples to try to see how it will work out in the election when it takes place.
      I have already spoken on some of the issues involved in amendment No. 43, which the hon. Member for Upper Bann moved earlier. I should be grateful if the Minister could describe what he is going to do, because it will be of the utmost importance. Even if one accepted the amendment, there would still be a need for large postering within polling stations—in a readable form—so that people can see the names of the candidates for whom they are voting, and see them in relation to the parties.
      Mr. Maginnis: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on amendment No. 43. I spoke about this matter at some length on Second Reading. It concerns me—and more than it did previously. I listened to the debate that took place earlier this afternoon, and I was puzzled by the clamour in some quarters for a list system based on party names—it is now being discovered that there is some advantage in being able to identify the personalities for whom one is voting. However, democracy is not about single high-profile individuals or comparatively small parties with one high-profile character, but about the participation of members of society elected, by that society, and answerable to it in terms of their responsibilities.
      As we appear to be tied to party names, and major difficulties appear to have arisen from that novel—and obviously flawed—system, I would press the Minister to listen carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann said about identifying on the ground in the 18 various constituencies those who represent the party named on the ballot paper.
      One other matter might usefully be considered in this context. The Minister should clarify—I asked him to do so on Second Reading, and he overlooked the matter—the basis on which votes for the various parties will be evaluated in terms of the quota, and whether "T" in paragraph 8(2) is the total number of votes given or the total number of valid votes cast.
      I hope that I have not strayed too far, Dame Janet. I hope that the Minister will find some justification for responding to that point also.
      Mr. William Ross: Dame Janet, you will see that, not

      277
      only was I one of those who tabled amendment No. 43, but I tabled amendment No. 158, which is intended to reach the same conclusion. That juxtaposition of two amendments aiming at the same object arises simply and purely from the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and I did not do the drafting together, so we chose different wording to reach the same object.
      If I may say so, I believe that my amendment is a slight improvement on my hon. Friend's amendment, because I place the responsibility for getting the names correct on my hon. Friend, and I believe that he should be prepared to withdraw his amendment and support mine, and accept the responsibility that goes with leadership of the party.
      In those circumstances, I commend my amendment to the Committee, and carry us somewhat further than my hon. Friend did when he drew attention to the need for the names of the candidates to appear on the ballot paper. He suggested one way of doing so; another would be to have a box for the names of candidates at the end, but I believe that it would be better to place the name underneath the party name.
      I point out to the Secretary of State and Minister of State that, in normal parliamentary ballots, a description of the person is printed on the ballot paper, and I should have thought that it was a very good idea. The electorate like to know the identity of individuals for whom they may vote. It guides them, and helps them to place their cross. In those circumstances, this reasonable amendment should be accepted.
      I am one of those who do not love proportional representation in any shape or form, believing that it is, in effect, a fudge to avoid the necessity of making up one's mind what one really wants. Proportional representation causes considerable grief in every country where the system is used. It is destructive to party political organisation in a number of ways and, above all, it is not accepted throughout the United Kingdom. I simply do not like it and I shall never accept it willingly—although I am stuck with it at the moment. In those circumstances, I must choose between single transferable votes and the list system—and STVs win hands down every time. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann described that system fairly clearly: it is more proportional and it produces acceptable results as it is closer to the will of the people than the monstrous system that is being foisted upon us in the legislation.
      9.15 pm
      My only objection to the amendment standing in the names of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), is that it does not go far enough. I believe that several other issues must be examined also. People will cast a vote for a party in the constituency to elect the party nominees in that constituency, and those votes will then be lumped together.
      Although people may vote for a candidate from a minor party in the constituency, it does not mean that they want their votes to carry over to that minor party on the wider canvas. People might be prepared to support local individuals, but not the general thrust of their parties. Electors should cast another vote for the party that is shown on the constituency list. That would entail using two ballot papers, but that has been done before.
      278
      Will the Minister examine that aspect? It is a reasonable request and, as we are making an effort to educate the electorate, why not do a really good job of it? As the Minister knows, after every election there is a tremendous torrent of complaints from people who were refused ballot papers because they could not produce any identification. The Government and the chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland have assiduously refused to take any steps to discover the number of people who lose out as a result.
      The passage of new legislation presents a superb opportunity to correct that difficulty. Presiding officers at each polling station should be required to keep a record of the number of people who are refused ballot papers and the reasons for that refusal. That would go a long way towards identifying the magnitude of the problem.
      Those who live in Northern Ireland recognise that it is an enormous problem, which is causing immense resentment and anger among the electorate. It should be addressed, and here is an opportunity to do that. The legislation will apply to only one election, but it will give us an idea of the magnitude of the difficulty that people encounter and enable the Government to take remedial action in the long term.
      I urge the Minister to look at the suggestion very carefully. If one of my starred amendments had been selected, we could have discussed arid voted upon the issue in this place—but that was not to be. I simply suggest that the problem be considered seriously on Report or in another place. The Minister is aware that there is an horrendous row every time, as it becomes more and more difficult to identify electors with every passing election. That burden is borne by electors in Northern Ireland, but it does not apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is very much resented, although the system was introduced for good reasons. We have never been happy, and I do not believe that any party in Northern Ireland has ever been happy with the system that has been used to identify electors, because it is inefficient. It is also difficult for the honest to use and very easy for those with evil intentions to get round.
      I hope that the Government will not only accept amendment No. 51, but will build on it before the Bill returns to this place for its final parliamentary stage. I hope that the Minister will also accept amendment No. 43. If he can, but cannot accept amendment No. 158, I would be content with that.
      Mr. Ancram: Once again, we have had a useful debate and, as in so many of the debates, we agree about what we are trying to achieve although we may not always agree about how to achieve it. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for the kind remarks that he made about the visit that he made to the Province recently. I know that many people in Northern Ireland, not least in the departments in the Northern Ireland Office, like to see visitors from this side of the water. Many people come to Northern Ireland and leave surprised at what they have seen there. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and, if I may, I shall pass on his thanks to those who were involved in the visit.
      The hon. Gentleman showed remarkable restraint in giving us only the short version of STV, not the long one. I am sure that he appreciates that the circumstances are

      279
      unique. I keep repeating that the system is a one-off system for a one-off purpose. For that reason, we have to find a system that we believe will have the best chance of succeeding.
      We sought, in consultations with the parties, to find a broadly acceptable electoral process to try to reach agreement for all-party negotiations. We met most of the major and, indeed, most of the minor parties in Northern Ireland. While there were some encouraging signs of agreement, the elective system was not among them. We are trying to move forward on the basis of consensus, but it is difficult to do so when, as in Northern Ireland, there are strongly polarised and opposed views on various systems.
      We had a variety of options for an electoral system, but none secured the clear support of the major parties representing main communities. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister himself said that there were three systems, each of which was supported by one of the major parties, but that it was impossible to find consensus among those parties on any one system. We chose, therefore, a list system operating in 18 constituencies. I admit that that was a new way to proceed, but it was an attempt to find some way that would allow parties that felt strongly on both sides of the argument to come forward into the process. The system is neither a pure list system nor a PR-STV election, but we hoped that in some ways it would combine elements of both.
      I say straightforwardly that the fact that we have not proposed using a straight PR-STV 18-constituency system should not be regarded as a reflection on that system and the way in which it operates in Northern Ireland. I heard what the hon. Member for Upper Bann had to say about that system, but it is used in Northern Ireland for all elections except parliamentary elections. That speaks for itself. I can tell the hon. Member that we chose not to use that system, not because we had found fault with that system as it works in Northern Ireland, but to try to produce a system that had the best prospect of bringing parties into a forum and into negotiations.
      Mr. Trimble: As the Minister says, the single transferable vote system is currently used in Northern Ireland for all elections other than parliamentary elections. Does he have any evidence that the single transferable vote system is unacceptable to the parties in Northern Ireland in respect of these elections?
      Mr. Ancram: We consulted the parties on the form of election that would have the best chance of succeeding in taking us through the gateway to the process on which we are embarking. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows well that strong opinions and views were expressed. I do not think that it is any secret that there are strong views among the parties in Northern Ireland, some of which we heard earlier this evening. This was a genuine attempt by the Government to seek a system which might be new and
      280
      which might be fairly unusual, but which we believed had the best chance of achieving the objective, which is to get into the forum and all-party negotiations.
      Mr. Trimble: The Minister says that there were strong objections to the single transferable vote system, but were those objections ever voiced before?
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman will have to accept it from me. He came to see me about the matter as well. We had full consultations, and I can say only that I experienced strong feelings from several quarters during those consultations. It was made clear to me that consensus on those various forms of election was not possible. It is for that reason that we have adopted a different system. However, I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say and we are grateful that he has intervened on behalf of his party in the debate and for what he had to say.
      Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister please tell us who among the parties in Northern Ireland was in favour of this system?
      Mr. Ancram: I chose my words carefully and said that we went for a system which we believed, in the light of all the consultations, had the best chance of succeeding in taking parties through into all-party negotiations and into the forum. I shall not be drawn by a comment made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who asked whether it was because we had something which was unpopular with everyone that it was likely to succeed. However, there were times during the consultations when opinions were so polarised between the various systems that it became clear to us that not a single one of those systems would have a chance of succeeding, and for that reason we have put forward our proposal.
      I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) did not want me to go into the detail of the system. When he asked about it, I nodded assent that it is based on d'Hondt. The basis is a group quota, so it may be regarded as a mixture of the two.
      The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) asked whether the number of votes is the total number of votes cast or votes given. I refer him to the Bill, which makes it clear that it is the total number of votes given rather than those cast.
      Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point, but I am astounded at his reply. We have found so many matters incorporated in the Bill which, when examined in the context of the Bill as a whole, seem to be absolute nonsense. Now the Minister says that if 10 per cent. of the electorate go into the voting station and destroy their ballot papers, their votes will count in terms of deciding a quota. The vote does not show a preference, but it is a vote given. It is a vote put in the ballot box, and it will count in terms of deciding a quota.
      I have never before heard of a system whereby spoiled votes were taken into consideration when deciding the value of votes given. It has always been a matter of deciding on the basis of valid votes—whether it be under the first-past-the-post system or under the single

      281
      transferable vote system. I am astonished to the extent that I believe that the Minister should check again, to see whether it is a matter of deciding on the basis of valid votes cast.
      Mr. Ancram: I wanted to confirm the position, and I have now been informed that spoiled votes will not count as votes given.
      Mr. Canavan: The Minister said that in the first place.
      Mr. Ancram: I think that I made that matter clear, but I have now confirmed the position. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone for again raising the issue so that it could be clarified.
      Mr. Maginnis: I am always happy to try to help out the Minister.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for offering his assistance from a seated position. I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland will be grateful for the information that they have now received.
      I tell the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North that I shall not be drawn into making predictions. It is notoriously difficult to make predictions on how votes will be cast—particularly in a situation in which there have recently been different elections and different types of elections, and different assessments could be made on the basis of the different types of votes cast. I hope that he will accept that there was consultation before deciding on the system of voting that was finally adopted.
      In reply to the hon. Member for East Londonderry, I very much share his concern about voter information. I can tell him that we shall this week receive the first delivery of our voter information leaflet about absentee voting and specified documents. The leaflet will tell people what they need to ensure that they have an up-to-date document when they go to the polling station to cast their votes. I heard what he had to say about checking the number of occasions on which people are turned away for not having the right identification, and I shall certainly pass on his comments to those who will be running this election.
      Mr. William Ross: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, but do not let them be put off by the chief electoral officer saying, "Those people may very well go away and come back again." We want to know the number of people turned away initially, because that will give us an idea of the magnitude of the problem. We appreciate that some people may go home and come back, but our experience is that many of them go home in fury and do not come back.
      Mr. Ancram: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the chief electoral officer is aware of the remarks that he has made in this debate.
      I come to amendment No. 43, spoken to by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. As he said, he and I have talked about the matter on a number of occasions, and I think that he will accept that I am as concerned as he is to see that people who are casting their votes are aware of the candidates who are on the local list. Although the vote
      282
      will be for a party—which will be cast by putting a cross against the name of a single party; there is no question of candidate preferences—it obviously will be of some importance that voters know which candidates are on the local party list.
      I must again tell the hon. Member for Upper Bann that I am not convinced that putting those names on the ballot paper is the answer. I have examined the potential numbers that might result from that provision, and not 90 names but, theoretically, up to 150 names could result from it. We are also talking about a new type of election, whereas people may previously have been used to seeing names and putting preferential numbers against those. It is important that, when voters see their ballot paper, their choice is simple and straightforward—a vote for a party.
      Mr. Trimble rose—
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has again read my mind. So that those who are casting their votes know the names of candidates on the party lists before casting their vote, we shall ensure that the names are fully displayed not only in the polling station but in the polling booths. It may be, as the hon. Gentleman said, that lamination is a way in which to prevent the lists being destroyed.
      Mr. Trimble: The Minister said that he has examined the problem. He knows from our earlier discussions that I asked him to make up mock ballot papers with the names on, and that I suggested ways in which the names could appear, which would not require a large amount of space. Has that been done? If so, is the Minister prepared to circulate the mock ballot papers so that we can comment on them?
      Mr. Ancram: I have examined various shapes of ballot papers as well as the effect that the number of parties and names on them might have. I cite an example. A normal polling booth has a shelf in it or an area in which people fill in the ballot paper. We have to be careful that we do not produce a ballot paper that is unmanageable in terms of what the voter has to lean on when making his cross.
      The biggest consideration is to ensure that, although we are using what we all admit is a new system, there is as little confusion as possible. If there are vast numbers of names on a ballot paper, inevitably in small print, and people have to find one among them, it can lead only to confusion.
      Mr. Trimble indicated dissent.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but we agree that what is important is that when the voter casts his vote, he is able to see the names on each party list so that he can make his decision on that basis if necessary. That will be made possible by having the lists within the polling booths and ensuring that they are visible to people casting their vote.
      Mr. Maginnis: With respect, the Minister is being wholly illogical. To suggest that we cannot educate the electorate on the difference between marking 1, 2, 3 and so on and voting with an X, but that we can, at the last minute, just before they cast their vote in the booth, confront them with, as he says, a list of 30 parties and

      283
      the attached theoretical five names per party—making 150 names—and that that is how we should inform them, is utter rubbish. If we knew that the ballot paper was going to be published, with the names of the parties and the two, three, four or five candidates, our supporters could undertake some preparation. Every party would be involved in the same exercise. We could thus prepare the electorate for what they were about to face. By suggesting that he confront them in the booth with 150 names, and the 30 parties that he mentions, the Minister is making fools of us all.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman must be fair. I am not suggesting that when the votes are cast is to be the first time that the names will have been made available. I think that it is common ground between the hon. Member for Upper Bann and me that when votes are cast, it is proper that those names are available to the voter. That is why he wants them on the ballot paper and why I want them in the polling booth. However, they will be published elsewhere. I suspect that they will be published in the newspapers, and they could be published officially in the polling station. There are various ways in which the information could be got to the voter beforehand. We are not talking about that. We are debating the most effective way to avoid unnecessary confusion and the danger of spoilt ballot papers about which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone was speaking as if he is already expecting many. We want to avoid such problems by making the choice as simple as possible.
      The strength of the system that we are proposing is that, for the voter, it requires only one cross to be put against one party. We must make sure that the voter understands that when he goes into the polling booth and is faced with the ballot paper. I think that what we are proposing is the best way to achieve that.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely it is the duty of the parties to be putting their names to the people. If the poor critter going to vote is seeing the names for the first time, it is the parties' fault. They should have been campaigning and putting the names before the people. Can the Minister assure us that the information will be in party form so that, unlike with the list that he mentions, voters will understand what names belong to which party when they see the advertisements in the polling booths?
      Mr. Ancram: The information in the polling booth will certainly show the names attached to the party lists. It is important that that is made absolutely clear. It is also our intention to make sure that the names will be entered by a given date, which will be set out in the order that will follow this legislation. At that stage, I am certain that most political parties will take advantage of the opportunity to ensure that their supporters know the names on the local lists
      Mr. Maginnis: I did not understand the last intervention, and I wonder whether the Minister did. A short time ago, it was argued that voters would find it difficult to identify parties, even if their initials were attached, unless the names of the leaders of those parties were on the ballot paper. It is now being argued that, because we as parties fulfil our responsibilities, the
      284
      ordinary voter should be able to carry a complicated ballot paper in his mind's eye from the moment of education until his arrival in the polling booth—or should be easily able to transfer what is before him in the booth on to the ballot paper. There is no consistency in that.
      May I make a further point? Will a legislative change be needed to allow the names of candidates to appear in the polling booth? In elections in which I have been involved, voters were not allowed to receive such information.
      Mr. Ancram: I understand that no legislation is required, but I shall check that.
      Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that information is normally provided in the polling booth: the information on the ballot paper, which allows a choice. The hon. Member for Upper Bann and I differ only on whether that information should be on the ballot paper, or should be available in the polling booth. I strongly believe—given the need to avoid confusion, and the possibility that up to 150 names could be on the ballot paper—that I am proposing the right course. I hope that, on that basis, the amendment will be withdrawn.
      Mr. Canavan: Voters have normally made up their minds by the time they reach the polling booth. Would it not be more practicable and desirable to circulate the names as widely as possible among the Northern Ireland electorate?
      Clause 5 obliges the Secretary of State to publish an initial list of the nominating representatives of each party in The Belfast Gazette. I do not think that The Belfast Gazette goes to every home in Northern Ireland. Would it not be better to make statutory provision for the list of candidates for each party also to be published in The Belfast Gazette in the first instance, thus giving the rest of the media the opportunity—or, indeed, obliging the Secretary of State—to publish the parties' list of candidates throughout Northern Ireland, rather than just leaving it to people to turn up in the polling booths to check the information?
      Mr. Ancram: As I said earlier, we intend to ensure that the lists are published and fully available. I presume, and have been given every indication, that if there is a date on which the lists are made available, the parties taking part in the political process will take advantage of that, to try to ensure that they receive the maximum publicity for the names that they are putting forward. That is a normal part of the electoral process
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely everyone who goes to the polling booth need not keep all those lists in mind. It is a simple matter for people to put a cross by the name of the party that they favour. No one will have to keep 150 names in mind, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) suggested. People will be voting for a party, and they will simply put a cross by the name of the party that they want. That is a good deal easier than picking names on an alphabetical basis.
      Mr. Ancram: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says, that the election is about putting a cross against a party. As part of the process of informing the electorate about which party to support, it is obviously relevant to know the names on the local list.

      285
      On that basis, the issue between us is one of presentation, and I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will withdraw his amendment.
      In answer to an earlier question, the subordinate legislation will amend the election rules so that the names of candidates will appear in the polling booths.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Kirkwood: I hope that the Minister agrees that this has been a useful debate. As a result of the comments in the early part of the debate on the amendments, I have become more and more worried that the system is so complex that it would have been better to use a proportional representation system with the single transferable vote. In his explanation of why he did not move in that direction, the Minister suggested that, for some theological reason which was not clear to me, one of the parties would have vetoed such a system.
      The Minister is much closer to the matter than I am and the Committee will have to trust his judgment. Some of us are worried that in future we may have to warn him that we told him so. He will obviously get the system that he is going for. I will not stand in his way and I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment, but I reserve the right at other times and in other places to continue the discussion on the value and advantages of a single transferable vote system. Having regard to the details that have been produced as a result of the debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
      Amendments made: No. 142, in page 7, line 5, at end insert '—Communist Party of Ireland'.—[Mr. Ancram.]
      No. 48, in page 7, line 26, after 'Party', insert '(SDLP)'.—[Mr. McGrady.]
      Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to

    Schedule 2

      THE FORUM
      Mr. McGrady: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 7, line 38, leave out 'elected by the members' and insert
      'appointed by the members from within their own number in accordance with the Rules of Procedure'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 60, in page 7, line 38, leave out 'election' and insert 'appointment'.
      No. 174, in page 7, line 39, leave out 'member' and insert 'High Court Judge'.
      No. 72, in page 7, line 39, at end insert
      'from amongst the delegates of the party with the most delegates.'.
      No. 57, in page 8, line 19, leave out 'election' and insert 'appointment'.
      Mr. McGrady: Amendment No. 60 is a necessary corollary to amendment No. 61. I shall also speak to amendment No. 57.
      286
      The amendment is simple and clear and relates to how the first chairman of the forum should be appointed. As the appointment will be the first exercise by the forum, we should like to think that it will be a matter for consultation and consensus and that the elective process of a majority decision, whether weighted or not, would not be a good inaugural activity for the forum. The procedure which we suggest has been used in other quarters, and we simply ask that the forum should be able to appoint rather than elect the chairman.
      Furthermore, the amendment states that the chairperson shall be
      "appointed by the members from within their own number in accordance with the Rules of Procedure".
      We want the forum to illustrate some consensus in its first activity. The amendment contains nothing more significant or hidden than the simple desire and wish that the parties attending the forum, by consensus, give the chairmanship to the person—man or woman—whom they feel will best serve their purposes with equity and justice.
      Consequential to that is amendment No. 57, which refers to procedures under paragraph 4, where the word "election" appears. Simply to be consistent, we ask that the word "appointment" be substituted for "election".
      The proposals are straightforward and simple. My party and I hope that they will show the good will and consensus that we sincerely hope will exist in the forum during its first activity. If that is accomplished and successful, it will augur well for the forum's subsequent proceedings
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: Amendment No. 61 concerns the election of the forum's chairman. I concur with what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has said about the desirability of achieving consensus in the forum's affairs. The amendments in the name of his leader, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), would amend paragraph 1(2) of schedule 2 so that, in place of the reference to the chairman of the forum being elected by its members, the Bill would speak of him or her being appointed by members from within their own number and in accordance with the rules of procedure. We have little difficulty with most of the thinking underlying the amendments. As we have said, we envisage the forum operating on the basis of broad consensus and we would welcome it if it were possible to arrive at a decision about the choice of a chairman by that means, without a vote.
      It is clear from the drafting of paragraph 3(1) of the schedule that, in all it does, the forum will need to conduct itself in accordance with the rules of procedure. Those rules have not yet been considered and the definitive set is, of course, for the forum to determine, again by weighted majority and with the Secretary of State's agreement. As to the chairman coming from among the members of the forum, we have always envisaged that he would.
      I hope therefore that I have been able to give some assurance to the hon. Member for South Down and his colleagues. I cannot accept the amendment and the others related to it as the substitution of "appointment" for "election" of the chairman is potentially troublesome because of its ambiguity. Courts might strive to discover a meaning that might be some distance away from what the hon. Gentleman intends.

      287
      The Bill provides election by the 75 per cent. criterion, which is an efficient way to choose the chairman and, we hope, a procedure that will encourage parties to work together to look for consensus. That concludes what I need to say on the group of amendments.
      Mr. William Ross: Surely it does not, because amendment No. 174 seems to take care of all the difficulties at which we might be looking. Surely a High Court judge would be a reasonable person to be appointed to run the show until a chairman was elected. In similar situations in councils, on occasion the procedure is for the clerk of the council to take the chair until such time as the members nominate and elect a chairman or mayor.
      The duties laid on the person nominated by the Secretary of State will be of short duration and will be very light. In those circumstances, surely the Secretary of State could find a judge to take a day off from the courts. With the ending of terrorism, I suspect that the judges have rather more time on their hands than previously. One of them could go to Castle buildings, or wherever the meetings take place, until this little task is carried out
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He is quite right and I should have dealt with that. The hon. Gentleman proposes that a High Court judge should be appointed as the interim chairman. The interim appointment is a stopgap. We hope that it will be possible for the forum, at an early stage and preferably by consensus, to reach a decision on the appointment of the chairman.
      Again, as one would expect, there is obvious attraction in the amendment because of the impartiality and even-handedness that such an appointment would guarantee. However, in a sense, it is a little opprobrious to suggest that those qualities could not be found in a member of the forum. I believe that they could. I remember what was said yesterday about our late colleague, Sir James Kilfedder.
      I have said that we envisage this as a stopgap appointment and I do not believe that we need to look beyond the forum. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see the force of what I have said. I do not believe that the Committee should wish to see in the Bill a specific requirement for a specific category of non-member chairman to be selected in the interim. I regret that I cannot accept the amendment
      Mr. Ross: I can conceive—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Is the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) intervening or has the Secretary of State finished?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I thought that it was an intervention, Miss Fookes
      Mr. Ross: The Secretary of State is extremely kind to allow me to intervene in the closing seconds of his remarks.
      It is conceivable that the vote of the member appointed from the forum would make the difference between 75 and 74 per cent. In those circumstances, it could be
      288
      difficult if he had to cast his vote, possibly for himself. Would it not be wise in those circumstances to have an outsider?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hear what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not find it sufficiently persuasive.
      Amendment No. 72, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), requires that the interim chairman should be a member of the largest party in the forum. Again, I see the force of that argument, and I do not doubt that good candidates would be available. However, at what may be a sensitive period, albeit, I hope, a short one, we believe that the Secretary of State should be free to choose whomever in the forum seems best suited in the circumstances. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his amendment
      Ms Marjorie Mowlam: The official Opposition have a great deal of sympathy with the spirit of amendments Nos. 60 and 61 in trying to establish a set of rules by consensus, not majoritarianism, and based on consultation, as the hon. Member for South Down described. The difficulty which we perceive is that the Secretary of State has to set out the rules of procedure while the people concerned agree their own rules of procedure, so he will be giving them a set parameters beforehand with which to work.
      On the amendments, it might be helpful if the Committee was assured that the initial rules set up and the actual rules of procedure of the forum will be based on the principle of consensus and consultation, rather than on majoritarianism
      Mr. Wilshire: I had intended—
      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. Wilshire: Such little cameos make me proud to be British. Although I realise that I should not comment on people who sit upstairs, it is perhaps such things that make our procedures quite incomprehensible. It is rather lucky that not many people witnessed the farce which we have just enjoyed.
      I had intended to keep Trappist vows on the fact that I had tabled amendment No. 72, but since my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred to it, I feel rather obliged to say that, on mature reflection, I wish that I had not.
      Mr. McGrady: I should like to respond to the Secretary of State's comments. I accept the sincerity of his wish that consensus should be the forum's modus operandi and that the first example of that should be the

      289
      appointment of the chairman. He said, however, that there was some difficulty from his point of view with the logistics because the forum would not at that stage have adopted its rules of procedure. As the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) said, subsequent paragraphs show that the Secretary of State will be presenting the first set of rules of procedure for the forum's first day of business. It would therefore be entirely within his competence to adopt the letter and sentiment of amendments Nos. 60 and 61, to which he has—if not legally, certainly spiritually—acquiesced. It would be quite in order for him to include in those rules of procedure the appointment of a chairman by consensus.
      It is unfortunate that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is disjointed in relation to this debate, because it favours consensus in the rules of procedure on which the forum will act. It is entirely within the ambit of the current powers of the Secretary of State in preparing his pro forma rules of procedure to say that the appointment should be by consensus rather than an election by majoritarian process
      Rev. Martin Smyth: May I probe a statement that the Secretary of State made earlier? I may have misheard him, but I gathered that he intended to nominate or appoint the first chairman, to get the forum moving, and I got the impression that the chairman would be chosen from among the elected members. Would it not be better to follow the tradition of the House and its Committees and allow the clerk of the forum—I take it that somebody will be there to keep a record—to be the person who presides while the forum elects or appoints its chairman, rather than the Secretary of State's making an appointment that might colour what the forum did thereafter?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: Paragraph 1(2) provides that
      "The chairman shall be elected by the members, but until the first election has taken place he shall be a member nominated by the Secretary of State."
      I have been responding to amendment No. 174, tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry to the effect that that should not happen, and that the chairman should be a High Court judge instead. The Bill provides for the chairman to be a member of the forum
      Mr. John D. Taylor: May I recommend a European practice for the first session of the new forum? Far from the Secretary of State's taking upon himself the responsibility of selecting the chairman of the forum, the forum could appoint the eldest elected member as the chairman. Until the stage when the forum proceeds to elect its own chairman, the eldest member—[Interruption.] No, I think that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) would qualify before me. Until the forum elected its own chairman, following European practice, the eldest member would remain the chairman.
      I was astounded by what was said by the hon. Member for South Down—the constituency neighbouring mine. We are talking about an electoral process in which the people of Northern Ireland, through the ballot, will express their opinion and elect their representatives to a forum, yet the hon. Gentleman denigrated the electoral process. He said that he was against elections and wanted someone to be selected rather than elected.
      How do we select a chairman of a forum? At the end of the day, the chairman must be elected by the people who represent the electorate of Northern Ireland. The hon.
      290
      Member for South Down must accept that, in the context of the United Kingdom of which Northern Ireland is a part, the Irish community within Northern Ireland, which he represents, is a minority community. The hon. Gentleman certainly has a positive contribution to make, but it is a minority contribution, and he must accept his position within the state of Northern Ireland
      Mr. McGrady: Surely that is a gross misinterpretation of what I said. I suggested that the chairman of the forum be appointed from among the elected members of the forum
      Mr. Taylor: I challenge the hon. Gentleman to explain the difference between being appointed by the elected members of the forum and being elected by the members of the forum
      Mr. McGrady: Consensus
      Amendment negatived
      Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 8, line 2, leave out from 'be' to end of line 3 and insert 'on 6th June 1996'
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 78, in page 8, line 3, at end insert
      'which shall be no later than eight weeks from the date of the election'
      No. 138, in page 8, line 3, at end insert
      'within 7 days of the declaration of the result of the election held under the provisions of this Act.'
      No. 53, in page 8, line 4, after 'times', insert 'and locations'
      No. 54, in page 8, line 5, after 'forum', insert
      'but shall not take place until after the negotiations mentioned in section 1 have commenced.'
      No. 59, in page 8, line 5, after 'forum', insert
      'according to the Rules of Procedure'
      No. 62, in page 8, line 6, after 'meet', insert 'in plenary session'
      No. 25, in page 8, line 8, leave out 'may' and insert 'are intended to'
      No. 63, in page 8, line 9, at end insert 'in plenary session'
      No. 69, in page 8, line 9, at end insert
      'but the Secretary of State shall not prevent the holding of a meeting for more than eight consecutive weeks.'
      No. 65, in page 8, line 9, at end insert—
      '(3A) The proceedings of the forum shall be in public and appropriate provision shall be made for the public to be able to observe its proceedings and for the broadcasting of those proceedings.'
      No. 167, in page 8, line 9, at end insert—
      '(3A) There shall be appropriate provision for members of the public and the media to observe, publish, broadcast and televise the proceedings of the Forum.'
      A manuscript amendment, in page 8, line 3, at end insert—
      '() The time decided under sub-paragraph (1) shall be—

      (a) after the commencement of negotiations within section 2, and

      291

      (b) within, or as soon as possible after the expiry of, the period of four weeks beginning with the date of the poll in the elections.'.

      Mr. Trimble: I shall also deal with our amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 65.
      Amendment No. 64 relates to the first meeting of the forum. Under the paragraph 2 of schedule 2, the Secretary of State has discretion about when the meeting will take place. The amendment would preserve some discretion for him in that he could choose at which time it met on 6 June but would ensure that the forum meets on that date. The object is to ensure that it meets before the beginning of the negotiations on 10 June.
      We are electing people to a body called a forum from which the negotiators will be drawn. There is a sequence there, and it is appropriate that we should respect it and follow it through. Consequently, I was very disappointed by the Secretary of State's manuscript amendment, which shows that he intends to prevent the forum from meeting for up to four weeks after the election and ensure that it meets after the opening of negotiations. I have two observations on that.
      In the previous debate, there were references to consensus. I know of no discussions between the Secretary of State and any of my hon. Friends about when the meeting should take place. He has made no attempt to seek agreement. There is no element of consensus about the way in which he is proceeding. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) is no longer in her place as she referred at great length to the need to proceed by consensus. I am sorry that she is not here to argue for consensus on this issue, which would give her the opportunity to show that she is not entirely one-sided. The matter should have been discussed with the parties. It is not sensible for the Secretary of State to proceed in this way.
      Secondly, the Secretary of State's high-handed actions will be counterproductive—of that he can be sure. It is foolish of him to start this process in a way that will make it less likely to begin in a good atmosphere. That is what his action has done. He has ensured that there will be anger in our party about the beginning of negotiations. He could have operated in a way that would have been conducive to a good meeting. I should have liked the negotiations to begin in a constructive spirit but that will be difficult in view of the way that he is behaving
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman jumping to conclusions on this matter in so adverse a way. It was made clear on Second Reading that we proposed that the forum should meet after the opening meeting of the negotiations. In response to an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne that it should meet no later than eight weeks after the date of the poll, I have sought in my manuscript amendment—which the hon. Gentleman has seen because it is in the Vote Office—to halve that time. It is not a question, as I shall make clear when I have the opportunity, of postponing it for four weeks but that any postponement shall be until no later than four weeks thereafter. I shall have an opportunity to develop that, but it does not bear
      292
      the adverse interpretation that the hon. Gentleman is putting on it. I thought that the sooner that I made that clear, the better
      Mr. Trimble: I shall listen to what the Secretary of State has to say, but meanwhile I stand by everything that I have said. I find this behaviour offensive. The Secretary of State says that it is proposed that it will be done. He should not consider that he can just propose such matters. We are not operating in a colonial atmosphere. He should operate through due consultation with the parties in an attempt to achieve agreement with them. This process, whether in the negotiations or in the forum, will not be successful unless a serious effort is made to achieve agreement. On this matter, no effort has been made. That is not the way in which we should proceed. I shall listen with care to what the Secretary of State has to say in order to recover from the serious error that I consider that he has made.
      My amendments Nos. 62 and 63 make what I hope the Secretary of State will recognise is a sensible adjustment to the provision in paragraph 2(3) of schedule 2, which deals with the relationship between the forum and the negotiations. That paragraph seems likely to lead to the frustration or stultification of the forum. My amendments to ensure that they do not both meet when they are in plenary session are designed to enable them to operate in a flexible way with regard to bilateral committees in the negotiations and in the forum.
      My amendment No. 167 relates to the proceedings of the forum being held in public, with appropriate provision for publicity, something to which I hope that the Secretary of State will be agreeable, whether in the terms of the amendment or by making the necessary facilities available as and when the forum meets
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Wilshire: I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 78 and 69 in my name. I had not quite anticipated that I would be speaking to them after the hon. Member for Upper Bann had made some serious points about the lead amendment, which in many ways follows on from my two amendments.
      Amendments Nos. 78 and 69 arise from the fact that I read the Bill with great care and noted that nowhere did it say that the forum had to meet and that the Secretary of State was seeking to take powers to suspend meetings of the forum for an indefinite period. I have made it clear in the past two days that I approach a fair amount of the legislation with a degree of suspicion. It seemed sensible to require the Secretary of State to convene a meeting of the forum and to limit the length of time during which he could suspend.
      I freely admit that I plucked the period of eight weeks out of the air. It seemed to me that one had to say something. I offer no particular justification for eight weeks or any other period. The motive behind both my amendments is to limit the Secretary of State's power and enable the people of Northern Ireland, having elected people, to know that those people can meet on their behalf within a reasonable time.
      Given the happenings of yesterday, I am sure that hon. Members can imagine my joy when I went into the Vote Office this morning and noted that the Government had tabled amendments to my amendments, the effect of

      293
      which was to suggest that at least two of my amendments were to be accepted. My joy was unbridled. I had spent an entire day losing absolutely everything, only to discover that at last something had been offered in my direction. Not only had it been offered, but my eight weeks had been improved to four weeks. I thought that at last Wilshire was making some progress until I was asked for a little chat and told that perhaps it was not quite so simple after all, that Parliamentary Counsel had been let loose on my layman's drafting and that an alternative manuscript might be necessary. Nevertheless, my amendments, or the spirit of them, were to be accepted..
      The only question that I had the I shall repeat now, because I should like to have the explanation put into the record in a way that we can all understand. As I suggested eight weeks and when I came in this morning the Secretary of State was suggesting four weeks, why do we now have a manuscript amendment which confirms four weeks but says in paragraph (b):
      "or as soon as possible after the expiry of, the period of four weeks"?
      Due to my suspicious frame of mind, I am a little nervous that we may have a watering down of an absolute four weeks to four weeks or thereabouts. Earlier today, I was told why it was necessary to put in "or as soon after", but as I am a layman I could not quite grasp it. I should therefore be grateful if it could be further explained to me.
      At the risk of being churlish, and in the hope that I can say all that I wish in one contribution, there are those who would say that having got at least two concessions I should be grateful and call it a day. However, I shall risk yet more criticism and say that I am afraid that these small concessions cannot disguise the intransigence that a lot of hon. Members ran into yesterday when we discussed far more fundamental points about the Bill than whether it should be four weeks or eight weeks or for how long we should suspend meetings.
      However welcome the two concessions may be, they do not override my concern at the refusal to put into writing the informal reassurances that we have been given. Every time hon. Members have asked that it be confirmed that the Government will stand firm, there has always been a reason why the amendments indicating that they should stand firm should not be rejected.
      The two welcome small concessions do not override my deep concern at the repeated indications yesterday that the Government are still not ready to say that they are prepared to stand up to Dublin as it continues to make demand after demand. All of those amendments—which are far more important than these—were accepted.
      Above all else, despite however welcome these two amendments are, nowhere in the debate yesterday—or on any other occasion that I have raised these matters—were the Government willing to accept an amendment which signals with total clarity that terrorists will not be allowed to bomb the Government into submission. They are the amendments that I would like to be welcoming. Nevertheless, I welcome the two concessions that have been made.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I speak to amendments Nos. 138 and 25, which are in my name. The first amendment deals with a matter just referred to by the hon. Member for Spelthorne—namely, how soon after the election it is appropriate for the forum to meet. I am quite content with
      294
      the terms of the amendment of the hon. Member for Upper Bann to have a precise date and I am also quite content with the date that he has suggested.
      However, I have allowed a little more flexibility and said that the forum should meet within seven days so that no precise date would have to be set so far in advance. I have made it clear that within a short period of people being elected to the forum they should sit down in the forum. That is something that the Secretary of State should have permitted. The terminology that he used was a little vague. First, there was reference to four weeks and now it might be more than four weeks—no one can be quite sure exactly how long it may be.
      Let us look at this in terms of the period of time that we are talking about. Four weeks from 30 May—the result probably being known on 1 June—would take us to the beginning of July and a little longer may take us to 11 or 12 July. What other good ideas does the Secretary of State have for the opening day of the forum? The proposals put forward by the Ulster Unionist party and my party would be the most appropriate in the circumstances. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider them at this stage.
      Amendment No. 25 also deals with the word "may", but it has been dealt with slightly differently by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim and me. It relates to the Secretary of State's powers to determine that it would not be appropriate for the forum to meet if there are to be meetings of the negotiations. Schedule 2, paragraph 2(3) says that if, 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",
      the Secretary of State could inform the chairman of the forum that the forum should not meet. There may be negotiations every day of the week so, effectively, that provision makes it possible that the forum would never meet. To sharpen the paragraph slightly, amendment No. 25 would insert the words "are intended to" instead of the word "may" so that, if it is specifically intended for the negotiating teams to meet, the Secretary of State would be empowered to exercise the power that he has under this provision.
      It would be useful for the Secretary of State to clarify, so that we all have it on the record, that we are not talking about two political parties meeting in a bilateral forum, or even about three parties meeting. I presume that the reference in the Bill means that we are talking about what might be described as plenary sessions of the negotiating teams. It is important that we have that on the record, so that there is no doubt afterwards.
      Mr. McGrady: Dame Janet, I do not intend to press amendment No. 59, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: We see in the proposals before us another attack on the forum. I was reading in Hansard of 24 January 1996 that the Prime Minister, replying to the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, had some interesting things to say about the forum. I was not in the House the day he made that statement, but he said:
      "I see the election providing a pool of representatives from which party delegations to the talks could be drawn, and a means to index the strength of the parties' delegations in the talks process. Apart from that, of course, I see the election providing, by weighted

      295
      majority vote, an initial mechanism for testing widespread acceptability within Northern Ireland of the outcome of any talks process."—[Official Report, 24 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 357]
      The Prime Minister promised us that that is what the forum was to be. Amendments were moved in an attempt to establish the promise made, but they were rejected by the Government.
      On 21 March 1996, the Prime Minister said:
      "The legislation"
      that will bring the forum about
      "will also provide for the forum to be able to conduct hearings at which public submissions by relevant bodies or individuals can be made."—[Official Report, 21 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 498.]
      There is no such provision in the Bill. We are told that there is nothing to prohibit it, but we were told that it would be legislated for—that it would be provided—and there is no provision.
      Now we have another attack on the forum. We are told that it can be elected and people drawn from it can be on the negotiating body, but that the forum itself will not meet for four weeks or perhaps more after its election. We know that we can get a date of 10 June, and that that must be kept at all costs because it was agreed with Dublin, to placate the IRA and get things moving. There is no suggestion of a date of 10 June or as near to it as we can get. Another attack has been launched to postpone the meeting of the forum. I suggest to the House—I support the comments of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—that we are witnessing more and more opposition from those who initially launched a vicious attack against the very idea of elections and a forum. We now have a new parliamentary procedure: it is called consensus. We do not take any votes; we simply have consensus. We would wait a long time to achieve consensus in this place—not one Bill or Order in Council would be passed.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if a majority of people were to express their willingness to leave the United Kingdom and join some form of all-Ireland body, they would do so by a majority of 50 per cent. plus one and not by consensus?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: If it is a one-way street to a republic, there will be majority of one and 50 per cent., but any decision to remain within the United Kingdom will be attacked because there has been no consensus. That is the way it works.
      The forum will mirror the thinking of the people of Northern Ireland in a unique way because of the strange manner of electing candidates and topping up election results. Perhaps the Government are making preparations for an election that they expect to lose: if they were to introduce the Northern Ireland system here, they could remain in power by topping up from another list and increasing their numbers..
      What is it all about? It is an attack on the forum. If the Secretary of State thinks that the forum will be his puppet—to be stopped when he stops it and to go when he wants it to—he will be strangely surprised. The forum will not fill that role. Those who do not agree with my
      296
      political views will not be kicked around either—the Secretary of State may find them even more intransigent than I am.
      Mr. Wilshire: Having listened to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I am feeling extremely guilty, as I started the hare. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that my amendment limits the obstruction to eight weeks or to four weeks and that without it there would perhaps never be a meeting? It may be an advantage rather than an obstruction.
      Rev. Ian paisley: We do not blame the hon. Gentleman at all. We welcome his amendments and we are very glad that he squeezed the Secretary of State to agree to four weeks. However, he has himself underscored the fact that his joy turned to grief and pain when he noticed that the wording referred to four weeks or soon after that, which could mean 12 July or black Saturday—most hon. Members will now know what that is. Anyone who wishes to know can seek out the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) who will be able to tell them, as an imperial grandmaster of that particular organisation.
      The hon. Gentleman should be happy with his great accomplishment. I hope that the four weeks will be enforced. However, I do not think that the Prime Minister should tell us that the forum is a
      "mechanism for testing widespread acceptability within Northern Ireland of the outcome of any talks process".—[Official Report, 24 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 357.]
      That idea was voted down yesterday. I do not think that he should say that the legislation
      "will also provide for the forum to conduct hearings at which public submissions by relevant bodies … can be made".—[Official Report, 12 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 498.]
      We know that the legislation does not provide for that. Again, we see the forum being de-horned.
      Mr. Illsley: I wish to speak specifically to amendments Nos. 53 and 54. We believe strongly that the meetings of the forum should not take place until after the negotiations have commenced. I am sorry that certain hon. Members appear to consider that an attack on the forum, but in our view the purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the negotiations: hence its title. The negotiations should therefore be given precedence over the meetings of the forum.
      All hon. Members who have attended these debates have heard expressed the fear that the possibility of a forum, assembly or convention could be considered as a return to a Stormont-type situation, with legislative or administrative powers. Those fears have been allayed by comments in Committee, but it is clear that Unionist members would like to see the forum upgraded or enhanced, and given precedence over the negotiations.
      We maintain that the purpose of the Bill is to facilitate elections that will provide delegates to the negotiations. The purpose of the Bill is not to facilitate delegates to the forum, and the negotiations should take precedence.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Member appreciate that, for negotiations to take place, there has to be a willingness on the part of representatives of the major

      297
      party and the majority in Northern Ireland to take part? If their noses are constantly being rubbed in the dirt and their aspirations constantly denigrated, that may not create an atmosphere conducive to those negotiations taking place in a spirit that will produce the possibility of a result.
      Mr. Illsley: Of course I accept that negotiations have to take place with all the parties represented around the table. That is the whole basis of the elections and the Bill. For the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that aspirations are being denigrated simply because the date of negotiations will take precedence over the date of the meetings of the forum is to over-egg the pudding.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I can follow the hon. Gentleman's argument that he sees the start of the negotiations as a priority, but is there anything inconsistent between that view and also arguing that, immediately afterwards, all the delegates should be called to the forum? The suggestion that the delegates can be held out for four weeks or more is what is causing concern. That meeting should surely be much more prompt.
      Mr. Illsley: I do not have any problem with that. Amendments Nos. 69 and 78, about eight and four weeks, were tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who has readily accepted the blame for starting the hare running. I have no problem with the forum commencing as soon as possible after the negotiations have commenced. I am sure that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will be able to give some reassurance that the Government will seek to have meetings of the forum as soon as possible after negotiations have commenced.
      As I have said, we feel that the purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the negotiations, and the impression should not be given that the negotiations will be subordinate to the forum. The forum must be given its due weight in the Bill, but it should not take precedence over the negotiations which are the main purpose of the Bill.
      Mr. Trimble: I can tell the hon. Member—this is not a question, it is a statement—that this process has two tracks to it. While we agree that the forum will not take precedence over the negotiations or determine the outcome, as the Bill provides, we will certainly not agree to the forum being sidelined in the way that he appears to wish.
      Mr. Illsley: Again, I wish to place it on record that the Opposition do not see the forum as being sidelined. If the hon. Gentleman were to read our original amendment, which has been badly drafted, he would see that our purpose was simply to ensure that the negotiations began before the forum, and not to sideline, lessen or diminish the forum in any way. The negotiations will take precedence, and that is the reason for the Bill.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman see the forum as an initial mechanism for testing widespread acceptability within Northern Ireland of the outcome of the talks process by these negotiations?
      Mr. Illsley: No. I see the forum as it is explained in the Bill—as a mechanism for promoting dialogue while
      298
      the negotiations are taking place. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is again quoting the comments of the Prime Minister, to which he referred earlier. The forum is part of the Bill, with the Bill facilitating the negotiations and the forum running alongside them promoting that dialogue and expressing the views.
      As a consequence, we cannot support the amendments which set a date for the forum which predates the negotiations. Therefore, we cannot support amendments Nos. 64 and 138, which set a date which predates 10 June.
      Amendment No. 54 has been incorporated into a manuscript amendment, with which the Opposition agree. That manuscript amendment also takes into account the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Spelthorne. Unfortunately, amendment No. 54 was wrongly drafted, but it called for the first meeting of the forum to be at a time after negotiations had commenced. However, the manuscript amendment incorporates amendment No. 54, and we are happy to support it.
      We are concerned that the manuscript amendment has a time limit of four weeks, and the hon. Member for Spelthorne, in his sorrow at having his amendment carved up, made the point that the manuscript amendment says:
      "after the expiry of, the period of four weeks"
      We are concerned that any further slippage there would lead to some criticism that the forum is being delayed by too long a period, and hope, as I said earlier, that the Secretary of State will give an assurance that the forum could commence as soon as possible after negotiations have started.
      Amendment No. 53 in the names of my hon. Friends refers to the locations of the meetings of the forum. We strongly believe that the forum should be allowed, once it sets its own rules of procedure and with the authority of the Secretary of State, to meet in whatever locations it chooses. It would benefit from being able to move to other locations if necessary to take evidence; to make it easier for the forum to obtain the views of the people of Northern Ireland, lobbying associations or anyone else who wishes to contribute to it.
      We are somewhat concerned about amendments Nos. 62 and 63, concerning plenary sessions. If they are accepted, we hope that meetings of the committees of the forum, not the meetings of the plenary sessions, will not interfere with negotiations, in the hope that those negotiations will be able to progress without being hindered by meetings of the forum and the duplication of members meeting in either body.
      10.45 pm
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I begin by responding to amendment No. 25, which was spoken to by the hon. Members for East Londonderry and for North Antrim. Amendment No. 25 would amend paragraph 2(3) of schedule 2 so that the Secretary of State's powers to notify dates on which the forum might not meet would apply only to those when the negotiations are intended to take place, rather than when they "may" take place. I have thought about this carefully; I understand the reasons why the amendment was tabled, and I am happy to say that I am able, on behalf of the Government, to accept it.
      Having said that, I can now offer further reassurance. For my part, I am very much looking forward to meetings of the forum. I believe that the forum itself has extremely

      299
      important work to do, and I think that it is an innovation that is much to be welcomed and admired. It could play an important and valuable complementary role in relation to the main negotiating process.
      Part of the importance of the forum as we see it is that it will give the ordinary people of Northern Ireland a role to play in the process of developing dialogue and the mutual understanding which could contribute to the search for a lasting political accommodation and a permanent peace. There is no question of the Government wishing to sideline it; the Government are responsible for bringing forward legislation to create it.
      The elections themselves will give the people of Northern Ireland an opportunity to express their views on who they want to represent them in the negotiations and in the forum. Beyond that, we believe that the forum should operate in a way that would provide an on-going mechanism for securing and channelling the views of the people of Northern Ireland on the issues that the forum will be considering.
      I see a primary function of the forum as conducting hearings at which public submissions could be made by community, voluntary, women's and youth groups, trade unions, business, professional organisations, the Churches, academics and others. The submissions and any subsequent consideration of them will undoubtedly inform those members of the forum who are their parties' delegates to the negotiations, but they will also, in themselves, serve to stimulate further public debate in Northern Ireland and promote that dialogue and greater mutual understanding which we all want.
      I believe that that will help to create a more positive and receptive climate for the negotiations themselves, even though the latter may well need, for obvious reasons, to be conducted on a more confidential and less public basis. We welcome and support the idea that the forum might hold hearings in a range of different venues throughout Northern Ireland, to give members of the public there a greater opportunity to contribute and attend.
      That is the position from which the Government start when considering the issues raised by this group of amendments. We want to take whatever steps are possible to help the forum be successful in gathering and reflecting a wide range of perspectives on the situation in Northern Ireland and stimulating public attention on the issues that will be under consideration. In principle, we agree that the forum's proceedings should not be held in private, that there should be reasonable access for members of the public, and that there should be facilities to broadcast or otherwise disseminate reports of the forum's proceedings.
      The forum will not, however, be a parliamentary assembly in the normal sense, and we consider that it would not be appropriate to give it all the trappings of such a body. Subject to that, the Government intend to enter discussions with the parties likely to be represented in the forum about the level of facilities, the type of premises and the number of staff that the Secretary of State would, under paragraph 6 of the schedule, make available to the forum.
      Consistent with our general approach to the forum, the Government would like to facilitate the early launch of the forum and sensible forward planning of forum business. That would enable it to plan and organise public
      300
      hearings of the sort that I have mentioned, and generally to map out a sensible programme of work. After that preamble, I deal now with the detail of the other amendments.
      Amendments Nos. 64, 78 and 138 relate to the first day of the meeting of the forum. Paragraph 2 of schedule 2 leaves it to the Secretary of State to decide that day, subsequent meetings being at times of the forum's own choosing, subject to the calendar of the negotiations. The hon. Members for Upper Bann, for North Antrim and for Belfast, East all seek that it should be in the week following the election, although my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne is content that it should be not later than eight weeks from the date of the election.
      Mr. Wilshire: May I put it gently to my right hon. and learned Friend that to say that I am content with a period of eight weeks is rather overstating the case? I was seeking to make it impossible for the intervening period to exceed eight weeks, but I think that "within a week" would have been much more realistic.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I accept that. The same goes for another amendment, to which I shall turn shortly and which sets a limit or extremity.
      We envisage the forum's making an early start; we do not intend to delay. We expect it to begin its work long before the end of the eight-week period that my hon. Friend has in mind—as an extremity or limit. Equally, as I said on Second Reading, we do not envisage its meeting before 10 June. That date has long been set for the opening of negotiations. It is bound to be an extremely busy period, and it is not in the general interests of the Bill's provisions for the forum to meet before then.
      I understand the reasons that have led hon. Members to support amendments calling for the opening meeting to be held before the start of negotiations. As I said yesterday, the Bill is intended to provide a gateway to negotiations: that is reflected in its title. The primacy lies in the negotiations.
      That is not in any way to denigrate, undermine, sideline or reduce the importance that—as I have said—we attach to the forum's functions, but the Government believe that the negotiations should carry primacy. Consequently, we believe that the negotiations should open, and that the forum should meet as soon thereafter as practicable. As I have said, I want that to be delayed no longer than is necessary, and a sensible date to be fixed in the light of the progress of the negotiations.
      The manuscript amendment seeks to reflect the spirit of amendments Nos. 78 and 54. I am sympathetic to both, but I must make two comments. I feel that amendment No. 78, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, allows an unnecessarily wide discretion. I do not contemplate a delay of anything like eight weeks before the forum meets; I should like four weeks to be regarded as the maximum, and the manuscript amendment says as much. I stress that I envisage the forum's meeting well within four weeks.
      As for amendment No. 54, tabled by Opposition Members, we have made it clear that we do not envisage the forum's meeting before the start of the negotiations. In fact, the amendment refers to the second meeting's taking place after the start of the negotiations, but that is a mistake.

      301
      I am sympathetic to that amendment, and my manuscript amendment brings it together with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. The effect is to add a new sub-paragraph (2) to paragraph 2 of schedule 2. It places two conditions on me—that, when I set the time for the forum's first meeting, it should be after the start of the negotiations, and that, consistent with that, it should be as soon as possible after the elections, within a limit of four weeks.
      If, for some unforeseen reason, the start of the negotiations was delayed, the forum's first meeting would also be delayed. That is a remote contingency, and we see no reason to believe that it will arise, but it accounts for the language that my hon. Friend questioned.
      It follows from what I have said that we cannot commend amendments Nos. 64 and 138. Amendment No. 53 proposes that meetings of the forum should be held at locations, as well as times, decided by its members. That logically raises a question on which we have yet to reach final decisions. They will be subject to consultation about where the forum's main base should be. Castle buildings in Belfast is an obvious choice with a number of attractions, but we shall need to reflect further on that, in particular in relation to the desirability of having the public there.
      We shall, of course, welcome views about the possibility of the forum or its committees venturing away from the home base occasionally. We canvassed that in the consultation paper that we issued earlier in the year, and had it in mind in preparing the Bill.
      The Bill simply requires the Secretary of State to provide for the forum the use of premises, but we are ready to contemplate that, for example, in the course of hearing from different interests, a committee of the forum may wish to venture away from the Belfast. In that case, arrangements might be made for it to make use of premises elsewhere. That might be of great value in permitting the widest range of views to be accessible to the forum.
      That possibility is best dealt with by leaving the Bill as it is, subject to the assurance that I have given that we are ready to contemplate such hearings being held outside Belfast occasionally. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann said on Second Reading, there is a question of resources. The Secretary of State bears responsibility for them, and it would not be right for decisions about their use to be entirely out of his hands. On the understanding that we shall be ready to facilitate hearings away from the forum's home base occasionally, I hope that hon. Members will be willing to withdraw the amendments.
      Amendments Nos. 54, 59, 62, 25, 63 and 69 bear on paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3) of the schedule, and concern the times when the forum may meet. Amendment No. 54 is overtaken by our manuscript amendment. Amendment No. 62 was moved by the hon. Member for Upper Bann and seeks to have the provisions of paragraph 2(3) for excluding concurrent meetings of the negotiations and the forum apply only to forum plenary meetings. I think that the intention is that the meetings of forum committees would not be governed by the terms of any notification by the Secretary of State.
      The amendment is unnecessary. I am advised that, on a proper construction, paragraph 2(3) applies only to plenary meetings of the forum and not to committees. However, the meeting times of committees will fall to be
      302
      regulated by rules of procedure. The Government's starting point on this question is that it would be generally undesirable for there to be significant negotiation and forum business concurrently. That has a number of disadvantages. In particular, it could create serious difficulties for negotiating team members, who might find that they had two commitments at the same time. In some circumstances, concurrent meetings might be no less undesirable in the case of a forum committee.
      These matters are being debated in a Committee of the whole House, and it would be possible to envisage a committee of the whole forum. A meeting of such a committee would clearly raise the same sort of questions as a plenary meeting of the forum. However, we recognise that such a bar might occasionally be unhelpful to all concerned. We can discuss these matters when the rules of procedure are formulated. For the present, I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the amendment may be regarded as unnecessary.
      Amendment No. 63 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. It would confine the making of notification to times when the negotiations were being held in plenary meetings. There may be a misunderstanding here. Most of the negotiations are intended to take place in strands which are not, in the conception of the ground rules set out in the command paper, plenaries. Strict plenaries may not be very frequent, so the amendment would deprive paragraph 2(3) of most of its potential effect. I hope that my hon. Friend will be assured by that.
      Amendment No. 69 would amend paragraph 2(3), so that the Secretary of State had no power to prevent the holding of forum meetings for more than eight weeks. I have dealt with that. The amendment would prevent us from taking actions that in any event we would not consider taking. We see the forum proceeding in parallel with the negotiations, albeit concurrent sittings. We do not envisage any occasion to freeze out a block of time of anything approaching eight weeks.
      Mr. Wilshire: When my right hon and learned Friend spoke to amendment No. 63, he ascribed it to me. It is not my amendment, and I have no comment to make on it. I am not clear on what he said about amendment No. 69. I had the impression that he felt that he had dealt with it, but he proposes an amendment to it, and it relates to an entirely different issue from that of the manuscript amendment. It is about the first meeting of the forum. Can I take it, therefore, that he still accepts amendment No. 69, and is seeking to improve on it?
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Government's position is expressed in the manuscript amendment, which I have dealt with, and I have explained the reasons for that.
      Amendment No. 65 would insert a new sub-paragraph after paragraph 2(3) of schedule 2 requiring that the forum should be held in public, with a public gallery and facilities for broadcasting. Amendment No. 167 is to similar effect.
      We have listened with care to the views expressed about the value of publicity for the forum's proceedings by way of broadcasting and so on. I emphasise that there is potentially considerable scope for the forum to provide a valuable platform for wider participation in the debate

      303
      on how greater understanding and greater confidence are to be built throughout the community in Northern Ireland. It is clear that that purpose cannot be achieved unless the forum's proceedings are publicised and put within the reach of the man in the street.
      Therefore, substantially, we are at one with the thinking of hon. Members who have moved the amendments, within the limits of practicality. Just how fully we will be able to give effect to what they say will depend on the accommodation that we find for the forum. I have said that our consideration of that is proceeding, and that we are open to views about it. There are serious problems about Castle buildings. Equally, we share the views that have been expressed, and we think that it is important that there should be such publicity.
      Those are the assurances that I am able to give. They are substantial and important. In the circumstances at present, it is as far as I am able to go. I hope that that may practically and constructively inform the course that hon. Members will take.
      11 pm
      Mr. Trimble: The Secretary of State tried to offer an assurance that this part of the legislation, which we consider to be of no little importance, will still have some meaningful operational existence. He did so by reading a summary of how the forum might operate in terms of providing an opportunity for the public to be involved in the process and of the way in which it could take evidence from interested groups in the community and develop a dialogue on relevant issues. We have mentioned those things before and we view them as an important part of the forum.
      As I listened to the Secretary of State read that section of his speech, I wondered whether his mind was really engaged in what he was reading and saying. He does not seem to appreciate that, if dialogue and understanding are to develop—that will be essential if the negotiations are to prosper—and if there is to be that opportunity to involve the public and the thinking of other community members to inform the atmosphere and the context within which the negotiations take place, it is essential that the discussion and dialogue happen before the matters to which they might relate are dealt with in negotiations.
      A simple mistake has been made here which should not be made. It confuses precedence in terms of importance with priority in time. Just because a discussion or hearings take place in the forum, or forum meetings take place before the negotiations, that does not mean that we are according precedence in terms of importance to the forum as against the negotiations. The fact that one is before the other is not significant in terms of which we regard as the more important activity. If we get it the wrong way round in our time sequence, we are destroying what could be a fruitful operation. There is substance in what the Secretary of State read out, although he did not seem to be thinking about it. I want to ensure that that substance is achieved.
      We all hope that the negotiations will occur in a fruitful and positive atmosphere, but the amendment that the Secretary of State has tabled will have the contrary effect.
      304
      I think that when he received instructions from Dublin to move that amendment, he should have thought about it and spoken to them and the rest of us before accepting it.
      Mr. Wilshire: I apologise for labouring a point that I raised in an intervention, but I regret that I am still not clear about exactly what is being proposed for my amendments.
      Amendment No. 78 deals specifically with paragraph 2(1) of schedule 2. My proposal is that the first meeting of the forum should take place within eight weeks. The Government originally tabled an amendment proposing four weeks. We now have a manuscript amendment which relates specifically to paragraph 2(1), which is about the first meeting. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that the manuscript amendment relates to the first meeting of the forum.
      Amendment No. 69 deals with paragraph 2(3), which as I understand it, is not covered by the manuscript amendment. I contend that my second amendment raises an entirely different issue—the power of the Secretary of State to suspend subsequent meetings after the first meeting. We have on the amendment paper a Government amendment that is not affected by the manuscript amendment. Earlier today, the Government were willing to table an amendment to my amendment in respect of the power to suspend subsequent meetings. Nothing that I have heard has brought my second issue within the ambit of the manuscript amendment. Is my right hon. and learned Friend still willing to accept my second amendment, which covers subsequent meetings, and does he still intend to proceed with his amendment to my amendment, which is not covered by the manuscript amendment? That is an important point.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: Let me make things clear, as I do not think that I have done so. I have tabled an amendment which would set the upper limit at four weeks, which I would consider to be the absolute outside of the sort of delay that we would contemplate. That is in connection with what I was talking about earlier. Subject to that, I accept amendment No. 69. I believe that that deals with what my hon. Friend has in mind.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for accepting my second amendment, and in the same spirit, I will accept his amendment to my second amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Manuscript amendment made: in page 8, line 3 at end insert—
      '() The time decided under sub-paragraph (1) shall be—

      (a) after the commencement of negotiations within section 2, and

      (b) within, or as soon as possible after the expiry of, the period of four weeks beginning with the date of the poll in the elections.'.—[Sir Patrick Mayhew.]

      Amendment made: No. 25, in schedule 2, page 8, line 8, leave out 'may' and insert 'are intended to'.—[Mr. Peter Robinson.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 69, in schedule 2, page 8, line 9, at end insert
      'but the Secretary of State shall not prevent the holding of a meeting for more than eight consecutive weeks.'.—[Mr. Wilshire.]
      Amendment made to the proposed amendment: (a), in line 2, leave out 'eight' and insert 'four'.—[Sir Patrick Mayhew.]
      Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 139, in page 8, line 13, leave out
      'and approved by the Secretary of State.'
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 58, in page 8, line 15, after 'quorum', insert
      'and the requirement that decisions of the forum on the subject matter of its deliberations shall 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. 55, in page 8, line 18, at end insert—
      '(4) In exercising his functions under sub-paragraphs (1) and (3) above, the Secretary of State shall make every effort to secure that the rules of procedure of the forum facilitate the promotion of dialogue, understanding and consensus across the communities in Northern Ireland.'.
      No. 56, in page 8, line 23, leave out
      'on a vote by at least 75 per cent. of those voting'
      and insert
      'by 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. 71, in page 8, line 23, leave out '75' and insert '67'.
      No. 175, in page 8, line 23, leave out '75' and insert '60'.
      No. 66, in page 8, line 27, leave out from 'defamation' to the end of line.
      Mr. Robinson: The amendment addresses the pervasive powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in almost every area of activity relating to the forum. The forum is being asked to undertake a simple task. There have been a number of bodies in Northern Ireland in the past, and none of them has had any real difficulties in agreeing its rules and procedures. I recall that a task was undertaken under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim on an earlier occasion and, with all the parties present, was passed without any great difficulty.
      The Secretary of State's approval of the work carried out by the democratically elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland in the forum is quite unnecessary. What factors will be informing his approval? What exactly are the criteria that will determine whether he approves the rules of procedure? Can he envisage the problems that would be created if the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland were to agree rules of procedure of which he did not approve?
      I would not have balked if the Secretary of State had recognised that some degree of weighting was required for the rules to be passed by the forum, but he does not go down that road. He wants to take for himself the power to approve or reject those rules. It is neither sensible nor comfortable for the Secretary of State to hold those powers. It would be better to leave it to the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, and I trust that the Secretary of State will recognise the wisdom of that.
      Mr. McGrady: If amendment No. 58 were accepted, paragraph 3(2) would read:
      306
      "The rules of procedure of the forum shall include provision for a quorum, and the requirement that decisions of the forum and the subject matter of its deliberations shall 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."
      To be consistent with that, if amendment No. 56, the second amendment that we have tabled, were accepted, paragraph 4(b), which relates to the election or removal of a chairman or the alteration of the rules of procedure, would read:
      "it is approved by 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."
      The amendments are in partnership and deal again with the question of consensus. You may have noticed, Sir Geoffrey, that on many amendments dealing with the elections and the forum, it has been a theme of my party that the concept of consensus be at the forefront of our deliberations on all such matters.
      There is a temptation to argue that a weighted majority of 75 per cent. is some sort of panacea, or a substitute for a consensus, but unless there is consensus among the representatives of both broad communities in Northern Ireland, there will be no real consensus, and no matter how high a percentage is achieved in terms of the majority ruling, it simply will not work.
      Our amendments would create the ethos necessary for a successful conclusion to the negotiations that will run alongside the forum. As there is consensus on the Committee between the Government and the Opposition, it would be appropriate if that element of consensus could also be applied to the deliberations that we hope to have in the negotiations and the forum.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Peter Robinson: As he attempts to persuade the Committee to support his amendment, the hon. Gentleman will see that some of us might have some difficulty in recognising its terms, because it would require a majority of both the Unionist and the nationalist community representatives. It has already been suggested that the representatives of the nationalist community who stand under the label of Sinn Fein will not take their seats in the forum, and that would reduce the number of elected representatives from the nationalist community who would be there. Is the hon. Gentleman telling the Committee that those people intend to be present in the forum? Without their presence, the amendment would have no meaning.
      Mr. McGrady: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I recognise the path down which he is trying to lead me. I am simply attempting to ensure that those who attend the forum, whoever they may be and from whatever party they may come, will deal one with another on the basis of consent and consensus, not on the basis of majoritarian rule. It is most important that the concept of majoritarian rule be eliminated as far as possible. No weighted majority of 75 per cent.—or, indeed, of any other ad hoc fraction or percentage—should be applied to the deliberations of the forum.
      I support the amendments on behalf of my party, not with any intention of curtailing or restricting anything, but simply according to the fundamental principle that

      307
      consensus in a debate that aims to find a solution is the only way in which we can move forward. In that very simple way, I commend both amendments to the Committee.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: In responding to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), I must say something about the concepts of majoritarianism and consensus. "Majoritarianism" seems to be a denigrating reference to the democratic principle that in any body in which there is a difference of opinion, matters are usually decided by a majority of those present. However, it is recognised that in some circumstances the issues to be determined are so grave and significant that it is necessary to have more than a bare majority. I think that the constitution of the United States of America may be changed by a majority of 75 per cent. That figure is reckoned to be a significant loading of a simple majority in such circumstances.
      I am somewhat bemused by the concept of consensus. I know the phrase from my experience of the law, where the parties to a contract are said to require a consensus ad idem, so that they are thinking about the same thing when they arrive at the subject matter of their contract. However, the way in which the hon. Member for South Down uses the word "consensus" suggests that nothing can be agreed unless the tiniest minority accepts it. That is a dog-in-the-manger's charter. People could sit there and as long as they did not participate in the magical process of consensus, nothing could be done. If we are to be honoured in the negotiating process by the presence of Sinn Fein, the magical process of consensus would render invalid any conclusion reached by those present if it insisted on its primary ideas of Brits out and self-determination on an all-Ireland basis.
      Mr. McGrady: I do not want to delay the Committee by reading it all, but paragraph 24 of the ground rules, to which the amendment refers, states:
      "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."
      That is my definition of consensus, as referred to in the amendments.
      Mr. McCartney: I am grateful for that clarification, but the hon. Gentleman used the term "a clear majority". I should have thought that 75 per cent. was a clear majority, but that is the majority to which he appears to take exception. When is a clear majority not a clear majority? He and his party would undoubtedly claim, if 50 per cent. plus one of the people could be made to favour a united Ireland, that on the basis of the Anglo-Irish agreement legislation should immediately be put in train to ship everyone in Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and into a united Ireland. Would we hear any talk in those circumstances about this wonderful concept of consensus? I fear not.
      Mr. William Ross: I was hoping that the hon. and learned Gentleman would draw the Committee's attention
      308
      to the recent vote on the proposed break-up of Canada and how small a majority it took to prevent that. We are talking about the possibility of breaking up the United Kingdom. He may care to follow that line of reasoning.
      Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
      The other term that is now bandied about as a term of abuse is majoritarianism. In so far as it is in political usage, that word applies to a majority that governs, or attempts to govern, without any concern for the constitutional, legal or human rights of minorities. When it is used in contradistinction to democratic majority government, it generally carries that suggestion. The hon. Member for South Down uses it with less discipline. Majoritarianism simply means the ordinary democratic practice of giving significant attention to the wishes of a majority. The House should look carefully at apparently reasonable terms such as "consensus" and "majoritarianism".
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I have been following the hon. and learned Gentleman carefully. When the Prime Minister, whom one would think would know what his Government were doing, replied to the Leader of the Opposition, he said:
      "Apart from that, of course, I see the election providing, by weighted majority vote, an initial mechanism for testing widespread acceptability within Northern Ireland of the outcome of any talks process."—[Official Report, 24 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 357.]
      The Prime Minister said that that majority, which would be a clear majority if it was weighted, was sufficient, but when we come into the realm of consensus, we do not know anything. We are just told, "Let us have consensus." We cannot get consensus if one party says, "We are not having it." That can be a tiny party, but it still can break the consensus.
      Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is correct in his interpretation. The idea of a weighted majority is to provide some sort of mechanism to ensure that a minority is protected. It seems that, in this case, the Bill suggests a majority of 75 per cent. The fact that that is niggled at gives an idea of what is likely to occur when a consensus, according to the definition of the hon. Member for South Down, is ultimately sought in any negotiations.
      Mr. Worthington: I shall speak to amendment No. 55, which has been tabled in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself.
      We should like to make our contribution on the role of the forum through its rules of procedure. We have no doubt that the forum could be valuable. It could be extremely useful, but it will be so only if it is not a threatening place; if it is not about victories and defeats. What we are about is setting up negotiations and alongside them a forum whereby people can broaden their understanding. We are not setting up a political decision-making place, but something which, as the Prime Minister said, has as its nearest equivalent the forum for peace and reconciliation that has been meeting in Dublin. This forum will have a democratic underpinning, in that the way in which the people will get to the forum will be through an election process.
      Our model for the rules of procedure is very much like that which the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) mentioned, which has been agreed

      309
      between the Governments and is in paragraph 24 of the Command Paper. The forum is also a form of peace talks. It is not about political decision making. It is about broadening dialogue, understanding and consensus. Paragraph 24 says:
      "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."
      That seems to us to have a great deal of virtue and value to it. It says that what we are doing in the negotiations at the outset is seeking consensus that will lead to a long-lasting agreement. At this stage, we believe that everything—whether in the forum or in the peace talks—should be about seeking consensus, dialogue and understanding. We believe that if paragraph 24 is good enough for the negotiations, it is good enough for the forum.
      11.30 pm
      It is important that we have such a framework, such an inclusive mechanism, if the forum is to attract and to hold all parties. It must be remembered that membership of the forum is voluntary. It is important that the forum be seen as being valuable for everyone who attends it. That has been one of the successes of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. People were sceptical of that forum to start with, but those who attended it found it to be valuable and they sought a broad consensus across the communities—and we should be seeking that as well.
      On checking with the lawyers about tabling an amendment on this matter, we found that we would be faced with technical problems in relation to embracing the words in paragraph 24, and that what was good enough for a Command Paper was not good enough for a piece of legislation. Perhaps the Minister can explain that in his reply. We found that if we wanted to have any success in tabling an amendment on the rules of the procedure, we could not use the original words without the lawyers objecting to the form of them.
      Mr. McGrady: There is already a precedent in clause 2, which states:
      "The negotiations mentioned in section 1 are the negotiations referred to in Command Paper 3232 presented to Parliament on 16th April 1996."
      If it is possible to have the Command Paper mentioned in one part of the Bill, surely it is appropriate and logical to have it mentioned in another part of the Bill. I am not a legal person, and I may stand corrected.
      Mr. Worthington: It takes one to know one—I am not a legal person either. We believe that there would be problems in putting forward paragraph 24 in that way and having it accepted by the Government as legislatively pure. We are seeking an overarching principle which governs the rules of procedure, which inspires the forum, and which tells it the grounds on which the Secretary of State will approve the rules of procedure. The rules of procedure that are derived from the forum have to go to the Secretary of State for approval.
      Our amendment tries to provide the Secretary of State and the forum with the principles on which the rules of procedure would be approved. That is why we have put it forward in this way. The Secretary of State is given the duty to
      310
      "make every effort to secure that the rules of procedure of the forum facilitate the promotion of dialogue, understanding and consensus across the communities in Northern Ireland."
      If the forum is to have the rules approved by the Secretary of State, it must pursue that route. It is a question of style. On Second Reading, I said that at this stage of its political development, the forum should be pursuing a Select Committee style in the way that it operates, rather than the style that we are using tonight. The forum has to draw up the rules of procedure, and it must know that they will be approved only if they meet this yardstick. The Secretary of State has to draw up the first guidelines.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand what the hon. Gentleman means when he talks about Select Committee style, but on occasions Select Committees divide, and sometimes there is a difference of one vote.
      Mr. Worthington: Yes. The hon. Gentleman has been a long-standing member of a Select Committee of the House and, if that Select Committee is like most Select Committees, most of its reports have been unanimous. Does he agree?
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Yes, most of them. Nevertheless, Select Committees do divide regularly and one cannot always obtain consensus; allowance must be made for that.
      Mr. Worthington: As the hon. Gentleman knows, in Select Committees miracles are frequently achieved which would not be anticipated at the outset of the investigation. We are simply saying that people should enter the forum in the frame of mind in which people enter Select Committee.
      The point I was making before I took that valuable intervention was that the Secretary of State must draw up the first guidelines. Obviously, if the amendment is accepted, he must follow his own guidelines of seeking to promote "dialogue, understanding and consensus"—the mandate that is given by our amendment.
      The forum will have a year of guaranteed life, to the end of May 1997, after which the Secretary of State may extend it for a further year. When it starts, it will have less than a year of guaranteed life. It would be unprecedented—the evidence of this evening bears that out—if the Northern Ireland forum were simply to meet and say, "We agree on the rules of procedure, " so there may be more than one or two months in which the forum seeks to approve its rules of procedure, although it would be simplest, if the Secretary of State got it right, for the forum to adopt those rules of procedure.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The first Northern Ireland Assembly and the second Northern Ireland Assembly—with more power than the forum that we are discussing—and the Constitutional Convention established their rules and procedures in about 10 days. If they could do so, surely this forum can establish its rules and procedures—which will be simpler than full parliamentary rules and procedures—in 10 days. Moreover, the Minister concerned called the leaders of the parties together before each assembly met and said, "Let us look at some rules for the first day so that, at the first meeting, we can have something on board to keep us right for the first day's proceedings." Can that be done again?
      Mr. Worthington: I am inspired by the hon. Gentleman's words, and look forward to him pulling off

      311
      another miracle. I look forward to him rising to that challenge, so that within 10 days of the forum being established, it comes forward with rules of procedure that facilitate dialogue, understanding and consensus.
      This issue is crucial to the success of the forum. Unless a broad consensus is pursued, the forum will not work. A forum at which everyone is not present is unbalanced and will not succeed. If everyone came to that forum using those guidelines, those rules of procedure, the forum could contribute a great deal.
      Mr. William Ross: I shall speak on one amendment standing in my name and one standing in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann and myself.
      I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). He proposed apple pie and motherhood and we moved through pious hope back into the age of miracles. It gives me hope that anything is possible, not only in Northern Ireland, but in the House. We might even see hon. Members on the two Front Benches agreeing on the things that divide them before we are much older if this goes on—but I would not hold my breath.
      Before we go too far down that road, perhaps we should pour a bucket of cold reality over ourselves. We did not arrive at the concept—as espoused by the SDLP and others—of support by a clear majority in each community overnight or by accident. I am sure that we recall when votes were taken in Northern Ireland on the basis of a simple majority—and the House still holds with that principle. We then witnessed the erosion of Unionist power through changes in the electoral system designed to break up the "Unionist monolith"—they were the words used in this place. That did not work, and now the Government have thrust upon us a monstrous system of government. It was certainly not suggested by anyone in Northern Ireland and it is not acceptable to anyone there, as the Minister well knows.
      We have seen the slow shift from a simple majority to a weighted majority of 60 per cent., 65 per cent. and now 75 per cent. The step beyond that is a majority in both communities. We have come a long way, yet people are asking for still more. If we debate the matter in a year or two, they will demand a majority of 90 per cent. plus a clear majority across the communities.
      The effect of the 75 per cent. figure is that the gunmen will have to be brought on board in order to achieve it. That is the intention of the proposal—we should not run away from that simple, clear fact. We are not talking about enabling parties that are democratic in attitude and in practice to take decisions; we are talking about satisfying the gunmen. In the past 25 years, it has been my experience that the gunman adopts a very simple approach: "Do what I tell you, or I will kill you,"—and he will. Once Parliament and this country understand that, they will adopt the same jaundiced view of the 75 per cent. that I have. That is why my amendment No. 175 proposes 60 per cent., which would allow majority decisions to be taken without forcing the democratic parties to bow to the gunmen and appeal to their non-existent better nature. I ask the Government to respond to that proposition.
      312
      According to the heading, this group of amendments involves three different issues: procedure, privilege and valid decisions. I draw the Committee's attention to amendment No. 66, which reads:
      "Schedule 2, page 8, line 27, leave out from 'defamation' to the end of the line".
      The amendment would omit from schedule 2 the words:
      "unless it is proved to have been made with malice".
      I know that there are many lawyers in this place and that they love words that they can twist and make money from. Every lawyer must have pricked up his ears at those words.
      I imagine that it is extremely difficult to prove malice. In the light of that and the fact that I do not wish to see endless court cases involving members of the forum defending themselves against allegations of malice—we are not told whether it is personal or political malice, or malice in general—we have tabled that sensible and reasonable amendment, which omits the offending words. If the Minister wishes them to remain, he should tell us why. I do not believe that that restriction applies to utterances made in this place or in the previous bodies set up in Northern Ireland. It is a simple and acceptable amendment, and I have great pleasure in commending it to the Committee. I hope that the Minister will shorten the proceedings by accepting it and by taking on board my comments about weighted majorities.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Soley: I hope to persuade the Minister to proceed along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), because amendments Nos. 58, 55 and 56 would take us where I thought the Government wanted to go. The Minister will recall that, when the Prime Minister made the statement in the House about the proposal to set up the elections and the forum, he responded positively to my request that the body should, to a considerable extent, mirror the forum for peace and reconciliation in Dublin. It was recognised that that forum had made significant progress in trying to understand the needs, fears and anxieties of the two communities represented in the north of Ireland, as well as addressing other issues. I understand that that forum did that and proceeded without votes, so I am not convinced that there is a good argument for votes in the forum under the Bill.
      If we want to encourage discussion—I hope that the forum will not only encourage discussion but take evidence from different groups in Northern Ireland—the forum will work better without votes. We should give the people of Northern Ireland a voice in the forum, rather as we might do here in Select Committees or in Special Standing Committees, and enable people to give evidence to it, because that could be very valuable and would help to cross some of the divides in Northern Ireland.
      The problem of votes is the 70 per cent. problem which has been mentioned by several Unionist Members. I believe that it is clear that we need to work by consensus in Northern Ireland. It is perhaps necessary to say that again, because it is not always accepted by some of the Unionist Members, but I believe it is accepted by the vast majority of other right hon. and hon. Members. We require consensus, not because we are following some grand principle of democracy in a precise design in Northern Ireland but because we recognise that in

      313
      Northern Ireland—as I said in an earlier speech—the political system has broken down. When political systems break down, people turn to violence.
      At the moment, the level of violence in Northern Ireland is lower than it has been for some 25 years. That does not justify the level of violence that exists, but the level is lower than it has been for the past 25 years. It would be encouraging if we could keep it that way, and that is why we want people talking to rather than killing each other. That is what we are about when we debate the Bill. We are here tonight to pass what is, by any definition, an extraordinary piece of legislation, precisely because the system in Northern Ireland has broken down. That is why we have direct rule, and if we did not we would all be at home tucked up in bed, as we know. But because the political system has broken down, we are looking for different methods from those normally applied in a parliamentary system.
      If we proceed along the lines suggested in amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 58, we could take out the contention caused by voting and we could proceed by consensus. It is also very important for the Bill to contain some recognition, as the Command Paper does—it is spelt out clearly in the Command Paper—that when decisions have to be made, especially on key issues, they should be by a majority of those representing the nationalist community and a majority of those representing the Unionist community. In that way, we could get around the problem, which one of the Unionist Members feared, that any little party, Unionist or republican, could veto progress. A little party could not veto progress because, as the Command Paper rightly points out, there would have to be a majority of both Unionists and nationalists. If we put that in the Bill and knock out the requirement for voting, we have the possibility of a forum that mirrors the one that took place in Dublin, which was very successful.
      Such a forum would not threaten anyone or cause the fears that exist in Northern Ireland among Unionists and republicans alike and, above all, it would recognise the problem—which we all face, whether we are Northern Ireland Members or not—that Northern Ireland is a divided community. Until we can find a political system that works in Northern Ireland and represents the needs of both the majority and the minority communities, the system will continue to fail. If we do not want to lurch back into the extreme forms of violence that have been suffered by both the Unionist and republican communities, and suffered at the hands of Unionists and republicans alike, we have a serious duty to address the problem.
      The amendments do that. They take out the problems of voting, some of which have been picked up by Unionist Members concerned about the figure of 70 per cent., or by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who has just suggested a figure of 60 per cent., and put in a consensus way of working which mirrors the forum, which was the Prime Minister's intention, and also put in the safeguard of a majority of representatives from the nationalist and Unionist communities.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: To come back to reality, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that when Sinn Fein-IRA took part in the forum for peace and reconciliation in Dublin, surrounded by all its natural friends and associates within the nationalist community,
      314
      it was unable to reach a consensus. How realistic is it then to expect that consensus can be reached within Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Soley: No one has claimed, least of all me, that this is a quick and easy solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. What I am saying—the alternative which is being suggested by the Unionists—is that it is very unrealistic to suggest that we can just go back to something that existed before the breakdown of the Northern Ireland political system. If we do not accept that—this is something which we must all address—we are saying that we are prepared to go back to the violence in Northern Ireland as it has been during the past 25 years. Frankly, we are not prepared to do that.
      As I said earlier, the reason why the Labour and Tory parties are closer to each other on that issue than they are to either of the Unionist parties in the House, and the reason why the British and Irish Governments are so close, is that we are determined not to go back to that violence. After a period of benign neglect of Northern Ireland, which broke down in 1969, we lurched into a period of crisis management under successive Governments. Only when we had the Anglo-Irish Agreement did we have a policy which we began to follow through which has its logical consequence in the Bill. We now have policies which we are following jointly with the Irish Government and we are being realistic and saying that, if we do not want to go back to violence, if we do not want people in Northern Ireland to go back to killing each other, and we do not, we must get them talking to each other. The Government are attempting to get them talking to each other.
      What we are suggesting, through the amendments, is that we do not fall into the trap of having a dispute about voting levels—70 or 60 per cent.—that we work on the basis of consensus and, that where it is necessary for decisions to be taken, they are taken, as is clearly set out in the Command Paper, by a majority of representatives from the republican and Unionist communities.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about the Anglo-Irish Agreement. If the Anglo-Irish Agreement was such a wonderful thing, as he thinks it was, and was bringing us away from partition to paradise, why are we having this forum? We are told that the forum is to seek a way away from the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to get—I quote—a "broader" agreement under which people can work. If the agreement was such a wonderful panacea for our ills, why should we want anything broader?
      Mr. Soley: I do not want to rehearse whether the Anglo-Irish Agreement was wonderful. I do not claim that it was wonderful. I actually said that there was a change from a policy of crisis management to a policy whereby the British Government—Labour and Tory—have been prepared to work with the Irish Government in solving what is essentially a joint problem and in helping the two divided communities in Northern Ireland to come together in a political system that works. That is why we are here.
      I know that Unionist members do not like that, but it is important to understand that, in my judgment, no British Government will ever go back to the old Stormont Government. They will never allow that to happen. If that is the case, unless the Unionists are prepared to live with

      315
      the idea of direct rule for ever, which is not exactly a desirable way of running Northern Ireland, we must come up with a workable solution in Northern Ireland.
      A workable solution means compromise and talks between the Unionist and nationalist communities. The necessary structure is there, and the Government have today moved a considerable way towards it. I am urging the Secretary of State to move towards a more sophisticated version of it, despite the fact that I seem to be having a debate with the Unionist parties. Let us get rid of the voting aspect of the structure, which is divisive—even the Unionists are disputing the 70 per cent., 60 per cent. or 50 per cent. Figure—and proceed by consensus. Where that does not happen, we should proceed on the basis of the support of a majority of the representatives of nationalists and a majority of the representatives of the Unionists. That is the way forward, and I strongly recommend it.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The fact is that the House said that it would do away with Stormont and it did so—I was here when it happened. I said that what had existed before was a Sunday school picnic and that we would now experience the real thing. The then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), said that I was speaking nonsense. He should look at what has happened since then: more people were killed in a week than were killed under 50 years of so-called Unionist misrule. Indeed, more people were killed in a few hours than were killed in the entire 50 years.
      Parliament should consider what it has done in Northern Ireland. It says that it is working realistically, but was the Anglo-Irish Agreement brought about by consensus? It is ridiculous to hear in this place that the Anglo-Irish Agreement represents the first time that we escaped crisis management. In fact, it launched the greatest divide seen in Northern Ireland for many years. It polarised all parts of the community. Even the leader of the SDLP at the time said that the British Government must face down the Unionists. In other words, consensus means facing down the Unionists.
      What of the fact that the great Anglo-Irish Agreement was found to be a complete failure? The Government then moved to the Downing street declaration, which also failed. It produced nothing. They then moved to the framework document and thought that the Unionists would sit down and negotiate themselves out of the United Kingdom and into a united Ireland. That failed, too. They then said that there would have to be all-party talks, but they failed. Finally, the Government turned back to the only thing to which a democracy can return—the granite rock of having an election and letting the people speak.
      Some hon. Members do not like the fact that we are to have an election. They are going so to rig the elected body that it is not even to be allowed to prepare its own rules by the use of a vote. The first assembly voted on the rules; the second assembly voted on the rules; and the convention voted on the rules. I was on all those bodies and on every rules committee.
      On important matters we could have a weighted majority. If people are afraid about some issue, I should be happy to say the measure will not be passed. If there
      316
      is great controversy, let us have a requirement for 75 per cent. approval. That is reasonable. I sit in the Strasbourg assembly where some votes involve a weighted majority. There is nothing undemocratic about those votes, but they relate to specific issues.
      If hon. Members think that the elected representatives of Northern Ireland do not have enough wit to sit down and draw up a few rules and regulations, but that we need a long debate because those representatives are ignorant and must be guided by their parent's big cane and must be called into the back room by the Secretary of State, I have to tell them that that is not the way to work with people.
      Parliament should let the Northern Ireland representatives draw up their own rules and get on with their business. For hon. Members to tell the people of Northern Ireland that they can have no votes but must reach consensus on everything is ridiculous and is no way to proceed. The House of Commons, which took it on itself to do away with the structures of government in Northern Ireland, has sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind.
      Let us face it: there is to be an election. People will be elected, and they will have views. They will know the situation: they will have lived with it and suffered with it. Surely those people will know how to make progress, and how to draw up a few rules for the running of a forum. I do not see any great obstacle, and I am amazed that the Committee has spent so long discussing something that should not present an obstacle to anyone.
      12 midnight
      Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) explained the nature of Northern Ireland society very well. It is a divided society, and, moreover, one in which large elements peacefully challenge the legitimacy of the very state itself, and its right to exist in its present form. We are trying to establish institutions that will reconcile the interests of those who look to Westminster for support and encouragement, and those who look to Dublin.
      The problem is the lack of conviction in Northern Ireland society that legitimate ideas and aspirations—even from the foundation of the statelet—were being recognised by the Government and the institutions of the day. We as a society, and we as a House, are not working on the basis of a simple majority decision. We know what the result would be if there were simple majority decisions in Northern Ireland. That does not mean that the majority do not have rights and must be subservient to the minority, but it does mean that the rights and aspirations of the minority must also be recognised, and that the minority must not be overpowered by the majority.
      In establishing the forum, we intended to create a body in which no one would feel under threat. People would be able to have their say on matters on which it was agreed that they should have a say, and would not feel that, under rules or procedures, they would be gagged or bullied or that decisions would be made that—even if they had no legislative, administrative or executive effect—nevertheless prejudiced their position. That is why Labour amendment No. 55—which I understand the Government may view sympathetically—is so important, although it is not the amendment that I would have tabled; I would have tabled an amendment more in line with the proposals of

      317
      my hon. Friends in the SDLP. I do not understand, and have yet to hear the Government explain coherently, why it is possible to refer to Command Paper 3232 in clause 2 but not in schedule 2.
      The Labour amendment applies not only to the rules that will be drawn up by the forum as such but to the rules that the Secretary of State will introduce, under which the forum will first meet. It is therefore of the utmost importance for us to understand what "consensus" means in the amendment. Do the Government accept that, broadly, it is the same as the concept in paragraph 24 of the Command Paper? If so, we shall have framed regulations that will enable all the participants in the forum to express opinions without fear or favour and without the fear of bullying, and to know that the conclusions that result will be supported by the majority in each community. Such conclusions are likely to be accepted, carried through and supported by the whole community and not just by majorities in each section of it. That is the way to go forward.
      We are not debating a British, Westminster situation. Everybody does not say, "Yes, we accept the rules of the game and the present nature of the state." It is a different situation altogether. I am worried by the suggestion that some rules may be changed by a majority of 75 per cent. voting for that. The reason for that concern is that if a grouping on either side—probably, although not necessarily, on the nationalist side—has sufficient numbers and decides, for whatever reason, to boycott the assembly, there will not be a block of 25 per cent. of the votes to prevent the evils that I spoke about earlier.
      It may be argued that in such circumstances the Secretary of State, who must approve the rules, could veto it, but the damage would have been done, and we must seek to avoid that. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Minister of State will explain how the Secretary of State will draw up the rules. Will he start with a consensus rule similar to that in the White Paper with the same purpose, push and ideas as that advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith? If there is such a rule, we can have some confidence in the forum, which I have never regarded as being important. However, if it is to go ahead it should have fair rules which are properly drawn up and in which people can have confidence.
      If people feel that in one way or another their position is likely to be abused in the forum, they are not likely to attend and we may end up in the situation that pertained in the earlier assembly. That would be the worst of all possible worlds.
      Mr. Ancram: This has been a useful and full debate. I will take the Committee through the amendments and give the Government's view. Amendment No. 139 was moved by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and seeks to omit the last seven words from paragraph 3(1) of the schedule. That would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to approve the
      "rules of procedure determined by the members of the forum".
      We all hope that, as far as possible, the forum should not only regulate its own procedure but should operate under a broad consensus. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made a powerful plea for the forum to operate in that way. Of course there are difficulties about making the right provision to enable that to happen. A balance has to be struck. For example, it would not be right to prescribe unanimity so that one member could derail proceedings.
      318
      Plainly, the rules of procedure will be important. The requirement for the approval of the Secretary of State for them is a valuable safeguard that should not be dispensed with. In the light of that, the Government cannot accept the amendment.
      Amendment No. 58 was from a different direction. As I have said, I have taken careful note of what has been said about the importance of the forum operating, if at all possible, on the basis of consensus and agreement between the parties that will constitute it. I gladly reiterate that we believe that that is the right principle and that the rules of procedure could have a significant role to play in helping the parties to work together to develop the dialogue and understanding that is part of the forum's purpose.
      It is also clear, however, that the effectiveness of the rules in bringing about the right consensual spirit will depend on the parties' willingness to work together. To foster co-operation, it may not be right to lay down a highly formalised framework at the start. There could be a danger that rules that are viewed as too prescriptive could have the opposite effect of that intended, perhaps requiring parties to focus more on what divides them than on what they have in common. There is therefore a danger that, in specifying the need for particular majorities to enable the forum to determine its business, amendment No. 58 might build in an element of confrontation which could otherwise be avoided.
      In that matter, I have considerable sympathy with the point made on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who said:
      "The rules of procedure … cannot be about majorities and minorities."—[Official Report, 18 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 928.]
      He went on to say that they must be about the construction of dialogue, understanding and consensus throughout the communities.
      I accept, of course, that the test that amendment No. 58 is seeking to import to the forum reflects that set out for the negotiations in the Command Paper. I say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that, earlier in these deliberations, I mentioned that phrases such as Unionist and nationalist do not necessarily have a legal status and that the application and interpretation of such phrases could cause all sorts of problems. The fact that the Bill refers to the Command Paper does not mean that it adopts everything in the paper as part of statute.
      It is not certain anyway that what is appropriate for the negotiations, with their smaller numbers and ground rules, which have already been published, would be appropriate for the forum. It is worth reminding hon. Members that the ground rules make it clear that, although they set out the general area within which agreement, we hope, will be found:
      "The rules for establishing sufficient consensus will be agreed in advance of negotiations by the participants".
      It is also worth recollecting that, even within those rules, there are different ways in which their purpose could be met. That must be a matter for discussion between the parties before they come to an agreement as to how, for instance, a qualification such as
      "a clear majority in both the unionist and nationalist communities"
      might be measured within the negotiating process. It is important, therefore, that we do not feel that, because something may be appropriate in principle in one area, it

      319
      should be adopted lock, stock and barrel in another. I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. Member for South Down, but I appreciate his point. We will reflect on how that might be dealt with in the rules of procedure.
      The Bill already provides that, to be settled, the rules of procedure must be approved by a vote of 75 per cent. of those voting and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie would, in effect, place a duty on my right hon. and learned Friend, in exercising the functions of drawing up the initial rules and approving any subsequent set submitted by the forum, to make every effort to secure that the rules should facilitate the promotion of dialogue, understanding and consensus throughout the communities in Northern Ireland.
      In the light of our view that consensus in desirable in the working of the forum and that those other elements are already part of the forum's purpose—I am pleased to hear the clear importance that other hon. Members attach to those—in the interests of maximising the chances of all parties working together constructively in the forum, I am willing to accept the amendment and the duty that it carries.
      Obviously, at this stage it is too early for me to say how exactly we shall discharge the duty or how the rules will, in the event, be framed to promote dialogue, understanding and consensus, but I can say that, in approaching the duty, we will take careful account of what has been said during the debate and aim to consult the parties not only on the extent and nature of the initial rules that we shall make, but on the provision that, in the parties' views, should be made in the rules to facilitate that promotion of dialogue, understanding and consensus, therefore looking for the positive side of it, which should characterise both the forum and the negotiations.
      Mr. Trimble: I find the Minister's decision to accept the amendment interesting, and possibly fruitful. As I understand it, in framing the initial rules that will operate before the forum draws up its own rules, the Secretary of State will be imposing upon himself a duty to facilitate understanding and consensus. Am I to take it from this that in drawing up those rules the Secretary of State has imposed upon himself a duty to consult and to seek agreement with the people who will be members of the forum? That will mark a significant change of approach in the way in which the Secretary of State has handled matters in connection with the Bill, and we welcome that.
      12.15 am
      Mr. Ancram: Obviously, if one is to set up procedures and rules that are to work on the basis of consensus, one wishes to carry with one those who will be operating them. That is why I repeat that it will be our aim to consult the parties not only on the extent and nature of the initial rules, but on the provision that should be made in the rules to facilitate the promotion of dialogue, understanding and consensus. I repeat that, because in all our debates we have the negative and the positive. When talking about consensus, I am looking for positive contributions as well as contributions of concern.
      Mr. McNamara: I am not trying to be clever, but what do the Government and the Minister define as consensus?
      Mr. Ancram: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is not trying to be clever, but he is trying to pre-empt what, in the ground rules, is to be left for discussion with the parties. Essentially, if the hon. Gentleman looks again—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to hear the answer having asked the question; if he does, perhaps he will do me the courtesy of listening. In paragraph 24 of the ground rules, the hon. Gentleman will see that the parties will have to get together before the negotiations to agree on how that sufficiency of consensus will operate. It is right, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, that in looking for agreements the parties should be consulted and that we do not lay down hard and fast rules at this time.
      Mr. Soley: I am grateful for the Minister's response generally, but can he tell me whether my suggestion that the forum should be able to take evidence will be considered? There are many groups from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland who have many useful things to say and enable people to cross the divide that has been so destructive in the past.
      Mr. Ancram: I am sorry that I did not respond to that part of the hon. Gentleman's comments. In the debate on the previous set of amendments, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that he saw that as being a major purpose of the forum. We have looked closely at the lesson of certain elements of the forum in Dublin in terms of the valuable work that this forum will be able to do.
      Amendment No. 56 focuses on paragraph 4(b) of schedule 2. It would require that a vote under that paragraph on the election or removal of a chairman and the approval or amendment of the rules of procedure should be reached not by 75 per cent. of those voting, as the Bill provides now, but once again in accordance with the procedure defined in paragraph 24 of the ground rules for negotiations. I hope that hon. Members will have heard what I have said about that and that they will accept that in the light of what I have said, particularly about amendment No. 55, the amendment is unnecessary.
      Amendment No. 175 was tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). He was seeking to substitute the figure 60 for 75. No numerical test can be a guarantee of broad consensus unless it is set high. I think that there would be at least a good chance that approval by 75 per cent. of those voting could represent such a consensus. Obviously that cannot be said for a figure that is very much lower, as in the amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that we cannot accept it.
      Amendment No. 66 concerns privilege in actions for defamation. The Bill will provide such privilege in respect of statements by forum members, but not where the allegedly defamatory statement is proved to have been made with malice. The amendment would protect such malicious statements with the rest.
      We very carefully considered the question of privilege in relation to defamation. There is a strong argument that in a body such as the forum, which is concerned with dialogue and understanding, it is any way incumbent on

      321
      the participants to avoid potentially defamatory statements. After all, we are seeking to encourage constructive contributions aimed at the furtherance of agreement between the communities in Northern Ireland. I would hope, therefore, that conflictual language would be avoided.
      That being so, it can be argued that any sort of privilege in defamation is out of place. On the other hand, it is true that a number of bodies have such immunity in the interests of members speaking freely. We saw some force in that argument in relation to the forum. It did not seem to us appropriate to grant the full range of privilege in respect of defamation that applies in this House. The forum has, after all, neither the oversight nor the legislative responsibilities that we have here.
      The limited sort of privilege that we propose has analogies in local government. For the reasons that I have given, to do with the fact that the forum is the sort of body in which we believe members should anyway be especially on their guard against defamatory language, we do not believe that we should go further, and in particular, we do not think that we should be involved in protecting defamatory statements that are found to be malicious. I cannot accept the amendment.
      Mr. William Ross: The House does not have very many thugs and murderers on its Benches, but I rather expect that we shall find a number of them in the assembly. Are we to he told that we are being defamatory if we draw attention to their history? In the light of that, the Minister should reconsider what has he has just said.
      Mr. Ancram: From what the hon. Gentleman has said, I am not so optimistic as I was about the frame of mind with which he will enter the forum. The forum presents the opportunity for all parties to look constructively at how actively it can promote dialogue and understanding. What the hon. Gentleman has just said does not sound very consistent with that aim. I can only say that I hope that the absence of the protection for which the hon. Gentleman is looking might be an incentive for him to move in that direction.
      Mr. Trimble: I am sorry that the stomach of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) is of a rather delicate nature and not so robust as the Minister's in this matter. In this context the word "malice" is used with a special meaning. It does not mean malice as it is used in ordinary language. The amendment's objective is simply to give the opportunity for free speech to occur in the forum. Although we know that the forum is limited, its operations are more analogous to that of a convention, or the assembly that was operated between 1982 and 1985 when it had no powers. I think that those bodies had the protection and privilege that applies to such a deliberative body. It is simply a matter of free speech.
      Mr. Ancram: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I did say that there were certain other precedents, and I can make them available to him if he wishes. Whatever construction one puts on the word "malice", I should have thought that it was not consistent with the purposes that we have set out for the forum, which I understood that he had also agreed. It is for that reason that we provide protection, but that protection is limited. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 55, in page 8, line 18, at end insert—
      '(4) In exercising his functions under sub-paragraphs (1) and (3) above, the Secretary of State shall make every effort to secure that the rules of procedure of the forum facilitate the promotion of dialogue, understanding and consensus across the communities in Northern Ireland.'.—[Mr. Worthington.]
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 140, in page 8, line 30, leave out 'as he thinks appropriate' and insert
      'as required by the forum for the proper exercise of its functions.'.
      I can see that several hon. Members are beginning to get weary, so I shall not talk for long. There are several hours still to spend on Report, and a few more hours after that for Third Reading, so I do not want to delay the Committee unduly on the amendment. It is a probing amendment because, judging by the Secretary of State's amendment and the date given for the election, the forum will probably be sitting within two months.
      Forum members will come together to deliberate on the issues in two months' time; yet we do not know where they will meet, or what services will be available. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether we shall be able to use the valuable services of someone experienced, such as Mr. John Kennedy, the clerk of the assembly? What staff will be made available? Will they be drawn from Maryfield, or perhaps Stormont? What is in the Secretary of State's mind? He has told us nothing about any of those questions, many of which will make a great deal of difference to the participants.
      At an earlier stage, the Secretary of State—or possibly the Minister—suggested that the buildings at Stormont castle would be available, and said that he was looking for suggestions. Does the Northern Ireland Office not have alternatives that it is prepared to share with the Committee, even at this late stage? The harbour commissioners' building has been mentioned, and so has Queen's university. What options will the Secretary of State or the Minister offer for the venue and home of the new forum?
      The Secretary of State has a definite time, a definite place and a definite purpose for the negotiating teams, but everything about the forum is vague. Perhaps that depicts graphically the way in which the Secretary of State deals with elected representatives—those who want to be based in a democratic society, as opposed to those whom he can cobble together in a corner and push in a particular direction, or perhaps allow them to push him.
      I hope that when the Minister or the Secretary of State responds he will have some positive details to give the Committee, so that those who may be thinking of taking part in the elections will know what is planned for them.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has moved an important amendment. However, many of the questions that he asked were dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State earlier.
      Mr. Robinson: When?
      Mr. Ancram: When he made it clear that the castle buildings were there and available. However, in terms of

      323
      the sort of service that people want the forum to perform, those buildings may be regarded as inadequate, in which case we want to hear representations on the subject.
      We fully intend that the forum should enjoy facilities appropriate to the proper exercise of its functions. We have discussed several of those functions this evening, and we are giving much thought to precisely what they should be. Opinions vary on what would be appropriate in the circumstances, and we have heard a number of other suggestions tonight.
      The problem with the amendment is that it does not say who will decide what is appropriate for the proper exercise of the forum's functions. The matter cannot be left unspecified because my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible to the House for the use of resources. Ultimately, the decision on what is appropriate must be left to him. Of course, he will be very willing to listen to the views of hon. Members.
      I hope that in the consultations that we shall need to have on this there will not be serious disagreements. In view of the circumstances at this time, it would not be right to press the amendment and I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, East will seek leave to withdraw it. If he will not, I shall have to advise my hon. Friends to vote against it.
      Amendment negatived.
      Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
      Bill reported, with amendments; considered.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.-—[Sir Patrick Mayhew.]
      12.30 am
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: Despite the speed with which the Bill has been taken through House, it has been subjected to sustained and detailed scrutiny and has been improved as a result. I believe that that scrutiny has been well merited. I pay tribute to all those on both sides of the House who contributed to our debates in Committee. I cannot reflect upon unanimity, or even a broad consensus, on many of the issues that were raised, but I fully recognise that they were all motivated by a desire to improve the prospects for securing a long-term political settlement and, ultimately, peace in Northern Ireland. Of course, there are many differing views about how that should be achieved. Those who hold them feel strongly that their particular route forward is the right one. Given the importance of the matter for the lives and well-being of the people of Northern Ireland, they are right to feel strongly about it and to press their case as forcefully and effectively as they have.
      However, the overall goal is shared and I hope that we can now leave behind any adversarial feelings that may have been engendered in Committee and look forward positively together to a renewal of the talks process through the complementary mechanisms of the negotiations and the forum—they are complementary—and the elections, which will be a prelude to both. The Bill is aptly entitled the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill. It provides a gateway. It is
      324
      intended to be a gateway and provides the only available gateway to those negotiations. I am grateful for the way in which matters have been addressed.
      12.33 am
      Mr. McNamara: I did not vote for the Bill and I have not voted in any of its proceedings. In many ways, I regard it as a facade introduced by a weak Government in an attempt to extend their life. It may take forward the peace process in Northern Ireland, but it is 18 months too late. The opportunities that were created by the ceasefires were wasted by the Government.
      I hope that it will be possible for the talks to go forward on the suggested date, 10 June. I hope that innumerable fresh hurdles will not be raised to postpone decisions or to prevent matters from being discussed. I hope that, bearing in mind what we have heard during the proceedings on the Bill and some of the matters raised in the White Paper, there will not be one insuperable obstacle at the start which will prevent any other matters from being discussed because if that happens, we shall be right back to where we were before the legislation was introduced.
      12.34 am
      Mr. Wilshire: I echo the thanks to all concerned. On Second Reading, I welcomed the principle of holding elections because elections let the people decide who speaks for them and will provide the democratic mandate for the various parties. I also said that there was much in the detail of the Bill that we should worry about and that significant changes in detail were needed. A number of amendments were tabled, some of which were technical and some of which dealt with fundamental issues. In the event, the past two days have not turned out as I and, I suspect, some others, hoped. Some of the technical amendments have been accepted and I am sure that everyone welcomes that. I welcome the fact that almost all the deliberations have been conducted in good humour and have been constructive.
      However, I regret to have to say at the end of these two days that absolutely nothing of real substance has been changed by our deliberations. Every attempt to ensure that the new ceasefire, which is agreed to be essential, is declared permanent has been rejected. Every attempt to get the requirement to "address" Mitchell turned into a requirement to sign up to it has been rejected and every attempt to limit Dublin to a proper relationship between two sovereign Governments has been rejected. On a number of other important matters, no progress has been made.
      Although I still remain keen to see the elections take place and I welcome them, I regret having to say at the end of our consideration of the Bill that the door still remains wide open to more concessions to Dublin, more appeasement of Sinn Fein-IRA and more neglect of the Unionist majority. Elections are real progress, but the Government's stance is as depressing as ever.
      12.37 am
      Dr. Hendron: I was pleased that the Secretary of State and his Minister placed much emphasis on the importance of the all-party talks rather than that of the forum. In making that point, I do not in any way belittle the points made by others about the forum. I fully understand why

      325
      the forum is wanted. My party has felt from the beginning that it was not necessary, but it will be a fact of life, so there is no point in going backwards.
      The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said that some stomachs would be turned among those people who went into the forum because gunmen or former gunmen would be there. The whole point of all-party talks and the political process is to take the gun out of Irish politics permanently. It is not just the turning of stomachs but the slaughter of our people that has taken place over so many years.
      The Secretary of State emphasised the fact that the functions of the forum would be deliberative. I have been present for most of the debate today and yesterday and, as I understand it, no amendments which were intended to upgrade the forum or make it more significant were accepted.
      From my party's point of view, the big date is 10 June for the all-party talks. The Mitchell principles—which have been mentioned over and over again—are not preconditions; they are to do with democracy. I agree with the hon. Members who have said that anyone who really intends to make this process work should have no difficulty in accepting the Mitchell principles because they are about democracy.
      My party will enter into the talks on 10 June in good faith. We are aware, as is every hon. Member, that we are divided by history. As a nationalist, I emphasise the fact that some people believe—I am thinking mainly of Irish Americans—that the Protestant Unionist people are blow-ins of the last century. However, they have been here in this country—at least in Ireland—longer than the white star of the United States of America has been there. Obviously, I could develop that point at great length.
      Reference has been made to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and questions asked as to whether it worked. The exercise that we are now going through is leading to all-party talks and, hopefully, the promise will be fulfilled. We are replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement with another agreement—a broad agreement between the two communities. As one who participated in, totally supported and still supports, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, I have no difficulty in saying that there was no consultation with the representatives of the Unionist people. That was wrong.
      To say that the agreement did not work is untrue. The agreement was to do with equality between two communities, between two traditions. If one reads the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the various aspects of it and looks at what has happened, one cannot blame those who brought forward the agreement for the terrible violence that took place on our streets. When two Governments form an agreement, paramilitary people do not say, "That is the answer—we will now lay down our guns". That is absolute nonsense. One cannot say that the agreement did not work.
      I conclude on a point that I have raised with the Secretary of State in the past. Yesterday the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) referred to young people getting their names on the register. I do not see that as a major problem. However, what is a problem is the fact that thousands of votes are stolen in every election in Northern Ireland. The votes are stolen mainly by one political group: Sinn Fein. Some years ago, the stealing of votes was an elementary thing, but now it is done professionally.
      326
      Driver's licences and medical cards are not proof of identity, and I made this point to the Secretary of State some weeks ago. Today, in the Irish Independent, a newspaper published in Dublin, there is a column on the fact that driver's licences are being produced in Dublin by some renegade organisation and being sold at quite a considerable profit. It is very easy to produce these documents. Any hon. Member could use another hon. Member's medical card as a means of identity—it does not prove identity at all. I have seen many medical cards—as I am a member of the medical profession, it is something that I know about.
      In my constituency of Belfast, West personating agents—including people representing me or my colleagues or representatives of any other party—are not allowed to look at documents. When someone presents a document—be it a medical card or a driver's licence—we do not have the authority to look at it. If I am a candidate, I do not have the power to see whether it is a genuine medical card.
      I am talking about people voting not once or twice, but 10 or 20 times from 7 am until 10 pm. I appeal to the Secretary of State—as I have done before; and I appreciate that efforts have been made in the past—on this issue. I hope that I am not being arrogant in making the point that medical cards and driver's licences came about over the years through steps taken by me in approaching the Government. I need not go into all that, but that point can be proven without difficulty.
      I ask for something to be done between now and the election. One system uses what I believe is an ultra-violet light, under which the voter places a hand. Although that system does not identify the person, it ensures that the person votes only once. I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker. that, in my territory, even if the wrong person votes, the fact that they vote only once means something.
      I am sorry for taking up so much time. As I said, we shall enter the all-party talks in good faith. My party will not take a decision for a little while. I leave that issue to my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady).
      12.44 am
      Mr. Peter Robinson: Hon. Members might want to keep in mind the fact that the gangsters referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) are the type of gangsters that the Secretary of State has been falling over backwards to involve in the talks process. Those are the people who organise the young fellows to impersonate voters to steal people's votes. The House apparently believes that it is productive to involve such people in the talks process. Those are the people whom the Secretary of State attempts to accommodate and the Government want to elevate.
      Now that the House has heard the mild views of the hon. Member for Belfast, West—Madam Deputy Speaker, if he had the time, he could have described to you much more of his experience of what he has to face in west Belfast from that so-called party—we need to concern ourselves with the nature of the Bill as a whole.
      Disappointingly—but not surprisingly—the Secretary of State, having given the House a clear undertaking that he would go away and consult and having said that, on that basis, parties should withdraw amendments that they had tabled relating to the list because on Report he would

      327
      report his conclusions to the House, did nothing of the sort. Even on this Third Reading, he has done nothing of the sort.
      It shows how much trust we can have in the Secretary of State when, in the space of a few hours, he makes a commitment to the House, breaches that commitment and does not follow it through. What faith can we or anyone in Northern Ireland have in a Secretary of State who makes such a commitment and breaks it in so cavalier a fashion?
      Of course, we have no doubt about what the conclusion is, because the Secretary of State had the decency to whisper it to us. He does not allow the Democratic Unionist party to be on the ballot paper in the manner that the Democratic Unionist party chooses. One political party may have its leader specified on the ballot paper, but not this political party, because the Secretary of State wants to discriminate against it.
      There are laws in Northern Ireland about discrimination and about the behaviour of a Minister, and the House may not have the last word on all those issues. It certainly will not have the last word on one issue at least, because the people of Northern Ireland will have the last word.
      I look forward to the day when the Secretary of State visits my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim or me and says, "If you would be prepared to change one wee word in this document, it would be very helpful" and I will remind the Secretary of State how helpful he was today when we wanted one wee word changed in a document and he was not prepared to budge. He made no attempt to reach a consensus or to bring parties along with him.
      I want to place it clearly on the record that we satisfied the requirements that the Government specified in exactly the same way as the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) did, and that we will fulfil our obligations in exactly the same way as he did. The Minister made it clear that, because the hon. and learned Gentleman had responded in the way that he had, his party's name and his Christian name and surname were put on the list in the way that he required. Different criteria apply to the hon. and learned Member for North Down and to my party. The Government have treated the democratic parties shabbily by not allowing them to describe themselves on the list in the manner that suits them.
      In the past 36 hours, we have attempted to inject some degree of democracy into flawed legislation. We attempted to introduce some democracy into the work of the forum, whose role the Secretary of State intends to diminish. We attempted to increase the responsibility of its representatives and their role vis á vis the negotiating teams. However, our every attempt was rejected by the Secretary of State. Let us be honest: he was prepared to accept only those minor amendments that did little more than change the punctuation in the Bill. He turned down all amendments of any substance.
      The strength of the arguments was of no consequence because the Bill was agreed beforehand. Minor alterations could be made so long as they did not affect the agreement that allowed the Bill to be brought before the House. With whom did the Secretary of State agree the contents of the Bill? Everyone knows that he agreed the
      328
      process with Dublin from the communiqué on. No doubt it was Dublin that would not allow the name of the Democratic Unionist party to be changed—everything that the Secretary of State does must meet with the approval of Dublin.
      It is a disgrace that the Government of the United Kingdom must toady to the demands of the IRA, by providing it with the date of the commencement of talks and the contents of the Command Paper, and to the demands of Dublin, by agreeing the wording of the Bill. The Government will derive little credit from the way in which they have conducted the proceedings of the House in the past few hours. There will be regret in Northern Ireland that the Government have decided to bulldoze the Bill through the House without making any changes that are meaningful to the people of Northern Ireland. Ultimately, the people will decide. Although the Secretary of State may manipulate the Bill on the basis of his dealings with Dublin, he will not be able to manipulate the will of the people of Northern Ireland.
      12.51 am
      Ms Mowlam: The Bill, which we support this morning, has the chance to set in train events that offer the first real hope of meaningful all-party negotiations since the IRA ceasefire in August 1994. Tragically, that ceasefire is no longer in place—it was broken on 9 February by a wanton act of violence which threatened to tear the peace process apart.
      With the Bill, the House has shown that we will not be diverted from the path of peace by such acts. With talks in sight and a clear route to the table marked out, there is no excuse for the IRA not to restore its ceasefire. We support those who have worked so hard since 9 February to ensure that the ceasefire is retained among loyalist groups. That work must continue.
      Elections will be held on 30 May and talks will start on 10 June—after that, the route is much less clear. The issue of decommissioning paramilitary weapons will have to be addressed in line with the communiqué of 28 February and the Mitchell report. That is a crucial part of building the trust and confidence—which clearly have some way to go—that have been sought throughout the peace process. Also crucial to building that trust and confidence, as the ground rules document says, is the need for all parties to be assured that a meaningful and inclusive process of negotiations is genuinely being offered. To that effect, we fully support the two Governments in strongly commending the joint framework document as the basis for negotiations.
      During the passage of the Bill, the Secretary of State has accepted a number of amendments from hon. Members on both sides of the House. We welcome in particular the amendments that addressed the question of the forum's procedures and dealt with the relationship between the forum and the negotiations, and their timing. We believe that that provides crucial reassurances to the House and to the people of Northern Ireland.
      The Secretary of State's acceptance of our amendment No. 55 should provide important assurances for both communities, especially the nationalist community, that their views will not be overridden, but that the focus and culture of the forum will be to seek consensus across the communities. Word to that effect will now be in the Bill, thanks to our amendment. We are grateful to the Secretary

      329
      of State and to the Minister for offering reassurances on those points and on how consultations with the different parties on the rules of procedure will continue, based on consensus, dialogue and understanding.
      The passage of the Bill in the past two days has been at times chaotic and confusing. It may not be the best legislation that the House has produced, but in terms of the time constraints, it is the best that we have managed. We wish to add our thanks to those who have serviced the House during the past 36 hours when we have sat so late. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) was not able to be with us. We have missed his contribution and wish him a speedy recovery.
      We believe that the Bill will bring about change. It will provide an unprecedented opportunity for the parties to negotiate a new future for the people of Northern Ireland, of the island of Ireland and of these islands.
      12.55 am
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish to make some remarks on the Bill and how it came to be put before us. We remember that the Prime Minister made it clear from the Dispatch Box that a door to proper negotiations should be opened. Negotiations had been going on behind closed doors, mainly with those who were responsible for bombing, killing and other atrocities. The general public never knew what happened behind those closed doors—what deals were brokered or what promises and assurances were given.
      We saw those who were closely associated with vicious acts of terrorism and murder being given offices in the Stormont complex. Their leaders had separate offices and facilities and the members had separate offices and facilities, including members of IRA-Sinn Fein, who have never denounced any act of violence and whose leader refused to condemn, even slightly, the Canary wharf bomb. That leader was installed in the Stormont complex, with his name on the door as president of Sinn Fein and paid for by taxpayers' money.
      I resent what was said from the Opposition Front Bench earlier, calling the loyalist groups Protestant gunmen. They are not Protestant gunmen; they are so-called loyalist gunmen. If I talked about the Roman Catholic IRA in the House, I would be shouted at from all quarters, but the Opposition are quite prepared to take the name of Protestantism and use it as a label.
      Ms Mowlam: I did not.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Your deputy did that today at the Dispatch Box. That is a very serious matter as far as I am concerned. If one body can be described in one way, others should be able to describe other bodies in a similar way. I remember that when I was a young Member of the House, 20 years ago, I tried to table a motion that mentioned the Roman Catholic IRA. The Clerk told me that he could not accept that, so I took in a motion that Mr. Fitt had tabled that mentioned the Protestant UVF. I asked the Clerk about that and he said that he would have to see Mr. Fitt and get it changed.
      The House must realise that it should be fair and even-handed to all parties in the dispute. Of course, even this debate has not been even-handed. The Prime Minister came to the House and said that we will have an election. Of course, that was bitterly and scurrilously opposed by
      330
      Dick Spring and his ilk in Dublin, who said all manner of things about elections, as if the people of Northern Ireland were not fit to have an election. We were told that an election would only exacerbate the situation, that it would divide the community and that we could not reach a consensus. What happened? The Prime Minister persisted with the idea that we should have an election.
      As I have said, on 24 January the Prime Minister intimated to the House, in reply to the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, that he would call for the election. The leader of the Liberal party, the Leader of the official Opposition and other leaders went with him on the proposal. The Prime Minister said:
      "As for the election and the purposes for which it could be used, I see it being used to determine which parties would participate in the talks, and to give each party with elected representation a fresh electoral mandate—testing the extent of its democratic support in current circumstances. I see the election providing a pool of representatives from which party delegations to the talks could be drawn, and a means to index the strength of the parties' delegations in the talks process."
      He went on:
      "Apart from that, of course"—
      those were his words—
      "I see the election providing, by weighted majority vote, an initial mechanism for testing widespread acceptability within Northern Ireland of the outcome of any talks process."—[Official Report, 24 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 357.]
      That particular proposition was vigorously attacked in the House and amendments were tabled to try to bring about what the Prime Minister promised the people of Northern Ireland at the Dispatch Box would be the result of the election. Those amendments were rejected by the Government whom he leads.
      As I have already pointed out, the Prime Minister made another statement to the House on 21 March. He said:
      "The legislation will also provide"—
      I stress, "provide"—
      "for the forum to be able to conduct hearings at which public submissions by relevant bodies or individuals can be made."—[Official Report, 21 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 498.]
      There is no such provision. I ask the Government to show me one line of a firm provision. In fact, the Government say that they can do it, but there is no legislative power for them to do it. If that is challenged by those in the forum who do not like the forum and want to have it destroyed, what will the Government do?
      A provision should have been written into the Bill giving the forum the power to conduct hearings at which public submissions by relevant bodies or individuals could be made. But those two things went by the board. Why? Because of the power of a foreign Government, the Government of the Irish Republic, who leant on the Government and said, "No, you can't do these things." Nor can they when the Dublin Government take it into their head that such things cannot be done.
      We have heard great praise of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I was amazed by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), who told us that it was a success. If the Anglo-Irish Agreement brought about what everyone seems to want and was a success, why are we here? But it did not bring that about. It could not bring it about. Now it is said that we need a wider agreement. Why, if it was a success?

      331
      That agreement was supposed to be the basis of a success. The two Governments would, for the first time, sit round the table, there would be no megaphone diplomacy, they would have a love-in every month and all would go well. But it did not. Then the Government said that they must do something more and we had talks. Those talks came to an end. Who brought them to an end? The Unionists? No. The other representatives from Northern Ireland? No. The southern Government brought them to an end. The southern Government agreed that there would be no Anglo-Irish conference while those talks were going.
      On two occasions, the Irish Government decided that they would bring the talks to an end. Why? Because they were not comfortable at those talks. What were they not comfortable about? They were not comfortable about articles 2 and 3 which, at the beginning of the talks, they told us they would address—the same word that has been used before—in such a way that the Unionists would be amazed at how far they would go. They said that their generosity would amaze us. When the matter was first raised at the talks, the representatives of the Dublin Government told us that the best day's work that De Valera ever did was to write articles 2 and 3 into the constitution of the Irish Republic and that they would not budge an inch. Some Unionists—not of my party—went to Dublin to see whether it would help to talk there. When they returned, I asked Sir Ninian Stephen what happened. He said that they got nothing officially or unofficially. I see the leader of the UUP—the party involved—nodding his head. Nothing was gained.
      Articles 2 and 3 lay claim to Northern Ireland. They not only lay claim to Northern Ireland but are now buttressed by a finding in the Irish High Court that they are a constitutional imperative for every Minister who takes office in the south of Ireland. Thus, claiming our territory is their objective.
      When one of the member states takes on the presidency of the European Union, it is a custom for that member state to play host to all the ambassadors in its capital cities. Some time ago, the United Kingdom held that presidency and the procedure started. A meeting was held in London which all the ambassadors, including the Irish ambassador, attended. There were then meetings in Edinburgh and Cardiff, and the same happened.
      Then there was a meeting in Belfast at Hillsborough house. When we arrived, I asked whether all the ambassadors were there. I was told that they were not. The Irish ambassador had said that it was highly insulting for the British to have a meeting in Northern Ireland, because the only people who could really invite ambassadors from other EU countries would be the Irish ambassador and the Irish authorities. The Irish therefore boycotted the meeting. That is why, when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, the Irish Government did not sign the same document but had to have a special one—an agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom with no mention of Great Britain or Northern Ireland. Why was that? It was because of articles 2 and 3.
      332
      The Berlin wall in my country is made of articles 2 and 3, built and buttressed by the Dublin authorities. It is illegal. It is a long time since we heard it said at the Dispatch Box that it was illegal, but one Minister did say it.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is straying from the purpose of Third Reading which, I remind him, is to discuss the contents of the Bill.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the Bill concerns the future of Northern Ireland as directed by the two Governments. I am dealing with one Government who originated the sort of legislation that we are debating. I am trying to highlight the motivation of that Government. Surely I am entitled so to do when that Government have set themselves against the very basis of the status of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom.
      I am trying to point out that the Bill has on it the shadow of the Irish Republic—not only its shadow but its marks and diktats. It aims to further the interests of the Irish Republic, to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and put it under Dublin rule. That is clear from every step that has been taken in the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Downing street declaration and the framework document. As anyone who has read the framework document will see, there is only one option in it—to go down the road to Dublin.
      Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution are repugnant to us. They are illegal, as Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box—although they do not like to be reminded of that. Not only are they illegal; they are immoral and criminal. The IRA, and all republican terrorists, have hidden behind the place of refuge provided by those articles. They have killed people, and then said that they are political killers.
      Today and yesterday, attempts were made here to destroy the forum. The Prime Minister told us that it would be very important: he told us that it would not only supply the negotiators but serve as an initial mechanism to test what they were doing. Speaker after speaker has said that the negotiations are all-important. Why must they start on 10 June? Why is the forum to meet a month, or more than a month, after its election? The IRA has set no date for the forum, but the IRA and the Dublin Government certainly set a date for the negotiations to start. They are to start on 10 June: that is the date that we are working towards.
      That is why we are here at such a late hour. That is why we have we have debated the Bill for so many hours, but so quickly. We are aiming for a deadline that was set by IRA-Sinn Fein. We do not know whether IRA-Sinn Fein will sign up to the principles, but Mr. Adams told the people of Northern Ireland last weekend that even if its members were not permitted to go they would be there, because they had a mandate. They would ensure that a republican consensus—he used the word "consensus" too—would be the agenda, and he would also ensure the ending of British rule in Northern Ireland.
      It is not Members of Parliament who keep us in the United Kingdom. Some of the treatment that we have received in the House of Commons has been nauseating. We are members of the United Kingdom because of our birth and heritage, and our heartfelt loyalty to the

      333
      principles of democracy as upheld in the history of our nation and the House of Commons, not as a result of any outside force.
      Many of my political opponents in the House, with whom I have had great differences, have at least stood up and said, "Let us have a bit of fairness, " but the Government could not be fair. Of course it was all right to give in to the SDLP, because Dublin would be happy about that. In fact, I am glad that that happened: the SDLP had a right to ask for the initial letters of its name to be included. It should not have had to argue.
      The Minister said at the outset that he recognised the existence of strong feeling and would give in to it, but when I asked him to say the same in regard to an amendment, he would not. He would not put it to us. Why not? I am a democrat. There are some aspects of democracy that we do not like, but must accept. I would have accepted that amendment, but it was not put to us. It is not on the record of the House that the Secretary of State met the other party leaders. We do not know what the other party leaders said to him. They have not harmed me or my party, but the people of Northern Ireland are already enraged. They say, "Of course, there is always a bias, but it is for nationalism and for Roman Catholics. When it comes to Ulster Protestantism, they will make sure that it will be discriminated against. We have been feeling it." That is the reaction that the Government have brought on themselves.
      The Minister with responsibility for political affairs may laugh as much as he likes, but it will be no laughing matter when he returns to Northern Ireland to fulfil some of his engagements and is faced with what he did today in the House. Let us at least have fair play. Justice was not seen to be done today, and well the Minister and every right-thinking hon. Member knows it. Ulster will know it; the election will be set on fire by this very issue and the Government will be responsible for kindling that fire.
      The Government have not heard the end of the matter. They can get out of this by at least granting in another place what should be given. What are we asking for? We are asking that any party can put what it likes in its description. One of the parties already has the name of its leader on the paper. Why cannot I as the leader of my party or any other leader put our name on the paper? That is not a big demand, but of course it will not be granted because of the Ulster Democratic party's strength of feeling against this whole conspiracy to sell our Province out to Dublin.
      One of the strongest condemnations of the Bill came from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) who said that here we have Dublin's hand and the power and the voice of Dublin, and that his Government were prepared to heed that voice. Let it be. The people of Northern Ireland will have their election. In spite of all the opposition they will cast their votes, but I see little hope of the Government even listening to that election voice because, as a former Northern Ireland Minister told us, "It does not matter how you vote; we will not pay heed to your vote anyway." But the vote of the people will be decisive and its impact will result in a turning of the tide at last in our Province that has seen all the tragedy, all the agony, all the bloodletting, and all the tears and sorrows of the past years. I trust that the Government will think again and at least do what is right and honourable towards my party.
      1.17 am
      Mr. David Trimble: Over the past couple of days we have spent about 19 hours in Committee considering the Bill. That is a reasonable period of time, but it is not excessive for the matters that are in the Bill. The record of the names of those who have spoken and for how long will show that in most of the debates the longest contributions were made by Government Front-Bench spokesmen, which is as it should be because the object of the exercise is to probe the Government's position, and that is what hon. Members from various parties have done over these two days.
      I think that I am also correct in saying that in Committee the Government made some seven or eight concessions in terms of accepting Opposition amendments, in addition to a couple of Government amendments. In the circumstances, that is probably more than par for the course. It is fair to observe, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) observed, that most of those amendments are comparatively minor. Some of them are a bit more substantial, but perhaps more important than the amendments is the fact that we have had the opportunity to probe some of the more obscure passages in the Bill and have had some Government undertakings about its operation, which I hope will be helpful.
      None the less, we send from the House a deeply flawed Bill. It is flawed partly through the unwise decision to depart from normal electoral practice and to adopt a novel procedure, and partly through the difficulties that have flowed from that, which have been reflected in the speech that we have just heard.
      The Bill is also flawed in that, for political reasons, unadvisedly, in its drafting and presentation, there has been a concerted effort to overemphasise one of the two tracks. That is a misjudgment on the part of the people who have advised that action. I realise that Ministers are not free agents in the matter. They are constrained by the agreements that have been mentioned in the earlier speeches and by the realities of the forces that are acting on them, both outside and inside the Chamber. The balance, however, has not been a wise one: it has not been struck in the right place.
      Looking forward to the Bill's operation in May and June, the job that lies before the parties in Northern Ireland is to make an effort to overcome the flaws in this process. Whether we can succeed remains to be seen, but we will endeavour to do that. We will, however, have to overcome some of the obstacles. I hope that, in our efforts to do so, there will be a ready response from other parties in Northern Ireland.
      Some of the deepest flaws are in the so-called ground rules. I noticed the virtual quotation that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) used in her speech when she referred to the need to assure people that there would be a genuine negotiations process on matters of concern to them—which I believe is a rough paraphrase of paragraph 13 of the ground rules paper. I know that, in making that comment, the hon. Lady had her mind focused on the concerns and interests of nationalists, as has been her practice in the past two days. I find that statement in the ground rules deeply ironic from my point of view, and from that of the Unionists—not just my colleagues on this Bench, but elsewhere.

      335
      One of the most striking features of the ground rules is a determined effort, primarily by the Government, to exclude us—by which I mean all the Northern Ireland parties—from any negotiations on an issue which for us, the Unionists, is the primary concern in the operation: to replace the flawed instruments of Government under which we suffer and, primarily, to replace the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Government appear determined to exclude us from that negotiation. That runs counter to the clear statement in the ground rules that the Governments must give the parties concerned an assurance that a genuine process of negotiation has been offered. I look forward, when the time comes, to the Government making the necessary adjustments in their approach to give us a genuine opportunity to discuss the issues.
      None the less, the elections will, I trust, take place—if matters go as we expect they will in another place. The two bodies will meet, unfortunately not in the right order, but we will overcome the difficulties that that will cause us. In those bodies, if the parties concerned take their places, as I hope that they will, all the people who have been elected to the forum will have their mandate willingly recognised, especially those who have a genuine mandate. The 20 extra members who have got there despite the operation of the electoral system will have to put up with getting reminders from time to time of the absence of any democratic basis for their presence, but we will tolerate them as well. I hope, however, that the parties will enter into both aspects of the process, because the two relate to each other, and that they will do so in a positive way.
      The opportunity exists here for us to carry the process forward—to use the cliché again. We are looking forward to the opportunity to construct new institutions of government and to provide for a more secure future on a better democratic basis than we have had in the past. The opportunity exists to meet the needs of the people of Northern Ireland and to give them the future that they deserve.
      When complaining about some aspects of the Bill, the hon. Member for Belfast, East said that the people of Northern Ireland will have the last word. I think that they will also have the first word. They will speak before others. On 30 May, the people of Northern Ireland will speak and, before any negotiations begin or any debates occur, we shall have heard their voice. I know that that voice will indicate clearly for what there is or is not consent. That will provide a basis on which we can proceed.
      There is another aspect of the election that I would like to leave with hon. Members. The assumption exists in a number of quarters that any votes cast in the future will be on predictable lines. I hope that that is not so, because through the electoral process the opportunity exists for the people of Northern Ireland to send a message to all those involved in politics. We have talked about how the forum can be a way in which the public can be involved and so, more directly, can the elections. The opportunity is there for the people of Northern Ireland to send a message.
      It has been a commonplace statement during the past 18 months that the people of Northern Ireland have welcomed the relative absence of violence and that they want to see real peace restored. On 30 May, the
      336
      opportunity will exist for the people to send a message about that and to show by the way in which they vote that they are turning their back on those who have endorsed and tolerated violence and that they are going to support those constitutional parties that are prepared to carry the process forward, if necessary without those who cannot give the necessary commitments about peace and non-violence which will be required at the outset. That is the opportunity for all of us in Northern Ireland and I hope that on 30 May that opportunity will be taken and that we shall have a sound foundation on which to proceed.
      1.22 am
      Mr. McGrady: I do not intend to delay the House for long at this late hour, but when listening to the contributions to the debate one can only be struck by the fact that the genesis of the reasons for the legislation seems to have been lost entirely. The title of the Bill brings us back to reality—Northern Ireland's entry to negotiations.
      It was the inability of certain parties in Northern Ireland to enter into negotiations during 18 months of peace that has precipitated the legislation. During those 18 months, which some have called the wasted months in Northern Ireland, no negotiation or movement of any nature took place. There were two main reasons for that. The first was Sinn Fein's ambivalent attitude to violence and its refusal to issue a firm condemnation of the use and pursuit of violence for political purposes. Secondly, the preconditions of the two Unionist parties included a requirement for a renewal of their elected mandate and a forum.
      One can forgive a party for wanting reassurance about its position and strength within our community, but we have had 21 elections in 20 years and, with a variation of 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. in any direction, any of us in the House could predict the strength of the mandate that we shall receive, hopefully on 10 June if we all participate in the elections. So it was not a real requirement, and from where we stood it was a blocking mechanism.
      Within four hours of the Mitchell report being announced, before anyone had time to consider the implications, before Sinn Fein particularly, to whom it was addressed, could digest and perhaps make a more positive response, it was announced in the House that elections would take place. That entirely diverted attention away from the Mitchell requirements regarding the abjuring of violence and towards the election process, letting Sinn Fein, the loyalist paramilitaries and others off the hook.
      Members of my party and I were opposed to elections not because we are opposed to elections—we have fought them all. And we were against a forum not because we oppose a forum to which people can make submissions of their attitudes and aspirations. We were against elections and a forum because they were simply delaying tactics. Legislation for elections and a forum is not a prerequisite to negotiations, but it is now deemed to be and is treated as such. Fair enough—that is where we are at. We feared and still fear—the atmosphere tonight in the House does not in any way allay our fears—that the election process will exacerbate the differences and push people into manifesto stances that will make it more difficult for all of us to arrive at consensus in the negotiations on 10 June.

      337
      The Bill is certainly flawed in many respects. Our amendments had one main theme: to try to ensure that, whatever mechanisms were used, both the negotiations and the forum were based on the broadest possible consensus, which is stated, as I have said several times, in paragraph 24 of Command Paper 3232. That is the only way in which we can resolve the problem.
      We seem to have forgotten what the problem is. It is the constant recurrence of violence over decades and centuries in our community. People are taking guns and explosives to try to resolve political problems. That is what negotiations are about. They are not about who wins elections or thumping one's chest and saying, "I did better than the other fellow; I got two more points in an election." Some of the arguments put today were party ego trips about who would do best at the election. That result will make no difference to whether we can resolve the problems of violence and form institutions that will copper fasten an agreed peace and remove violence and the gun from Irish politics from here on. That is the only objective that my party has had in all the proceedings.
      If we could sacrifice our political existence for that objective to come about, we would do it willingly in the morning and retire to whatever alternative occupations we might be able to pick up. We are not looking for political advantage. We will certainly strive to get the maximum support, because in that way we can illustrate the support for the consensus politics that we are trying to promote and have tried to promote in the 25 years since the party was formed. All that we are about is getting to the negotiating table.
      The ramifications and controversy of the past couple of days have been merely to enable us to get to a conference which, at the end of the day, will not take real cognisance of whether parties got 50 per cent. or 5 per cent. at the election. Negotiators will be representing a viewpoint. If the Bill's intention is in some way to insinuate that a weight of voting can impose a solution on a divided community without the reasonable consensus of the majority and the minority, we are all indulging in a pipe dream. That is what I fear may be happening with the diversion that appears to be taking place, as we forecast it would, because of the acquiescence in the idea that an election and a forum are needed in order to achieve the negotiations. Although the two arrangements will now run parallel, they are not necessarily—and need not necessarily have been—complementary.
      All that I can say on behalf of my party is that presumably the Bill will pass into law—good or bad, warts and all, as we say at home. We shall try to ensure
      338
      that the best possible environment is created to allow the negotiations to start and to evolve in a meaningful way towards the final resolution of the endemic violence, and towards the institutions on which I hope that we can agree, which will copper-fasten the continuance of the peace for which both communities yearn so much, and for which they have suffered so much over many years—not only for the past 25 years, but for generation after generation. My wish and my hope is that our generation can put a stop to that suffering.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  PROCEDURE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Patrick McLoughlin be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Mr. Richard Ottaway be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

PETITION

  Sea Empress
  1.35 am
  Mr. Nick Ainger: I wish to present to the House tonight a petition signed by more than 25,000 people, calling for an independent inquiry into the grounding of the Sea Empress, the oil pollution that resulted from it, and related matters.
  The petition says:
  the people of west Wales and the United Kingdom are outraged that over 65,000 tonnes of crude oil was allowed to spill from the Sea Empress from Monday 19 February 1996 causing massive pollution, the death of thousands of seabirds, the destruction of important habitats within the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park and surrounding sites of world importance, causing serious problems for the tourist and fishing industries in Wales.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House calls on the government to ensure full support to those who have suffered consequential loss and immediately initiate an independent and wide-ranging inquiry into the events leading up to the grounding of the Sea Empress on Thursday 15 February 1996, the subsequent salvage operation, the safety of operations in the port of Milford Haven, the full implementation of Lord Donaldson's recommendations following the Braer disaster in January 1993 and the effectiveness of existing salvage law; this inquiry to be ideally controlled by Lord Donaldson of Lymington.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Prisons (Northumberland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  1.37 am
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Next to each other on what was a wartime airfield in my constituency are two prisons—Her Majesty's prison Acklington and Her Majesty's young offenders institution Castington. They are the northernmost outposts of the prison service, and their staff, who are valued members of our local community, deal with increasingly difficult and disruptive offenders.
  Indeed, since the prisons were first built, both have increased the range of offenders they take beyond what was first suggested to the local community—a process that began when life sentence prisoners were placed at Acklington. Relations between both institutions and the community are generally very good, although there are inevitably anxieties from time to time. Both Acklington and Castington have been successful in achieving Prison Service targets.
  The reason for this debate is the enormous anxiety among prison officers and other staff about the likely impact of the cuts that the governors are being forced to implement. They threaten not only to undo much of the good work that has been commended by the authorities but to jeopardise security, both directly and indirectly. Security will be endangered if there are not enough officers to patrol, supervise and search. It will be undermined if, because of cuts, prison activities that keep offenders occupied have to be cut back. The devil makes work for idle hands.
  The background to the debate is the Government's decision to impose cuts of more than 13 per cent. across the board in the Prison Service over the next three years. That is astonishing from a Government who believe that they can find the additional money for a huge increase in the prison population in coming years as a matter of deliberate policy. It is also deplorable, because the Government can claim to have achieved some significant improvements in the prison system. However, the gains from new or improved facilities and the end of slopping out will be wasted under the cuts programme.
  I want to consider in more detail the two institutions in my constituency and the way in which the cuts will affect them. The older of the two, Acklington, is a category C training prison with more than 600 prisoners. It was the subject of a recently published inspection report, although the inspection took place a year ago, and several critical points have been dealt with since then.
  The inspection team commended many of the areas of work that are likely to be affected by cuts, such as education, employment training, physical education and the chaplaincy. Work to tackle drug addiction among prisoners was praised as a
  "triumph of staff enthusiasm over heavy odds",
  that needed more officer time and training support.
  However, the inspectors said:
  "that Acklington has avoided serious incident is a tribute to managers and staff because such large campus style prisons are notoriously difficult to manage".
  340
  That is a striking reminder of the high staffing needs imposed by the layout of the prison. There was concern that officers felt intimidated and were not able to prevent squalid conditions from being created by some prisoners. Higher levels of supervision were needed to prevent bullying among prisoners.
  How will the cuts help to deal with those problems, create the more progressive regime for which the inspectors called, and build on the achievements? The cuts planned for Acklington are large, involving the loss of more than £600,000 from budgets over the next three years. If first indications are correct, more than 20 posts are likely to go, including discipline officers, two principal officers, seven senior officers, and a night patrol staff officer.
  The entire complement of prison officers in the works section, and the whole health officer section, are expected to go. The health section officers staff the hospital and sick bay for both Acklington and Castington. All officers are to be withdrawn from catering, and there are cuts in chaplaincy and in instructional staff.
  It is impossible to set those staffing losses against the background of the inspection report without concluding that the problems and difficulties will be made significantly worse. There will be fewer trained officers around to maintain and handle problems in the kitchen, where there is considerable potential for trouble. As one officer wrote to me:
  "The type of inmate that is now coming to prison does not reason like normal people, they abuse any trust given and are very quick to become aggressive and violent."
  How on earth is health cover to be provided satisfactorily with the complete disbandment of the team of officers that provides it? It cannot all be managed by visiting doctors and officers on the wings. How much of a reduction will there be in workshop activity, education and probation work? It is clear to all who know Acklington that, with those cuts, it cannot be expected to maintain the good things mentioned in the inspector's report and deal with the points that called for improvement.
  Castington is a young offenders' institution that deals with many extremely difficult and violent offenders, including a significant number of serious sex offenders, for whom it is a national resource. Its work has been praised in the service for security, cleanliness, control, staff-inmate relationship and excellent results in the drug-testing programme. Area management seems to be of the view that efficiency savings had been made, and that present staffing levels were necessary to maintain the regime.
  Even at present staffing levels, it has proved impossible to maintain normal levels of evening association. There were insufficient staff to maintain association for five nights a week. Even before the latest cuts, inmates were locked in their cells on three evenings a week, which is more than elsewhere in the prison system. Castington is being required to take cuts of around 15 per cent. over three years, including a cut of £202,000 this year. That is well above the figure that was originally suggested. The likely consequences are frightening.
  A reduction in fence and ground patrols at nights and weekends would be a direct threat to security. The evening and weekend patrols were introduced as a direct result of an internal inquiry, following an escape attempt

  341
  which was spotted by an officer who happened to be in an upstairs cell when he saw inmates trying to climb the fence.
  The removal of the senior officer from the segregation unit and the regular withdrawal of officers from the unit to meet staff shortages on wings means that more violent bullies will be sent back on to the wings, where they can operate a reign of terror over other inmates.
  If officers are reduced, visitor searches cannot be adequate. Already there is an acute problem because there are no female officers at Castington, so searches of women visitors can be carried out only with police assistance. Drug-smuggling visitors are ready to take full advantage of this loophole and destroy Castington's much-commended record in stopping drugs from coming in.
  Education, with a budget already cut by 35 per cent. since 1993, faces further cuts. Training workshops for painting and decorating and motor body repairs will close. Idle and discontented inmates are more likely to cause trouble inside the prison, and more likely to go out ready to commit further offences.
  At Castington, as at Acklington, it should be remembered that the cuts do not follow a period of expansion. They follow several years of staff reductions which have already led to regular cancellation of cell searching, evening classes and gym sessions, and to the segregation unit being left undermanned. In fact, the cell search figures have not achieved the contract target. Shift systems depend on overtime, which is expensive and wasteful. The staff increases promised under fresh start did not happen, even though the efficiency savings intended to match them were achieved.
  If the Minister is looking for areas in which savings could be made, she could look, for example, at doing more joint administration between Acklington and Castington. When two institutions are so close together, there must be some scope for increasing the amount of administrative work that is done jointly, without going into front-line operations in the way that I believe is being done.
  The Government are prepared to spend about £28,000 a place on their boot camps scheme. Other young offenders institutions cost up to £24,000 a year per place. A place at Castington costs less than £15,000 a year—so why is Castington facing such severe cuts?
  I beg the Minister to think again. I do not believe that she can defend this level of damage to widely commended regimes and programmes. She cannot justify threatening security, which is the No. 1 priority, by making reductions in key areas of control and discipline and by creating aimlessness by abandoning so much of the education, work and activity programme.
  I do not intend to speculate about what could happen in Acklington and Castington if these cuts go ahead, but officers and staff on the front line have very real fears. They know just how great a cost, human as well as financial, can result from short-sighted cuts in the essentials of the custody system.
  1.47 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): May I first congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on
  342
  securing this Adjournment debate on two of the prisons in his constituency. I cannot say that I congratulate him on the seasonable hour that he has chosen, but I thank him for the courteous and constructive tone that he adopted during the debate. It may help the right hon. Gentleman if I offer to visit his two prisons. My timetable will not allow me to do so this side of the summer recess, but if he can spare a day in the summer recess to come with me, I shall be delighted to visit his prisons.
  I shall deal with the specific issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised in a few minutes, but I must say that it is rather a pity that the Opposition parties seem to table items on the Prison Service only ever to draw attention to difficulties and perceived weaknesses. That gives the public the wrong impression of an increasingly efficient service, one which has in the past three years met its targets in increasingly difficult circumstances.
  The difficult circumstances to which I refer include the ever-growing prison population, which today reached a new record of 54,045. That represents a 6.38 per cent. increase in the population since the end of April last year, and I have to add that the population is growing most rapidly in the north.
  Despite this, on 12 April the Prison Service announced—the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed alluded to it—that the degrading practice of slopping out has ended in all prisons in England and in Wales. In addition, no prisoners have been held in police cells since June 1995. Between April 1995 and February 1996, escapes fell by 59 per cent. compared to the same period in 1994–95, and by 78 per cent. compared to the same period in 1992–93. Assaults have also fallen by 8 per cent. on the 1994–95 figures over the same period.
  The Prison Service is doing well on running positive regimes for prisoners in its custody, so that they now spend 8 per cent. more time in purposeful activity than in 1992–93. At the end of February 1996, 36 per cent. of prisoners were unlocked for more than 12 hours per weekday, compared to 24 per cent. at the end of March 1993—immediately before the Prison Service became an agency. Everyone who works in the Prison Service is to be congratulated on their efforts to achieve those targets and to maintain the high standards they represent.
  I turn to the main thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's speech: the cost reduction strategy that is being applied to the Prison Service. Hon. Members will be aware that the Prison Service has been asked to achieve a 9.5 per cent. real-terms reduction in cost per place over the next three years. The Prison Service has responded to that request by drawing up a cost reduction strategy, and savings will need to be made across the service, including at headquarters and at central services.
  Having heard the right hon. Gentleman, I need to set the record straight on a couple of issues. First, it is not true that the Prison Service has imposed cuts across the board without differentiating between those prisons that are already running efficiently and those that are not. In fact, Acklington prison is a good example of just the reverse—it is one of the most efficiently run category C prisons in the country.
  Because of this, and the extra work that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons' report identified, the governor of Acklington was not required to make as significant savings as other and rather less efficient prisons. Indeed, an increase rather than a decrease in prison officer grades is planned at Acklington.

  343
  Secondly, let me put the terms "efficiency savings" and "cost reduction" in context. Efficiency savings can be made with little perceptible change to the regime. For example, by allowing prisoners to get up at 8.30 am at weekends rather than at 7.30 am, a governor would save the equivalent of two prison officer posts.
  Thirdly, it is not helpful to suggest—as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed did—that security and control will suffer as a result of these measures. A major part of the cost reduction strategy is for governors to look at the way work is done in their prisons and by whom it is done, to ensure that trained prison officers are deployed where they will be most effective—in contact with the prisoners.
  Jobs that do not involve contact with prisoners can then be carried out by civilians. This means that levels of supervision can be maintained—indeed, improved—while ensuring that the required efficiency savings are made. For example, at Acklington the governor has gone through this process, and has decided that, by flattening management structures, sharpening the operational line and introducing civilians into the prison's services, he can afford seven additional prison officers—the grade of staff that has the most direct supervision of prisoners.
  Fourthly, I assure the right hon. Member and his constituents that cost reductions will not put prisoners, staff or the local public at increased risk in the event of a major incident. The Prison Service has tried and tested contingency plans to deal with such events, and has a system of mutual aid under which, in the event of an incident at a prison, staff from neighbouring prisons are called to assist until the situation is under control.
  I welcome the suggestion that Acklington and Castington should share facilities to help provide quality services to both prisons efficiently. I can tell the House that this is already the case at Acklington and Castington, where one health care team and one works department serve both prisons. Sharing the facilities is one of the strategies recommended by the Prison Service to its governors, and the operational director for the north has asked his area managers to explore where that can be done in their areas.
  Thus the area manager for the north-east is actively examining other ways in which Acklington and Castington might share facilities.
  Mr. Beith: In that case, how will the gap be filled that will be left when the five prison officers in the health care team are removed as, to quote the document, "surplus to requirements"?
  Miss Widdecombe: If health services are shared, there is room for increasing economies of scale and increasing rationalisation.
  I shall now discuss staff losses. The right hon. Gentleman asked what staff would be lost at each prison as a result of the savings. Castington will lose 10 uniformed staff posts and seven support staff posts in the next two years. Some of those losses will be achieved by natural wastage, others by not filling vacancies when they arise, and the remaining reductions will probably be achieved through the Prison Service's voluntary early retirement and severance package.
  344
  The cost reduction strategy at Castington will result in a reduction in regime activities in the prison, but steps have been taken to minimise the effect of those reductions by, for example, the planned introduction of part-time education to ensure that as many prisoners as possible continue to have access to education.
  I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman also expressed fears that bullying will increase as a result of cost reductions. The governor of Castington has informed me that manning levels in the residential and employment areas remain unchanged by his plans, and that he therefore does not expect any increase in bullying. Indeed, it is important, when talking about staff reductions, that we take account of where staff reductions will apply. If they do not apply on the wings and the landings, that is clear evidence that control and involvement with prisoners will remain at current levels.
  Castington has had a bullying strategy since July 1995, part of which is to monitor trends in bullying and respond as necessary. I am sure that that process will continue, and that, in the unlikely event of an increase in bullying—or other misbehaviour—as a result of cost reduction, the governor and his team will take steps to tackle it.
  At Acklington, two principal officer posts and four senior officer posts will be lost, but as there will be an additional seven prison officers to undertake group work with prisoners and security-related tasks, the effects of that reduction will be minimised.
  The right hon. Gentleman's objections to the cost reduction strategy and the objections of the local Prison Officers Association do not seem to have taken into account that increase of the grade that has the most direct impact on supervision of prisoners and thus their secure and controlled custody. There will also be alterations in the way that support staff's tasks are staffed, including moves towards the use of civilians in catering and health care, which will allow quality of service to be maintained at reduced costs.
  Part of Acklington's cost reduction strategy is to reduce hours of education available to prisoners, but it is important to emphasise that that has been done by cutting from the curriculum only those classes that were under-subscribed and could be seen as "non-essential". That has meant that it has been possible to allocate additional hours to core subjects that will most benefit prisoners on their release, while making a significant saving.
  It is not anticipated at present that workshop hours will be affected. Indeed, workshop hours are currently showing an improvement, following the introduction of the incentives and earned privileges scheme in January 1996.
  I can assure the House that the cost reduction strategies at both prisons have been devised carefully, bearing in mind the differential in the scope for economies at each establishment. The maintenance of good security and control has been at the forefront of the minds of the area managers and of the two governors as they have planned their approaches to cost reductions in each establishment.
  I fear that the right hon. Gentleman's approach to the subject mirrors the simplistic approach often adopted to cost reductions: that they will mean a reduction in essential services. We must maintain good security and control. That is best achieved by ensuring that there is adequate direct supervision of prisoners and by maintaining officer presence on wings and on landings.

  345
  It is important to retain good regimes for the purposes of rehabilitation. Although education, for example, may have to be trimmed, that is very different from hacking into it wholesale. If cost-effective courses that serve many prisoners must be expanded at the expense of more costly courses that serve only a few prisoners, that is a reasonable reaction, which will not impact upon the quality of the existing regimes.
  Mr. Beith: I seek the Minister's assurance on two points. First, where security measures have been recommended in either inspection or internal inquiry reports, will she ensure that they are not removed as a result of cost reductions? I refer, for example, to yard and perimeter night patrols. Secondly, will she confirm that action will be taken about the lack of female officers at Castington? Will she ensure that vital searching procedures are not impaired by the continuing absence of female officers?
  Miss Widdecombe: I can provide assurances on both points—although perhaps not in the terms that the right hon. Gentleman seeks. Essential security will not be compromised, and necessary security measures will not be withdrawn. Both governors must make quite certain that security and control are leading considerations when implementing the cost reductions.
  346
  As to the question of searching, I accept that there is a lack of female staff, and I acknowledge that the balance is not ideal in terms of the tasks that must be carried out. Nevertheless, both prisons have made positive efforts to recruit female staff, and they will redouble those efforts during the next recruitment drive.
  Prison officers must also concentrate on security methods other than direct searching of visitors. For example, visitors can be refused access, and prisoners who are found in possession of unauthorised articles may be put on closed visits and supervised closely. A number of security measures may be implemented to ensure that we supervise visits as much as possible, watch prisoner movements and take appropriate action—including prosecution—when necessary.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that, even if we are not able to produce the numbers of female staff we require immediately, we will take seriously the main thrust of his remarks about the adequacy of searching procedures and overall visitor control.
  I am grateful for the support that I have received from both prison governors and from area management in preparing for the debate, and I look forward to a fruitful visit to Castington and Acklington, accompanied by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Two o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Information Superhighway
  Mr. French
  To ask the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the publication of the report "Ethical Issues of Information Superhighways". [25245]

  Mr. Freeman
  The CCTA research paper on "Ethical Issues of Information Superhighways" will be published shortly.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the working hours of Sir Leonard Peach, Commissioner for Public Appointments. [25566]

  Mr. Freeman
  Sir Len Peach's contract is for three days a week

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Commissioner for Public Appointments intends to publish guidance on public appointments, incorporating a code of practice, in line with the recommendations of the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. [26747]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Commissioner for Public Appointments, Sir Len Peach, published earlier today a code of practice and guidance on public appointments. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Mr. Asif Majid
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the explanatory statement relating to the refusal of entry to the United Kingdom of Mr. Asif Majid, Ref: GV100/31308, sent to the Immigration Appellate Authority in the United Kingdom by them post in Islamabad on 16 February 1995 was received by the IAA; and if he will make a statement. [26352]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The explanatory statement was received by the immigration appellate authorities on 24 February 1995.

  Mentally Handicappped Witnesses
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many cases in each year since 1993 the courts have used the testimony of mentally handicapped individuals in order to secure a conviction. [25209]
  58
  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. Cynog Dafis, dated 23 April 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about mentally handicapped witnesses.
  I am sorry to have to tell you that this information is not available and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

  Primary Legislation (Availability)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of primary legislation was readily available in its current amended form(a) November 1992 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [25141]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Approximately one third of primary legislation was available in its current amended form in November 1992 and approximately the same proportion is available at the present time.

  Magistrates Court Closures
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the consequences of local government reorganisation, with particular reference to the creation of unitary authorities, for the statutory rights of objection to the proposed closure of magistrates courts where such rights are currently held by county councils; and what assessment he has made of transferring this right in all cases to district and borough councils. [24995]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  After local government reorganisation in a magistrates courts committee's area, the statutory rights of appeal in relation to the proposed closure of a magistrates court will be held by any unitary authority in the area or by the county council insofar as it is not a unitary authority. The same bodies will be responsible for the funding of the magistrates courts service in their area. No assessment has been made of transferring the right of appeal to local authorities which do not contribute to the funding of the magistrates courts service, as would happen if the right were transferred in all cases to district and borough councils.

  Industrial Tribunal Appeals (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeals there have been from industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland to the Court of Appeal since 1 January 1990. [24989]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The number of appeals from industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland to the Court of Appeal since 1 January 1990 is 32.

  The figures for each year from 1990 to 1995 are as follows:

  59

  Number

  1990

  5

  1991

  5

  1992

  6

  1993

  3

  1994

  5

  1995

  8

  Total

  32

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many awards of an industrial tribunal in Northern Ireland have been altered on appeal on the grounds that the tribunal misdirected itself. [24990]

  Mr. Evans
  The number of awards of an industrial tribunal in Northern Ireland which have been altered by the Court of Appeal since 1990 is two.

  The figures for each year from 1990 to 1995 are as follows:

  Number

  1990

  1

  1991

  1

  1992

  0

  1993

  0

  1994

  0

  1995

  0

  Total

  2

  Land Registry
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations the Land Registry has had with other parties regarding disclosure of the price paid for a property; and if he will make a statement. [24951]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Land Registry became open to public inspection in 1990 and in December 1993 the Land Registry issued a consultation paper on a proposal to restore "price paid" information to the Land Register.

  Some 45 responses were received from professional bodies and other interested parties. The Lord Chancellor and the Chief Land Registrar decided that other proposals—to extend the mechanisms for bringing unregistered property on to the Land Register—should take higher priority. The Lord Chancellor plans to proceed with those proposals when there is an appropriate legislative opportunity.

  Contempt of Court Act 1981
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to amend section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981; and if he will make a statement. [25455]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Government at present have no plans to introduce amending legislation.

TREASURY

  St. Thomas's Hospital
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer of St. Thomas's hospital has been listed by the private financial panel in the Department of Health section for a private finance investment. [25529]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 April 1996]A private finance initiative project for St. Thomas's hospital was included in the illustrative list published by the private finance panel on 29 November 1995.

  Investments
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage growth in business investment in 1995 over its level in 1994; if he will make a statement on the differences between the growth in business investment in 1995 and his forecast in the November 1995 Red Book; and what is his revised forecast of business investment for 1996 and 1997. [25550]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 19 April 1996]: Business investment, as defined in chapter 3 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", grew by 1.8 per cent. in 1995 compared with the November FSBR forecast of 3¼per cent. This difference reflects subsequent revisions to the Office for National Statistics data for 1994 and earlier quarters of 1995. Business investment actually grew more quickly in 1995 Q3 and Q4 than forecast. The FSBR forecast shows business investment growth of 9 per cent. in 1996 and 6¾per cent. in the year to the first half of 1997.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of funding to be made available to his Department through the private finance initiative in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26167]

  Mr. Jack
  Estimated levels of private sector capital spending for private finance initiative projects within the Chancellor's departments for 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 are nil, £40 million and £40 million respectively. Further details about the private finance initiative and capital spending can be found in table 6.4 and 6.5 of the Treasury "Financial Statement and Budget Report" for 1995–96.

  Environmental Accounts
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what use he plans to make of the data on the interactions between the economy and the environment contained in the Government's satellite environmental accounts, referred to in paragraph 154 of "This Common Inheritance" annual report 1996. [25841]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Environmental factors have performed an important role in economic policy decisions in recent year. The pilot environmental accounts will improve Government's ability to judge the environmental effects of economic policy.

  Women's Pay
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the average hourly earnings for(a) female part-time employees, (b) female full-time manual employees and (c) female full-time non-manual employees as a percentage of those of the equivalent male employees by standard region. [26245]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Average hourly earnings of male and female full-time manual and non-manual employees in April 1995, by standard region, are published in "New Earnings Survey 1995", part A, a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library. Average hourly earnings of female part-time employees, by standard region, is published in part F of the same publication. There are no available estimates for male part-time employees, except in the south-east where they were £6.07 in April 1995.

  Paracetamol
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people died as a result of paracetamol use and the use of compounds containing paracetamol in 1992 and for the five previous years. [26434]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The data are published for each year separately in table 10 of "Mortality statistics: injury and poisoning, England and Wales" series DH4, Nos. 13 to 18, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  In table 10, the drugs are listed alphabetically, and when two or more drugs are listed together they are put under the drug which comes first alphabetically. Any such combination of drugs is not cross-referenced under the other drugs in the combination, so there is no double counting.

  Since the principle of showing combinations of poisons is alphabetical, it therefore follows that no conclusions can be drawn concerning which drug, if any, played the major role. In addition, the inclusion of any substance in table 10 does not necessarily imply that it is toxic.

  The listing of a substance on its own signifies that only that drug was mentioned on the death certificate. It does not therefore include those cases where the drug occurred in combination with other drugs.

  Registration Service
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements have been made following the establishment of the Office for National Statistics for the approval of local schemes and regulations for the registration service in Wales. [26676]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Under the Transfer of Functions (Registration and Statistics) Order 1996, SI 1996 No. 273, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for approving local schemes and regulations relating to the registration service in England and Wales. The agreement of the Secretary of State for Wales will also be necessary for those local schemes for regulations relating to Wales.

ENVIRONMENT

  "Policy Appraisal and the Environment"
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if it is Government policy to apply the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" to all Government policy statements where they are likely to have a significant direct or indirect effect on the environment. [25624]

  Mr. Clappison
  The guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" stresses that policy appraisal is applicable across the whole range of policies and programmes, and not just those with environmental objectives. The guide therefore raises awareness of the role of appraisal in the development of policies which have both direct and indirect environmental impacts.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria are used to determine when the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" is to be applied to(a) Government consultation papers, (b) Bills before Parliament, (c) White Papers and (d) planning policy guidance notes. [25623]

  Mr. Clappison
  Systematic appraisal, as described in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment", should automatically be part of effective policy formulation where there are likely to be both direct and indirect effects on the environment. No other criteria are required to determine cases where the guidance in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" should be applied.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" pertains to(a) Government consultation papers, (b) Bills before Parliament, (c) White Papers, (d) planning policy guidance notes and (e) policy statements. [25622]

  Mr. Clappison
  The guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" has been designed so that it is relevant for all stages of policy development, from the consultation stage through to policy statements.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to reduce the quantities of toxic waste going to landfill. [25753]

  Mr. Clappison
  Reducing the amount of waste we produce is our first priority. But it is equally important that we reduce its hazardousness. In Great Britain hazardous waste is called "special waste". Defined in this way, it covers approximately 1 per cent. of controlled waste arisings.

  Because of the threat posed by hazardous wastes to human health and the enviornment, we agree that it is important to minimise the quantities of these substances in waste arisings. The waste minimisation measures we have taken relating to the hazardousness of waste often take the form of regulations, such as the marketing and use directive amendments, which restrict or prohibit harmful materials such as chlorofluorocarbons, found in refrigerators, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, formerly used in electrical equipment, and now certain types of battery.
  63
  In the White Paper "Making Waste Work: A Strategy for Sustainable Waste Management in England and Wales", we have set a target to reduce the proportion of all controlled waste going to landfill from 70 per cent. to 60 per cent. by 2005.

  British Steel
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total value of commercial orders placed by his Department with British Steel plc in each year from 1988 to 1995. [25818]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A total of £77,000 was paid to British Steel plc and its associate companies during 1995–96. This figure also covers payments amounting to £39,258.50 made by Property Advisers to the Civil Estate, which was part of this Department during the period in question.

  Figures for preceding years are obtainable only at disproportionate cost.

  Water Leaks
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the connection between rising groundwater and water lost through leaks from water company pipes; and if he will make a statement. [25714]

  Mr. Clappison
  None. Although most water leaking from the distribution system is likely to find its way into groundwater, it is unlikely to contribute significantly to rising levels of groundwater in the London area, where water in the distribution system is generally drawn from groundwater. The rise in groundwater levels in London is believed to be due chiefly to the reduction in abstractions for industrial purposes.

  Table 2: Number of medical board diagnoses of disablement, range 1 to 100 per cent., from occupational asthma for males and females in each calendar year 1990 to 1994, inclusive

  Year

  1990

  1991

  19921

  1993

  1994

  Sex

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  All boards

  167

  49

  236

  57

  438

  115

  390

  120

  3912

  872

  Cardiff

  20

  5

  30

  9

  59

  23

  43

  22

  42

  11

  Swansea

  12

  1

  7

  2

  8

  2

  8

  1

  16

  3

  Glasgow

  15

  3

  33

  6

  30

  12

  24

  10

  23

  4

  Stoke on Trent

  18

  14

  31

  8

  74

  18

  63

  19

  68

  18

  Sheffield

  33

  9

  36

  9

  113

  23

  122

  27

  87

  26

  Manchester

  25

  6

  22

  9

  38

  13

  37

  9

  42

  13

  Newcastle

  14

  4

  36

  3

  64

  7

  59

  11

  74

  6

  London

  30

  7

  41

  11

  52

  17

  34

  21

  39

  6

  Notes:

  1The number of cases referred for medical boarding, and the number of diagnoses of disablement, increased from 1992 onwards following an increase in the number of prescribed agents for occupational asthma included in the industrial injuries disablement benefit list.

  2Excludes 19 males and nine females from Edinburgh board.

  Source:

  Medical boardings centres.

  Injury Reporting Regulations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the revision of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 will take effect; if it will include a change in the definition of an accident to include physical injury due to an assault arising out of or in connection with work; and if he will make a statement. [25715]

  Asthma
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the incidence of occupational asthma(a) nationally and (b) by region among (i) men and (ii) women in each of the past five years; and for each category and year what has been the change, by number and percentage, over the previous year. [25785]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  The surveillance of work-related and occupational respiratory disease scheme, based on reporting by specialist doctors, provides national estimates of the number of new cases of occupational asthma diagnosed by specialists. The available information from SWORD for 1991 to 1995 inclusive is shown in table 1.

  Table 1: Reports of occupational asthma to SWORD, United Kingdom 1991–1995

  Year

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Estimated total cases seen by specialists1

  —2

  1,047

  879

  941

  851

  Percentage male3

  71

  72

  70

  66

  65

  Notes:

  1System of estimating total cases using one-month per annum returns from sampled physicians together with full 12-month returns from a core group was introduced in 1992 to decrease under-reporting.

  2Precedes system referred to in note 1; annual average no. of cases reported for 1989–91 was 509.

  3Based on reported cases where the sex was stated.

  Source:

  Health and Safety Executive.

  Information is also available from the DSS and is shown in table 2 for 1990 to 1994, inclusive. Data for 1995 are not yet available for presentation in this format.

  Sir Paul Beresford: The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 came into force on 1 April 1996. The new regulations define an accident to include
  "an act of non-consensual physical violence done to a person at work".

  This change will ensure that the health and safety enforcing authorities are provided with valuable data on the extent and nature of violence to people at work.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the guidance he has issued to planning authorities in respect of green belt land surrounding or containing historic hospital complexes which become surplus to requirements and for which development using part of the green belt land is proposed; and if he will make a statement. [25716]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Advice on major developed sites in the green belt, including hospitals, is provided in annexe C to planning policy guidance note 2. Paragraph C11 advises that suitable re-use is to be preferred to redevelopment where the buildings are of architectural or historic interest.

  Energy Efficiency Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has carried out on the number of inquiries received by private companies from members of the public in respect of the energy efficiency voucher scheme; and how many vouchers have been presented to date. [26260]

  Mr. Clappison
  A full assessment will be carried out in the summer when further research results have become available. Preliminary results show that the promotion—which was supported by the private sector, and included the industry's own advisory service—successfully maintained awareness of energy efficiency within the "Wasting Energy Costs the Earth" campaign. So far, there have been almost 12,000 consumer responses, either through presentation of vouchers or through requests for advice.

  Urban Regeneration
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance has been issued by his Department to the urban development corporations to ensure that the regeneration statements prepared for urban development areas are consistent with local development plans and other strategic plans agreed by local authorities which have a bearing on urban regeneration. [26015]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. It is for each urban development corporation to consider the most appropriate means of regenerating its area, in the light of its knowledge of local needs and conditions. In doing so, it will naturally wish to have regard to any local authority plans which may impact upon the urban development area.

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what legal obligations exist to ensure that urban development corporations consult local authorities and other public bodies about(a) regeneration statements and (b) other exit strategies. [26017]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. However, my Department encourages all urban development corporations to consult local authorities and other interested parties about both their regeneration statements and their exit strategies.

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what priority will be given for English Partnerships investment in urban development areas which contain areas of dereliction and contamination following designation. [26016]
  66
  Sir Paul Beresford
  English Partnerships has been invited by several urban development corporations to become actively involved in the succession arrangements for the areas. The agency will consider taking on responsibility for the regeneration of sites within the UDC areas where the reclamation and redevelopment of those sites fits the agency's strategic objectives and priorities. The reclamation of derelict land continues to be one of English Partnerships' key objectives and high priority is given to the regeneration of sites that are contaminated.

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the estimated outstanding financial liabilities incurred by each of the urban development corporations in respect of(a) property and land which cannot be sold for a positive price in its present condition, (b) public open space and infrastructure, (c) rental guarantees, grant or compensation liabilities, and (d) staff and member liabilities, including redundancy, pension entitlements and terminal bonuses; and if he will list the provisions made within each urban development corporation budget in the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98 to cover these liabilities. [26014]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information in this form is not held by my Department. Each urban development corporation has been asked to provide details of all its remaining liabilities as part of this year's corporate plan round. However, the estimated cost of settling particular liabilities is commercially sensitive, since negotiations with potential successor bodies are still taking place. Corporations are expected to meet the cost of settling liabilities from within the resources available to them from grant in aid and receipts.

  Infected Clinical Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on missing infected clinical waste; and what action he is taking with health trusts to deal with this problem. [26321]

  Mr. Clappison
  My officials have written to the Environment Agency requesting that it investigate this matter. At this point, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on this issue.

  Council Tax Transitional Relief (Redbridge)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was(a) the total sum, (b) the amount paid to the London borough of Redbridge, (c) the percentage of the total paid to the London borough of Redbridge and (d) the amount per dwelling in the London borough of Redbridge, in transitional relief in respect of the council tax in each year from 1993–94 to 1995–96. [26503]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Total amount of transitional relief

  1993–94: £378,652,826

  1994–95: £111,283,1791

  1995–96: £27,178,1791

  (b) Amount of transitional relief paid to the London borough of Redbridge

  1993–94: £1,383,863.00

  1994–95: £179,637.301

  1995–96: £13,929.301

  67
  (c) Percentage of total amount paid to London borough of Redbridge

  1993–94: 0.37%

  1994–95: 0.16%1

  1995–296: 0.05%1

  (d) Amount paid per chargeable dwelling in London borough of Redbridge

  1993–94: £15.12

  1994–95: £1.961

  1995–96: £0.151

  These figures are averages. The actual amount of transitional relief varied according to a household's council tax banding, its composition and its previous liability for community charge.

  1Information for 1994–95 and 1995–96 is provisional and is subject to final grant claims being made during 1996–97.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Committee of Green Ministers last met; which Departments were represented at that meeting; and which Departments were represented by a Cabinet Minister. [25847]

  Mr. Clappison
  Green Ministers last met on 29 January. All Departments were represented, but not by a Cabinet Minister.

  Energy Survey
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the 1991 energy survey undertaken as part of the 1991 English house condition survey; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [25835]

  Mr. Curry
  This summer. Some key findings from the 1991 energy survey were published last year, in a guide entitled "Energy Efficiency in Council Housing: Condition of the Stock," and copies placed in the Library.

  Health Action Plan
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish the United Kingdom environmental health action plan. [25837]

  Mr. Clappison
  It is proposed to publish the United Kingdom environmental health action plan in the summer of this year.

  "This Common Inheritance"
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to stimulate debate across the country on the first set of sustainable development indicators, as envisaged in paragraph 171 of "This Common Inheritance" United Kingdom annual report 1996. [25840]

  Mr. Clappison
  The report on indicators of sustainable development for the United Kingdom published on 12 March provides a preliminary set of indicators. The report invites comments and ideas from readers which will be taken into account in developing the indicators further. Further discussions will take place with local authority 68
  associations, non-governmental organisations, and academic and research organisations.

  The Secretary of State has also written to his ministerial counterparts in other EU member states drawing attention to the work that the UK has done in developing indicators, inviting their views on the UK indicator package and to share their countries' experiences in this area.

  The Department of the Environment also intends to hold a seminar this summer for a thorough examination of the indicators, inviting participants from national and local government, industry, commerce, non-governmental organisations and the academic community.

  Smoking (Public Places)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the target set in 1992 for the percentage of public places which should have effective no-smoking policies in place by 1994; what percentage figure was achieved in 1994; and what is the current percentage figure. [25842]

  Mr. Clappison
  In 1992, the Government's target was that 80 per cent. of public places should have effective smoking policies by the end of 1994. The statistical information is not available in the form requested. However, the report "Smoking in Public Places, 2nd Survey Report, " a copy of which has been put in the Library of the House of Commons, shows for eight categories of establishment the percentage with an effective smoking policy:

  Category

  Percentage

  Shops

  63

  Advice/money transactions

  48

  Travel

  38

  Health

  71

  Formal education

  77

  Informal education

  62

  Food/entertainment

  37

  Sports/recreation

  48

  The report relates to a survey carried out in 1995.

  Private Finance Initiative (Construction Industry Report)
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a formal response to the construction industry's paper of October 1995 about the private finance initiative; and if he will make a statement. [26785]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Government have taken the industry's views into account in reviewing the PFI and deciding what further improvements to make to its operation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I and other Ministers met a construction industry delegation today and provided a full response to the points raised in the report.

  Actions taken by the Government to deal with these points include:

  (a) better guidance: a practical PFI handbook "Private Opportunity, Public Benefit" was published by HM Treasury in November 1995. Further guidance notes and practical case studies will be published during 1996;

  69

  (b) new procurement guidelines for Government Departments: highlighting best practice, published by HM Treasury on 3 April 1996;

  (c) model contract clauses: will be produced, for whenever it makes sense to use them, to minimise the need to reinvent the wheel for each PFI project. The Treasury is also to establish a standing committee to resolve precedent-setting contractual issues at an early stage;

  (d) large-scale PEI training: arrangements are being made to give practical training to 5,000 to 10,000 civil servants in 1996–97. The programme of training has commenced, and is open to private sector delegates;

  (e) more effective co-ordination: the Treasury private finance unit and the private finance panel executive have been strengthened;

  (f) closer dialogue with the construction industry: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State chaired a PFI meeting with industry representatives on 22 November 1995, with Ministers from five Departments present, including the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Today's is the second such meeting, and bilateral meetings between the industry and Ministers in a number of Departments are taking place;

  (g) encouragement for equity investment: the private finance panel will continue to strengthen its dialogue with funding institutions, building on the positive response the market is already making;

  (h) removal of unnecessarily restrictive contract conditions: to encourage greater flexibility in project funding;

  (i) developing the potential for smaller PFI projects: the emergence of model projects and contract documentation will assist the development of smaller projects. Other methods to bundle together smaller projects are also being considered;

  (j) regional PFI contacts: Government offices for the regions have established PFI co-ordinators and contact points.

  The operation of PFI will be kept under review and further action taken where necessary to remove obstacles to the quick and successful implementation of projects.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television Violence
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on her policy in respect of the introduction of V-chips. [25350]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Secretary of State has initiated a thorough and careful analysis of the new V-chip technology and associated issues in conjunction with broadcasters, regulators and other interested parties as well as with our partners in Europe. This is not a straightforward issue. There are practical and technical difficulties in introducing new technology of this kind and we would not wish to be rushed into a premature decision.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many manufacturing companies in the west midlands have closed since 1992. [24783]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: On the basis of VAT registrations data, a total of 4,007 manufacturing firms became individually deregistered—
  70
  for whatever reason—in the west midlands region during 1993 and 1994. In the same period, 3,354 new manufacturing businesses became deregistered in the region. Figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  Corruption (Football Clubs)
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has given to the premier league inquiry into football corruption within English football clubs. [25738]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  None.

  Auditors' Reports (Public Limited Companies)
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, (1) what assessment he has made of the quality of auditors reports of public limited companies in England; and if he will make a statement; [25736]

  (2) what is the supervisory role of this Department over the quality of reports made by auditors in public limited companies' annual reports with special reference to football clubs. [25737]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Company auditors and the conduct of company audit work for all companies, including those that are football clubs, are governed by the provisions of part H of the Companies Act 1989, which aims to ensure that audits are carried out only by persons who are properly supervised and appropriately qualified, and that such audits are carried out with integrity and with a proper degree of independence. Using the criteria set down in part II, five professional accountancy bodies—recognised supervisory bodies—have been recognised for the purposes of monitoring, inspecting, supervising and disciplining registered company auditors. These bodies are in turn responsible to me for the way in which they operate this self-regulatory regime, and are required to submit to me annual reports on audit regulation.

  British Steel
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of the debts of the British Steel Corporation(a) assumed by central Government and (b) otherwise written off between 1979 and privatisation in 1988. [25821]

  Mr. Page
  A two-stage reconstruction of British Steel Corporation's balance sheet involving the write-off of public dividend capital provided to the company was effected under the Iron and Steel Acts of 1981 and 1982 in recognition of the fact that trading losses could not be recovered out of existing assets. The 1981 Act reduced by £3 billion the sums invested in BSC by the Government under section 18(1) of the Iron and Steel Act 1975, with a further reduction of £1 billion effected in December 1982 by a statutory instrument made under the 1982 Act. In conjunction with this exercise, the Iron and Steel Act 1981 extinguished £509 million of national loans fund loans together with accrued interest thereon as at the end of the corporation's 1980–81 financial year, in respect of the long-term indebtness of the corporation.

  In 1988, preparing British Steel plc for privatisation, Her Majesty's Government made a number of adjustments to the company's capital structure to bring it into a form that was appropriate for a public limited company. Full

  71
  details of these adjustments are given in the National Audit Office report "Department of Trade and Industry: Sale of Government Shareholding in British Steel plc", HC 210, 1989–90 Session, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the implications of the incentives being offered by the state of Alabama, USA, to British Steel plc and its partners in the Trico steel mill venture for future investment in the British steel industry. [26013]

  Mr. Page
  None. This is purely a commercial matter for British Steel.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has evaluated from UK Nirex Ltd. in regard to its proposed charging scheme for the disposal of intermediate-level radioactive waste in the planned repository; what is the real rate of return on the capital employed in the disposal charges; and if he will indicate the period of capital expenditure used in calculating this rate of return. [26274]

  Mr. Page
  My Department receives a variety of information from UK Nirex Ltd., but these are matters of the management of the company.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of funding to be made available to his Department through the private finance initiative in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26169]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The capital value of PFI projets being planned by my Department is estimated to be as follows:

  Year

  £million

  1996–97

  12.2

  1997–98

  4.1

  For the period 1995–96, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my predecessor on 7 November 1995, Official Report, column 705, to a question from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts).

  Rural Post Offices
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many post offices in rural areas have been closed in Northern Ireland since 1979. [26232]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]:
  I understand from Post Office Counters Ltd that records are available only from 1987. The total number of post offices in rural areas of Northern Ireland in March 1987 was 515. In March 1996, the corresponding number was 460, a net change of 55. Some of this change was due to some rural offices being reclassified as urban offices. The majority of rural closures are due to the difficulty of finding a suitable applicant to take over the office.

  Nuclear Industry
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of his reply to the European Commission's request for the United Kingdom's response to the Consortium of Opposing Local Authorities and Friends of the Earth reports relating to competition policy and the nuclear industry. [26524]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government are aware of only one report sent by the Consortium of Opposing Local Authorities and Friends of the Earth to the European Commission. This report is entitled "UK Nuclear Privatisation and Public Sector Liabilities".

  The Commission is aware of the Government's view that there is no basis for the concerns which were expressed by COLA on publication of that report.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated annual saving to business from the Deregulation (Insurance Companies Act 1982) Order 1996. [25763]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The order has three main purposes:

  (a) the abolition of section 18(3) of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 ("the Act") which requires a five-yearly statement of a life assurance company's business. The life assurance industry has estimated that these measures will save £6 million for the industry over a five-year cycle;

  (b) the abolition of section 22(2) of the Act which requires each insurance company to return a statement of connected intermediaries. This measure is estimated to save the insurance industry in excess of £500,000 annually; and

  (c) amendment of sections 22(1), 42(4) and 82 of the Act in order to allow insurance companies to submit copies of their annual returns in an electronic format. This measure is for the convenience of the industry and cost savings will be small, representing the difference between the cost of production and submission of four paper copies of the return, and that of producing a diskette. The administrative cost to companies of taking corrective action, if required to do so under section 22(5) of the Act, should also be reduced.

  Women (Unfair Dismissal)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many cases of unfair dismissal of women have been recorded in Scotland during the last three years; and if he will make a statement; [25213]

  (2) how many cases of unfair dismissal of women have been recorded in England during the last three years; and if he will make a statement; [25215]

  (3) how many cases of unfair dismissal of women have been recorded in Wales during the last three years; and if he will make a statement.[25211]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The numbers of unfair dismissal cases brought by women and registered by the industrial tribunals for 1994 and 1995 are set out. Figures for 1993 can be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  73

  Cases of unfair dismissal brought by women in England, Scotland and Wales

  Year

  Region

  Total registered

  1994

  England

  11,592

  Scotland

  1,338

  Wales

  834

  1995

  England

  8,601

  Scotland

  1,122

  Wales

  687

  The tribunal area for Wales includes the following neighbouring parts of England—Crewe and Congleton; county of Shropshire except southern part of Bridgenorth; south Herefordshire; Leominster; Hereford and Malvern Hills; Newcastle upon Lyme, Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire Moorlands.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the percentage change in(a) gas beach prices and (b) the price of gas to domestic consumers since 1986. [26023]

  Mr. Eggar
  Between 1986 and 1995 the price of gas to domestic consumers excluding VAT fell by 24 per cent.—15 per cent. including VAT—in real terms. The DTI does not publish a similar series for beach prices.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set the Insolvency Service executive agency for 1996–97. [26723]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Against the Insolvency Service's planning assumption that compulsory insolvencies will total 27,500 cases in the year to 31 March 1997, I have set it the target of completing 26,500 cases with no more than 9 per cent. of uncompleted cases being more than 36 months old. I have also set it the target of reducing the unit cost of bankruptcy and compulsory liquidation case administration in 1996–97 by 8 per cent. Resources will increasingly be concentrated on the service's investigative effort and I expect the number of proceedings taken for the disqualification of directors of failed companies to exceed last year's outcome of 1,390, itself an increase of some 50 per cent. on the previous year. In concentrating on the more

  Year-on-year changes in employees in employment, December of each year (thousands)

  Industry

  SIC92 Code

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  52

  Retail

  (except 52.7)

  -11

  61

  18

  1

  Restaurants, cafes, takeaway food shops

  55.3

  7

  10

  10

  12

  Hotels and other residential accommodation

  55.1-55.2

  10

  0

  11

  23

  Bars

  55.4

  -24

  -30

  4

  21

  Manufacture of wearing apparel, dressing and dyeing of fur

  18

  -11

  11

  1

  -1

  Source: ONS.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April. [25034]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April. [25035]
  74
  serious and resource-intensive criminal investigative work, I shall expect the service to contain the effect that this will have on the other prosecution action it carries out. I shall also expect the service to operate within its agreed gross running cost provision for 1996–97 of £51,197 million and its programme budget of £3,689 million.

  In addition, I have set the service the following quality of service targets for 1996–97:

  to report to creditors on assets and liabilities within eight weeks in at least 90 per cent. of cases and within 12 weeks in 98 per cent. of all cases;

  to hold the initial meeting of creditors within 12 weeks in 90 per cent. of all cases and within four months in 98 per cent. of all cases;

  to submit reports within 10 months in at least 90 per cent. of bankruptcy cases and 80 per cent. of company liquidation cases where there is evidence of criminality;

  to submit disqualification reports within 15 months in at least 80 per cent. cases where there is evidence of unfit conduct by directors;

  to check and action at least 95 per cent. of insolvency services account payment requisitions within five days or by the due date;

  to process 95 per cent. of official receivers' receipt and payment transactions within 24 hours;

  to give notice to insolvency practitioners of interest credited to estates within four weeks.

  In addition, I expect the service to action all invoices for payment within 30 days of receipt and the agency chief executive to continue to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  Wages Councils
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many new jobs have been created in each region of the United Kingdom in those industries where rates of pay were previously determined by wages councils in each year since 1992. [24948]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information is not available by regions for industries formerly covered by wages councils. Net job councils for Great Britain are given in the following table.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Lake Kojanovskoe, Russia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had at the Groups of Eight nuclear safety and security summit in Moscow of radioactive contamination of Lake Kojanovskoe. [25530]
  75
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: The specific questions of contamination levels in Lake Kojanovskoe did not arise at the summit.

  Third-party Liability Convention
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what reasons he had from the Ukraine and Russia in respect of the signature and ratification of the Vienna convention on third-party liability. [25531]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: I understand that both Russia and the Ukraine have indicated that they intend to join the Vienna convention. As a first step, both are currently in the process of developing compatible national legislation.

  Beef Industry
  Sir Julian Critchley
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy in respect of requiring the feed and meat processing industries to make a contribution to the culling of the nation's cows. [24480]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement to the House on 16 April,Official Report, columns 513-16, covering measures for the removal of cattle over 30 months of age from the human food chain, and on the possibility of a selective cull of animals potentially at high risk from bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Tropical Rainforests
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those projects concerned with the conservation of tropical rainforests, or species within them, funded through the global environment facility, together with the sums of money which have been committed internationally to each project; and if he will indicate if each project forms part of biodiversity action plans published by the Governments of the countries in which the projects are located. [25925]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not readily available. We are consulting the secretariat of the global environment facility and will reply as soon as possible.

TRANSPORT

  Public Transport (Investment)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been invested in public transport over the last five years; and what was the percentage change for each of those years. [25243]

  Mr. Norris
  The figures are given in the table. They comprise estimates of public and private investment in London Transport, national railways and local public transport.
  76

  Total public transport £ million

  Percentage difference (year on year)

  1991–92

  1,850

  —

  1992–93

  2,370

  +28

  1993–94

  2,220

  -6

  1994–95

  2,100

  -5

  1995–96

  2,290

  +9

  Train Engine Units (Fires)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fires there have been in high-speed train engine units in each of the last five years. [25505]

  Mr. Watts
  This information is not available in the form requested. Table 12A of Her Majesty's railway inspectorate's annual report on railway safety for 1994–95, a copy of which is in the Library, lists the number of train fires by type of vehicle but does not distinguish between the engine units and the coaches of high-speed trains. The total number of fires in high-speed trains is shown in the following table:

  Type of vehicle

  High-speed Trains

  1991–92

  12

  1992–93

  9

  1993–94

  15

  1994–95

  5

  Figures for 1995–96 are not yet available.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what safety procedures are in place for dealing with fires in engine units of high-speed trains. [25506]

  Mr. Watts
  The engine compartments of high-speed train power cars are equipped with a fire detection system that is alarmed in the driving cab. A fire suppression system is also provided.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will instruct the Health and Safety Executive to investigate(a) the cause of and (b) the safety procedures following the fire in the engine unit of the 17.35 service from London to Plymouth, at Bristol Parkway station, on 7 April. [25504]

  Mr. Watts
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate has inquired into the incident.

  The fire was caused by a component failure in the engine fuel system. Remedial action is in hand.

  Safety procedures at the time of the incident involved summoning the fire service, which attended promptly, and separating the vehicle on fire from the rest of the train.

  Road Schemes (Environmental Assessment)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice has been issued by his Department on the implementation of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment recommendations on environmental assessment of road schemes. [25843]
  77
  Mr. Norris
  Revised and expanded guidance on the environmental assessment of trunk road schemes was issued in 1993 as volume 11 of the design manual for roads and bridges. This is kept under review and updated as necessary.

  M27 (New Road Signs)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new road signs have been ordered for the Bursledon-Nursling section of the M27; when they were placed in storage; at what cost they were purchased; and when he expects them to be installed. [25762]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. John Denham, dated 23 April 1996:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about road signs for the Bursledon Nursling section of the M27.
  No new road signs have been ordered for this section of the M27. 14 variable message signs are being recovered from the M25 during the widening works. These signs are being stored and will be installed on the M27 when funds become available for this work.

  Motor Vehicles (Accident Damage)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to make it compulsory for details of accident damage to be entered on motor vehicle registration documents with the name of the insurance company where appropriate and relevant. [25419]

  Mr. Norris
  Such an endorsement did appear on the old-style green logbook. The practice ceased in 1971 because it was found that it could give a false impression of a vehicle's condition. Some vehicles which were assumed to be unroadworthy were in fact repaired to a high standard. This reason is still valid today.

  Officials are, however, discussing with the insurance industry and the police the possibility of making available to the public information on total loss vehicles.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 340, in respect of projections of future road congestion, what assessment he has made of the extent to which it will be practicable and economic for the railways to enlarge their market share of goods and passenger traffic to alleviate likely road congestion; and what proposals he has to quantify this. [25865]

  Mr. Watts
  It is not possible to quantify the potential impact in general terms of an expansion of the railways on national road congestion, although it can make important local differences. Liberalisation and privatisation will improve the ability of rail to attract and retain passenger and freight traffic.

  Train Services (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he has given to the franchising director in respect of train operating companies guaranteeing disabled access to train services. [25503]
  78
  Mr. Watts
  None. The Rail Regulator is responsible for protecting the interests of disabled rail passengers. All train and station operators are required to submit for the regulator's approval a disabled people's protection policy, as a condition of being granted a licence to operate. Details of the accessibility of rolling stock were set out in my answer of 19 April to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short),Official Report, column 632.

  Sea Empress Incident
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decisions were taken by the executive committee of the international oil pollution compensation fund at its meeting on Tuesday 16 April in relation to compensation payments to victims of the Sea Empress disaster; and if he will make a statement. [26353]

  Mr. Norris
  At a meeting of the IOPC fund's executive committee held in the immediate aftermath of the Sea Empress incident the committee decided that the fund should not make any compensation payments until the position regarding the total level of likely claims was clearer. On the basis of an agreement brokered by the Government, the ship's insurers, the Skuld Protection and Indemnity Club, agreed to make payments to claimants suffering hardship. To date, 62 payments have been made totalling some £240,000.

  At a meeting of the fund's executive committee on 16 April the committee decided that the fund could start paying compensation to claimants, but because of continuing uncertainty about the level of total claims such payments should be restricted to 75 per cent. of the damage suffered by the claimant on the basis of the advice of the fund's experts at the time when a payment was made. It is believed that in the majority of cases the position of the claimants will be improved, but there might still be circumstances in which some claimants could still suffer genuine financial difficulty. To address this possibility, the Government have brokered a further agreement with the Skuld club whereby the club will make payments above 75 per cent. in cases of genuine financial hardship. The details of this arrangement will be discussed with representatives of Sea Empress claimants at meetings to be held in Milford Haven on 25 April.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the forthcoming return to the wreck fo the MV Derbyshire; and if he will make a statement. [25582]

  Mr. Norris
  Representation have been received from, and on behalf of, the Derbyshire Family Association. They are being considered. We hope to be able to respond to the representations in the near future.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he will publish the list of people to visit the wreck of the MV Derbyshire; and what date he has set for this investigation; [25581]

  (2) when he proposes to make a statement on the inclusion of DFA nominated representatives in the visit to the wreck of the MV Derbyshire. [25563]
  79
  Mr. Norris
  We await the final recommendations of the technical assessors and salvage advisors appointed to oversee this project. Until their recommendations have been received and considered and any necessary contractual procedures completed, it is premature to fix the possible date for a return to the Derbyshire or to list those who will be involved.

  Railways (Season Ticket Discounts)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which train operating companies are and were paying season ticket discounts under the passengers charter(a) currently, (b) 12 months ago and (c) 24 months ago. [24546]

  Mr. Watts
  For the purposes of the passengers charter season ticket compensation scheme, train operating companies are split into 59 route groups. The following route groups are and were triggering season ticket discounts at the end of March:

  (a) 52 weeks ending 29 March 1996

  Punctuality and Reliability

  Felixstowe

  Punctuality only

  Northampton Lines

  Cross Country

  West Coast

  East Coast

  Manchester Local

  North Wales Branches

  Avon

  Reliability only

  North London Orbital

  North Wales Inter Urban

  Cornwall

  (b) 52 weeks ending 31 March 1995

  Punctuality and Reliability

  Avon

  Manchester Locals

  Punctuality only

  Cross Country

  North Wales Branches

  ScotRail East

  ScotRail Central

  Reliability only

  North London Lines

  Lancashire Locals

  Northern Short

  Transpennine

  Manchester Long

  Cornwall

  South Yorkshire and Humberside Long

  (c) 52 weeks ending 2 April 1994

  Punctuality only

  Cross Country

  Avon

  Reliability only

  Transpennine

  South Yorks and Humberside Long

  Manchester Long

  Cornwall

  Anglia

  Merseyrail

  Emergency Salvage Cover
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when his Department's charter of the tug Smit-Lloyd Safe for emergency salvage cover in Scottish waters ends; and if he will make a statement; [23290]

  (2) when his Department's charter of the tug Far Turbot for emergency salvage cover in the English channel ends; and if he will make a statement. [23289]

  Mr. Norris
  The existing Coastguard agency charter of the tugs Smit-Lloyd Safe and the Far Turbot ends on 30 April 1966. The intention is that this provision will recommence on 1 October 1996 for a period of six months.

  The Coastguard agency has arrangements with four firms of UK tug brokers to make towing vessels available in an emergency. HM Coastguard rescue centres maintain databases of suitable vessels in their locality, including harbour tugs. The agency has a draft understanding with the British Tugowners Association that its members will, if possible, make tugs available for emergencies. We will continue to work closely with the tug industry to ensure the best possible access to emergency towing vessels.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of funding to be made available to his Department through the private finance initiative in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26177]

  Mr. Watts
  Private sector contributions under the private finance initiative for the years in question are estimated at roundly(a) £250 million, (b) £630 million, and (c) £820 million.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the entertainment costs at each British embassy in each EU country in 1995; and if he will make a statement. [24595]

  Mr. Hanley
  Expenditure on official entertainment at British embassies in European Union countries in the financial year 1994–95—the latest figure available—was £1,183,614. It is our practice not to publish how this is divided between posts.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the entertainment costs at each British high commission in each Commonwealth country in 1995; and if he will make a statement. [24596]

  Mr. Hanley
  Expenditure on official entertainment at British high commissions overseas in the financial year 1994–95—the latest figure available—was £1,252,368. It is our practice not to publish how this is divided between posts.

  Turkey
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the human rights situation in Turkey; and what plans Her Majesty's Government have to address the issue at the current UN Commission on Human Rights. [25875]

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 19 April,Official Report, column 631.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total number of staff in the British high commission in(a) Lesotho, (b) Malawi, (c) Kenya, (d) Ghana and (e) Botswana in the years 1992–93 to 1996–97. [25564]

  Mr. Hanley
  The authorised establishment in these posts is as follows:

  (a) UK-based staff

  Post

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Maseru (Lesotho)

  6.00

  6.00

  6.00

  6.00

  3.00

  Lilongwe (Malawi)

  13.00

  13.00

  13.00

  13.00

  13.00

  Nairobi (Kenya)

  37.00

  37.00

  35.00

  33.00

  35.00

  Accra (Ghana)

  22.00

  19.00

  17.50

  17.50

  17.00

  Gaborone (Botswana)

  7.00

  7.00

  7.00

  6.00

  5.00

  (b) Locally engaged employees, in staff years:

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Maseru

  15.50

  15.50

  15.50

  11.00

  11.00

  Lilongwe

  58.25

  58.25

  58.25

  59.25

  60.75

  Nairobi

  67.50

  68.50

  68.50

  68.50

  68.00

  Accra

  87.50

  87.50

  91.50

  93.50

  84.50

  Gaborone

  17.50

  17.50

  17.50

  13.90

  13.90

  In addition, the Overseas Development Administration has two development divisions in Africa. The office in Lilongwe was transferred to Harare in 1995.

  Development division UK-based staff establishment

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Lilongwe

  15.00

  12.00

  12.00

  12.00

  —

  Nairobi

  10.00

  10.00

  10.00

  10.00

  10.00

  Development division-locally engaged staff establishment:

  Lilongwe

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Nairobi

  14.00

  14.00

  18.00

  18.00

  18.00

  Staff figures are still awaited from Lilongwe.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of funding to be made available to this Department through the private finance initiative in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26168]

  Mr. Hanley
  We consider the use of private finance as the preferred option for all proposed capital projects. I refer the hon. Member to the capital spending estimates in table 6.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97", which is available in the House Library. no capital investment took place under the private finance initiative scheme in 1995–96.

  South Africa (Trade Access)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the position of Her Majesty's Government in the Council of Ministers of the EU with regard to the liberalisation of trade access by the Republic of South Africa to the EU; and if it will make it the policy to work for a fair and asymmetrical trade deal with particular emphasis on allowing as much market access for agricultural products as possible. [26093]

  Mr. David Davis
  The UK has consistently argued for an EU trade agreement with South Africa which will help South Africa's successful transition to a prosperous and stable non-racial democracy. The agreement should cover substantially all trade, with as much market access for agricultural products as possible. The mandate agreed at the Foreign Affairs Council on 25 March is not as liberal as we would have liked, and we therefore abstained in the vote and made a statement expressing our concerns. We will continue to work for as liberal an agreement as possible. We expect that the Commission will need more negotiating flexibility: we will respond sympathetically to any such request, and urge our EU partners to do likewise.

  Israel-Lebanon Conflict
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his recent speeches regarding the present Israeli-Lebanese conflict represent a change in Government policy in respect of the respect for territorial integrity between Lebanon and Israel as outlined in Security Council resolution 425. [26140]

  Mr. Hanley
  We continue to support the territorial integrity of Lebanon, and have consistently called for the implementation of Security Council resolution 425. The UK co-sponsored resolution 1052 on 18 April, which called for a ceasefire and recalled SCR 425.

  Miss Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to support attempts by members of the international community to bring about an immediate ceasefire in the present conflict between Lebanon and Israel. [26137]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are in close touch with all the Governments concerned. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has sent messages to Foreign Ministers Bouez and Shara'a and has spoken to Warren Christopher and the Israeli Foreign Minister. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met the Lebanese Prime Minister and has discussed the situation with Presidents Clinton and Chirac. We strongly support US efforts to mediate. We also supported UNSCR 1052, which calls for immediate ceasefire.

  Miss Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government plan to take to support international relief efforts to alleviate the suffering of people displaced in Lebanon by the present conflict between Israel and Lebanon. [26141]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are providing bilateral emergency aid to Lebanon of £250,000. In addition, the European Commission is providing 600,000 ecu, which will be spent on medical aid, tents, blankets, food aid and safe water supplies.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to ensure non-discrimination between the sexes in employment conditions in the public service on St. Helena. [26464]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  There is no discrimination between the sexes in employment conditions.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to ensure that no public service employee on St. Helena loses her employment because she becomes pregnant. [26463]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  St. Helena Government public service orders provide that all established female officers are eligible for maternity leave. However, those engaged on temporary terms are not eligible. The St. Helena Government are reviewing the terms and conditions of unestablished employees.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to remove Government control of access to the broadcasting service on St. Helena. [26465]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The Government of St. Helena are examining options for the management of Radio St. Helena, including establishing a media trust.

  EU Member States (Territories)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, columns 531-32, for what reasons the Falkland Islands were not included in the list of United Kingdom territories. [26462]

  Mr. David Davis: This was due to an administration error. The answer should have included the Falkland Islands within the list of UK dependent territories as follows:

  Territory

  Part of EU?

  Vote in EP elections?

  Falkland Islands

  No

  No

  A request for an amendment to the Official Report was made on 15 March.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the use of anti-personnel land mines. [26722]

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) yesterday.

  DEFENCE
  Mr. Soames
  RAF training is designed to fit individuals with the skills to meet the tasks expected of them both now and in the future. Not all training has to take place within fixed time frames. Accordingly, as part of the measures to avoid unnecessary pressure on personnel during transition to the future RAF manning structure, we plan to suspend refresher training in common core skills for the period to March 1997, except where this would prejudice safety standards or jeopardise support for the RAF's operational commitments. Military effectiveness will not be compromised.
  85

  Royal Air Force Training
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to suspend non-essential RAF training. [25795]

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain the details of the research experiments conducted by Dr. Mohamed Abou-Donia at Duke university medical centre in the United States into the causes of Gulf war syndrome. [26266]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department will consider very carefully the report on the research undertaken at Duke university medical centre when it is published.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the British armed forces serving in Bosnia have available(a) armoured vehicles plated with depleted uranium and (b) depleted uranium shells for operational use. [26262]

  Mr. Soames
  No.

  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment there were at the date of its abolition; and how many (i) full-time and (ii) part-time members are now serving in the Royal Irish Regiment in Northern Ireland. [25931]

  Mr. Soames
  There were 2, 990 full-time and 2, 858 part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment when it amalgamated with the Royal Irish Rangers to form the Royal Irish Regiment on 1 July 1992. The Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service) consisted of 3, 014 full-time and 2, 122 part-time soldiers on 31 March 1996.

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 April,Official Report, column 98, for what reason no Turkish Cypriots are employed in the western sovereign base area; what proposals he has to ensure that employment by the base reflects the composition of the population of the western sovereign base area; and if he will make a statement. [26239]

  Mr. Soames
  Following the events of 1974, the Turkish Cypriot population now lives in the Turkish-controlled area to the north of the UN-patrolled buffer zone. No Turkish Cypriots are registered for employment in the catchment area for the western sovereign base area. The employment of Cypriot personnel within the WSBA reflects this position.

  Nuclear Weapons Transport
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the provision of aid to the Russian Federation to assist the safe transport and storage of nuclear weapons. [26263]

  Mr. Soames
  The UK, at a cost of some £35 million, has provided Russia with 250 armoured weapon containers and 20 heavy armoured transport vehicles to provide additional protection for its nuclear warheads in transit and in storage. These warheads are those made surplus under the strategic arms reduction talks treaty. Russia has expressed its appreciation for this assistance.

  Married Quarters Estate
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he has made for the management of the properties of the married quarters estate which his Department will continue to occupy after the proposed sale. [26454]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  As we explained in the preliminary information memorandum, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, my Department will retain responsibility for the management and maintenance of the quarters which we lease back. This responsibility will continue to be discharged by the Defence Housing Executive after the sale.

  Home Defence Facilities
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities for home defence and the wartime administration of the armed forces have been provided within the Kincardine-on-Forth area of Scotland since 1970(a) in facilities established for that purpose and (b) otherwise; and what the costs of establishing and maintaining such facilities have been during the period. [25545]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 18 April 1996]: There are no records or knowledge of any facilities for home defence or wartime administration in the area of Kincardine-on-Forth.

  Emergency Communications Links
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose emergency communications links were provided between Lanark, Strathclyde and the former underground wartime command centre of the headquarters, United Kingdom land forces at Sopley, Hampshire; for how long they were established; and at what cost. [25546]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 18 April 1996]: There are no records or knowledge of emergency communication links between Lanark, Strathclyde and the former underground wartime command centre of the headquarters, United Kingdom land forces at Sopley.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose emergency communications links were provided between Inverbervie near Montrose and the former underground wartime command centre of the headquarters, United Kingdom land forces at Sopley, Hampshire; for how long they were established; and at what cost. [25547]
  86
  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 18 April 1996]: There were no specific emergency communication links between the former home defence and wartime administration facility at Inverbervie near Montrose and the former underground wartime command centre of the headquarters, United Kingdom land forces at Sopley.

  The only permanent communication system at Inverbervie was based on British Telecom telephone lines at a cost of £8,000 per annum. All communication systems had been removed by January 1994.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Authorities
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if police authorities are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, scrutiny by the Audit Commission,(c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [25974]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: Police authorities, established under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, are not open to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner but by the Commissioner for Local Administration. Similarly, they are subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission, not the National Audit Office. Also, the Audit Commission's citizens charter performance indicators include a range of indicators that apply to the police service, and police authorities are required to publish these annually. As regards statutory provision for open government, police authorities are bound by rules similar to those that apply to local government.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, minutes of meetings, (d) agendas of meetings and (e) registers of members' interests are published by police authorities; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [25969]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: The Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, which established the new police authorities, requires them to publish an annual report on local policing for that year and to copy that report to the Home Secretary. Under the Act, they are also bound by provisions in the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, which require agendas, minutes of proceedings and accounts to be open to inspection during reasonable hours and also requires members to declare any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in business which is under discussion. Additionally, regulations are being prepared which will extend to police authorities a requirement to maintain a register of members' interests which is similarly open to public inspection.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) 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 police authorities. [25975]
  87
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]Expenditure in 1995–96 prices by police authorities in England and Wales in the period 1990–91 to 1995–96 was as follows:

  1990–91: £5,607 million

  1991–92: £5,896 million

  1992–93: £6,150 million

  1993–94: £6,309 million

  1994–95: £6,449 million

  1995–96: £6,606 million (estimated)

  Details of projected police authority expenditure are not available beyond 1996–97, for which the figure is £6,715 million.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects provisions to be in place to allow the Police Complaints Authority discretion to publish information to inform the public of the outcome of investigations; and if he will make a statement. [26370]

  Mr. Maclean
  The disclosure of information by the Police Complaints Authority is governed by section 98 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. We have already announced our intention to amend section 98 to allow the PCA discretion to publish such information as is reasonably necessary to inform the public of the outcome of investigations and we await a suitable legislative opportunity.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to give the Police Complaints Authority powers to recommend disciplinary charges if evidence shows that on the balance of probability an offence has been committed by a police officer. [26371]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Police Complaints Authority already has powers to recommend or, ultimately, to direct that disciplinary charges be brought against a police officer.

  Alcohol and Drug-related Crime
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of crimes that were committed under the influence of(a) alcohol, (b) heroin, (c) ecstasy and (d) cannabis for each of the past five years. [26345]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 3 April,Official Report, columns 289–90, about the timing and implementation of improvements and other recommendations at Buckley Hall prison, (a) on what dates verbal recommendations were made by the area manager for Buckley Hall, (b) how these are recorded by the Home Office controller and the director of the prison and (c) what system is in place to ensure that the recommendations are carried out. [25759]
  88
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 23 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about verbal recommendations made by the area manager regarding Buckley Hall prison.
  The area manager makes regular visits to the establishment. He also chairs a monthly progress meeting at which any recommendations are recorded in the minutes. During scheduled visits he meets the Director and Controller and he may make recommendations, which are then monitored by the Controller as part of her normal duties.
  The area manager's recommendations can be separated into those which attract an immediate solution and those which do not. In the case of the former, the Director will seek to act upon comments by the area manager without delay. In the case of the latter a more formal approach would be taken. The Director would be required to submit a full report to the area manager at the next progress meeting. The Controller would be required to monitor progress both before and after to that meeting.
  The Controller also produces a monthly progress report for the area manager and monitors any points raised on his behalf.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many category A(a) male and (b) female prisoners are serving a life prison sentence in prisons in England and Wales. [26089]/membercontribution>

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 23 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many category A (a) male and (b) female prisoners are serving a life prison sentence in prisons in England and Wales.
  On 17 April 1996 there were 326 male and one female category A prisoners serving life sentences in prisons in England and Wales.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons in England and Wales hold category A inmates. [26095]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 23 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many prisons in England and Wales hold Category A prisoners.
  There are currently 22 prisons in England and Wales which hold Category A prisoners on a regular basis.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women inmates are serving a life prison sentence in prisons in England and Wales. [26096]
  89
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 23 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many (a) men and (b) women prisoners are serving a life prison sentence in prisons in England and Wales.
  The latest available information is for 29 February 1996. On that date there were 3, 277 male and 122 female life sentence prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  Long Lartin Prison
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what items have been found as a result of(a) strip searches and (b) anal searches in the last 12 months at Her Majesty's prison, Long Lartin; and if he will make a statement about the effectiveness of such searches; [25877]

  (2) what is the routine for (a) strip searches and (b) anal searches at HMP Long Lartin; and how many such searches have been carried out in the last 12 months. [25876]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 23 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about strip and anal searches in Long Lartin prison.
  The procedures for strip searching at Long Lartin are the same as those contained in the Prison Service manual on security, copies of which are available in the Library. Prison staff at Long Lartin do not perform intimate searches.
  Strip searches are performed mainly on two occasions: during a cell search and on suspicion following a visit
  Figures are not available in the form requested, however of the 203 cell searches carried out between January and April, there were 100 finds of unauthorised articles. During the period November 1995 and April 1996, 139 searches were conducted following visits which resulted in three items being found.
  Details of the articles and where they were found could be provided only at disproportionate cost

  Prison Visitors (Drugs)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visitors to prisons in England and Wales were charged with attempting to import drugs into prisons during 1995. [26088]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 23 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many visitors to prisons in England and Wales were charged with attempting to import drugs into prisons during 1995.
  Charges relating to offences by visitors of attempting to bring drugs into prisons are brought by the police.
  90
  There are no central records held by the police or Prison Service on the number of such charges and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Gun Dealers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licensed gun dealers there are currently in the United Kingdom. [25569]

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest available information on firearms dealers was published in the Home Office statistical bulletin "Firearm Certificate Statistics, England and Wales 1994", issue 11/95, copies of which can be found in the Library. The bulletin contains the information that 2, 521 firearms dealers were registered at 31 December 1994.

  Figures for Scotland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and figures for Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Live Animal Export Demonstrations (Policing)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost of policing demonstrations against the export of live calves during 1995. [25570]

  Mr. Maclean
  During 1995, eight police authorities incurred additional expenditure as a result of demonstrations against the export of live animals. I understand from them that the estimated additional costs caused by these demonstrations in the year were £7,746, 225. It is not possible to apportion costs by type of animal.

  Dorset Police Authority
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by how much funding to the Dorset police authority has increased since 1979; what percentage this represents in real terms; what has been the increase in(a) police officers and (b) civilian staff over the same period; and if he will make a statement on future funding and manpower. [25754]

  Mr. Maclean
  Expenditure on the Dorset police increased by £56.87 million between April 1979 and March 1996. This is a real terms increase of 110.6 per cent. During this period, police strength increased by 123—plus 11 per cent.—and civilian support staff strength increased by 344—124 per cent.

  The spending power of the Dorset police in 199–97 will be £68.1 million. This includes £250,000 as their share of the extra funding for more officers, sufficient to recruit 13 more constables. This is an increase of 3.9 per cent.—£2.6 million—over 1995–96. My right hon. and learned Friend has additionally exercised his powers under section 31(1) (b) of the Police Act 1964 and awarded the force special grant of up to £1.5 million for national security expenditure at the Government party conference in October. I understand from the chief constable that police strength is expected to increase by 19 by the end of March 1997.

  Ministerial Visit (Soho)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the findings of his official visit to Soho on the night of 1 to 2 April; who accompanied him; and from which budget the visit was funded. [25575]

  Mr. Howard
  On 1 April, as one of a number of visits I undertook that day to Metropolitan police operations, I accompanied members of the Metropolitan police on one of their regular foot patrols in Soho. The patrol provided me with an insight into the reality of day-to-day policing.

  From the Department, I was accompanied by a private secretary and, in view of the known media interest in my visit, two press officers. No additional expenditure was incurred as a result of the visit except for nominal overtime costs.

  Private Prisons (Assaults)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the average assault rate since October 1995 in all privately operated prisons and their Prison Service operated comparator group establishments.[25195]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 23 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for the average assault rate since October 1995 in all privately operated prisons and their Prison Service operated comparator group establishments
  A report has been commissioned from consultants Coopers and Lybrand to assess the relative costs and performance of contractually managed prisons against comparable establishments in the public sector during 1994/5. This report will be published in the next few weeks.
  I will write to the Honourable Member following publication of the Coopers and Lybrand report with information on the period mentioned in his question.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Education Exhibition
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to Education Extra and the Open School to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [26369]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 29 April to Friday 3 May 1996.

WALES

  Dental Services
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 25 March,Official
  92
  Report, columns 451–52, on people who have been deregistered from their dentist, (1) if the table includes patients deregistered by dentists because of their dissatisfaction with the remuneration system; and deregistrations for what reasons are excluded; [25224]

  (2) if the statistical basis for calculating the number of people deregistered by their dentists is the same as that applied by the Department of Health; and what changes in the method of calculation have been made in the last 18 months. [25225]

  Mr. Richards
  Welsh family health services authorities were asked to provide, at fortnightly intervals, the number of child and adult patients for whom dentists have given them written notice to deregister during the previous two-week period. They were not asked to record reasons.

  This information is simply recorded and aggregated by the Welsh Office to produce the all-Wales figure and cumulative totals; the procedure has not been changed.

  Statistical procedures applied in England are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date dentists were first required to register their patients; and when his Department first received information(a) total registrations with dentists and (b) total deregistrations by dentists from each family health services authority or equivalent body. [25222]

  Mr. Richards
  Dentists have been able to register patients since 1 October 1990. The Dental Practice Board first published the numbers of patients registered for each family health services authority in January 1991. Information about deregistrations has been supplied by each Welsh family health services authority fortnightly since 14 August 1992.

  Local Authority Negligence Claims
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation he has had with local authority associations and the Association of British Insurers concerning the adequacy of insurance cover for local authority negligence claims in connection with the publication of independent reports commissioned by local authorities. [25878]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  National Library of Wales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will discuss with the officers of the national library of Wales the adequacy of the number of staff it can currently employ to meet its responsibilities; and if he will make a statement. [26182]

  Mr. Hague
  The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), met library officers on 27 March to review its 1996–97 operational plan, including proposed staffing. The library's grant in aid for 1996–97 includes additional funding for operation of the third library building, including provision for additional staff.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were diagnosed with breast cancer in (i) 1993, (ii) 1994 and (iii) 1995 in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [25244]

  Mr. Richards
  The latest information on the number of Welsh residents with newly registered cases of breast cancer was published in "Health Statistics Wales 1995", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Penmaenbach Tunnel
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what maintenance costs have been incurred on the Penmaenbach tunnel since 1991; and what proportion of this has been to deal with the cracks in the lining of the tunnel. [25893]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The average annual civil engineering maintenance cost of Penmaenbach tunnel is approximately £45, 000, of which about 5 per cent. is expended in dealing with monitoring and treating the cracking.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the cause of the cracks in the Penmaenbach tunnel; and say whether these cracks have grown worse in the last five years. [25892]

  Mr. Jones
  The cracking in the non-structural unreinforced concrete lining of the Penmaenbach tunnel was and is due to shrinkage of the concrete during the normal curing process. Some shrinkage is inevitable during this process.

  There has been a small increase in the cracking over the last five years, but this is no more than would be expected to occur during the residual part of the concrete curing process, which takes some years.

  Battlefields Register
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to publish a battlefields register for Wales.[25845]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We have no plans currently to produce a battlefields register for Wales. In England a register has been produced which lists 43 known, and often well-documented, sites of significant military engagements. Military action in Wales generally took the form of skirmishes and sieges. In the latter case, these were often associated with major fortifications and related earthworks which are protected under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.

  Environmental Health Action Plan
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to publish an environmental health action plan for Wales. [25838]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A public consultation draft of the UK environmental health action plan was issued in August 1995 and it is now being revised in light of comments received. It is proposed that a UK plan will be issued in the summer of this year.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority concerning (i) the market-testing procedures for the materials management section of the authority and (ii) requests for post-tender adjustments by Exel Logistics; [26507]

  (2) what guidelines he has issued to the Welsh Health Common Services Authority concerning market-testing procedures and the amendment of winning tenders between the award and the signature of the contracts; [26508]

  (3) what representations he has received concerning Exel Logistics market-testing award for the materials management section of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority; and if he will make a statement. [26509]

  Mr. Hague
  I have had no consultations with the chairman about the market-testing exercise. One representation has been received, from the hon. Member. This exercise is being carried out in line with current procedures and negotiations are continuing on a commercially confidential basis.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Avon County Council
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will consider taking action against Avon county council for failing to provide the child whose name has been sent to her with any education since July 1994; [24958]

  (2) if she will direct Avon county council or its successor authority, Bath and North-East Somerset council to find a suitable school or otherwise offer suitable education for a child whose name has been sent to her; [24956]

  (3) if she will direct Avon county council or its successor authority, Bath and North-East Somerset council to discuss with the mother the future education needs of a child whose name has been sent to her. [24957]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if funds and facilities can be provided in the state sector to give children with learning difficulties an education based on the principles used by Professor Feuerstein of the international centre for the enhancement of learning potential in Jerusalem; and if she will ensure provision along these lines is made for the child whose name has been sent to her. [24955]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: It is for local education authorities and schools to decide how best to meet the needs of children with special educational needs in the light of the statutory code of practice on the identification and assessment of SEN. Where a child has been assessed as requiring a statement of SEN, LEAs have to consult parents and others about the provision to be specified in the statement. It is open to LEAs to use

  95
  funding from the grants for educational support and training programme for SEN training to train teachers in any area of SEN.

  Risk Assessment
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what opportunities there are in the national curriculum to teach risk assessment. [25254]

  Mr. Paice
  Under the national curriculum for mathematics, pupils are taught from the age of seven to develop an understanding of probability, and older pupils are taught to estimate and calculate the probability of events. Pupils use real contexts in the mathematics classroom, which enables them to expand their understanding of mathematics and its application, and helps prepare them for adult life.

  Conductive Education
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what Government resources have been made available in each of the last six years for the development of conductive education in the United Kingdom. [25874]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The results of a Government-funded research project to examine the effectiveness of conductive education were published in 1993. Since 1994–95, the amounts supported under the grants for educational support and training programme for special educational needs training have been as follows:

  1994–95: £9.7 million

  1995–96: £10.5 million

  1996–97: £10.3 million.

  It is open to local education authorities to use this programme to support the training of teachers in conductive education.

  Construction Industry Training Board
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many new companies were registered with the Construction Industry Training Board(a) for training and (b) for paying their levy in each year since 1992. [25732]

  Mr. Paice
  For the years in question the number of new employers (a) registered with the Construction Industry Training Board and(b) assessed to pay levy were as follows:

  Year

  Total

  Assesed to positive levy

  1991–92

  8,279

  1,197

  1992–93

  8,839

  777

  1993–94

  14,376

  1,410

  1994–95

  18,761

  1,994

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the total running costs of the Construction Industry Training Board in each year since 1992 [25728]

  Mr. Paice
  The operating costs for each year since 1992 were as follows:96

  1991–92: £33.3 million

  1992–93: £39.7 million

  1993–94: £35.5 million

  1994–95: £47.6 million.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the companies which fall within the scope of the Construction Industry Training Board, but who are not registered with the Construction Industry Training Board. [25726]

  Mr. Paice
  It is not possible to estimate the number of companies which fall within the scope of the board but which are not registered.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many court cases the Construction Industry Training Board initiated in 1995 to recover costs of training levy from those who refused to pay it. [25722]

  Mr. Paice
  During 1995, 3,408 summonses were issued and 978 cases required enforcement action through the courts.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money was spent by the Construction Industry training Board in each year since 1992. [25730]

  Mr. Paice
  The total expenditure for each year since 1992 was as follows:

  1991–92: £116.2 million

  1992–93: £115.2 million

  1993–94: £87.8 million

  1994–95: £101.3 million.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many firms involved solely in the construction and erection of agricultural buildings are registered for training levy with the Construction Industry Training Board. [25725]

  Mr. Paice
  No figure is available for the number of firms involved solely in the construction and erection of agricultural buildings.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people are employed by the Construction Industry Training Board to supervise the registration of companies. [257331]

  Mr. Paice
  The board employs 15 staff whose duties include the registration of companies.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money was raised via payment to the Construction Industry Training board by construction companies towards training grants awarded by the Construction Industry Training Board. [25729]

  Mr. Paice
  For the year ending March 1995, £61.9 million was raised from the levy on employers and training grants of £30.8 million were awarded.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many employees are currently working for the Construction Industry Training Board. [25727]

  Mr. Paice
  The Construction Industry Training Board currently has a total of 967 employees, of whom 922 are permanent staff and 45 are on temporary contracts.
  97
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money was raised in Levy by the Construction Industry Training Board in each year since 1992. [25731]

  Mr. Paice
  The levy income for each year since 1992 was as follows:

  1991–92: £62.8 million

  1992–93: £57.4 million

  1993–94: £46.5 million

  1994–95: £61.9 million.

  Local Authority Reserves 1990–1995

  Reserves (£000s) as at:

  1 April 1990

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1995

  City of London

  201,765

  171,638

  173,019

  195,690

  232,836

  222,623

  Camden

  17,289

  -962

  -7,257

  682

  5,821

  17,508

  Greenwich

  24,624

  17,759

  17,887

  11,750

  35,450

  39,422

  Hackney

  -490

  1,180

  575

  4326

  7,354

  4,517

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  34,403

  35,479

  30,389

  17,902

  34,154

  28,030

  Islington

  9,862

  -2,474

  6,918

  304

  -625

  2,570

  Kensington and Chelsea

  10,126

  8,483

  4,411

  20,488

  43,425

  45,114

  Lambeth

  -4,674

  -16,330

  -14,765

  -7,500

  3,063

  -3,998

  Lewisham

  8,851

  -2,126

  -3,679

  3,009

  4,592

  7,585

  Southwark

  12,606

  10,163

  6,013

  7,753

  24,126

  40,741

  Tower Hamlets

  26,400

  20,700

  21,700

  18,914

  13,919

  16,434

  Wandsworth

  53,132

  50,869

  46,448

  32,063

  57,359

  23,927

  Westminster

  15,746

  15,942

  24,487

  27,876

  30,820

  43,329

  Inner London Boroughs Total

  207,875

  138,683

  133,127

  137,567

  259,458

  265,179

  Barking and Dagenham

  46,988

  44,767

  34,665

  40,668

  45,391

  49,097

  Barnet

  16,034

  6,931

  9,940

  13,776

  32,251

  44,450

  Bexley

  14,553

  n/a

  3,723

  7,830

  13,440

  14,488

  Brent

  9,086

  8,101

  7,079

  5,565

  5,642

  9,400

  Bromley

  36,802

  39,399

  38,207

  58,422

  77,241

  78,048

  Croydon

  55,063

  39,696

  44,497

  30,203

  49,683

  60,517

  Ealing

  -12

  -8,154

  3,795

  23,355

  43,467

  46,090

  Enfield

  n/a

  9,136

  7,308

  19,572

  39,149

  45,238

  Haringey

  -521

  -6,947

  -6,658

  4,025

  16,703

  17,278

  Harrow

  11,884

  7,378

  12,857

  21,242

  26,510

  28,496

  Havering

  20,548

  19,966

  14,975

  14,788

  24,825

  26,771

  Hillingdon

  31,148

  10,994

  1,099

  5,536

  12,289

  14,418

  Hounslow

  39,908

  29,740

  18,520

  12,101

  14,634

  12,770

  Kingston upon Thames

  9,053

  5,577

  3,567

  4,067

  8,023

  11,817

  Merton

  36,600

  18,065

  13,187

  11,092

  19,067

  11,816

  Newham

  3,388

  2,903

  6,432

  13,508

  32,253

  37,002

  Redbridge

  5,371

  551

  3,441

  11,420

  18,642

  16,771

  Richmond upon Thames

  -13,953

  4,853

  3,022

  7,305

  16,641

  18,338

  Sutton

  8,959

  9,204

  6,518

  8,258

  12,176

  10,461

  Waltham Forest

  2,129

  2,129

  2,400

  10,364

  11,162

  10,349

  Outer London Borough Total

  333,028

  244,289

  228,574

  323,097

  519,189

  563,615

  Isles of Scilly

  496

  n/a

  624

  742

  1,243

  1,268

  Bolton

  8,791

  3,248

  11,196

  10,300

  16,859

  19,061

  Bury

  10,913

  8,986

  4,981

  5,840

  13,457

  14,101

  Manchester

  31,677

  3,982

  19,047

  -2,523

  13,164

  27,059

  Oldham

  9,070

  31,569

  34,086

  39,988

  34,399

  31,417

  Rochdale

  11,137

  3,557

  2,357

  5,268

  16,859

  15,826

  Salford

  10,415

  1,985

  5

  6,649

  24,765

  28,161

  Stockport

  8,355

  6,443

  6,396

  18,672

  27,060

  28,525

  Tameside

  16,347

  8,364

  4,028

  844

  6,280

  10,506

  Trafford

  14,720

  14,273

  15,514

  18,081

  50,928

  54,925

  Wigan

  8,913

  13,092

  7,184

  11,501

  32,134

  31,859

  Knowsley

  2,318

  158

  1,235

  3,797

  8,037

  12,519

  Liverpool

  -2,130

  n/a

  -3,930

  9,919

  12,584

  8,666

  St. Helens

  15,793

  18,292

  9,199

  11,611

  12,757

  12,631

  Sefton

  7,010

  4,770

  3,912

  6,027

  8,644

  10,149

  Wirral

  13,200

  n/a

  1,424

  6,365

  9,330

  8,645

  Local Education Authority Reserves
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each education authority in England, and by class and in total, the amount of balances held in reserve for each year since 1990. [25743]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows all general fund reserves for each local authority with an education service in England since 1990.
  99

  Local Authority Reserves 1990–1995

  Reserves (£000s) as at:

  1 April 1990

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1995

  Barnsley

  14,126

  19,790

  21,583

  20,498

  21,448

  15,714

  Doncaster

  17,481

  8,005

  4,600

  23,722

  39,879

  42,952

  Rotherham

  8,810

  7,758

  21,595

  19,925

  18,267

  16,021

  Sheffield

  109,520

  n/a

  15,506

  16,145

  14,163

  8,855

  Gateshead

  33,928

  24,983

  23,322

  22,283

  19,679

  15,913

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  -23,673

  8,341

  8,884

  24,390

  40,664

  42,459

  North Tyneside

  6,771

  3,924

  2,872

  3,154

  10,265

  11,906

  South Tyneside

  16,405

  10,267

  9,911

  10,340

  11,673

  12,681

  Sunderland

  9,707

  24,762

  24,616

  22,707

  32,334

  29,082

  Birmingham

  25,350

  24,096

  29,885

  65,486

  109,984

  82,536

  Coventry

  n/a

  24,496

  10,965

  13,786

  66,114

  73,096

  Dudley

  10,778

  11,682

  17,479

  17,115

  31,813

  29,580

  Sandwell

  n/a

  n/a

  7,274

  20,491

  34,366

  30,821

  Solihull

  4,149

  14,762

  6,962

  23,653

  30,622

  26,918

  Walsall

  n/a

  32,400

  23,300

  18,585

  19,004

  19,407

  Wolverhampton

  4,784

  4,177

  3,305

  12,349

  32,555

  40,074

  Bradford

  5,815

  3,474

  4,831

  10,900

  22,936

  20,392

  Calderdale

  5,705

  11,592

  8,309

  10,999

  12,708

  12,546

  Kirklees

  12,028

  14,806

  7,408

  16,674

  26,300

  32,022

  Leeds

  18,348

  15,137

  12,516

  21,909

  53,509

  85,620

  Wakefield

  18,661

  13,376

  9,546

  17,540

  32,341

  31,126

  Metropolitan Districts Total

  465,222

  396,547

  391,303

  564,990

  967,881

  993,771

  Avon

  12,822

  13,253

  11,635

  19,838

  47,409

  61,635

  Bedfordshire

  13,242

  15,719

  16,928

  22,221

  25,680

  21,206

  Berkshire

  4,523

  7,940

  16,987

  72,088

  57,987

  58,819

  Buckinghamshire

  26,726

  n/a

  27,457

  38,018

  46,770

  50,081

  Cambridgeshire

  22,237

  58,481

  48,119

  53,812

  55,762

  56,517

  Cheshire

  4,212

  41,851

  27,923

  50,161

  52,378

  44,075

  Cleveland

  9,707

  7,364

  4,760

  13,413

  23,829

  27,767

  Cornwall

  23,395

  28,358

  33,054

  24,803

  51,056

  45,640

  Cumbria

  3,344

  10,145

  14,227

  12,440

  10,494

  11,788

  Derbyshire

  n/a

  n/a

  11,296

  21,139

  24,475

  22,961

  Devon

  46,838

  52,755

  47,889

  47,073

  45,104

  36,269

  Dorset

  5,721

  14,443

  7,794

  4,287

  20,137

  25,317

  Durham

  22,414

  23,895

  22,043

  19,251

  20,109

  20,917

  East Sussex

  27,372

  8,900

  16,394

  21,551

  30,134

  42,896

  Essex

  26,774

  18,112

  39,373

  45,350

  90,085

  120,127

  Gloucestershire

  2,443

  2,362

  3,894

  13,844

  23,539

  23,044

  Hampshire

  7,394

  29,879

  52,899

  74,221

  83,041

  65,323

  Hereford and Worcester

  7,374

  6,188

  5,360

  22,213

  36,380

  38,223

  Hertfordshire

  13,000

  19,400

  25,565

  41,984

  82,550

  81,584

  Humberside

  19,402

  27,547

  27,684

  24,972

  35,196

  37,084

  Isle of Wight

  1,301

  4,990

  4,143

  4,696

  5,042

  9,471

  Kent

  19,813

  30,397

  20,461

  33,915

  62,181

  67,061

  Lancashire

  12,831

  21,305

  26,241

  69,365

  72,617

  60,777

  Leicestershire

  28,806

  24,178

  20,046

  15,337

  23,098

  25,411

  Lincolnshire

  44,934

  50,854

  42,924

  42,309

  46,648

  38,112

  Norfolk

  13,100

  13,109

  13,109

  30,974

  83,109

  72,850

  Northamptonshire

  9,271

  9,054

  9,096

  37,852

  28,052

  34,458

  Northumberland

  19,457

  24,810

  23,201

  19,841

  32,060

  31,693

  North Yorkshire

  38,813

  38,681

  34,411

  33,880

  36,575

  43,201

  Nottinghamshire

  n/a

  n/a

  6,500

  81,609

  73,785

  44,740

  Oxfordshire

  16,242

  10,516

  12,041

  25,595

  48,373

  33,892

  Shropshire

  9,681

  13,745

  9,911

  12,357

  33,228

  26,129

  Somerset

  14,691

  15,933

  28,183

  28,349

  40,560

  41,946

  Staffordshire

  13,175

  17,145

  16,492

  20,690

  69,377

  88,370

  Suffolk

  9,712

  9,824

  16,051

  34,508

  36,838

  37,959

  Surrey

  8,680

  15,864

  41,686

  58,959

  92,423

  83,755

  Warwickshire

  19,224

  12,815

  7,370

  32,239

  33,849

  27,230

  West Sussex

  39,480

  7,169

  7,919

  27,924

  29,374

  31,685

  Wiltshire

  n/a

  25,406

  9,444

  19,995

  39,906

  41,309

  Shire Counties Total

  618,151

  732,387

  810,510

  1,273,073

  1,749,210

  1,731,322

  England Total

  1,826,537

  1,683,544

  1,737,157

  2,495,159

  3,729,817

  3,777,778

  100

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of parents of four-year-olds in each of the pilot authorities (a) were expected to apply for vouchers and (b) applied for vouchers. [25599]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Estimates of population and pupil numbers are less reliable when broken down by local authority and by year group. The estimated number of children, the number of applications and the percentage of eligible children this represents are given in the table.

  Local authority area

  Estimated number of four-year-olds

  Number of applications at 12 April 1996

  Percentage of estimated four-year-olds

  Norfolk

  9,300

  8,517

  92

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,650

  910

  55

  Wandsworth

  3,300

  2,786

  84

  Westminster

  1,900

  1,133

  60

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many places have been made available to four-year-olds in(a) the private, (b) the voluntary and (c) the maintained sectors following initial validation; and how many such places are new places. [25600]

  Mr. Squire
  Information on where parents have chosen to redeem nursery education vouchers will be available once vouchers returned from providers have been analysed.

  The number of children attending maintained schools is given in the following table.

  Local education authority

  Four-year-olds in maintained provision at January 1995

  Kensington and Chelsea

  800

  Wandsworth

  2,600

  Westminster

  1,100

  Norfolk

  6,300

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which local education authorities refused to take part in the trials on nursery vouchers. [26445]

  Mr. Squire
  All local education authorities were invited to volunteer to participate in phase 1 of the nursery education voucher scheme; Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth, Westminster and Norfolk decided to take part.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of funding to be made available to her Department through the private finance initiative in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26174]
  102
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The capital that the Department expects to raise through the private finance initiative is set out at table 6.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97", a copy of which is placed in the House of Commons Library. That document shows that for 1996–97 and 1997–98 capital spend via the private finance initiative is expected to be £20 million and £40 million respectively. There is no available information on finance raised by the Department through the private finance initiative for 1995–96. The figures do not include the significant capital expected to be raised through the private finance initiative by independent educational institutions, which include universities, further education colleges and grant-maintained schools.

  Sixth Forms
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the criteria on which decisions to approve applications to open a sixth form are based; and in what circumstances she would reject the advice of the Further Education Funding Council on such applications. [26213]

  Mr. Paice
  The Secretary of State has regard to the following criteria when considering proposals from schools for the addition of sixth forms:

  whether the proposals will significantly increase choice and diversity in the area concerned;

  whether there is a basic need for new provision and, if not, whether the viability of existing good quality provision would be adversely affected if the proposals were approved;

  whether the provision will be of sufficient size and quality to deliver a reasonably wide-ranging curriculum; and

  whether the provision will be delivered at reasonable cost.

  We look at each proposal on its merits in the light of these criteria and taking account of all the circumstances, including any objections. If the Further Education Funding Council objects to a proposal, its comments are considered alongside those of other interested parties and of the proposers.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she proposes to take to ensure that grant-maintained schools are subject to adequate financial controls. [26214]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Under the Education Act 1993, the Funding Agency for Schools is responsible for the financial monitoring of grant-maintained schools. The agency issued a comprehensive set of requirements and guidance for schools in December 1995. It will keep these under review.

  Wakefield TEC
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total amount of money paid to the Wakefield training and enterprise council to assist with social and economic regeneration in respect of the pit closure programme; and if she will make a statement. [26273]
  103
  Mr. Paice
  Over the last three years, over £6 million has been available to Wakefield training and enterprise council as part of the agreed "coal plan" to assist in areas affected by the closures of collieries. Of this, over £4.5 million has been paid directly to the TEC, and the balance has been available to fund allowances to support unemployed adults attending additional training for work provision and organised by the TEC. Other Government funding available to the TEC will also have benefited former mining areas.

  Careers Service Companies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) minutes of meetings, (d) agendas of meetings and (e) registers of members' interests are published by careers service companies; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [25970]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]The Companies Acts require all companies to publish an annual directors' report which is available to the public. They also require the accounts of all companies to be lodged with Companies House where they may be examined by the public. The Secretary of State's contract with careers service companies also obliges them to be responsive and accountable to their local communities. Many careers service companies publish annual reports as one way of demonstrating this requirement. Careers service companies under contract to the Secretary of State are private companies and access to minutes of meetings or to any registers of members' interests is a matter for the directors.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Educationa and Employment if she will place in the Library a copy of the letter sent to regional offices on 22 March suggesting that TECs be vigilant in relation to the viability and probity of training providers. [26506]

  Mr. Paice
  The letter to regional offices included advice and guidance of a confidential nature which it would be inappropriate to place in the Library.

HEALTH

  Bonemeal
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the health risks to humans from food grown following(a) the use of bonemeal and (b) the practice of ploughing in abattoir and butchers' animal waste; [23327]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the risks to health of gardeners who use bonemeal made from beef cattle bones. [23323]

  Mr. Horam
  It is not considered that there is a risk to human health from the use of bonemeal for horticultural purposes or from eating food grown following its use. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected animals are incinerated and specified bone material is destroyed and is not used as bonemeal for any purpose. The spreading of waste on land for the benefit of agriculture or ecological 104
  improvement, including abattoir waste consisting of blood and gut contents from animals slaughtered for human consumption, is a recovery operation for the purposes of the amended European Community framework directive on waste. The spreading of waste for these purposes is controlled under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. It must be carried out without endangering animals or human health or posing a risk to the environment. Codes of practice have been issued in Great Britain which offer farmers and others spreading waste for these purposes guidance on good practice.

  Asthma
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the cost to the NHS of providing acute care to adults suffering from occupational asthma attacks in the last five financial years; [25788]

  (2) what was the cost to the NHS of treating adult occupational asthma sufferers, in each year from 1989–90 to 1994–85; [25786]

  (3) what are the main drugs used to control and treat adult occupational asthma sufferers; and how much the NHS spent on providing them in each of the last five years. [25787]

  Mr. Horam
  Information is not available on the costs to the national health service of occupational asthma. The main types of drug used to control and treat all asthma, including occupational asthma, are anti-inflammatory drugs and bronchodilators. The net ingredient cost of NHS prescriptions is collected on a calendar year basis. The net ingredient cost is the basic price of a drug before discounts and the addition of dispensing costs or fees. The available information for asthma medication is shown in the table.

  Year

  Net ingredient cost (£ million)

  1991

  260

  1992

  305

  1993

  349

  1994

  381

  Information on the cost of other NHS services, including acute care, is not available for individual conditions. However, the Department has provisionally estimated that the cost of services for asthma was £150 million in 1993.

  Elderly People (Care)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he proposes to publish his consultative document on care of the elderly. [24685]

  Mr. Bowis
  Shortly.

  Sperm Counts
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been commissioned by his Department concerning the possible causes of declining sperm counts. [25207]
  105
  Mr. Horam
  The main agency through which the Government supports medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The MRC has recently completed research which suggests that semen quality in the United Kingdom is deteriorating and referred to possible environmental factors. The results of the research were published in the British Medical Journal on 24 February 1996.

  Nurses
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) registered general nurses and (b) registered mental nurses have qualified in each year since 1986. [25864]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not available centrally. I refer the hon. Member to the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting annual reports, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Methadone Deaths
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on deaths from methadone in each of the past five years. [26435]

  Mr. Bowis
  Methadone is an established substitute drug therapy used internationally to treat people who are opiate dependent. The latest available information on deaths related to drug misuse covering a five-year period is given in the 1994 Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Statistics of Drug Addicts Notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom", 1994, copies of which are available in the Library. The task force set up to review the effectiveness of drug treatment services has examined methadone treatment in detail. We shall publish the report shortly and issue guidance to health authorities later this summer.

  We issued guidelines on clinical management' to all doctors in 1991 which provided advice on assessing and reviewing a patient's drug problem, including prescribing where appropriate. Copies of the guidelines are available in the Library.

  Methadone dispensed for consumption at home, as with any other medicine, should be stored securely and kept out of the reach of children.

  Notes:

  1Drug Misuse and Dependence: Guidelines on Clinical Management: Report of a Medical Working Group: London: HMSO: 1991: ISBN 011 321376 X.

  Mr. Nigel Whittaker
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work Mr. Nigel Whittaker has undertaken for Ministers or his Department; and on what basis he has been appointed. [26453]

  Mr. Horam
  Mr. Nigel Whittaker has been involved, as a member of a two-man team deployed by the Malcolm Hurlston Corporate Consultancy, in preparing a report for the Department of Health on need for 24-hour nursed beds for people with very severe and enduring mental illness who need a high degree of support for long periods. The 106
  consultancy firm will be undertaking further work for us over the coming year to ensure speedy implementation of this essential element of provision.

  Hospitals (Private Finance Initiative)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the PFI contracts for the (i) Norfolk and Norwich, (ii) South Buckinghamshire, (iii) Carlisle, (iv) Swindon, (v) North Durham and (vii) Bishop Auckland hospitals have now been signed. [26484]

  Mr. Horam
  p The contracts for the above schemes are being negotiated between the trusts and their private sector partners.

  Health Authority Headquarters Building (Harrogate)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those companies involved as partners or co-developers in the purchase of the former headquarters of the Yorkshire regional health authority at Harrogate. [21526]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 19 March 1996]Dysart Developments Ltd. was the shortlisted organisation whose tender was selected for the development of the new regional office at Durham.

  The tender involved Dysart Developments Ltd. being responsible for the developments of the new headquarters building, and for ensuring purchase of the former Yorkshire regional health authority offices. The purchase of the former Yorkshire regional health authority headquarters in Harrogate was completed by Simpart No. 128, later renamed Harrogate and London Properties Ltd.

  There were no other partners or co-developers.

  Employment Termination Payments
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a statement on the irregular employment termination payments cited in paragraphs 49, 52 and 53 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General "NHS (England) Summarised Accounts 1994–95", including the names of the trusts and health authorities that made irregular settlements, the name and rank of each person in receipt of an irregular settlement, and the date upon which each settlement was made and the date upon which the irregularity of each settlement was brought to the attention of the NHS executive. [21653]

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, as far as possible, the recipients, amounts paid and health service bodies making payments that were uncovered by the departmental trawl of questionable severance cases. [22889]

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authority, the sum of money involved and the date of each of the employment termination settlements mentioned in paragraphs 49, 52 and 53 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the "NHS (England) Summarised Accounts 1994–95". [22989]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 20 March 1996]This matter is still under consideration.

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if
  107
  he will give a breakdown of the 87 employment settlements made by health authorities and deemed irregular by the National Audit Office (a) by health authority and (b) by amount; and if he will list those whose recovery is being sought (i) by health authority and (ii) by amount. [21999]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 21 March 1996]This matter is still under consideration.

  Surplus Property
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 321, if he will place in the Library a list by region of the 876 properties that are surplus to NHS requirements. [24380]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]It would be premature to publish a list of all those properties currently identified as being possibly for sale over the next ten years.

  Changing patterns of health care delivery mean that some properties which are listed are in the planning process and final decisions have not yet been made. These properties have not been transferred to national health service trusts, but may be occupied and utilised by NHS trusts for up to 10 years. They will be offered for sale only at the appropriate time.

  All properties which are actually for sale are advertised locally or nationally.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reasons his Department gave to each of the six members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines who were not reappointed as of 1 January for not wishing to reappoint them; and if he will make a statement. [25739]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines have received honours. [25811]

  Mr. Malone
  Four members of the committee hold honours.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of funding to be made available to his Department through the private finance initiative in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26176]

  Mr. Horam
  Estimates of capital funding made available by the private sector as a result of the private finance initiative were provided at the time of the November 1995 Budget. The information for the Department of Health is reproduced in the list:

  1995–96: £50 million

  1996–97: £170 million

  1997–98: £200 million

  108

  Birth Defects (Assaults)
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has evaluated on the number and proportion of birth defects to children caused by assaults on their mothers by spouses or partners during pregnancy; and if he will make a statement. [26011]

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Hospital Trusts (Ex Gratia Payments)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the changes in the maximum amount of ex gratia payments which an individual NHS hospital trust can give without referral to the NHS executive over the past five years. [25941]

  Mr. Horam
  The delegated limit to individual national health service trusts for all ex gratia payments from inception to July 1995 was £5, 000. In July 1995 the delegated limit in respect of ex gratia payments for clinical negligence and personal injury cases involving negligence was increased to £1 million, for those cases where appropriate qualified legal advice had been obtained and where departmental guidance is followed. In cases where the appropriate legal advice was not obtained the limit remained at £5,000.

  The revised losses and special payments guidance issued in December 1995 promulgated new limits as follows:

  £

  To patients and staff for loss of personal effects

  50,000

  For clinical negligence—negotiated settlements following legal advice—where the guidance relating to such payments has been applied

  11,000,000

  For personal injury claims involving negligence where legal advice obtained and relevant guidance has been applied

  11,000,000

  Other clinical negligence cases and personal injury claims

  50,000

  Other, except cases of maladministration where there was no financial loss by claimant

  50,000

  Maladministration where there was no financial loss by claimant

  Nil

  Patient referrals outside the UK and European Economic Area guidelines

  Nil

  1including plaintiff's costs

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the ambulance cost per mile by ambulance authority in 1994–95. [26320]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 29 March,Official Report, column 781.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Belfast Gas Network
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which companies have submitted bids for the purchase of the old Belfast Gas network; what plans they
  109
  have submitted for developing the Belfast network; which was the highest bid; and what was the Department of Economic Development's response. [24867]

  Mr. Ancram
  Bids were submitted by Northern Ireland Electricity and Premier Energy Suppliers Ltd. NIE made the higher bid, but both bids were heavily qualified. Both companies submitted plans for developing the Belfast network. The plan submitted by Premier Energy Suppliers Ltd. was considered to meet most closely the Government's objectives of the most rapid and extensive as possible development of a downstream gas industry.

  The Department is currently engaged in negotiations with Premier Energy Suppliers Ltd. on licence terms for the development of a natural gas industry in an area which includes Belfast. The availability of the former network is essential to this development and its purchase is an integral part of the negotiations.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland who were in receipt of invalidity benefit have since been declared ineligible for incapacity benefit; and how many have had their cases listed for hearing by the independent tribunal service. [25523]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Alec Wylie to Dr. Joe Hendron, dated 22 April 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on Incapacity Benefit.
  You asked for information on the number of people who were in receipt of Invalidity Benefit who have since been declared ineligible for Incapacity Benefit. Unfortunately, records are not maintained on the actual number of claims which were either allowed or disallowed but I can tell you that from 13 April 1995 to 31 March 1996, 7539

  Expected releases from 1 May 1996 to 30 April 1997—Figures in brackets represent the numbers affected by the application of the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995

  Date

  MAGILL

  MAGH'B

  MAZE

  YOC

  Total

  May 1996

  44 (1)

  8 (1)

  24 (2)

  20 (0)

  96 (4)

  June

  40 (1)

  18 (1)

  14 (4)

  11 (0)

  83 (6)

  July

  27 (1)

  8 (2)

  13 (3)

  15 (0)

  63 (6)

  August

  23 (2)

  7 (2)

  15 (4)

  8 (0)

  53 (8)

  September

  24 (0)

  8 (2)

  15 (8)

  5 (0)

  52 (10)

  October

  17 (0)

  5 (1)

  12 (6)

  4 (0)

  38 (7)

  November

  13 (2)

  3 (2)

  4 (3)

  1 (0)

  21 (7)

  December

  20 (1)

  4 (2)

  9 (3)

  2 (0)

  35 (6)

  January 1997

  8 (1)

  2 (2)

  8 (4)

  2 (0)

  20 (7)

  February

  16 (3)

  5 (2)

  6 (1)

  1 (0)

  28 (6)

  March

  7 (2)

  1 (1)

  8 (4)

  4 (0)

  20 (7)

  April

  4 (1)

  0 (0)

  0 (0)

  0 (0)

  4 (1)

  Total

  243 (15)

  69 (18)

  128 (42)

  73 (0)

  513 (75)

  In addition there are currently 20 prisoners who are in the final stages of release from life sentences and who are provisionally expected to be released during the next 12 months. None of these prisoners have benefited directly from the 1995 increase in remission rates.

  Water Quality
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are presently being taken 110
  claims were disallowed solely on incapacity grounds. Not included in this figure are claims disallowed for other reasons such as insufficient contributions or late claims.
  You also wished to know how many cases which were disallowed have been listed for appeal hearing by the Independent Tribunal Service. I can advise you that a total of 1832 Incapacity Benefit appeals have been received for the period 13 April 1995 to 31 March 1996. To date 841 have been cleared, 311 of which were allowed by the Appeal Tribunal. Of the remaining 991, 247 are with the Independent Tribunal Service for hearing and 744 are being prepared by the Agency.
  I hope this explains the position for you but I would be happy to provide you with any further information you require.

  Prisoner Releases
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners are planned to be released from prison in Northern Ireland in each of the next 12 months; and what proportion of these have benefited from the increase in remission rates introduced in the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Order 1995. [25461]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Northern Ireland Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. Alan Shannon. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. D. Shannon to Ms Marjorie Mowlam, dated 23 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to the Parliamentary Question you tabled relating to the numbers of prisoners it is planned to release from prison in Northern Ireland in each of the next 12 months.
  The information which you are seeking is contained in the attached table. In brief a total of 513 prisoners of whom 75 are affected by the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Order 1995 are expected to be released from prison during the period 1 May 1996 and 30 April 1997. You should note that this figure does not include 20 prisoners who are in the final stage of release from life sentences and who are provisionally expected to be released during the next 12 months.
  You should also note that these figures are based on the prison population at the date of writing and cannot take account of the restoration of remission to individual prisoners.
  I hope this is helpful.

  to monitor the quality of water at the point of consumption. [25519]

  Mr. Moss
  The quality of water supplied to consumers in Northern Ireland by the Water Executive is monitored
  111
  in accordance with the provisions of the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, as amended, and the Water Quality Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1994. These provisions incorporate EC water quality standards and monitoring requirements. Information about the quality of public water supplies is available on a public register at the four divisional offices of the Water Executive in Ballymena, Belfast, Craigavon and Londonderry. The first annual reports of the quality of the Water Executive supplies, required under the 1994 regulations will be published in June 1996 along with reports to district councils summarising the quality of supplies within their areas.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what measures are presently being taken to monitor the level and concentration of asbestos fibres in the public water supply system at the point of consumption; [25520]

  (2) what measures are presently being taken to monitor the level and concentration of asbestos fibres in the water supply system subsequent to breakages in asbestos cement water mains; [25521]

  (3) what measures are presently being taken to ensure that the asbestos cement pipes currently in use are of an acceptable structural integrity, with particular reference to corrosion by the water supply; and how long they have been in existence. [25522]

  Mr. Moss
  Consideration of a report by the water research centre commissioned by the Department's Water Executive into the use of asbestos cement pipes is nearly completed. I expect in the near future to be in a position to make an announcement about the future use of asbestos cement pipes by the Water Executive.

  Green Park HSS Healthcare Trust
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how much money has been expended in connection with legal costs as a result of settled and on-going actions on the foot of orders from a fair employment or industrial tribunal since the appointment of the present chief executive of the Green Park HSS healthcare trust; [25555]

  (2) how much money has been expended in connection with legal costs incurred as a result of settlements out of court, settled and on-going actions in respect of fair employment and industrial tribunal actions since the appointment of the present chief executive of the Green Park HSS healthcare trust. [25556]

  Mr. Moss
  Since 1993, the trust has been provided with legal services by the legal department, Central Services Agency. The services were provided through a standard yearly agreement. In addition, the trust purchased ad hoc services from another legal source.

  The costs of legal services in respect of fair employment and industrial tribunal cases do not appear as a separate element of the agreement with the Central Services Agency irrespective of how much or how little the service has been utilised. Our counsel fees can be identified. However, it is normal practice for any counsel involved on behalf of the trust, whether through the Central Services Agency or through the ad hoc
  112
  arrangement, to bill for services at the conclusion of the case. Any information that could therefore be provided in relation to legal services would be incomplete.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been expended on the foot of orders from a fair employment or industrial tribunal since the appointment of the present chief executive of the Green Park HSS healthcare trust. [25557]

  Mr. Moss
  The trust was ordered to pay costs amounting to £270.25 in relation to its non-compliance with an order for discovery of documents concerning an ongoing case. The issue arose in 1994. No other moneys have been paid on foot of orders by a fair employment or industrial tribunal since the appointment of the present chief executive.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been expended in connection with out-of-court settlements in respect of fair employment or industrial tribunal actions since the appointment of the present chief executive of the Green Park HSS Healthcare Trust. [25558]

  Mr. Moss
  Out-of-court settlements in respect of fair employment or industrial tribunal actions since the appointment of the present chief executive of Green Park HSS healthcare trust are shown in the table.

  Number of cases

  Type of case

  Date lodged

  Date settled

  Amount of settlements £

  21

  Fair employment

  1992

  1994

  40, 000

  21

  Sex discrimination

  11

  Trade union activities

  1

  Sex discrimination

  1991

  1993

  2,000

  1

  Unfair dismissal

  1994

  1996

  2,000

  1

  Fair employment

  1994

  1996

  1,500

  1Lodged by same party.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many non-housing executive and housing association recipients of housing benefit there were in each Northern Ireland constituency in 1995; and what was the amount paid in each case. [25757]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new housing benefit claims in Belfast and North Down in the most recent week for which figures are available were processed with the name of an estate agent but without details of a beneficial landlord. [25756]

  Mr. Moss
  None. All cases processed carry details of the estate agent and landlord.

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the 10 new inward investment projects for Northern Ireland that the Industrial Development Board negotiated in 1994–95. [26228]
  113
  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]The 10 new inward investment projects negotiated during 1994–95 by IDB were as follows:

  Transtec Foundries Ltd.

  Allen Industrial Ltd.

  ABC Laboratories (Europe) Ltd.

  Daehwa Metal (UK) Ltd.

  Real Software (NI) Ltd.

  Daewoo Electro Components UK Ltd.

  Radix Telecom Ltd.

  Daewoo Electronics UK Ltd.

  Seagate Technology (Ireland)

  Northern Bank Factors Ltd.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give a breakdown of estimated spending for 1996–97 in the Industrial Development Board within the units of(a) purchases of office and computer equipment, (b) purchase, development and landscaping of sites and construction of factories, (c) repair and maintenance of factories and sites and (d) payments for services provided by estate agents. [26206]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]The estimated expenditure for 1996–97 is as follows:

  £000

  Office and Computer Equipment

  127

  Purchase, development and landscaping of sites and construction of factories

  33,021

  Repair and Maintenance of factories and sites

  686

  Payments for service provided by Estate Agents

  29

  Local Enterprise Development Unit
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are in place to monitor the use made of money given by the LEDU to small businesses in Northern Ireland. [26227]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]In addition to the monitoring obligations of the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Department of Economic Development and the Northern Ireland Audit Office, LEDU operates an extensive appraisal, monitoring and evaluation system with regard to the allocation, measurement and impact assessment of its assistance to small businesses.

  Formal appraisal is carried out ensuring that all forms of assistance offered by LEDU meet the objectives of the organisation in the most efficient, effective and economic manner.

  An independent evaluation of LEDU's impact on its client companies is undertaken on LEDU's behalf by the Northern Ireland Economic Research Council. This takes the form of an annual survey to measure the survivability, growth in employment for all clients, and sales and export sales for a subset of clients. In addition, LEDU operates a rolling evaluation schedule whereby all major schemes are evaluated every five years.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of CAP payments in Northern Ireland go to farms of over(a) 60 and (b) 100 hectares. [26217]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]It is not possible to proportion CAP payments in this way, but the proportion of Northern Ireland farms in these sizes which attract CAP payments is as follows:

  Farm Size

  Number

  Percentage of total number of farms

  Total area in hectares

  60–100 ha

  2,871

  10.28

  216,014

  100 ∔ ha

  1,511

  5.41

  246,642

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provisions have been made to combat CAP fraud in Northern Ireland. [26192]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]Claims for payments under CAP measures are subjected to a wide range of anti-fraud action including the inspection of books and records, on-farm inspections including unannounced visits by verification staff, inspection of stocks in stores, marking of animals, secure information recording on computer and computer cross-checks, and extensive manual desk checks. All CAP payments are now subject to the control provisions of the integrated administration and control system which in particular enable checks to be made that animals and land used for arable or livestock production are not claim or declared by more than one producer.

  Village School Closures
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many village schools have been closed in Northern Ireland since 1979. [26233]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]The information is not available in the form requested. However, since 1979 a total of 155 primary schools either were closed or amalgamated with other schools.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provisions the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland makes for giving small businesses access to long-term loans. [26191]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]The Local Enterprise Development Unit has two options for providing small businesses with long-term loan finance. Both options are subject to the business owner having exhausted all other sources of promoter or private sector equity, bank and commercial sources of finance including hire purchase, leasing and the small firms loan guarantee scheme.

  The options are:

  1. Preference share capital. LEDU can invest up to £250, 000 in the form of non-voting redeemable non-cumulative preference shares. This capital is normally repayable at the end of a five-year period and LEDU may choose to waive dividends for the first two years of the investment.

  115

  2. Loans. Loans may be offered where a LEDU preference share investment is not practical. Security is sought for all loans; however, unsecured loans can be offered up top £10,000 and secured loans can be offered over £60,000.

  Rural Bus Services
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many rural parishes in Northern Ireland have no daily bus service. [26194]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]This information is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Selective Assistance and Trade Support Unit
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors underlay the decrease in spending on the selective assistance and trade support unit in the Department of Economic Development, in each of the years from 1990–91 to 1997–98. [26202]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]The key factor which accounts for the decrease in spending on selective assistance and trade support in the years 1990–91 to 1997–98 is the gradual decline in expenditure under the packages of financial assistance which supported the privatisation of Harland and Wolff and Short Bros. in the late 1980s.

  For example, expenditure under the privatisation arrangements totalled £90 million in 1991–92 but had decreased to £35 million by 1994–95. The provision for 1997–98 stands at £7 million.

  Housing Association Rents
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what form of regulation is in place to check the rents charged by housing associations in Northern Ireland to their tenants. [26223]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]Under article 8 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, registered housing associations in Northern Ireland may fix the amount of rent to be charged for any housing accommodation they provide under a tenancy granted on or after the 16 September 1992. Guidance issued by the Department of Environment, Northern Ireland however stipulates that rents should be affordable and within the reach of tenants in low-paid employment.

  Rents for lettings granted prior to 16 September 1992 are controlled by means of a determination issued by the Department and registered housing associations are required to charge the same rent as that which would be charged by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for similar properties. Compliance is checked by the Department by means of the cyclical monitoring of associations.

  Public Housing Sales
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to which Department the money collected by the Housing Executive from the sale of public housing went in each of the years from 1990 to 1995. [26231]
  116
  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]Money collected by the Housing Executive is retained by it as a capital receipt and included in the resources available to meet their organisational objectives. Additional capital receipts above those included in estimates are surrendered to the Northern Ireland block.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many homeless people have been recorded in rural areas in Northern Ireland in each year since 1979. [26193]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 22 April 1996)This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, whose chief executive has advised me that the information is not available in the form requested. The Housing Executive became responsible for providing accommodation for the homeless only in 1989 and maintains statistics by Housing Executive district management area. The statistics do not distinguish between rural and urban areas.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money was spent, under the common agricultural policy, on set-aside in Northern Ireland in 1995; and how much will be spent in 1996. [26218]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]Some £538,000 was spent on set-aside in Northern Ireland in 1995. The estimated cost of payments on set-aside in 1996 are £633,000.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the contribution of(a) policy appraisal of fair treatment and (b) targeting social need to the creation of employment opportunities. [26226]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]Neither of these initiatives directly aims to create additional employment opportunities.

  Policy appraisal and fair treatment seek to ensure that issues of equality and equity are fully considered in the policy-making process and in service delivery in all spheres of government activity in Northern Ireland.

  Targeting social need is a public expenditure priority established to ensure that resources are directed towards areas and people identified as socially and economically disadvantaged. It complements Governments' social and economic policies, including those aimed at creating employment opportunities.

  It is expected that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights will consider the impact of both initiatives in its report on employment equality in Northern Ireland to be published later this year.

  Rural Crime
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many crimes have been recorded in rural areas in Northern Ireland in each year since 1979. [26199]
  117
  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]The following figures refer to crimes recorded in the north and south regions. RUC statistics are held by police station area and police stations are sited in urban areas. It is therefore not possible to provide figures for totally "rural" areas.

  Figures are not available prior to 1987.

  Year

  Crimes recorded

  1987

  22,010

  1988

  19,273

  1989

  19,979

  1990

  21,233

  1991

  24,452

  1992

  27,037

  118

  Year

  Crimes recorded

  1993

  28,184

  1994

  28,453

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were diagnosed with breast cancer in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995 in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [25214]

  Mr. Moss
  This information is not presently available. A major initiative by the Northern Ireland cancer registry is currently under way to produce reliable incidence data on all cancers including breast cancer.

SCOTLAND

  Home and Civil Defence (Kincardine)
  Mr. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what facilities for(a) home defence, (b) civil defence, (c) the wartime administration of the police or armed forces and (d) the wartime administration of Departments of central Government have been operated or provided at Kincardine-on-Forth since 1970 (i) in facilities established for that purpose and (ii) otherwise; and for what purpose and at what cost emergency communications links were established or operated within the period 1970 to 1990 between Kincardine and the Scottish Office wartime regional headquarters formerly operated at Barnton quarry, Edinburgh and Anstruther, Fife. [25548]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 18 April 1996]The Scottish Office has not at any time established facilities at Kincardine-on-Forth for the purposes specified in this question. There are no records, or knowledge, of communications links between any premises in Kincardine on Forth and the former regional government headquarters in Barnton quarry, Edinburgh or Anstruther, Fife.

  Child Care Initiative
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many places have been created and how much money(a) spent and (b) allocated each year under the out-of-school child care grant initiative. [21391]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: The number of places created and sums allocated to the enterprise network for each of the three years of the out-of-school child care initiative are set out in the table. Delivery of the scheme is the responsibility of local enterprise companies and information on the actual amount spent is not available.

  Year

  Number of places created

  £ amount allocated

  1993–94

  Development phase

  —

  269,000

  1994–95

  1,066

  1,530.000

  1995–96

  6.354

  2,025.000

  Electricity Generating Unit (Gartcosh)
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will direct Scottish Enterprise to make an assessment of the impact on the Scottish economy of the proposal by Powergen to construct a gasfield generating unit at Gartcosh. [25313]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand that any sale to PowerGen of land at Gartcosh currently owned by Scottish Enterprise would take place on commercial terms. There is no question of subsidy by Scottish Enterprise of the proposed project and there is consequently no requirement on Scottish Enterprise to undertake an impact assessment.

  Isle of Lewis (Roads)
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums have been granted from the European regional development fund for road projects on the Isle of Lewis between 1989–80 and 1992–93. [25384]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The projects and level of award are as follows:

  ERDF award £

  B8060 Sheildinish to Kintaravey bridge improvement

  375,000

  B8011 Ben Mocacleit to Loch Suirstavat improvement

  347,000

  Rigs Road Reconstruction, Stornoway

  197,000

  B895 Blackwater bridge corner realignment

  28,000

  A858 Shawbost-Loch na Muilne improvement

  102,000

  A866 Braighe road improvement

  230,000

  Pentland road upgrading

  110,000

  B8060 Loch Leathan to Gravir improvement

  103,000

  B8060 Kintaravey to Habost improvement

  235,000

  A866 Aird to Brocker improvement

  525,000

  A857 Borve bridge and approaches

  250,000

  A859 Airidhbhruaich to align improvement

  665,000

  C36 Laurbost village improvement phase I

  121, 250

  A858 Carloway village improvement phase II

  145,000

  Approved in principle subject to availability of funds

  A858 Carloway village improvement phase I

  406,000

  B8011 Loch Sgaire to Ben Mocacleit

  600,000

  B8080 Kersharder to Grayvard

  475,000

  B8059 Earsharder improvement

  160,000

  Escapees
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the risk of attack from escaping prisoners to those residents who live close to a prison. [25912]

  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. Sam Galbraith, dated 23 April 1996:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question about what research has been commissioned and evaluated on the risk of attack from escaping prisoners to those residents who live close to a prison.
  Public safety is of paramount importance to the Scottish Prison Service and the secure accommodation of the prisoner population is the principal aim of the Service. As part of that process, all prisoners are assessed on a regular basis as to the level of dangerousness they may present to the public if they were to escape and are allocated a security category. Category A and B are the highest categories and prisoners so allocated are subject to particular security precautions and restrictions balanced with the need to provide appropriate care.
  Escapes by such prisoners, which were defined as having taken place when a prisoner breaches a perimeter security barrier or evades a secure escort, have been published key targets since April 1993 when the Scottish Prison Service became an Executive Agency. The targets have been met and are published in the Agency's Annual Report which is laid before Parliament and available in the House of Commons Library.

  Paramedics
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many qualified paramedics there are per head of population in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [26001]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is one qualified paramedic for every 14,700 people in Scotland.

  Housing Revenue Account
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the (i) planned and (ii) final outturn expenditure on(a) non-HRA capital allocation and (b) HRA capital allocation in each (1) district and (2) islands council for 1995–96. [25585]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]The gross housing capital allocations issued to local authorities for 1995–96 on the HRA and non-HRA block are set out in the table. Information on the final outturn expenditure for 1995–96 is not yet available.

  Gross housing capital allocations 1995–96

  Authority

  HRA

  Non-HRA

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  1.100

  0.500

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1.800

  0.700

  Roxburgh

  3.000

  0.800

  Tweeddale

  1.200

  0.500

  Central

  Clackmannan

  3.900

  0.800

  Falkirk

  13.800

  1.600

  Stirling

  7.900

  1.600

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  2.900

  0.500

  Nithsdale

  5.100

  1.100

  Stewartry

  1.200

  0.300

  Wigtown

  3.100

  0.700

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  8.200

  1.000

  Kirkcaldy

  7.200

  1.200

  North East Fife

  3.200

  1.300

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  15.900

  4.300

  Banff and Buchan

  4.800

  1.300

  Gordon

  6.500

  0.900

  Kincardine and Deeside

  3.150

  0.900

  Moray

  4.900

  1.200

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  1.000

  0.300

  Caithness

  2.300

  0.700

  Inverness

  5.000

  1.300

  Lochaber

  3.100

  0.800

  Nairn

  0.800

  0.200

  Ross and Cromarty

  5.150

  3,200

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1.500

  0.900

  Sutherland

  4.400

  0.700

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  6.700

  1.600

  Edinburgh

  32.000

  18.900

  Midlothian

  5.600

  0.900

  West Lothian

  7.600

  0.900

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  4.000

  5.800

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1.700

  0.300

  122

  Gross housing capital allocations 1995–96

  Authority

  HRA

  Non-HRA

  Clydebank

  5.900

  0.500

  Clydesdale

  3.400

  0.800

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  1.700

  0.700

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  3.500

  0.500

  Cunninghame

  8.800

  3.600

  Dumbarton

  6.900

  0.900

  East Kilbride

  1.000

  0.400

  Eastwood

  1.300

  0.300

  Glasgow

  92.000

  24.100

  Hamilton

  8.250

  1.600

  Inverclyde

  9.100

  4.400

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  5.800

  0.600

  Kyle and Carrick

  7.100

  0.900

  Monklands

  12.600

  1.100

  Motherwell

  16.500

  1.000

  Renfrew

  20.000

  4.200

  Strathkelvin

  5.700

  0.800

  Tayside

  Angus

  5.000

  0.900

  Dundee

  17.500

  4.600

  Perth and Kinross

  6.400

  2.000

  Islands Areas

  Orkney

  0.650

  0.900

  Shetland

  4.400

  0.500

  Western Isles

  3.400

  4.400

  Scotland

  423.600

  117.400

  European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what ways the Scottish Office criteria regarding the allocation of FEOGA funds under EC regulation 866/90 differ from those used by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. [25613]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]With effect from 31 March 1996, EC regulation 866/90 does not now operate in England.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many FEOGA grants under EC regulation 866/90 were received by his Department in each year over the past three years on the dates on which decisions were announced. [25614]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]FEOGA grant applications under EC regulation 866/90 received for each tranche of awards were as follows:

  19 for consideration in December 1994;

  32 new applications plus three carried forward for consideration in June 1995;

  29 new applications plus five carried forward for consideration in June 1996.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the time taken in each of the last three years for his Department to process FEOGA grants under EC regulation 866/90. [25615]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]The current scheme under EC regulation 866/90 was opened to applications on 1 July 1994 with the intention that announcements would normally be made in six-monthly
  123
  tranches. The cut-off date is three months prior to the announcement to allow time for appraisal and selection of best projects.

  Applications for the current round closed on 31 March and an announcement will be made in June.

  Proposed Power Station, Gartcosh
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will order a public inquiry into the application by PowerGen to establish a gas-fired power station at Gartcosh in Lanarkshire; and if he will make a statement. [25920]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]The relevant planning authority has a statutory period of four months in which to submit a report to my right hon. Friend on PowerGen's proposal to build a power station at Gartcosh. Once the report is received, the Secretary of State will consider it together with the advice of his consultees and any representations he may receive from other interested parties. He 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.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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 local enterprise companies. [25976]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]The expenditure of local enterprise companies is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) minutes of meetings, (d) agendas of meetings and (e) registers of members' interests are published by local enterprise companies; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [25968]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]Local enterprise companies are private companies limited by guarantee that operate under contract to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. The information requested relates to the operational activities of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and I have asked the chairmen of these organisations to write to the hon. Member.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if local enterprise companies are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [25973]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]Local enterprise companies are private companies limited by guarantee operating under contract to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. They are not therefore subject to the Parliamentary Commissioner, the 124
  Accounts Commission—the Scottish equivalent of the Audit Commission—or statutory provisions on open government.

  Local enterprise company accounts are audited by commercial auditors. Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise now prepare group accounts which consolidate their results with those of the local enterprise companies. The National Audit Office, as the statutory auditors of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and therefore principal auditors of the group accounts, may require to scrutinise local enterprise company accounts. Local enterprise companies may also be subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office as part of value-for-money examinations of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

  Under the terms of their operating contracts, performance indicators are set for local enterprise companies by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Highlands and Islands Enterprise and its local enterprise companies have gained the charter mark award and, under the terms of their operating contracts, local enterprise companies in the Scottish Enterprise area are expected to apply for charter mark status.

  Mink
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions officials of the state veterinary service have observed the killing of mink on fur farms in the last 12 months; and what method of killing was used in each case. [26483]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I offered him on 19 March,Official Report, column 167, advising that no mink farms had been licensed in Scotland since 1993.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were diagnosed with breast cancer in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [25210]

  Mr. James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Breast cancer registration in Scotland

  1993: 3,092

  1994: 3,029

  19951: 2,214

  11995 data not yet complete.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of NHS trusts in Scotland putting parts of the Scottish ambulance service out to competitive tender [26026]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Guidance was issued from the NHS management executive in December 1993 on the arrangements for contracting for ambulance services; this included provision for hospitals to invite competitive tenders for non-emergency patient transport services from providers other than the Scottish Ambulance Service NHS trust.
  125
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will take to ensure that ambulance services in Scotland are provided only by staff trained to the same standard as that of the Scottish ambulance service. [26029]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This has been made explicit in the guidance which was issued in December 1993. I have arranged for copies of the guidance to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Patient Transport Services
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the remit given to Mr. Lawrence Peterken, special projects director of the Common Services Agency, by chief executives of NHS trusts in Lothian in relation to their patient transport service. [26027]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The chief executives of NHS trusts in Lothian have asked Mr. Peterken to examine the current arrangements for the provision of the non-emergency patient transport service and to report.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with chief executives of NHS trusts in Lothian in respect of their active consideration of putting their patient transport service out to competitive tender. [26028]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. This is entirely a matter for the trusts concerned.

  Travelling People
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of sites for travelling people within the highlands recommended by the advisory committee on Scotland's travelling people. [26332]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Secretary of State's advisory committee on travelling people has recommended that 74 pitches are required in the Highland council area to meet the needs of travelling people.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the number and location of sites for travelling people in each of the eight districts within the highlands. [26323]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Seventy-four pitches are provided on a number of sites throughout the area, including 20 pitches provided on private sites. The local authority-owned sites in the area are as follows:

  Former district council area

  Number of pitches

  Location

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  7

  Laggan road, Newtonmore

  Inverness

  20

  Longman, Inverness

  Lochaber

  15

  Spean bridge

  12

  Kentallan

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total running cost to his 126
  Department for the financial years 1991–92 and 1993–94 of the local government compulsory competitive tendering enforcement team. [26324]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Staff costs of the unit currently responsible for administering local government compulsory tendering are expected to total £56,000 in the current financial year. The corresponding figures for 1991–92 and 1993–94, based on current salaries, were £94,000 and £115,000 respectively.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints his Department received alleging anti-competitive behaviour by local authorities in Scotland under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988 for the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95; and how many local authorities were subsequently issued with a section 19a notice or 19b direction as a result. [26325]

  Mr. Kynoch
  In 1990–91, we received six complaints of anti-competitive behaviour under the Local Government Act 1988; these resulted in one notice under section 13 of that Act and one direction under section 14 of that Act being issued. In 1991–92, we received five complaints: these resulted in four notices and four directions being issued. In 1992–93, we received four complaints: these resulted in two notices. In 1993–94, we received 10 complaints: these have resulted in six notices. In 1994–95, we received eight complaints: these resulted in two notices.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints his Department received alleging anti-competitive behaviour by local authorities in Scotland under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 for the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95; and how many local authorities were subsequently issued with a section 19a notice or 19b notice as a result. [26326]

  Mr. Kynoch
  In 1990–91, we received two complaints of anti-competitive behaviour under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980: neither of these cases resulted in statutory action. In 1991–92, we received six complaints: a notice was served in relation to one of these. In 1992–93, we received four complaints: two of these resulted in a notice and one in a direction. In 1993–94, we received three complaints: these have resulted in two notices. In 1994–95, we received three complaints: no statutory action was taken.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by service the local authorities in Scotland that have been challenged by his Department under regulations under section 9 of the Local Government Act 1992 in relation to their internal arrangements for establishing client-contractor splits. [26329]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Scottish Office Development Department has not taken statutory action against any authority in relation to its internal arrangements for establishing client-contractor splits.

  Local Authority Direct Labour Organisations
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by authority and service area, the recorded deficits made by local authority direct labour or services organisations in Scotland that have failed to meet
  127
  the rate of return requirements operating contracts under the terms of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and of the Local Government Act 1988 for the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 in both cash and constant prices. [26327]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information requested is as follows.

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980

  Year

  Local authority

  Deficit £

  Water and sewerage

  1990–91

  Central RC

  -3,332

  1993–94

  Orkney IC

  -6,000

  1993–94

  Grampian RC

  -137,000

  1994–95

  Orkney IC

  -203,000

  Roads

  Nil

  New construction under £50,000

  1990–91

  Central

  -32,574

  New Construction over £50,000

  1991–92

  Orkney IC

  -16,000

  1992–93

  Fife RC

  -358,000

  1993–94

  Orkney IC

  -22,000

  1994–95

  Central RC

  -21,343

  1994–95

  Edinburgh DC

  -25,781

  1994–95

  Orkney IC

  -46,000

  Building maintenance

  1990–91

  Argyll and Bute DC

  -81, 000

  1990–91

  Clydesdale DC

  -37,555

  1990–91

  Dumfries and Galloway RC

  -50,075

  1990–91

  Hamilton DC

  -770,649

  1990–91

  Kirkcaldy DC

  -234,472

  1990–91

  Orkney IC

  -47,000

  1991–92

  Bearsden and Milngavie DC

  -17,095

  1991–92

  Edinburgh DC

  -708,635

  1991–92

  North East Fife DC

  -176,000

  1991–92

  Kirkcaldy DC

  -563,702

  1991–92

  Nithsdale DC

  -21,264

  1991–92

  Dumfries and Galloway RC

  -102,137

  1991–92

  Dumbarton DC

  -119,072

  1992–93

  Edinburgh DC

  -448,750

  1992–93

  Skye and Lochalsh DC

  -45,022

  1993–94

  Dumfries and Galloway RC

  -32,795

  1993–94

  Stirling DC

  -74,100

  1994–95

  Glenrothes Development Corporation

  -58,000

  1994–95

  Nithsdale DC

  -22,822

  1994–95

  Stirling DC

  -13,500

  Local Government Act 1988

  year

  Local authority

  Deficit £

  Building cleaning

  1990–1991

  Dumbarton DC

  -7,299

  1990–1991

  East Lothian DC

  -3,000

  1990–1991

  Shetland IC

  -13,000

  1991–1992

  Dumbarton DC

  -66,438

  1992–1993

  Border RC

  -172,000

  1992–1993

  Dumbarton DC

  -135,002

  1992–1993

  Grampian RC

  -10,000

  1992–1993

  Midlothian DC

  -2,000

  1993–1994

  Grampian RC

  -155,000

  1993–1994

  Dumbarton DC

  -96,333

  1994–1995

  Dumbarton DC

  -45,783

  1994–1995

  Dumfries and Galloway RC

  -118,000

  1994–1995

  Grampian RC

  -351,000

  1994–1995

  Skye and Lochalsh DC

  -109

  Grounds maintenance

  1990–1991

  Strathkelvin DC

  -58,708

  1990–1991

  Stirling DC

  -7,005

  1990–1991

  Moray DC

  -122,476

  1990–1991

  Highland RC

  -84,375

  1991–1992

  Stirling DC

  -245,779

  128

  Local Government Act 1988

  Year

  Local authority

  Deficit £

  1992–1993

  Ross and Cromarty DC

  -42,000

  1991–1993

  Western Isles IC

  -43,000

  1994–1995

  Dumbarton DC

  -217,009

  1994–1995

  Glenrothes Development Corporation

  -76,000

  1994–1995

  Skye and Lochalsh DC

  -6,700

  Leisure management

  1992–1993

  Lothian RC

  -290,516

  1992–1993

  Nairn DC

  -2,567

  1992–1993

  Skye and Lochalsh DC

  -12,007

  1993–1994

  Lothian RC

  -259,690

  1994–1995

  Berwickshire DC

  -5,940

  1994–1995

  Eastwood DC

  -13,385

  1994–1995

  Lothian RC

  -188,629

  1994–1995

  Skye and Lochlash DC

  -3,767

  Other catering

  1990–1991

  Central RC

  -17,156

  1992–1993

  Dumbarton DC

  -175

  1992–1993

  Edinburgh DC

  -34,966

  1993–1994

  Edinburgh DC

  -8,474

  1994–1995

  Edinburgh

  -76,040

  1994–1995

  Fife

  -8,000

  Other cleaning

  1991–1992

  Annandale and Eskdale DC

  -24,223

  1994–1995

  Dumbarton DC

  -38,216

  1994–1995

  Eastwood DC

  -11,600

  Refuse collection

  1990–1991

  Kincardine and Deeside DC

  -2,484

  1991–1992

  Kincardine and Deeside DC

  -13,113

  1991–1992

  Orkney IC

  -6,000

  1991–1992

  North East Fife DC

  -24,000

  1993–1994

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth DC

  -46,240

  1993–1994

  Dumbarton DC

  -61,590

  1993–1994

  Orkney IC

  -17,000

  1994–1995

  Eastwood DC

  -89,870

  1994–1995

  Skye and Lochalsh DC

  -10,225

  School and welfare catering

  1992–1993

  Borders RC

  -51,000

  1993–1994

  Borders RC

  -91,000

  1994–1995

  Highland RC

  -43,229

  1994–1995

  Western Isles RC

  -42,000

  Vehicle maintenance

  1990–1991

  Inverness DC

  -65,733

  1990–1991

  Inverclyde DC

  -7,521

  1990–1991

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth DC

  -38,495

  1991–1992

  Stirling DC

  -670

  1991–1992

  Clackmannan DC

  -2,000

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authority direct labour or services organisations in Scotland, operating contracts under the terms of(a) the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and (b) the Local Government Act 1988, have achieved the required rate of return for the financial years (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94 and (iii) 1994–95. [26328]

  Mr. Kynoch
  For services subject to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980: in 1992–93, 74 DLOs/DS0s, in an individual service area, met the prescribed financial objective, which represented 94.9 per cent. of the total returns received; in 1993–94, 75 met the prescribed financial objective which represented 92.6 per cent. of the total returns received; and in 1994–95, 75 met the prescribed financial objective which represented 91.5 per cent. of the returns received.
  129
  For services subject to the Local Government Act 1988: in 1992–93, 258 DLOs/DS0s, in an individual service area, met the prescribed financial objective which represented 94.9 per cent. of the total returns received; in 1993–94, 267 met the prescribed financial objective which represented 96.7 per cent. of the total returns received; and in 1994–95, 266 met the prescribed financial objective which represented 93 per cent. of the returns received.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by authority the surplus achieved on trading accounts for the financial years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 for(a) general highways work, (b) construction and maintenance of sewers, (c) works of new construction and (d) maintenance work, delivered by local authority direct labour or services organisations in Scotland under the terms of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and Local Government Act 1988. [26330]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Detailed lists by authority of the surpluses and deficits achieved on DSO/DLO trading accounts have been placed in the Library.

  Victoria Hospital, Glasgow
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the companies initially shortlisted for the support services contract put out to competitive tender by the Victoria hospital in Glasgow, (b) those companies still bidding for that contract and (c) the reasons notified to his Department for the loss of interest in the contract by companies originally shortlisted that subsequently withdrew. [26349]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information is as follows:

  (a) ISS Mediclean

  Initial Healthcare Services

  Gardner Merchant Sodexho

  Capita

  Tarmac Servicemaster

  Taylorplan Services.

  (b) Initial Healthcare Services

  Gardner Merchant Sodexho

  Capita

  Tarmac Servicemaster

  (c) ISS Mediclean and Taylorplan Services notified the Victoria Infirmary NHS trust that they would not be submitting bids as they wished to concentrate on their other commitments.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what roles Mr. Norman Foster was employed by the Victoria hospital in Glasgow in each month since 1 January 1995. [26351]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is a contractual matter between an employee and the employing trust.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps he has taken to monitor the implementation of Government guidance on competitive tendering at the Victoria hospital in Glasgow; and what assessment he has made of whether it has been implemented adequately; [26346]
  130
  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance on competitive tendering issued to the NHS in Scotland; [26347]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the competitive tendering exercise for support services initiated last year and being implemented this year by the Victoria hospital in Glasgow. [26348]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Comprehensive guidance on market testing in the NHS in Scotland was issued most recently to the service in October 1993. Copies of that guidance are available in the Library of the House. The responsibility for implementing market testing within NHS hospitals in Scotland rests with trust boards. It was for the Victoria Infirmary NHS trust to determine the arrangements for the competitive tendering of support services. Safeguards exist to ensure that contracts for goods or services are awarded in a proper manner by health boards and NHS trusts in Scotland. This takes the form of a statutory requirement on all health boards and NHS trusts to undergo an end-year audit by external auditors to ensure that the trust standing financial instructions, and any other financial instructions determined by the management executive of the national health service in Scotland, have been complied with.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reasons no in-house bid was allowed for the contract for support services put out to competitive tender by the Victoria hospital in Glasgow; and to what extent this was in breach of Government guidelines on competitive tendering in the NHS. [26350]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The existing in-house service was free to bid for the contract on the same basis as commercial tenderers. The trust did offer to fund independent external advice for any staff group which wished to mount a bid. This offer was not taken up and no bid was made.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of BSE have been identified in(a) the East Kilbride constituency and (b) Lanarkshire in each of the last 10 years; and how many farms were involved. [26332]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is being collated and will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as it becomes available.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [25960]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]The Scottish Office maintains its own public appointments list and therefore makes limited use of names from the public appointments unit, although names are exchanged from time to time. The Scottish Office list is used as a source of names of suitably qualified candidates for consideration for a wide range of appointments. No central records are, however, kept of the sources from which the names of those appointed are derived.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is proposing to improve the security of occupational pensions. [24680]

  Mr. Heald
  The measures in the Pensions Act 1995, most of which will become effective from April 1997, reflect the Government's commitment to safeguarding the security of occupational pension scheme assets.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioners' gross income in the north-west comes from(a) benefits, (b) occupational pensions and (c) investments for the most recent years for which figures are available. [24681]

  Mr. Heald
  For the United Kingdom as a whole, 53 per cent. of pensioners' average incomes is from state benefits, 25 per cent. from occupational pensions and 16 per cent. from investment income.

  It is not possible to provide a reliable breakdown by region due to the limited sample size.

  Unemployment Benefits
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what incentives to work will be included in his reforms of unemployment benefits. [24682]

  Mr. Burt
  Helping people back to work is a key aim of Government policy.

  This month we introduced extended payments of housing benefit and council tax benefit for unemployed people who return to work and the national insurance contribution holiday for employers.

  With jobseeker's allowance in October, we will be introducing the back-to-work bonus. This will enable at least 150, 000 people a year to receive a tax-free lump sum of up to £1,000 when they leave benefit to take up work.

  We will also be introducing earnings top-up, a new in-work benefit for people without dependent children, in eight pilot areas from October.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he intends to take to assist people to make additional provision for their own long-term care in their old age. [24683]

  Mr. Heald
  To help people retain more of their savings when they enter long-term care, we have more than trebled the lower capital limit and doubled the upper 132
  capital limit for those in residential care; and for those who are covered by the preserved rights provisions, we have also introduced a 50 per cent. disregard on income from their occupational pension if they have a spouse who remains at home.

  We have already taken steps to give personal pension holders more flexibility in the use of their pension savings during retirement, and are committed to building on that foundation by giving members of occupational pension schemes extra choices.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received recently regarding the withdrawal of benefits from asylum seekers. [24684]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We have received representations in various forms from hon. Members, members of the public, local authorities and voluntary organisations. Representations were also made to the Social Security Advisory Committee which were included in its report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what social security benefits persons who have a legal right to live in the United Kingdom, but do not hold a British passport, will be eligible under the new Asylum and Immigration Bill; and if he will make a statement. [25349]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Asylum and Immigration Bill provides that an immigrant will not be entitled to child benefit unless he satisfies prescribed conditions. Regulations will set out those conditions. An immigrant is defined as a person who requires leave under the Immigration Act 1971 to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. A non-British passport holder's eligibility for other social security benefits depends on his immigration status.

  Pensions (Administrative Costs)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the relative administrative costs of(a) the state pension and (b) personal pension schemes. [24686]

  Mr. Heald
  The estimated cost of administering state retirement pension in 1994–95 is £309 million. Information on the administrative costs of personal pensions is not collected centrally.

  Source:

  Social Security departmental report, March 1996—Cm 3213.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current annual cost of administering the habitual residence test; and what savings in benefits have been made in the current year following the introduction of the test. [24688]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The current annual cost of administering the habitual residence test in relation to income support is estimated at £3 million. The best estimate of savings for the financial year 1995–96 is £25 million.

  Social Security Reform
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations about future social security reform he has been notified will be forwarded to him in the next three months; and if he will make a statement. [24689]

  Mr. Burt
  None.

  Child Support
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he plans to take in response to the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in respect of(a) the Child Support Act 1995 and (b) the Child Support Agency. [24690]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The report mainly relates to the first 18 months of the agency's performance, and there have been very substantial improvements since then. In addition, I recently announced the recruitment of an independent complaints examiner, improvements to the agency's compensation scheme and the introduction of interest payments on maintenance collected but not transferred promptly to the parent with care.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of holders of appropriate personal pensions failed to earn sufficient to generate a national insurance rebate in the most recent year. [24692]

  Mr. Heald
  In 1993–94, 31 per cent. of appropriate personal pension holders had reckonable earnings below the national insurance rebate threshold.

  Notes:

  (i) Source: Personal Pension Statistics 1993–94 which is based on a 1 per cent. sample of national insurance records taken in February 1995.

  (ii) Figures relate to the Uhnited Kingdom and are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future of Benefits Agency offices in north Wales. [24693]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  One of the next key steps in the long-term reform of social security is the change programme, which aims to produce administrative efficiencies of 25 per cent. over the next three years. As part of this, consideration is being given to the future of service delivery in Wales. Any proposals will be subject to consultation before final decisions are taken.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefit changes he is undertaking to help lone parents to work. [24694]

  Mr. Burt
  The Government have a well-developed strategy for helping families, including lone parents, into work. Further measures are being implemented in the coming months.
  134
  From this month, the child care disregard in the in-work benefits has been increased from £40 to £60 a week. The back-to-work bonus and the child maintenance bonus will be introduced in October 1996 and April 1997 respectively. They will encourage part-time work and provide opportunities to build up a tax-free lump sum on leaving benefit for work. Also in April 1997 a major new pilot will commence providing training and employment opportunities to up to 25, 000 lone parents.

  In addition, lone parents can qualify for other work incentive measures introduced this month, including extra help with housing costs on return to work, faster delivery of family credit and relief from national insurance contributions for their employer.

  State Pensions
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the level of state pensions in other European Union countries relative to those in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [24695]

  Mr. Heald
  Most other EU countries have wholly earnings-related pension schemes, so there is a wide variation in the rate of pension paid to individuals. This can mean that low earners receive low pensions. Direct comparisons of the level of state pensions do not take account of health care, occupational pensions and safety net benefits, which are all significant factors in the provision for pensioners in the United Kingdom. The relative position of state pension provision is further distorted by differences in the cost of living.

  Benefits (Young People)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations his Department has recently received on the question of benefit availability to 16 and 17-year-olds; and if he will make a statement. [24696]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Department has received a number of such representations.

  We believe that unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds should take the more positive options of youth training or education in place of dependence on benefit.

  Benefit Reforms
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from political parties over the past three months concerning reforms of the benefit system. [24697]

  Mr. Burt
  None.

  Centenarians
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the estimated cost to his Department of sending telegrams to centenarians over the past year; and if he will make a statement. [24698]

  Mr. Heald
  This Department arranges for telemessages to be sent to residents of Great Britain on their 100th birthday, at 105 and yearly thereafter. In 1995, a
  135
  total of 3,025 such messages were issued at an estimated cost of £74,900, most of which arose from visits by Benefits Agency staff prior to the issue of the messages.

  Fraud
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what priority he attaches to tackling fraud in his social security reforms. [24691]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) earlier today.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has in respect of the right of appeal in incapacity benefit cases. [26533]

  Mr. Burt
  We have no current plans to make any changes to the right of appeal in incapacity benefit cases. However, as part of the long-term reform of social security we are now reviewing its administration, including decision making and appeals arrangements.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons have ceased to receive incapacity benefit because of a failure to attend a medical examination following completion of questionnaire form IB50. [25803]

  Mr. Burt
  At 31 March 1996, 2, 416 persons had been disallowed incapacity benefit following failure to attend for medical examination.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) former recipients of invalidity benefit now claiming incapacity benefit and (b) new incapacity benefit claimants have passed the all-work test and how many in each case have been deemed fit for work. [25805]

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table.

  Found capable of work following the all-work test

  Found incapable of work following the all-work test

  Former Invalidity Benefit recipients with transitional protection

  33,580

  113,500

  Incapacity Benefit claimants since April 1995

  6,780

  24,340

  All figures as at 30 November 1995 taken from a 5 per cent. sample of cases from the incapacity benefit computer system. Excludes a small number of cases not on the system.

  Occupational Asthma
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost to his Department of providing industrial injury scheme benefits to people suffering from occupational asthma in each year from 1989–90 to 1994–95. [25780]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.
  136
  The figures are estimates of the cost of industrial injuries disablement benefit reduced earnings allowance and retirement allowance paid to people suffering from occupational asthma and do not include the costs of administration or the benefit expenditure on constant attendance allowance, exceptionally severe disablement allowance or unemployment supplement.

  The data on which these estimates are based are not yet available for 1994–95.

  Estimated cost of providing Industrial Injuries benefits to people suffering from occupational asthma

  Cash prices £ million

  1989–90

  1.0

  1990–91

  2.0

  1991–92

  2.5

  1992–93

  3.0

  1993–94

  4.0

  Estimated costs are given at cash prices, rounded to the nearest £0.5 million and may be subject to a margin of error.

  Income Support
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons have ceased to receive income support as a result of failing the all-work test. [25792]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not available.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons in the borough of Southend receive income support. [24687]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The numbers receiving income support in the area covered by the Benefits Agency Essex South East district office, which includes the borough of Southend, was 37, 403 in May 1995.

  Redundant Steel Workers
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was paid in means-tested benefits to redundant steel workers in each year between 1979 and 1995. [25820]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not available.

  Mini-cab Drivers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many mini-cab drivers had details checked against benefit records as a result of Operation Spotlight in(a) Croydon, (b) Enfield and (c) Haringey; how many withdrew their benefit claims; and how much money has been saved. [26261]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not available as the spotlight on benefit cheats campaign in Croydon, Enfield and Haringey is still under way and individual investigations will take some time to follow up.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of funding to
  137
  be made available to his Department through the private finance initiative in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26171]

  Mr. Burt
  The estimated capital spending relating to Department of Social Security projects under the private finance initiative is in the list:

  1995–96: £60 million

  1996–97: £130 million

  1997–98: £70 million.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the annual saving from the withdrawal of the mobility component of disability living allowance after a claimant has been hospitalised for(a) four weeks and (b) 12 weeks in the case of children. [25586]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information requested is in the table.

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  (a) Adults (four weeks)

  20

  35

  35

  (b) Children (12 weeks)

  5

  10

  10

  Total

  25

  40

  45

  1. Estimates assume an end of July start date. 2. Estimates rounded to nearest £5 million. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  In-work Benefits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total annual expenditure on(a) family credit, (b) disability working allowance and (c) other in-work benefits by standard region. [26142]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information for 1994–95 is set out in the tables.

  £ million

  Region1

  Family Credit2

  Disability Working Allowance2

  Midlands

  265

  2

  Northern

  266

  2

  London North

  170

  1

  Wales and South West

  198

  2

  North Western

  238

  2

  Scotland

  160

  1

  London South

  146

  1

  All regions

  1,441

  11

  Region1

  Housing benefit3 £m

  Council Tax Benefit3 £m

  North

  27

  8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  46

  14

  East Midlands

  31

  7

  East Anglia

  16

  3

  South East (excluding London)

  106

  14

  London

  119

  12

  South West

  51

  9

  West Midlands

  26

  7

  North West

  58

  17

  Wales

  25

  3

  138

  Region1

  Housing benefit3 £m

  Council Tax Benefit3 £m

  Scotland

  32

  1

  All regions

  537

  95

  1 Information on Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit is provided by standard administrative region. Information on Family Credit and Disability Working Allowance is only available by Social Security administrative region.

  2 Total expenditure figures from 1996 Departmental Report. Figures are rounded to the nearest million.

  3 Figures are estimates derived from the annual 1 per cent. Housing Benefit sample inquiry and are rounded to the nearest million. The figures get less reliable the smaller they are. The figures exclude expenditure on recipients for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit who work but who also get Income Support.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the cost of the current £10 mandatory disregard of war disablement pensions and war widows pensions for(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit; [26534]

  (2) what is the cost to local authorities of the use of the discretionary disregard of war disablement pensions and war widows' pensions for (a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit. [26535]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The benefit cost of the mandatory disregard of the first £10 of a war disablement pension or a war widow's pension is broadly estimated to be around(a) £5 million in housing benefit1 and (b) £5 million in council tax benefit1.

  In addition, the mandatory disregard of the supplementary pension paid to some 80 per cent. of war widows—currently worth £51.71 a week— and of any mobility supplement (£37.75); constant attendance allowance (£19.85–£79.40); exceptionally severe disablement allowance (£39.70); or severe disablement occupational allowance (£19.85) paid to a war disablement pensioner cost an estimated further £10 million in additional housing benefit and council tax benefit payments1.

  In 1994–95, the latest year for which information is available, local authorities reported expenditure of around (a) £30 million on their local schemes for housing benefit and (b) £10.5 million on their local schemes for council tax benefit.

  Note:

  1 Estimates based on the 1991, 1992 and 1993 Family Expenditure Surveys uprated to 1996–97 levels. Expenditure is rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his plans for the provision of advice and assistance under part III of the Disability Discrimination Act. [26675]

  Mr. Burt
  The Government are seeking to establish a new service which will provide independent advice and support on the Act's rights of access to services and property. The service is planned to be operational in time for the implementation of the first of these rights around the end of 1996. The principal aim of the service will be to
  139
  promote the settlement of disputes without the need for court action. Widely available and high-quality advice and support services will also help prevent discrimination and disputes.

  Disabled people and businesses already make use of existing advice points, such as citizens' advice bureaux and business links. The new service will be targeted at these organisations, giving them access to expert knowledge on this new legislation. By enhancing the knowledge of existing advice points, the service will aim to ensure that disabled people and businesses will have access to locally available, high-quality advice and support. The Government are also investigating the possibilities for providing conciliation services, either as part of the advice and support service, or as a separate entity.

  Those interested in providing the advice and support service are asked to respond to advertisements which will appear tomorrow. Respondents will then be sent an outline specification and asked to provide information regarding their background, relevant experience, and financial stability by 28 May 1996. This information will be used to identify preferred candidates who will be formally invited to enter the negotiation phase of the project. The final specification will be produced during the negotiation phase. Copies of the outline specification have been placed in the Library.

  Details of the negotiations will remain confidential. An announcement of the result will be made prior to the service being commenced.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the nationality of each member of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. [24906]

  Mrs. Browning
  We do not hold details of committee members' nationality. The members of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee are appointed for their technical expertise in the subjects considered by the committee, irrespective of their nationality.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the number of cases of bovine TB since 1979. [25378]

  Mrs. Browning
  In Great Britain, between 1979 and 1995—the latest year for which figures are available—a total of 17,979 cattle were compulsorily slaughtered because they reacted positively to the tuberculin test. This figure includes all cattle which reacted positively to the test whether or not the presence of disease was subsequently confirmed at post mortem or by the culture of samples in the laboratory. In addition, between 1979 and 1994—the latest year for which figures are available—a total of 247 cases of bovine TB were confirmed from slaughterhouses.
  140
  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the incidence of bovine TB since 1979 in areas assessed by his Department to have(a) heavy and (b) light badger populations. [25376]

  Mrs. Browning
  It is not possible to answer this question in the form requested. Detailed badger population estimates do not exist. However, a national badger survey undertaken between 1985 and 1988, which assessed badger activity and presence of setts within 2,455 randomly selected 1 km squares of land in Great Britain, indicated that badger density was generally higher in south-west England and Wales. The incidence of bovine TB in cattle is considerably higher in Cornwall, Devon, Gloucestershire and Avon, Wiltshire, Dyfed, Gwent and South, Mid and West Glamorgan than elsewhere in Great Britain; in 1994 the number of new confirmed TB cattle breakdowns in these areas as a percentage of total herds was 1.231 per cent. Elsewhere in Great Britain the number of new confirmed TB cattle breakdowns as a percentage of total herds was 0.049 per cent.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how often herds are tested for bovine TB. [25375]

  Mrs. Browning
  Cattle herds everywhere in Great Britain, with the exception of Devon, Cornwall, Gloucestershire and Avon, are routinely tested for tuberculosis every four years. Herds in Devon are routinely tested every three years, and herds in Cornwall, Gloucestershire and Avon are routinely tested every two years. Division veterinary managers of the state veterinary service may exercise discretion in setting testing intervals in any areas of Great Britain where cattle herds have suffered a recent TB breakdown or where herds are considered to be at risk; this may result in some herds being tested more frequently than the prescribed testing interval for the region.

  Badgers
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the numbers of badgers killed since 1979. [25378]

  Mrs. Browning
  It is not possible to answer this question in the form requested. However, the total number of badgers captured and destroyed in removal operations carried out by the Department following TB breakdowns in cattle between 1985 and 1995 was 11,260.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount invoiced to his Department in respect of staff present at Dover lairages to undertake the certification of livestock for export on(a) 13 February, (b) 14 February, (c) 15 February and (d) 16 February. [25355]

  Mrs. Browning
  The total amount invoiced by the Department in respect of staff present at Dover lairages to undertake the certification of livestock for export between 13 and 16 February was as follows:

  Date

  Total invoiced £

  13 February

  1,818.41

  14 February

  1,435.77

  141

  Date

  Total invoiced £

  15 February

  2,184.96

  16 February

  350.76

  These figures are exclusive of VAT, which was added at the standard rate.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animals were rejected as unfit to travel prior to export from the United Kingdom in(a) 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994 and (d) 1995. [25431]

  Mrs. Browning
  The numbers of bovine, ovine and porcine animals rejected as unfit to travel prior to export from the United Kingdom were as follows:

  1992: 28,070

  1993: no figures available

  1994: 19,619

  1995: 8,855.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who conducted the export certification for consignments of animals at Abbotsland lairage, Capel-le-Ferne in the 48-hour period prior to 9 am on 20 January. [25432]

  Mrs. Browning
  Export certification for consignments of animals at Abbotsland lairage, Capel-le-Ferne in the 48-hour period prior to 9 am on 20 January was carried out by a local veterinary inspector. The name of the local veterinary inspector is being withheld under paragraph 4g of part II of the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which consignments were certified by Mr. Jonathan Stirling for export where animals were subsequently rejected by Ministry officials, excluding any animals rejected as unfit to travel under the Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1994, at(a) the port of Dover; (b) Brightlingsea wharf and (c) the port of Shoreham (i) during 1995 and (ii) from 1 January 1996 to 8 March 1996. [25433]

  Mrs. Browning
  Details of consignments certified by Mr. Jonathan Stirling and subsequently rejected by Ministry officials on veterinary health certification grounds are as follows:

  (a)

  (i) During 1995 at Dover:

  On 27 April 1995, one animal was rejected from a consignment of 203 calves.

  On 2 May 1995, two animals were rejected from two consignments totalling 322 calves.

  On 14 June 1995, 11 animals were rejected from one consignment of 240 calves.

  On 20 June 1995, 35 animals were rejected from 4 consignments totalling 732 calves.

  (ii) from 1 January 1996 to 8 March 1996 no animals were rejected.

  (b) At Brightlingsea wharf no animals were certified by Mr. Stirling during 1995 or from 1 January 1996 to 8 March 1996.

  (c) At the port of Shoreham no animals were certified by Mr. Stirling during 1995 or from 1 January 1996 to 8 March 1996.

  Licensed Veterinary Inspectors
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the dates on which staff carrying out LVI duties on behalf of the Maison Dieu veterinary practice or welfare services of 3 Whitehall court, London, were involved in discussions with his Department about their performance as LVIs and (b) the names of those involved (i) in 1995 and (ii) between 1 January 1996 and 8 March 1996. [25434]

  Mrs. Browning
  Records show that in 1995 meetings were held with staff carrying out LVI duties on behalf of the Maison Dieu Veterinary Practice on 14 March 1995, 10 May 1995, 20 June 1995, 13 September 1995, 17 October 1995, 20 December 1995. Telephone discussions were held on 18 April 1995, 4 May 1995, 18 May 1995, 25 May 1995, 14 June 1995, 15 June 1995, 23 June 1995, 29 June 1995, 30 June 1995, 3 July 1995, 25 July 1995, 26 July 1995, 31 July 1995, 1 August 1995, 9 August 1995, 1 November 1995, 10 November 1995, 15 November 1995 and 17 November 1995.

  From 1 January 1996 and 8 March 1996 meetings were held with the Maison Dieu veterinary practice on 31 January 1996, 8 February 1996, 22 February 1996 and 6 March 1996. Correspondence was sent on 16 February 1996.

  The names of the local veterinary inspectors involved are being withheld under paragraph 4g of part II of the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what disciplinary action he is taking against Ministry employees responsible for sending confidential documents relating to other people to integrated administration and control system applicants. [25525]

  Mr. Boswell
  Integrated administration and control system documentation, including field data printouts which contain information about the previous year's application, is sent to applicants by an external contractor. This operation is contracted out, in line with central Government policy, in the interests of efficiency. Any disciplinary action as a result of errors in the 1996 mailing of IACS documentation by the contractor's employees is an internal matter for the contractor.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to prevent officials sending other people's forms to integrated administration and control system applicants with particular reference to Warwickshire; and what assessment he has made as to how the errors occurred.[25526]

  Mr. Boswell
  About 0.2 per cent. of integrated administration and control system applicants have reported receiving wrongly addressed IACS field data printouts or had field data printouts missing from their IACS package; 18 per cent. of these problems were reported by farmers in Warwickshire representing about 0.04 per cent. of the total mailing. This operation is contracted out in line with central Government policy because its size—some 246,000 A3 original field data printouts and the same number of A4 copies—means that it cannot be handled by the internal resources available
  143
  within the Ministry. The contractor is one of Europe's largest computing/mailing houses, and has carried out this work for the past three years.

  As a result of the problems reported by farmers, the external contractor responsible for producing the field data printouts and mailing them with the IACS documentation for 1996 carried out a detailed investigation. It was concluded that the mistakes in the mailing arose because of very limited operator error. The contractor for this mailing already operates to International Standards Organisation standards. Nevertheless, we are considering additional measures further to safeguard personalised packages in respect of the next IACS round.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [25948]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: Our officials regularly consult the public appointments unit for names of suitable, qualified candidates for public appointments. Of the new appointments made by my right hon. Friend in 1994–95, 12 were made from names supplied by the public appointments unit, as follows:

  Agricultural Wages Board: Professor T. Smith

  Apple and Pear Research Council: Balram Gidoomal

  Committee of Investigation for Great Britain: Mrs. Suzan Matthews QC

  Covent Garden Market Authority: Gulam Noon

  Home Crown Cereals Authority: Dr. Caroline Vaughan

  Regional Flood Defence Committees

  (Northumbria): John Hackney

  (North West): Professor Margaret MacKeith

  (Severn Trent): Mrs. Joan Davies

  (Thames): Mrs. Pamela Castle

  Regional Panels (Anglia): Mrs. Anne Chamberlain

  Sea Fish Industry Authority: Barry Skipper

  Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee: Mrs. Anne Chamberlain

  Farmers (Compensation Scheme Payments)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to make payments to farmers under the compensation scheme effective in the week beginning 29 April. [26200]

  Mrs. Browning
  Details of the scheme are still being worked up with industry representatives. It is envisaged that claims will be made by collection centres at weekly intervals. The Intervention Board executive agency, which will administer the scheme, normally aim to make payments within 28 days of receipt of a valid claim. It is likely that the earliest payments will be made at the beginning of June.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider making interim payments to farmers eligible for compensation under the scheme effective from 29 April. [26201]
  144
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]There are no provisions for interim payments within the scheme rules.

  Beef
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what scientific basis he has decided that beef from animals slaughtered over the age of 30 months should not be offered for human consumption; and what other considerations underlay his decision to select 30 months as a critical age for this purpose. [26207]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: In the absence of detectable infectivity in tissues of clinically affected cattle other than brain, spinal cord and retina, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee considered that the greatest risk to consumers of clinically normal animals would be associated with exposure to central nervous tissue. This is precisely why these tissues are designated as specified offals. Nevertheless, after giving further consideration to the slaughtering/butchering process, it was felt that risk of exposure could be reduced further by requiring changes to certain procedures, such as removal of bones so that in doing so tissues contaminated with spinal cord were also removed, as would visible nerves and lymph nodes. It was, however, unnecessary to apply this to all cattle. This decision was partly based on the pathogenesis of scrapie in sheep and mice, where infectivity is only detectable in the central nervous system approximately half-way through the incubation period, subsequently rising to a peak at the time of clinical disease. That evidence is increasingly supported by the on-going pathogenesis experiment of cattle, where infectivity has so far not been detected in CNS up to 18 months post-infection. The mean incubation period of BSE in naturally infected animals is five years and the appropriate mid-point would therefore be 30 months. Clearly in cattle older than 30 months there will be increasing levels of infectivity in the CNS of infected animals, and more of them are likely to be approaching the onset of clinical disease prior to slaughter.

  The use of 30 months as a watershed was originally introduced in relation to exports of bone-in beef in 1995 under EC rules and was taken up by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee in its advice to Ministers on 20 to 24 March respectively that the meat from animals over 30 months of age should be deboned in licensed premises and the obvious nervous and lymphatic tissue removed and treated as specified bovine offal. In view of the concern expressed by the committee about the meat from animals above this age and the difficulties of introducing an immediate requirement for all of this meat to be deboned, it was decided during the consultation period that a ban should be introduced on the use of this meat for human consumption until such time as the consultation period was ended and suitable arrangements for deboning were introduced. Subsequently, it was decided a European Union level that, in view of the collapse of demand for beef from older cattle, the prohibition on the use of

  145
  meat from older animals in the human and animal feed chains should be maintained.

  Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what requirement has been placed by the EU on United Kingdom Ministers to consult EU institutions before statements are made in the House, with particular reference to the case of bovine sponfigorm encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement. [26020]
  146
  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]I am aware of no such requirement set out in the treaty or in any legal instruments adopted by the Council of Ministers.

  Forestry
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what charges are imposed by the Forestry Commission on(a) recreational riders and (b) riders following hunts in the New Forest. [26344]

  Mr. Boswell
  None.

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.

Mr. Andreas Pavel
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether legal aid was awarded to Mr. Andreas Pavel to sue Sony for breach of patent rights; and, if so, where Mr. Pavel resided at the time of the award; how much was awarded; and under what circumstances.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, Mr. Pavel was not legally aided for the proceedings in the court of first instance. He was, however, granted legal aid to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the Patents County Court.
As to Mr. Pavel's place of residence, the Legal Aid Board is prevented by Section 38 of the Legal Aid Act from disclosing information provided to it in connection with an application for legal aid. The legal aid costs of the appeal will only be known once the bills have been taxed.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord understand that it seems very strange to ordinary people in this country that a German citizen living in Milan can sue a Japanese-based company through British courts and manage to obtain, as I understand from the Daily Telegraph, £0.5 million in legal aid? Is the noble and learned Lord aware also that the judge concerned in the final decision expressed serious reservations about the length of time that both counsel spent dragging out the case for their own financial benefit? Is that not highly undesirable? Will the noble and learned Lord look into the matter? I understand that the money may not yet have been paid. Will the noble and learned Lord take the necessary action to withhold the payment of that money?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are a number of aspects in relation to the current aspects for legal aid which I regard as necessary to be reviewed. Your Lordships will know that I issued a Green Paper suggesting fairly considerable changes to the system. I am reviewing the responses to that document at present with a view to bringing out a White Paper as soon as possible.
As regards this particular case, the criticisms to which the noble Lord referred in the Court of Appeal related to the proceedings in the Patents County Court when no legal aid was granted. It is interesting to note what
1012
Lord Justice Aldous, who gave the leading judgment, said. I shall not weary your Lordships with all of it, but he said a good deal about the length of time that the proceedings had taken in a county court set up to deal swiftly and reasonably cheaply with patent matters. He spoke about how long it had taken and he said:
"Mr. Pavel ended up needing legal aid".
In other words when he started the proceedings, he had some money. By the time they had finished, he required legal aid. That is the substance of the matter in relation to that particular court. The criticisms of the Court of Appeal were really levelled at what had taken place in the Patents County Court and the failures there.
Needless to say, I wish to follow up this matter. The last but one sentence in the Lord Justice's opinion is:
"However, some alteration is necessary if the purposes of the Patents County Court are to be achieved".
That is a sentiment with which all your Lordships will agree. The question is how to achieve that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend tell the House how much was paid to that man by way of legal aid?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, nothing was paid to this man. In due course the money will be paid on claim to his lawyers, who are practising in this country. I cannot tell the House the precise amount until the claims have been submitted. The case has been concluded only fairly recently.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend not agree that British taxpayers resent having to foot bills for people who do not live in this country? I understand that the Legal Aid Board is absolutely independent. Its terms of reference are quite obviously wrong and is it not high time that they were changed? Under no circumstances should people like the person in this case be afforded British taxpayers' money.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the terms of reference of the Legal Aid Board are fixed by legislation which is passed by Parliament. That is what I am seeking to review in the Green Paper that was published and in the responses which have come in to that Paper.
The question of who should be entitled to legal aid is difficult. The courts of this country obviously have jurisdiction in the matter and the precise outcome of the Green Paper will be awaited. I am not certain that all your Lordships have yet had an opportunity fully to respond to it, although the formal period for consultation has been concluded.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his detailed and long reply to my initial Question. I was, of course, aware that Mr. Pavel did not require any legal aid when he started his action and he would not have

1013
required any legal aid if he had won, but he lost the case. I am still mystified as to how a German national who is not living in this country—as far as I know he has never resided in this country—can sue a Japanese-based company. Is he just using our legal system because it is a rather generous one from which he can obtain money for legal fees?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have no doubt at all that our system of law is an extremely good one. From that point of view one would seek to have recourse to it. Mr. Pavel came to this action in the Patents County Court at his own expense. That is an important fact to keep in mind. He lost in the Patents County Court and by that stage, as the judge said, he needed legal aid for reasons which I have sought to explain. He then applied for legal aid. Before legal aid was granted obviously the Legal Aid Board had to seek legal opinion upon whether or not Mr. Pavel had reasonable prospects of success. The legal aid was eventually given. It is on that basis—as I understand it—having regard to the financial criteria laid down under the Act of Parliament and the opinion on prospects of success, that legal aid was granted.

Unidroit Convention
2.45 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What part they took in discussions leading to the Unidroit Convention on stolen and smuggled antiquities, why they have not signed the convention, and what measures they will take to restrain the sale in Great Britain of antiquities illegally excavated in and exported from other lands.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the United Kingdom was represented at the meetings to discuss the draft convention. While the convention's aims are laudable, the Government have not signed because its scope is too wide. All members of the UK antiquities trade subscribe to a code of practice agreeing not to deal in illegally excavated or exported antiquities.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, first I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I accept that there are difficulties with the Unidroit Convention, but are the Government aware of the enormous scale of the looting of historic sites worldwide, and the colossal scale of the traffic in looted antiquities? Are the Government aware that London is a significant clearing house for this trade, whatever the code of practice may state? Will the Government look further into this and will my noble friend consider consulting the British Academy for its views on the matter?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am not sure whether the scale of looting to which my noble friend referred is so colossal, but the antiques unit of the Organised Crime Group at New Scotland Yard has recently seized antiquities from Egypt, China and Turkey. I understand the police have established that the Chinese and Egyptian antiquities were illegally exported and that it has been established that some were stolen. The Turkish antiquities are still under investigation.
With regard to my noble friend's supplementary question about the British Academy, the Government do not seek advice from the British Academy. Expert advice on archaeological matters is sought from the British Museum. However, if my noble friend can give me a good reason to consult the British Academy I shall pass on that information to people who are more knowledgeable on this subject than I.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, what is the length of the limitation period under the Unidroit Convention during which action can be taken to recover objects which have been allegedly stolen or exported? Is it true that it is as long as 50 years?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as regards the limitation period, a most unsatisfactory situation arises with that part of the convention dealing with stolen property as the provisions affect ownership. Bona fide purchasers and their heirs will not be sure that they have good title possibly for 50 years, or for 75 years, or in certain cases, for ever.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does the timescale involved affect the British decision to refuse to return the Elgin Marbles?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I sympathise with the Minister's noble friend's opposition to the illegal exporting of stolen treasures. Does she not agree that were we to sign the convention, it would be desirable to have in conjunction with it—as is the case in France, the United States and Canada—some anti-seizure legislation, because the risk under the convention is that a host country such as the UK, which hosts loans of art works from a second country, may have legal action taken against it to seize the works of art? To give specific examples, the Hermitage in Russia would be reluctant to loan its Impressionists to this country for fear of writs from the Germans. The Taiwanese would fear writs from the Chinese and the Israelis would fear writs from the Arabs. As a country, we must have protection from such action. Would the noble Baroness and the Government consider looking at the two together?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I totally understand the noble Lord's question. I point out to him that we support the principles of a European convention to provide a standard for the protection of archaeological sites and artefacts throughout Europe. The UK ratified the first European convention; and signed the revised one. However, we are currently considering whether we ratify the present form.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, will my noble friend remain her usual robust self and refuse to sign this particular convention? While I have considerable sympathy with the aims of my noble friend Lord Renfrew in respect of antiquities, is it not the case that the convention is drawn so widely as to define cultural objects pertaining to literature, art or science, thereby effectively forbidding the trading in, and therefore the collecting of, cultural objects of any kind?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I accept what my noble friend said as he has a particular interest in this matter.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, as a past chairman of the London and Provincial Antique Dealers' Association, I thank the noble Baroness for her caution about the convention. The definition is so widely drawn that it is fairly clear that the legitimate trade will move into countries which have not signed the convention. Is the noble Baroness aware that under the terms of the convention as drafted no owners of a work of art or their successors in perpetuity could ever be sure that their ownership might not be challenged?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government have not signed the Unidroit Convention. They have no intention of doing so. Therefore, the trade need have no fear of losing business to other countries.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that more and more government papers come out with initials. We have UNESCO, IMF and various other initials. What does Unidroit stand for?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to tell your Lordships that the full title is the International Institute for the Harmonisation of Private Law. It was founded by Mussolini.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, while accepting fully the point made by my noble friend Lord Derwent and my noble friend Lord Gowrie, the ex-chairman of Sotheby's, will the Minister confirm that at present it is legal to import into this country antiquities which have been illegally excavated overseas and illegally exported from their host countries? Is not that at the root of the present difficult situation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my noble friend is right. It is not an offence to import objects which have been illegally exported from another country; but under an EC regulation the UK cannot issue an export licence for export to a destination outside the European Community for an object which has been illegally exported from another member state. Under an EC directive such an object may be requested back by the source state.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, how many other countries in the European Union have not signed the Unidroit Convention?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, quite a few.

Lappel Bank
2.54 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the future of Lappel Bank, the rare bird haven on the River Medway in Kent.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government decided to exclude Lappel Bank from the Medway estuary special protection area because the Lappel Bank was essential to the continued commercial viability of the port of Sheerness. Lappel Bank, though a habitat for migrating birds, was not important for any rare species listed in Annex 1 of the Birds Directive. We await the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case referred to it by this House.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. He has indicated that he is aware that Lappel Bank is well known throughout Great Britain and on the Continent. It was designated to protect special wild birds. Indeed, the decision by Mr. John Gummer to abolish it was challenged by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I am quite sure that this House will not rule that that Royal Society should not be listened to.
I understand that this House referred the matter to the European Court of Justice, but I have heard no result. The Minister is very kind and helpful. Many people have written to me about this issue. Will he agree that whatever the Government do, they should listen to the voice of the British people? The British people want this area preserved.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we decided that the Medway estuary should be divided into 4,681 hectares for the birds with 22 hectares for the people. That seems to me a very generous decision in favour of the birds.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, among the people who offer the Minister advice, is he aware of the concerns of the people of Sheerness? They require to work and find employment in that area.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, absolutely; and that is the reason that the Lappel Bank was excluded from that area.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give an indication of the European Commission's interest in this matter?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the European arrangements for designating the special protection areas for birds are Europe-wide for migratory species because they are a Europe-wide asset. We thoroughly support the efforts being made in Europe to designate safe areas for these birds. We also support the exclusion of certain limited areas which are necessary for the development of their adjacent human communities.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the Minister might have told my noble friend that this site was also worthy of protection under the RAMSAR and Berne Conventions as well as any European directive that may exist.

1017
However, Lappel Bank is now destroyed. Since it was excluded from this special protection area for economic rather than environmental reasons, do the Government agree that they have to bear some responsibility for compensation? Will the Department of the Environment discuss some method of compensation with English Nature?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, whether or not compensation arises is now a matter for the European Court of Justice. We shall wait to see what it says.
Should compensation arise, there is no defined way in which compensation can be paid. That would be a matter of negotiation at first instance with the Commission. I imagine that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds might propose that we flood the entire Romney Marsh; we might propose to dump 22 hectares of estuarine mud on the Lodge at Sandy, Bedfordshire; and somewhere there would be a compromise. However, we cannot discuss any form of compensation at present.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, whatever the rights or wrongs of this specific site—there may be a balance to be sought as regards jobs—it seems to fall into a general pattern of setting profit before the preservation of the wildlife of this country. There has been a 50 per cent. reduction in song thrushes in this country over the past 25 years. What do the Government propose to do about that and about the other 23 birds now on the endangered list? We had only eight on that list 15 years ago.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in the context of the Question, that is a totally ridiculous assertion and indicates the value that the party opposite places on jobs for the people of this country.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does the Minister argue that the exclusion of 22 acres helped business? What proportion of the income gained are the Government willing to pay as compensation? If it did not raise any more income, then surely there is no point in the exercise.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the 22 acres were required as a vital part of the development of Sheerness. They now play a part in the commercial life of the port. In due course, if not now, that land will result in increased taxation for Her Majesty's Treasury, which is always desirable.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, will the Minister reply to the question which I put to him? I asked what he was doing about the 23 species of bird which had declined by 50 per cent. over the past 15 years with the serious loss of songbirds, larks and so forth.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, that has nothing to do with the Question. As the noble Baroness is aware, we have designated about 500,000 hectares of special protection areas. The Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment have extensive programmes to help
1018
our native birds, in particular those which she mentioned. Her attempt to insert into the Question some moral outrage at the Government's behaviour is totally inappropriate.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister made the encouraging comment that possibly other areas might be created. If so, will he be good enough to keep in touch with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted to say that we keep in constant touch with that august and responsible organisation.

Independent Pharmacies
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure the continuance of the independent pharmacy in view of the recent referral of resale price maintenance to the Office of Fair Trading.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the review of resale price maintenance on medicaments being undertaken by the Office of Fair Trading is a matter for the director general. Representations concerning the viability of independent pharmacies and other aspects of the review should be made direct to him.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that reply. Does he agree that the community pharmacist plays an important part in both the social fabric of this country and in the National Health Service? People are now recommended to seek advice from their community pharmacist and 94 per cent. of the population trusts the advice received. Does the Minister think it important to retain the availability of that service for people who are unable to get to supermarkets whose aim is to transfer most of the business to themselves?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend appreciates that the director general has a duty to monitor and review the supply of goods exempted from the general prohibition on resale price maintenance. Clearly, the existence of the present exemption would reveal that there is good reason for there being such an exemption. I entirely agree with my noble friend that community pharmacies have an important part to play. As she rightly emphasised, the aim of improving health promotion is something which the Department of Health encourages.
Beyond the essential small pharmacies scheme, of which I am sure my noble friend is aware, which would protect pharmacies which may not have sufficient prescription business to be viable, the Government are bound to await the outcome of the review by the director general.
Lord Peston: My Lords, until recently I was a member of the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, so I have an interest to declare. I am also chairman of the Office of Health Economics so I have a pharmacy interest. In addition, is the noble and learned Lord aware that as an economist I am, and have always been, implacably opposed to resale price maintenance? I deplore the extent to which it continues, albeit apparently illegally, despite the efforts of the OFT.
Having said that as background, I ask the noble and learned Lord whether in this case one should reflect upon whether items of medicine, even general sales list medicines, should be treated as ordinary items of commerce. That is the central issue here. It relates to the continued existence of the independent pharmacist but there is the general question of whether one would like to see in shops price headlines such as "Get your insulin cheap today". One sees that in the United States. Is it an appropriate environment in which medicines should be traded? Have the Government reflected upon it?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if the Government have reflected on it, then at present I do not believe they are prepared to reveal that. They are bound to allow the director general to carry out his examination to see whether the present exemption should be continued.
Yes, of course there are powerful arguments over the matter. That is why there has been an exemption in the past. I invite the noble Lord, given the strength of his views, to make them known to the director general.
Lord Peston: My Lords, has the noble and learned Lord noticed that my method of making my views known to the director general is to express them at this moment?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord appreciates that I had registered the fact.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend confirm that I am correct in thinking that the Office of Fair Trading is reviewing whether there have been sufficient changes in the market for non-prescription medicines to justify asking the court for leave to apply for a full hearing? Is he aware of the statement made by the supermarket chief executive in the Sunday press condemning the fact that the Office of Fair Trading was taking some time over the matter? He said that it was not a complex matter. However, it is a complex matter and it is important that it should be considered thoroughly.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it is a complex matter and the OFT anticipates that it will take until September to complete its review. I should have thought that in the circumstances that was entirely reasonable. My noble friend is right in saying that the director general is considering whether there is prima facie evidence of material change in the relevant circumstances since the exemption granted by the Restrictive Practices Court in 1970. It is not that I am unwilling to give an answer but, given that there is a statutory procedure to be followed, I am sure that it
1020
would be wholly inappropriate for me to anticipate the outcome not only of the first stage but of a possible second stage before the court.

Petitions: Asylum and Immigration Bill
3.6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition bearing the names of students around the country and supporters of the Children of the Storm which claims that the provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Bill will have a detrimental impact on all asylum seekers and, in particular, on children, and calls upon the House to amend the legislation accordingly to reject the devastating and barbaric legislation that is the Asylum and Immigration Bill and all its inhumane consequences.
Petition presented.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from a number of individuals and organisations including Barnados, CAFOD, Child Poverty Action Group, Children of the Storm, the Children's Legal Centre, Christian Aid, Faith Asylum Refuge, Family Service Units, International Social Service, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, Save the Children, the Refugee Council, the Refugee Legal Centre and the United Nations Association. The Petition shows that the provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Bill will have a detrimental effect upon all asylum seekers and, in particular, on children, and calls upon the House to amend the legislation accordingly. The Petition bears 9,670 signatures.
Petition presented.

Business of the House: Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This Motion invites the House to agree that the Second Reading and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill should be taken on Thursday of this week. Your Lordships will be aware that the Bill gives effect to the announcement on 21st March by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister of arrangements leading to all-party negotiations in Northern Ireland.
Her Majesty's Government regard it as of the utmost importance that the momentum of the peace process should be maintained. I hope that I am right in thinking that that view is generally shared by your Lordships' House. There are of course varying shades of opinion about the detailed contents of the Bill; but I think I am right in saying that the main thrust of the Bill commands widespread support and agreement that it should he enacted in time for the election in Northern Ireland to take place as planned on 30th May so that the negotiations may begin on 10th June.

1021
The House will be aware that from the very beginning the Government have been operating to an extraordinarily tight timetable, and I have been more than grateful to your Lordships for the patience and understanding which have been shown in the Government's adumbration of their plans. Equally, I know that some noble Lords will regret that it is necessary for such an important Bill to be taken through all its main stages in this House in a single day. It is a regret that I share.
The House rightly sets great store by its function as a revising Chamber for legislation. Indeed, that is a function that is not obviously compatible with the speedy passage of a Bill. After all, our Standing Orders safeguard our procedures and provide that legislation is customarily considered to a timetable which allows the fullest opportunities for scrutiny. It is only right, therefore, that those Standing Orders should be set aside only by the wish of the House.
I have, however, made it clear, not only this afternoon but on previous occasions, that there is widespread support for the intention to hold elections in Northern Ireland on 30th May. In order for that to be achieved, the necessary powers for the returning officer to make arrangements for polling must be put in place very soon. I hope I am right in thinking that your Lordships would not wish to prevent that timetable being met.
It might also be asked why it was thought necessary to allow longer for consideration of the Bill in another place than is proposed for this House. I hope the reason for that will commend itself to your Lordships as a pragmatic and sensible one under the circumstances. The presence in another place of representatives of all the main Northern Ireland parties whose interests will be directly affected by the provisions of the Bill made it desirable that, of the short overall period available for the parliamentary proceedings, more time should be spent in another place. Perhaps this is a little self-regarding, but I hope your Lordships will acknowledge that I am usually among the first to defend the interests of this House, both as Leader of the House and in a personal capacity. I suggest that on this occasion the particular circumstances of the legislation are such as to make this the most sensible way to proceed.
I have no doubt at all that it will be possible on Thursday for those noble Lords who wish to take part to give the Bill careful consideration. If your Lordships should see fit to amend the Bill, another place will of course consider those amendments in the usual way. I beg to move.
Moved, That, if the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill is brought from the Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on Thursday 25th April.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, my noble friends and I are of course prepared to do anything to facilitate the peace process in Northern Ireland.
1022
We support the principle of this Bill and will play our part in carrying it on to the statute book. I understand what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said about the timetable; namely, the need to hold elections on 30th May so that talks can commence on 10th June. Nevertheless, I must express our serious disquiet about this Motion.
As the noble Viscount indicated, this House is a revising Chamber or it is nothing. As he very fairly said, Motions of this sort are not compatible with that position. Yet we face a situation whereby we are confronted with another Business Motion, the second in 20 days, under which we are being asked to suspend our rule that no two stages of a Bill should be taken on a single day—indeed, to pass all stages of the Bill on Thursday of this week. Even the modest proposal that we made that there should be a second day to discuss this matter; namely, Friday of this week, was turned down.
The House will recall that we debated a similar procedural Motion relating to the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill on only 3rd April. My noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, in indicating that we have no intention of opposing the Bill, nevertheless expressed his concern that the House was to be deprived of the opportunity of discussing it with the degree of care that this House always applies to the consideration of legislation particularly when, as on this occasion, it could affect the interests of many law-abiding members of the public. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, also expressed some of his concerns about the timetable that the House was being asked to accept.
On that occasion the Government did not find it possible to answer the questions put by both noble Lords. I suspect that they would have been very surprised on that occasion to learn that, even then, the Government were considering proposing a similar procedural Motion on another Bill less than three weeks later.
The Government's argument on both occasions has been the same; namely, the need for urgency. Yet it is now clear that the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill could have been introduced many weeks earlier. Had that been done, the Bill could have received proper consideration. The same applies to this Bill.
As the noble Viscount the Leader of the House indicated a few moments ago, the Prime Minister made a Statement on 21st March which was repeated by the noble Viscount in this House, outlining the electoral process to be followed. Since the Bill, as ultimately published, followed the outlined system so closely, it is my view—and, rather more importantly, the view of my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham, who is responsible for Northern Ireland policy in my party—that it could have been published and its early stages gone through before the Easter Recess. However, as I have already said, the House will have to consider every stage of this Northern Ireland Bill on Thursday.
We have one day to consider the Bill and, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House was frank enough to confirm, the House of Commons will have three days.

1023
I am bound to say that I did not find the explanation he gave as to why there should be that remarkable distinction all that persuasive. Of course, there are Ulster Unionists and others in the House of Commons who wish to discuss the Bill in detail; and of course we understand the parliamentary arithmetic of the present House of Commons. Nevertheless, it seems more than mildly surprising that a House that sees itself as a revising Chamber should have one day to consider the Bill whereas the House of Commons is to have three.
On matters of this sort we are very much in the hands of the Leader of the House. Following a similar dispute some years ago on a similar procedural Motion relating to another Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, intervened and insisted that this House should be given more time to consider the Bill. That was done. I am extremely sorry that similar action has not been taken on this occasion.
The problem is a simple one. The overwhelming majority of Ministers sit in the House of Commons. Inevitably, their principal concern is to meet the interests of Members of the House of Commons. I do not think that they apply their minds a great deal as to how this House will react to a restricted timetable. Indeed, when my colleague, Mr. Alan Beith, was consulted by the Home Secretary on the contents of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, the matter of its consideration by this House was not even raised by Mr. Howard. Similarly, it was not raised when this Bill was first discussed with my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham. It came up only later when it was learnt that some of us were very unhappy about the arrangements.
I hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House understands our serious disquiet about the manner in which this House is being treated. If the House wishes to maintain its reputation as a serious House of Parliament, which is the last bastion of protection of the public interest against unreasonable behaviour by the Executive, it cannot afford simply to accept in a mood of humble acquiescence Business Motions of this character. I hope that the noble Viscount will register our concern and do his best to meet it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps the unhappiest Member of the House is the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who has had to come before us with this procedure. As he himself said, it would not be his wish in normal circumstances, but these are not normal circumstances. The noble Viscount will be aware that when the proposition was put to us our reaction was not overwhelmingly to accept it, but to recognise that this is a serious matter, not only in the context of the Bill, but in relation to the stature of this House.
Discussions have taken place. Among those with whom I discussed the matter was the spokesman for Northern Ireland matters on this side of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. Unhappy as he was that we were being invited to agree to the procedure, his first reaction was that, if it could be done, then he would not stand against completing it in one day. But the Leader of the House should recognise that it is not a normal day. It is not a normal Thursday.
1024
We need to conclude reasonably early because we are meeting on Friday. In addition, an important Unstarred Question remains on the Order Paper.
While no one would want to inhibit any Member from using the opportunities that may present themselves during the day, a tough point might be reached at a time when it may be recognised that it would be detrimental to attempt to proceed with what the House will agree to today. In those circumstances I hope that the usual channels, who will be present at the appropriate time, could meet to resolve how best to deal with the remaining stages. Let us hope that they are reached in good order.
It may be that at 9 o'clock, 9.30 or 10 o'clock we would need to make a judgment. In those circumstances it is not unreasonable to ask the House to agree to the terms of the Motion. However, the Leader of the House ought to be aware that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, are good House of Lords points. If anything can be done to give earlier notice and to be more generous with time, that would be to the benefit of the House and to the Leader of the House.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I support the sensible suggestion of my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, that should debate on the Bill proceed at some length on Thursday, the Leader of the House might see fit to arrange for the debate to be concluded on the Friday. The whole House will recognise that that would be a sensible way of responding to a difficult situation.
I wonder whether I might ask the Leader of the House to provide us with more information regarding the timetable of events. I am thinking, in particular, of the deadline to be met to enable the electoral process to commence in good time. This House, and the whole of Parliament, needs a clear idea of when Parliament has to conclude its deliberations on the subject.
We all recognise the difficult situation that exists regarding the Government's negotiations on Northern Ireland. We all hope that the discussions will he concluded successfully. We need to recognise that for that to happen the negotiations need to continue on the basis of mutual respect among all parties. One of the difficulties that we are faced with is the way that the Government are constraining parliamentary consideration of the Bill. It suggests that the Government have some contempt, some lack of respect, for the very institutions of their own Parliament. I hope that in his explanation of the constraints of the timetable, the Leader of the House will demonstrate that the Government have taken all possible steps to ensure that there is adequate time available for parliamentary scrutiny of this important Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I should like to ask another slight timetabling question of my noble friend, the Leader of the House, because it is quite obvious that the House will want to put down amendments to the Bill as, indeed, it did to the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill which, as we have heard we passed the other day through all its stages in one day. On that occasion the powers that he arranged for a

1025
short break between Second Reading and Committee. The House adjourned during pleasure for the issue of manuscript amendments, and again, if my memory serves me right, between the Committee stage and the Report stage. Will my noble friend the Leader of the House say whether that will be the case on Thursday, as it was with the previous Bill?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his support for the policy, which has never been in doubt either from himself or, indeed, from the party which he represents. Equally I am delighted to try to reassure him—I am sure under the circumstances, in view of his remark, somewhat inadequately—that I wholly support his contention that this is a serious House of Parliament. I think that that was the phrase he used. It is a phrase that I have used, in particular, in response to various inquiries in a similar vein over the past few months from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who also sought my reassurance along the same lines.
Looking at the timetable which has been pursued, both in another place and here, in terms of the Government's legislative programme, I have no doubt that if the noble Lord, Lord Harris, looks, which I know he does, at the amount of time given to consideration of the Government's mainstream legislative programme—though it may not perhaps be particularly tactful on my part to remind another place of this—he will see that your Lordships' House can take a certain amount of pride in the serious consideration and thorough examination accorded those Bills brought forward by Her Majesty's Government in your Lordships' House.
At the risk of perhaps sounding more than usually patronising on the subject, I believe that your Lordships deserve congratulation on that. My noble friend, the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, has been under some pressure, because of your Lordships' insistence on scrutinising the Government's legislation, somehow to begin to live up to the timetable which he had intimated to our colleagues that your Lordships would be able to sustain during the course of the current Session. I hope that that, at least, will give, in the generality if not in this particular, some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who I think it may be fairly said has played more than his usual part, even by his high standards, in ensuring that so far the generality of the Government's legislation has received its proper scrutiny in your Lordships' House.
It is fair to say that this is, indeed, an exceptional case. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will realise that after the Statement to which he referred, and the Statement that I repeated in your Lordships' House on behalf of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, there was necessarily a period of consultation with the Northern Ireland parties. It was important to see whether it would be possible for a mutually agreed election system to emerge from that consultation. As it turned out, it proved to be impossible to agree that. Under those circumstances, as foreseen in the original Statement, Her Majesty's Government had to decide what was likely to be the most acceptable compromise. That is what we
1026
have endeavoured to produce. That has inevitably taken time. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will recognise that since we had already, with the approval of his party, and, in particular, his noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham, set a date for elections—a date that was requested by the Dublin Government—it would be sensible for us to try to achieve whatever timetable seemed the most expedient, even at the expense, which I recognise, of proper scrutiny in your Lordships' House.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having taken so long, but the objection of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, as he recognised, is a serious one. I resist it only with the greatest of reluctance, as I hope I made clear during the course of my opening remarks.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for his suggestion, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. If your Lordships were to agree, I think that it would be extremely sensible, should it become apparent during the course of next Thursday's proceedings that proper examination of the Bill could not be concluded in the time available, that perhaps the usual channels should take counsel together and give further thought to how the Bill could subsequently be considered. The noble Lord pointed out that the House will be considering other matters on Friday and that there is an opportunity there. I am grateful to him for that suggestion, if the House will go along with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and, in a slightly different context, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale asked some timetabling questions. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, this legislation has to be on the statute book by the end of the present month if the returning officer in Northern Ireland is to have the time to perform his task according to statute. Therefore, I hope that he will accept that we are under considerable time constraints in that regard.
I can best answer my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale by telling him that since the Bill is expected to be passed by another place some time on the evening of Tuesday, 23rd April—that is, today—a text of the Bill will be available in the Printed Paper Office on the morning of Wednesday, 24th April—that is, tomorrow—in a form passed by the other place. If the other place sits late and the Bill is unamended, then the Bill in the Printed Paper Office tomorrow morning will be another place's print of the Bill. Otherwise, arrangements will he made for a House of Lords' print of the Bill to be available. But in either case, the Bill as printed by this House will he available in the usual form on the morning of Thursday, 25th April.
It might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I also add that the Public Bill Office will accept amendments in advance of the Second Reading of the Bill, should any of your Lordships wish to put down any amendments. Until any Lords' Bill is available, any amendments should as a matter of convenience relate to the print of the Bill coming from another place.
The provisional list of any amendments received will be placed in the Printed Paper Office on the morning of 24th April and supplemented or replaced as necessary.

1027
A provisional Marshalled List will be available in the Printed Paper Office on the morning of 25th April and a Marshalled List will be available from 2.30 p.m. Any further amendments tabled before the conclusion of the Second Reading debate will be circulated as manuscript amendments on separate sheets. I hope that those arrangements will be considered satisfactory under the difficult circumstances which I have laid before your Lordships.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps I may clarify one point; namely, if any part of the Bill remains unattended to on Thursday, Friday may be the obvious time to deal with it. However, when the usual channels meet, there may be other circumstances, of which I am not aware, to indicate that, in view of the fact that the noble Viscount has said that the deadline is Tuesday, the remainder of the Bill could be dealt with in this House if not on Friday then on Monday or Tuesday of next week. If it is not possible to deal with the Bill on Thursday and any part of the Bill which is left must be dealt with on Friday, then so be it.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that it will be difficult to go beyond Friday. I am grateful to him for accepting that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend would deal with one point. If the discussion of the Bill is taken on Friday, that will diminish the time available for discussion of the Finance Bill, which is set down for Friday. As your Lordships know, some noble Lords feel that it is a great pity that the most important Bill of the year should in any case be debated on Friday. I ask my noble friend to say that, if the Northern Ireland Bill obtrudes into Friday, then another separate day in the following week will be found for the Finance Bill.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope and believe that my noble friend raises an entirely hypothetical question which we may not need to address. I keep my fingers crossed that we shall not need to do so, but if the situation envisaged by the Opposition Chief Whip arises on Thursday, clearly we shall have to bear that point in mind. I hope that my noble friend will accept my assurance that we shall do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration Bill
3.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Extension of special appeals procedures]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new Clause—
EXTENSION OF SPECIAL APPEALS PROCEDURES
(". For paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 ("the 1993 Act") there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"5.—(1) This paragraph applies to an appeal by a person on any of the grounds mentioned in subsections (1) to (4) of section 8 of this Act if the Secretary of State has certified that, in his opinion the person's claim on the ground that it would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention for him to be removed from, or be required to leave, the United Kingdom is one to which sub-paragraph (2), (3) or (4) below applies.
(2) This sub-paragraph applies to a claim it the country or territory to which the appellant is to be sent is designated in an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument as a country or territory in which it appears to him that there is in general no serious risk of persecution.
(3) This sub-paragraph applies to a claim if, on his arrival in the United Kingdom, the appellant was required by an immigration officer to produce a valid passport and either—

(a) he failed to produce a passport without giving a reasonable explanation for his failure to do so; or

(b) he produced a passport which was not in fact valid and failed to inform the officer of that fact.

(4) This sub-paragraph applies to a claim if—

(a) it does not show a fear of persecution by reason of the appellant's race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion;

(b) it shows a fear of such persecution, but the fear is manifestly unfounded or the circumstances which gave rise to the fear no longer subsist;

(c) it is made at any time after the appellant—

(i) has been refused leave to enter under the 1971 Act,

(ii) has been recommended for deportation by a court empowered by that Act to do so,

(iii) has been notified of the Secretary of State's decision to make a deportation order against him by virtue of section 3(5) of that Act, or

(iv) has been notified of his liability to removal under paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to that Act;

(d) it is manifestly fraudulent, or any of the evidence adduced in its support is manifestly false; or

(e) it is frivolous or vexatious.

(5) Rules of procedure under section 22 of the 1971 Act may make special provision in relation to appeals to which this paragraph applies.
(6) If on an appeal to which this paragraph applies the special adjudicator agrees that the claim is one to which sub-paragraph (2), (3) or (4) above applies, section 20(1) of that Act shall not confer on the appellant any right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
(7) The first order under this paragraph shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(8) A statutory instrument containing a subsequent order under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(9) In this paragraph—
'immigration officer' means an immigration officer appointed for the purposes of the 1971 Act:
'passport', in relation to an appellant, means a passport with photograph or some other document satisfactorily establishing his identity and nationality or citizenship.").
The noble Baroness said: During the Second Reading debate, I agreed to reflect on the criticism made by my noble friend Lord Renton, and agreed to by others, of the drafting of Clause 1. Clause 1 operates by amending paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the 1993 Act.
As I said at Second Reading, it is not practicable always to proceed by re-enacting the provisions of previous statutes in a revised form. Nevertheless, we accept that, as a result of government amendments made at Report in another place, Clause 1 is now particularly difficult to read. We therefore propose to replace Clause 1 with a new version which re-enacts paragraph 5, with the amendments we proposed incorporated.
I ought also to record that Amendment No. 1 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 24A, 25A and 26. It is my intention to respond to them after they have been presented by the proposers. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): The amendment proposed is to leave out Clause 1 and insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. I call Amendment No. 2, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, and Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Lord Renton: I wonder whether it would be better if we were to follow what my noble friend Lady Blatch indicated and obtain agreement about the replacement of Clause 1 in the way that she proposed, before we consider any amendments that we might make to the replacement clause.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to support that suggestion. We do not wish to take a final decision on Amendment No. 1, as clearly that cannot be done until Amendments Nos. 2 to 30 have been considered and decided upon one way or another. Particular amendments have been grouped with Amendment No. 1 because they refer to the only substantive changes which the Government have made to the clause in the course of the redrafting exercise. If it were for the convenience of the Committee, I should like to speak to my amendments which have been grouped with Amendment No. 1 before going on to propose Amendment No. 2.
The Chairman of Committees: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Perhaps I should just indicate, for the convenience of the Committee, that it would be the normal procedure to deal with the amendment in the way in which I have just put the Question. But, as always, it is in the hands of the Committee and, if it is for the better convenience of the Committee to deal with it in that way, of course it is not for the Chairman to stand in the way of such a proposal.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Chairman, for that observation. Clearly, I only speak to the grouped amendments rather than move them. They will be reached in due course.
1030
I am grateful to the Government for taking account of the objections which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I, and others, raised to the drafting of Clause 1. I was so confused—I will not say incensed—by Clause 1 as drafted that I went away immediately and redrafted it in the terms which have now appeared on the Marshalled List. I am glad to see that, apart from a minor question of numbering, my interpretation of what Clause 1 did to paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 of the 1993 Act was correct. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, had also taken the initiative of preparing a new version of Clause 1 as a Keeling schedule which was, I have no doubt, a more appropriate way of dealing with it than the way in which I dealt with it.
We now have Amendment No. 1 on the Marshalled List and we can now deal with amendments to it properly and seriously. We are grateful to the Government for that.
This is an opportunity to refer to the substantive change which the Government have made by way of subsections (7) and (8) of Amendment No. 1. The Committee will recall that the original Clause 1 provided that the order designating countries under what is commonly called the white list should come into effect using the negative resolution procedure. The Committee will also recall that, as was referred to on Second Reading, the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee criticised the procedure and said that the affirmative resolution procedure was more appropriate.
I am glad to see that the Government have taken some account of that and that they have continued their welcome practice of taking serious note of what the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee says and, on the whole, of incorporating its conclusions into legislation. However, they have not applied the affirmative resolution procedure to all orders under this clause, but only to the first order made under the paragraph. Subsequent orders are to be made by annulment; in other words, by the negative resolution procedure.
The procedure that is proposed is unsatisfactory in two ways. First, it is unsatisfactory that only the first order should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It is a terrible temptation for any government to use the first order only to put on the list those countries, if there are any, about which there is no controversy and to leave the more controversial countries to subsequent orders, which will have a lesser level of parliamentary scrutiny. There arc some indications from leaked documents that that may be the case, so the status of countries added to the list is surely no different whether they are added now or later.
Secondly, the Government's proposals arc too prescriptive. They allow for too much parliamentary scrutiny in uncontroversial cases involving when a country might be removed from the list. A country might be removed from the list when, for example, through a coup d'etat, other internal disturbances or any serious, changed political circumstances, such as the outbreak of civil war or anything of that sort, it suddenly becomes dangerous, so that applications for asylum might justifiably be made and be made very quickly.

1031
In such circumstances it is surely important that the Government should have the power to remove that country from the list very quickly. I suggest that it is appropriate for that to be done not by a negative resolution procedure, which would take 40 days or whatever, but by administrative order by the Secretary of State. There is no need for parliamentary scrutiny when we are looking for swift protection for those who are at risk of persecution or torture in their own countries.
The proposed amendment to the clause is unsatisfactory in two ways. It does not provide for enough parliamentary scrutiny where parliamentary scrutiny is needed, and it provides for too much scrutiny when the prime need is for direct action. It is for those reasons that we are not satisfied with this amendment to the clause which has been made in the course of the redrafting. We hope that the Government will reconsider the way in which they have approached this issue.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord gave the impression that we have not gone as far as the Scrutiny Committee invited. We have fully accepted the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee; putting to its members the case why there should not be affirmative resolution of subsequent additions; they accepted our case and we have accepted their recommendation in full.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not mean to suggest they had not. I meant to suggest that the result is still unsatisfactory.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: These amendments were originally tabled in my name. They were intended, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, as an attempt to involve the affirmative resolution procedure for every order—not just for the first order, but for all subsequent orders also. May I briefly add to what has already been said about the reasons for these amendments?
We know that the Bill suggests that people who satisfy certain conditions shall be subject to a fast-track procedure. One of those conditions is that they come from a country which, in general, is not likely to persecute them. There are certain other conditions that we shall be discussing later in today's debate which concern, for example, the lack of a passport, or possession of an invalid passport or invalid papers, or other factors which suggest that an appeal for asylum status might be fraudulent.
I turn now to the provisions on the so-called white list. The Government are suggesting that those who come from countries on the white list, countries not normally associated with persecution, will be subjected to a fast-track procedure which is a very fast-track procedure indeed. It would involve 10 days in total for the consideration of an application and seven days for its preparation.
What is more troubling is that that might be associated with what is called "the immediate arrival procedure", which means that in future asylum seekers may be interviewed on the day of their arrival.
1032
Somebody coming into this country seeking asylum from, say, a country like Pakistan or Ghana would have an immediate interview, possibly within hours of his or her arrival, and would then have seven days in which to prepare a case. As far as we know, the only information about the procedure for preparing a case is in a leaflet, provided by the Home Office in the English language only. Many of those seeking asylum will not speak English. One might say that probably most will not. They are therefore at a huge disadvantage. They are unlikely to have the time to find people to help them. They are supposed to produce evidence within seven days. Those who are victims of torture will find obtaining adequate medical evidence in a short period of time next door to impossible. Those, the most serious of all asylum seekers, may be the worst off under the fast-track procedure. Therefore, we have tabled this amendment in the hope that each of those cases will be considered separately and carefully.
I do not want to make much reference to countries on the so-called white list because many of them are countries in the Commonwealth, but I am obliged to refer to two, one on the white list and one not. The country on the white list at the present time to which I am referring is Pakistan, a close friend of this country and a country with many things to its credit, but one of the things not to its credit is its record on human rights. There is a great deal of evidence most recently from Amnesty International's report on Pakistan for 1994–95 to say that torture and other forms of inhuman treatment are still quite frequently used in Pakistan. Amnesty International documents 67 cases in 1994 through to the end of that year.
In addition, there is a specific level of persecution directed at those who have a religion other than that of mainstream Islam; namely, Awami Moslems and Christians. Awami Moslems and Christians in certain areas of Pakistan are subject to considerable persecution, sometimes amounting to torture and other inhuman behaviour, and yet that country is on the white list at the present time. Frankly, once a country is on the white list it is not easy to take it off, though it raises difficult diplomatic problems for our Government which would be clearly overcome if the matter was subject to Parliament. It is easier for this House or another place to raise questions about the white list status of another country than it is for Her Majesty's Government to do so because it does not arouse the same diplomatic problems.
The other country to which I want to refer briefly is no longer on the white list. There were rumours that it might have been. The noble Baroness may tell us that that is not so, in which case I do not want to suggest it. I am referring to Nigeria where, currently, people who worship as Christians are under the most extreme forms of pressure and persecution, as many right reverend Prelates in this Chamber will know. Most recently the case arose of a man who, while attempting to conduct a church service, was seized, taken into custody, so seriously beaten that he was almost unable to retain his reason afterwards and only with a great deal of difficulty and by bribery was able to leave the country. In the past

1033
some of those people have been returned to their countries of origin, with well attested cases of extreme pressure being brought to bear upon them.
Because I do not want to delay the Committee, let me say that the purpose of Amendments Nos. 24A and 25A—amendments which will make all orders subject to affirmative procedure—is to allow this Chamber to consider with care and in detail the case for putting countries on the so-called white list. The arguments in relation to the other sub-paragraphs which relate to invalid passports and fraudulent papers are subject to being upheld.
It is my concluding thought that it is one of the fundamental obligations of this place in upholding the traditions of this country as a beacon of liberty throughout the world to ensure that every last man or woman who wishes to worship freely, who wishes to stand up for freedom in his or her own country, is treated as genuine. We should therefore have procedures which do not allow us to negate their appeal if they are among those who deserve to be asylum seekers; they are heroes in their own country and we should respect them.
Lord Renton: Before dealing with the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I should like to refer to the Government's replacement of Clause 1 and say how much I welcome it. As it stands in the Bill, the present Clause 1 is a notorious example of legislation by reference. It would have taken hours to go through all the previous legislation and redraft the clause in our own mind. Attempting to understand amendments to it would have been formidable. I am grateful to my noble friend as, I am sure, are others.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh said, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, drafted a Keeling schedule which would have been extremely valuable. But of the two alternatives—the one the Government have chosen and the Keeling schedule—the Government's choice is the better.
Though I disagree with the amendments tabled to the new Clause 1, we are now able to understand them. We would have had an awful time disentangling their effects if the new clause had not been introduced. In the broad, what the grouped amendments seek to do is fairly straightforward. I draw attention to the fact that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, have different methods of dealing with the situation. I do not believe that there is much difference between their methods and that of the Government.
I was fascinated by the complaint of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that there would be too much parliamentary consideration which may involve delay. It is unusual to hear the Opposition complaining that Parliament is being given too great an opportunity. I hope that, on consideration, he will not press that view.
I was rather surprised to hear the designated countries referred to as "white" countries; that could be misunderstood. However, if we are to have designated countries, we must give careful consideration as to which countries should be designated and which should
1034
cease to be designated. The feelings not only of the governments, but also of the peoples in each of the countries concerned are extremely sensitive in relation to whether or not they are included on the list. We must not rush the issue.
I prefer the Government's method of dealing with the situation. It gives a certain flexibility and opportunity for quick action. Annulments can be obtained, if there is a will to expedite, without waiting 40 days, which is the maximum period allowed. That may give some consolation to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. However, on the whole question of allowing immigrants into this country perhaps I can make a broad point.
There are too many countries in this world in which there is too much oppression affecting not merely a few thousand people, but many hundreds of thousands of people and perhaps more. To say that we ourselves, among all the countries of the world, will be the most hospitable, the kindest and the most receptive of all those who are oppressed in their own countries, will lead to this country being flooded beyond what is reasonable for the people who already live here.
I address those remarks—with the deepest respect because I am a churchman—to the right reverend Prelates on the episcopal Bench. I understand their feelings as Christians. But we have a duty to be sensible in this matter and not to allow a flood of immigrants to deprive our own people of some of the government services and financial help to which they are entitled. That is what will happen if we are over-benign in this important matter.
Earl Russell: First, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in relation to the drafting of this clause. I also thank him for his remarks at Second Reading on that point, to which I believe the Government listened.
The changes which have been introduced are very much in the spirit of the Renton Report on the preparation of legislation, to which we are all indebted. Therefore, in thanking the Government, I thank the noble Lord also.
I am also happy to confirm what the noble Baroness said; that is, that the Government have adopted the changes recommended by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, for which I thank them. I thank the committee also; we are always deeply in the debt of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. It does a job for which the House is very much the richer. I am happy to say that it is beginning to make us the envy of another place.
However, it is fair to say that there is no committee in the House with which any of us will agree on absolutely every point. The procedure that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has recommended for the first order referred to in the Bill is the affirmative procedure. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee is expert on procedure. However, inevitably, it cannot be deeply expert in the subject matter of every single Bill that comes before it. I say that without the least suggestion of criticism because it cannot possibly he otherwise.

1035
The affirmative procedure which the Committee has recommended for the first order is appropriate for a case where there is doubt in the mind of the House as to how the powers will be used in a general procedural way. I think I am right in saying that there is very little doubt in the mind of the House on that point. It is all too clear exactly what it is intended these powers should do. The doubt which will arise in respect of orders under this clause is a rather different one. It is a doubt about the appropriateness of the Home Office's assessment of the country concerned.
Before I deal with that point I should like to refer to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about numbers. It is not appreciated as widely as it should be that in the past year the number of people leaving this country exceeded those entering it by 5,000, and of those entering the country 30 per cent. were British subjects returning home. Therefore, the question of a flood of applicants—whatever one may think about it—for the time being must remain hypothetical.
4 p.m.
Lord Renton: I am reluctant to interrupt the noble Earl, but it is important to get this straight. The noble Earl is dealing with the situation as it is now; the amendments deal with the future and, potentially, will increase the number of people seeking asylum here by a very considerable amount. The comings and goings in the past are interesting, yes, but it is necessary to consider what will be the effect of these amendments on comings and goings.
Earl Russell: These amendments would extend the ability to make an application to what the Government believed to be appropriate in 1993. I do not believe that in 1993 the Government were quite as careless of this point as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has suggested. He has, however, by his intervention, given me a moment to find some figures that I was trying to lay my hands on.
A Written Answer which I received from the noble Baroness last December gives the number of applicants per million of population. Those were: the United Kingdom, 1,000; the Netherlands, 1,900; Germany, 2,100. Therefore, it would be a mistake to suggest that if there is a flood we are in any way unique in being its recipients. There are others who are receiving, and indeed accepting, a great many more applicants than we are.
One can go too far on the hypothetical principle. It always used to cause my father intense panic that although we could know that the sun had not exploded seven minutes ago we could not know it had not exploded now. That always struck me as a little theoretical, and so, frankly, does that intervention.
We are concerned here with the Home Office's assessments of countries. Designations for the list—and I share the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Renton about calling it a white list—will depend on the assessment of the Home Office as to how safe a particular country is. Since, also, in dealing with asylum claims, people are sometimes taken to be lying because they do not share the assessment of the Home Office about the safety of the country, it is important that there
1036
should be parliamentary input into assessing the accuracy of the designation, especially as there are many people—some of them present in the Chamber now—who have a depth of knowledge of other countries to which the Home Office collectively does not aspire.
For example, in the case of Turkey the Home Office wrote in a refusal letter:
"The Turkish Government is exploring ways of allowing greater expression to the Kurdish cultural identity".
That may cause great surprise to my noble friend Lord Avebury.
Take the case of Nigeria, to which my noble friend Lady Williams referred. Another Home Office refusal letter stated:
"There have been no reports of persecution or atrocities against the civilian population".
I really must say, "tell that to the Prime Minister". The Prime Minister—and I heard him myself—described the death of Mr. Ken Saro-Wiwa as "murder committed with the sword of justice". I have listened in this Chamber to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, replying to a Private Notice Question from the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, that that was not the Foreign Office's assessment of Nigeria. I cannot help thinking that the Foreign Office is rather more competent to assess the safety of foreign countries than what is, by definition, a "home" office.
Take the case of Zaire. Another refusal letter states:
"The Secretary of State is satisfied that these factors and the continuing inter-party negotiations strongly suggest that opposition parties are allowed to function freely".
That is not the account of Zaire that I hear from most quarters.
It is important that we in this House should discover what the assessments of countries are and should be able to give them critical scrutiny. For that reason I support these amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I too would like to offer my thanks to the Government for the redrafting of Clause 1, which now stands in a very much better form. I also welcome subparagraph (7) which allows for an affirmative order in the initial determination of those countries which are to be designated.
However, I must question the logic of an affirmative procedure for the first order but not for subsequent orders. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have pointed out the importance of scrutiny of any countries which go on this list. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made the same point. If it is important that they arc scrutinised under the first order surely it is equally important that at any subsequent stage countries which go on the list should be subject to the most careful consideration by this House.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has my support for that reason. I cannot understand an argument which says that scrutiny is important in the one case but not in other cases. It is perfectly possible that the Government will, at a future stage, want to place a country on the designated list. There may he a number of reasons for

1037
that. One reason could be that the number of applications for asylum from that country have a high level of rejection. That is one possible reason for a country being included on the list.
For precisely the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, it is important that in those cases a country should receive very careful scrutiny. I would hope that the Committee would look Very carefully at the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and ask why there should be this distinction between the first order and any subsequent orders. While I am on my feet, perhaps I may respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, not least because some of them were addressed to this Bench. I speak with the greatest respect for the noble Lord who served with distinction in another place for a constituency in which I served as archdeacon. Therefore, we have many shared experiences from that time. I ask him to reconsider the use of the word "flood" to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already made reference. The figures that I have in front of me of applications for 1995 show that some 27,000 applications were decided, of which 21,300 were rejected, leaving (if my arithmetic is right) some 5,700 which were accepted—that is to say, granted either full recognition of refugee status or given exceptional leave to remain. I cannot accept that a figure of 5,700 in one year can in any way be regarded as a flood. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is making that we need to look at the effects of this legislation on future numbers.
The anxiety of this Bench, as I know of others in the Chamber, is that this legislation should continue to afford the most careful scrutiny to every applicant for asylum. That is the heart of our anxiety. We do not believe that this legislation in any way is going to open floodgates: if anything, it is closing such gates as they are, a little more tightly. Our anxiety about this is that the most careful consideration should be given to each individual case. If we express resistance to certain clauses in this Bill, it is on those grounds.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My noble friend Lord Russell tempted me to intervene in this debate by mentioning two countries in which the Parliamentary Human Rights Group (of which I have the honour to be chairman) have taken a particular interest, and they are Turkey and Nigeria. I have visited Turkey on four occasions in the past five years until the Turkish Government banned me from entering the country in August 1994. I have been unable to get back there since despite writing to the new Prime Minister Mesut Yilmaz who is credited with a greater degree of transparency by the Government, as exemplified by the quotation from the letter which my noble friend read out in which the Home Office claimed that the Turkish Government were exploring ways of extending greater cultural identity or privileges to the Kurdish minority.
I sent an analysis to the Minister in the other place, Mr. David Davis, who deals with Turkey, drawing his attention to the similarity between the remarks that were
1038
made by Mr. Yilmaz when he presented his government's programme to the Turkish Grand National Assembly, and the remarks that were made by his predecessor, Mrs. Tansu Ciller in her speech to the Turkish Grand National Assembly on 30th June 1993. I asked him whether he thought that it was more or less likely that Mr. Yilmaz would be able to give effect to the undertaking which he had given; for example, on freedom of expression and greater observance of human rights, than Mrs. Ciller had when her Government possessed a majority in the Grand National Assembly, whereas Mr. Yilmaz, who is dependent on the votes of the two Opposition parties of Mr. Ecevit and, the largest of all the parties; namely, that of Mr. Erbakan, the Islamist Welfare Party, neither of which are particularly disposed towards the liberal parts of the government's programme.
The opposite is happening. Writers are still being imprisoned, and on 31st May one of the largest trials ever of intellectuals is taking place at the state security court in Istanbul, where 94 writers and intellectuals are to be put on trial for thought-crime offences. Mr. Yasar Kemal, the most famous writer in Turkey, was recently on trial; Mr. Besikci, has had extra years of imprisonment added to those already imposed on him. At yesterday evening's meeting of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, we heard from two very distinguished intellectuals from Turkey, Mr. Haluk Gerger, the writer, and Mr. Yurdatapan, who has recently been down in the south-east of Turkey investigating the present situation there.
He spoke in particular about an incident in which 11 people were murdered in a minibus, which is alleged by the Turkish authorities to have been committed by the PKK, the armed opposition. But on investigation, it turned out to be almost certain that it was committed by the state security forces themselves. I shall not go into detail about the evidence, but it is fairly substantial. I believe that it is going to be presented to the European Convention on Human Rights by some of the next-of-kin, who, very courageously, attended press conferences and who gave evidence to Mr. Yurdatapan.
So very far from Turkish human rights showing any sign of improvement, it is in fact deteriorating. I personally cannot understand why, if one looks at the figures of Turkish asylum seekers coming to the United Kingdom, the rate of refusal has increased from 6 per cent. in 1990, to 92 per cent. in 1995 and that is without any designation.
What are we to do? Are we to say that nobody from Turkey is ever going to he granted asylum here irrespective of the nature and extent of the violation of human rights in that country? I shall certainly be devastated if there is an intention of putting Turkey on the list for designation. I hope that the noble Baroness can assure us that the Government have no such intention.
I now turn to Nigeria, which is the other country which my noble friend mentioned. I was equally astonished that there was ever any intention of putting Nigeria on to the list except that we knew from the internal briefing document which had been produced by

1039
the Home Office for assessing applications by persons coming from Nigeria, how far short of reality its perception was in looking at the political and human rights condition of the country. There were so many glaring omissions in the document which we pointed out to the Home Office, and as a result, it was withdrawn and replaced by one which was slightly more accurate.
If one is going to produce documents of that kind, it would be better to look at the experience of other countries who seem to be more efficient at it than we are, particularly the Canadians and Americans, whose documents are always well referenced, whereas those from the Home Office are full of mere assertions and generalities. I appeal to the noble Baroness, quite separately from this debate, to have a look at the matter and to see whether, if the Home Office is to give advice of this kind, it should be based on much more accurate assessment of the human rights conditions in the countries of origin which, as my noble friend said, is more reliable when it comes from the Foreign Office than from the noble Baroness's department. I cannot understand why it is not possible for information to be transferred across in that way or why the noble Baroness and her department cannot look at some of the evidence which is available from other sources, such as the US State Department, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and so on.
In Nigeria at the moment we have a situation where not only have very serious human rights violations been taking place, but when the Commonwealth attempts to send a group of very distinguished Ministers to see General Abacha to discuss these matters with him, he refuses to admit the delegation. The British High Commissioner returned to Abuja at the end of January. He has not seen the Head of State since that point, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, told the meeting of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group the other day. I believe that none of the other representatives of the European Union gets to see General Abacha. He does not want to listen to representations on human rights. I understand that the only British authority who has been able to get an audience with him since the beginning of this year was the local representative of Shell. That tells one something about the relationship between that company and the Nigerian regime.
I entirely share the view that the powers that we are granting here to put any country on the designation list are extraordinarily broad, and we should safeguard the position of the House and another place by looking very carefully at these proposals if they come before Parliament in future. If Turkey or Nigeria were ever considered to be suitable countries for designation, I would certainly wish to be here and to speak extensively on that subject.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may say a brief word on procedure. Clearly, I have caused some trouble by grouping my later amendments with this one. My intention in grouping Amendment No. 26 with Amendment No. 1 was to draw attention to the only point where the redrafting of the amendment had been substantially changed. It was my intention to persuade your Lordships that we should debate now only the
1040
redrafting of Clause I and the issue of parliamentary scrutiny. All the other issues which noble Lords have debated, with the exception (I am glad to say) of the right reverend Prelate, can much better be debated in later amendments. I suggest humbly to the Committee that, having made this mistake, it would now be best for the Minister to wind up on those two issues.
Earl Russell: Does the noble Lord understand that the points we have been making necessarily arise from what we see as the insufficient nature of the Government's concession on the affirmative procedure?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not believe that I do. I believe that the noble Earl has, very properly and honourably, moved on to substantive issues relating to Clause 1 which can be debated in considering later amendments or that Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. I am afraid that on this occasion I do not agree with the noble Earl. But I have caused confusion by the grouping that has been agreed, and therefore I am utterly humble about this matter. I "suggest that when other noble Lords have said what they wish to say about those two issues, it is better for the Minister to wind up on those matters and to move straight on to Amendment No. 2. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Renton has said, neither I nor the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has moved any amendments. We cannot do so. Only one amendment is before the Committee, and that is Amendment No. 1.
Lord Shepherd: As a member of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, I should like to speak in response to what has fallen from the noble Earl.
The support received by that committee from every quarter of the Chamber is very helpful in its approach to what may occasionally be complicated and difficult legislation. The fact that now the Government more often accept its proposals is even more gratifying. The committee has to operate within a very short period of time. Following Second Reading, the committee obtains the first memorandum from the department and has to put it before the House within two or three days of the Committee stage. Therefore, it is not able to look at the Bill in very great detail. It can go only to the heart of what concerns it.
In this particular case, what concerned the committee was the very wide power sought by the Secretary of State. The policy of the Bill is not a matter that enters into the deliberations of that committee. Therefore, the kinds of points raised by the right reverend Prelate do not enter into the thinking of that committee.
When the committee looked at the Bill, apart from the powers, it wanted to know what it ought to say to the Chamber. That committee reports to this Chamber, not the Government. The Government have responded on the basis that the noble Baroness is a Member of the House and no doubt has been able to obtain a copy. But it is a report to the Chamber, not the final word. Noble Lords who are members of that committee can vote according to their views as a consequence of the debate.
The reason why the affirmative procedure was recommended in regard to the initiation of first orders was that at least the Chamber would have some idea of

1041
the countries that would be placed on one list or another. If there are additions, on that basis one may say that an affirmative order should equally follow. We thought that, having established the basic principles, that would be enough. However, I remind your Lordships that that committee was reporting to this Chamber. It seems to me that over the years there has not been much difference between the affirmative and negative procedures. Here, one can obtain a negative procedure debate fairly quickly. I am not aware of any occasion when the business managers have found reasons to prevent a debate subject to the negative procedure. Of course, in another place the position is very different. It is not for the committee to do anything in regard to procedures in the House of Commons. As far as concerns this Chamber, the negative and affirmative procedures are basically the same in terms of debate.
The fundamental problem that has become clear in this Bill is that whatever one does between the negative procedure and the affirmative procedure, one will not be able to amend the measure. For example, one will not be able to remove Nigeria, Pakistan or Turkey from one list. One will have to reject the whole order in order to eliminate one country. I can see grave difficulties in terms of relationships with some countries who we recognise do not have as good a procedure as we have in order to deal with their problems but progress is being made. We do not wish to aggravate it perhaps by asking a Minister to say something that might put our friends in those countries at risk.
I wonder whether, before an order is made in this Chamber, the matter should be sent to a committee appointed by the Leader of the House. It will take evidence why the names are on the list, satisfy itself as to that matter, and report to the Chamber that it has conducted an investigation whether those countries should go on the list. I believe that the procedure for debate, be it affirmative or negative, will prove to be very difficult, certainly to get to the truth. In view of our great history, I believe that we should look at a procedure whereby these matters, which may be very delicate, can be considered quietly and perhaps in privacy, with a report to the Chamber on its views on the matter.
I shall support this matter. I believe that whatever is done in this field should be done with as much parliamentary surveillance as possible. But one recognises that whatever one does, one will be hamstrung. One may have a debate and speak one's mind, but at the end of the day if the Government will it, the particular order will be passed, whether it should or should not. If a committee were appointed by the Leader to look at these matters, perhaps not too formally, we would be discharging our duty to a greater extent than is now proposed.
Lord Dean of Harptree: I also welcome the new clause, in particular subsections (7) and (8), which have just been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I am also a member of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I find it encouraging that the Government have accepted in toto the recommendations made by that committee.
1042
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said he did not understand the logic of adopting the affirmative procedure for the first list and the negative procedure for any changes. I suggest that there is very good logic here. One is dealing with the concept of designated countries that move into a fairly new area. It is important that this Chamber should have an opportunity to discuss the principles that lie behind the designation. The adoption of the affirmative procedure for the first list gives the Chamber an opportunity to discuss these matters. It also gives Her Majesty's Government an opportunity to explain to noble Lords the logic and reasoning behind the placing of countries on the list.
When it comes to changing the list, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said, quick action is very often required. There may be a coup d'etat or a change of circumstances in a country which could endanger the life of an individual or a group of individuals. Quick action would certainly be needed, but I suggest to the noble Lord that this would be a very significant matter for the country concerned and Parliament should have the opportunity, if it so chose, to discuss the matter. Of course, the negative resolution procedure would give this House that opportunity.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: It is my intention to speak to Amendments Nos. 24A, 25A and 26, mainly on the understanding that that is what I believe we have been discussing for 50 of the last 54 minutes, and in the hope that when we come to Amendments Nos. 24A, 25A and 26, we will not have this debate all over again.
As has already been said, we have accepted the reasoning put forward by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee for the initial order under Clause I to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, with subsequent orders by the negative resolution procedure. The new version of Clause I implements that recommendation in full. I am grateful to my noble friends for what they have said about that. I can assure the House that the first designation order will be comprehensive and will contain all the countries considered suitable for designation at that time. To remind the House, the countries we are currently considering as being suitable for designation arc Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ghana, India, Pakistan, Poland and Romania.
Amendments Nos. 24A and 25A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and Amendment No. 26, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, go much further. Amendments Nos. 24A and 25A propose that the affirmative procedure is adopted for all changes to the designation order; namely, whether countries should be added to the list or removed from it. Amendment No. 26 is similar. That amendment would prescribe the affirmative procedure for the first and all subsequent designation orders which add countries to the designated list.
The designation procedure must he sufficiently flexible for us to be able to make amendments quickly. If I may be forgiven, I should like to employ an

1043
argument which I believe was used by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and with which I wholeheartedly agree. There may well be occasions when we want to remove a country from the list very quickly indeed. There is a slight difference between us, because I am tempted to accept that there should be no procedure at all; but I believe that Parliament would still like to know whether a country was to be removed from the list. However, it can be done quickly, particularly if the case for removing the country from the list is uncontentious. But to subject this procedure to the affirmative procedure would—or could potentially—cause very real problems in the future. I believe that this argument was an argument accepted by the scrutiny committee, and I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said about that. As I have said, there may be sound reasons for needing to add a country to the list quickly—for example, as a result of a sudden influx of unfounded applications. That is another reason we put to the scrutiny committee, which agreed that flexibility was important.
The negative procedure is already used for extending visa requirements to additional countries and for making other changes to the Immigration Rules. As the debates in both Houses on the benefit changes earlier this year demonstrated, the negative procedure is capable of providing effective parliamentary scrutiny.
Designation will not of course result in automatic refusal of asylum claims, and it will not result in the denial of an appeal right. That is a very important point to be made.
As I have said, I would have no objection to the proposal in Amendment No. 26 that the Secretary of State should be able to remove a country from the designation list without any parliamentary approval, but I simply cannot accept the amendment as a whole.
As I have said, the Government have implemented in full the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. However, Amendments Nos. 24A, 25A and 26 depart from the committee's report and are, for the reasons I have given, undesirable and unnecessary.
On some of the points that have been made during the course of debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, referred to procedures for considering claims from designated countries. I hope that we shall actually resort to accuracy in the course of our debates. I said it at Second Reading, but I shall say it again now: we envisage that applications from nationals of designated countries will be considered under the short procedure, and in relation to those who apply on arrival, they will be interviewed on the day of arrival if the applicant is fit and well enough to be interviewed. The applicants then have a month—not a matter of days, but a month—in which to submit additional information before the case is considered. It is not the case that the case will be completed from the start to the end of appeal within 10 days. Cases are unlikely to take anything less than two months, even under this new procedure.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has played with figures—and I suppose that one can make almost anything of the figures—but it is irrefutable that, in
1044
1988, there were 3,998 applications for asylum in this country. In 1995, there were 43,965. We can talk as much as we like about how many leave the country, how many are dealt with in this way, that way or the other way; the truth is that when 43,965 applications are made, they have to be dealt with; they have to be processed; and they go into the appeal system. Noble Lords will remember that I said there was a backlog of 84,000 cases. That is the arithmetic. That is the time-consuming part, and that is why we have increased by eight times the number of people dealing with applications. That is why we have made available a great deal more money to speed up the process. However, it is not just to be tackled from one angle; it actually needs to be tackled by the system for dealing with the asylum applications as well.
Earl Russell: I am very sorry that the noble Baroness thinks that I have played with figures, since the figure on which I relied most heavily was supplied by herself.
Baroness Blatch: What I was saying was that the noble Lord used figures in a context which I believe was quite different from the context in which my noble friend Lord Renton used them. My noble friend Lord Renton said that we have a problem. My noble friend Lord Renton, in the way in which he used the figures, said that the numbers were escalating and that it was causing a problem. That is why we have a Bill before the House. If the noble Lord is taking issue with the fact that the asylum applications are running at around about 43,000, 44,000 or 45,000 applications a year at this moment, then I would be pleased to hear his evidence for that.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness for a little illumination. My understanding is that a case has to be prepared and dealt with within 17 days of receiving the Home Office notice of refusal of an application. If that is incorrect, would the noble Baroness tell me on exactly what grounds it is incorrect? That is the information I have received from a number of quarters.
Baroness Blatch: I am saying that the Home Office, in that sense, will be dealing with them. Under the new system, the first substantive appeal will be heard, and people, on arrival, as I have said, will have their cases heard and they will be given a month to provide the information before their cases are properly, fully considered. Then the timetable starts, and if they go into the accelerated procedure, then the time table starts to count; and if they go into the other part of the procedure then of course the accelerated time table will not apply.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: For the clarification of the Committee, perhaps I may say that the understanding is that the 30 days to which the noble Baroness was referring apply from the moment when somebody first attempts to get asylum. The 17 days that I was referring to are when the procedure for appeal starts. I just want to make it clear that I believe there was a misunderstanding between us. I was not deliberately using an inaccuracy; I would not wish to do

1045
that, and it would be inaccurate and impolite to the noble Baroness to do that. I hope that I have not done that.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness is talking about the appeal stage, and I am talking about the fact that there will be a substantive consideration of the case following arrival and, in preparation of that case, they will be given a month in which to provide information in relation to that case. Then of course it goes, if it is appropriate, into the accelerated appeal procedure. In speaking to the amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the designated list would be a matter for the opinion of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. It will not be a matter for his opinion. He may well have a view that a country should be added to the list but whether or not it is added will be a matter for Parliament.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and his committee took into consideration the fact that we intend to put together all those countries which we consider to be potential candidates at the first stage under the affirmative resolution procedure. Therefore, it is highly probable that following that, single countries will come forward for consideration.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. Perhaps I may ask her for some clarification. She said that the decision about countries will be a matter for Parliament and I am very grateful to her for that. She then went on to say that all the countries will be dealt with together in one order. How then could Parliament exclude one country but not another?
Baroness Blatch: I have given the names of the countries which we are considering at the moment as candidates for the affirmative resolution procedures following Royal Assent of the Bill. The order will then come before this Chamber and another place. If either House then has very serious reservations about the case being made for any one of those countries, so serious that there is grave concern about the whole package being allowed to go through, although it is not normal and usual I suggest that the House should think seriously about its power to reject the list until it comes forward in a form which is acceptable to Parliament.
It is open to Parliament to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is right to say that it will not be possible to cherry-pick off the list and say, "We do not like this", or, "We do not like that", but it will be possible to say that the list is not acceptable to Parliament until something is done in relation to the country which Parliament finds is an unacceptable entry on the list.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I thank her very warmly indeed for those remarks.
Baroness Blatch: I reinforce the point that it will not be a subjective matter for my right honourable friend to make a decision as to whether or not a country is added to the list.
It would appear, certainly in the minds of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that they believe that somehow or other the Home
1046
Office is not liaising effectively with the Foreign Office. That liaison goes on all the time. Certainly in the course of drawing up the list, we have liaised with the Foreign Office. I have named the current candidates for the list. Earlier candidates which were also considered for the list were Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia, all of which have been dropped from it. I should put on the record that Nigeria, Algeria, Sri Lanka and Turkey have never been considered for that list. Using the expertise, information and intelligence of the Foreign Office, we shall update continually our views on those countries. Therefore, if it is proposed to add a country on to the list following the initial group of countries that Parliament will be invited to agree, it will be important that the Home Secretary puts to Parliament written assessments of those countries which in his opinion are suitable candidates for addition to the list.
I advise the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that we are liaising very closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the very complex situation in Turkey.
In conclusion, perhaps I may read from the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I was privileged in that a Bill which I took through Parliament was the first candidate for the services of that committee. I have always found it hugely helpful, as I am sure does the House, to have the benefit of its work. Page five of its report states:
"We believe that in order to ensure the maximum flexibility, only the first exercise of such powers should be subject to affirmative resolution. Subsequent uses of the powers should be subject to negative procedure".
The next part is very important and I am extremely happy to respond to it. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has made the point that it is the House which is being informed about these matters. The report continues:
"The House may wish to seek an assurance from the Minister that the first list of countries under each power (which alone will, if our recommendation is adopted, be subject to affirmative resolution) will be as comprehensive as possible, so as to facilitate debate on the principles governing the compilation of the list. Subsequent negative procedure would allow the House to debate the issues again when necessary".
That is a very important point which I take extremely seriously. When the first list is brought before Parliament, we shall debate all the issues and present information to Parliament to try to persuade it that countries should be added to the list. The criteria and principles which underlie our reasons for compiling the list in the first place will be an important pointer in relation to any subsequent additions to the list. I hope that the Committee will not accept Amendments Nos. 24A, 25A and 26.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. I, Amendment No. 2:
Line 7, after ("in insert ("individual consideration has been given by the Secretary of State to the merits of the person's claim for asylum and")
The noble Lord said: I preface my remarks on this amendment by saying how grateful I am to the Minister for the way in which she wound up the debate on the original amendment, in particular, for her comments on

1047
the possibility of finding an accelerated procedure for removing countries from the list and, indeed, if I heard her correctly, for her suggestions about the way in which this Chamber may wish to consider individual countries within the affirmative resolution procedure.
Amendment No. 2 returns to the substantive clause as now redrafted and refers to a particular point which is not covered elsewhere. I am not sure that it was dealt with during consideration of the Bill in the Commons. In my later amendment, Amendment No. 4, which refers to the possibilities of persecution in one part of a country, we criticise the use of the words "in general" as a criterion for inclusion in the designated list. Of course, other considerations are included in the Immigration Rules which we must make sure are included in the consideration of each individual case.
I remind the Committee that the Immigration Rules, which have been published and debated in this Chamber, are, according to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, required to be in conformity with the 1951 convention. Therefore, any question of changes to the Immigration Rules must be taken very seriously. They are not statutory, but they have an independent authority which makes it impossible for the Government to change them if there is any conflict with the 1951 convention.
In addition to referring to the possibility of persecution in one part of a country, the Immigration Rules refer also to the need for consideration of age, beliefs, way of life and/or medical condition. The important point is that the Immigration Rules require that the particular facts of the individual case should be taken into account.
Our concern throughout the whole of the consideration of Clause 1, with its fast-track procedures, designated list of countries and the vast extension of what used to be the definition of applications which are without foundation, is that it is not possible for there to be individual consideration of particular cases or the particular facts of the case.
The Immigration Rules provide that the consideration of an application should take into account the practicalities of an individual case. Account should be taken of the fact that persecution may not simply be carried out by the government in the originating country but could be carried out by forces which that government cannot control. That could happen, for example, in Kashmir; it is certainly happening in Liberia at the moment, and probably in a large number of other countries. Therefore it is essential that we should not have the criterion, which is implied in the whole concept of the designated list, of general political stability, but that there should be the option of consideration of the particular facts of the case. Amendment No. 2 states that we have to be sure that,
"individual consideration has been given by the Secretary of State to the merits of the person's claim for asylum".
I do not believe that is covered in any other amendment. I do not believe that it has been considered before, but I believe that it is an essential safeguard for the individual consideration which is a requirement of the 1951 convention and is indeed an essential element in a
1048
civilised and humane policy for the consideration of asylum appeals. I beg to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that I can help the noble Lord as I believe that his anxiety is unfounded. In support of Amendment No. 2, it has been suggested that an explicit provision is required to make clear that a certificate cannot be issued under paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the 1993 Act unless an asylum claim has been individually considered. The amendment is superfluous. It is already the case, in the 1993 Act and in the Bill as drafted, that an asylum seeker can only have his application refused if he does not meet the criteria set out in the 1951 convention. Those criteria have been incorporated into immigration law under Sections 1 and 2 of the 1993 Act. Nothing in the 1993 Act, or in this Bill, detracts from that principle.
It follows, therefore, that the application has to be considered against the convention criteria before a decision can be taken on whether the applicant is or is not a refugee. The certification procedure, which is the subject of Clause 1, comes into play only after the Secretary of State has concluded in the light of such an assessment—that is, against the convention criteria—that the applicant is not a refugee. It is at that point that the 1993 Act provides a mechanism for assigning manifestly unfounded applications into an accelerated appeal procedure.
Therefore, the Secretary of State first examines the application against the convention criteria. Only if it fails those criteria does he go on to consider whether it falls under any of the criteria for certification set out in the expanded version of paragraph 5 which Clause 1 of the Bill will insert into the 1993 Act. Given that the amendment seeks to correct a non-existent problem, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think it is a non-existent problem; indeed, later amendments refer to the necessity for us to have regard to international obligations other than the 1951 convention. We shall debate those in due course. I do not wish to trespass on that. However, in so far as we have so far only been considering our obligations under the 1951 convention, I am prepared to say that I shall read carefully what the Minister has said and consider what action to take at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 2, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool The Lord Bishop of Liverpool moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 3:
Line 11, at end insert—
("() Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as applying to—

(a) a person who can show a reasonable claim that he has been the victim of torture in a country in which he is to fear persecution; or

(b) a person who is claiming to fear persecution in a counts which has a recently documented record of torture.").

The right reverend Prelate said: Amendment No. 3 asks that nothing in the relevant paragraph should apply to those who have been tortured, or might reasonably expect to be subjected to torture. At the Report stage in another place an all-party amendment was moved to take torture victims out of the scope of the proposed legislation. The amendment was narrowly lost. Following that debate, an all-party group met Home Office Ministers. Subsequently Home Office officials met the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. I know that nothing was said at those meetings to offer reassurance that torture victims would not be disadvantaged by Clauses 1 and 2. I very much hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, or perhaps find more effective words to meet its intention.
The continued practice of torture is one of the most shocking examples of the fact that evil and barbarity continue to flourish in the world. The comfortable world owes those who have suffered torture the chance to rebuild confidence and health and to find fresh opportunity to live in a peaceful and just surrounding. We are part of that comfortable world and we should take our proper share of the neediest who seek asylum. I regretted that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, used the emotive word "flood". To refer back to a famous remark of Mr. Reginald Maudling, the numbers that we have heard about today hardly constitute the difference between a flood and standing on dry land.
The Committee should take seriously the consistent evidence of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture which states,
"It is impossible to help rehabilitate survivors of torture if they are frightened and uncertain whether or not they are to be returned to face further persecution".
I have led five ecumenical delegations to the Home Office on these subjects. Last autumn we met Mr. Howard. He told us that he believed that asylum seekers saw Britain as a soft touch. It became clear to me that a major motive in introducing this Bill was to run up a signal that Britain has a harsh regime which will make it difficult for asylum seekers to find refuge here; in other words, to stop them applying here at all.
The argument that Britain is a soft touch would persuade us that the number of applications for asylum in the United Kingdom has risen because other western European countries have strengthened their asylum procedures. I believe it is more likely to be true that the increase in applications here is due mainly to the close historical or cultural ties that the applicants' countries had through the years of the British Empire. Six countries accounted for almost half the asylum applications in Britain in 1995: Nigeria, Somalia, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Ghana. Those are countries where serious questions about human rights have grown in the past few years. Canada takes asylum seekers from mostly those same countries. In Canada 70 per cent. of such applications are recognised but in Canada the first decisions are taken by an independent body. Those historical ties may result in some substantial costs to this country in receiving asylum seekers. However, it is worth remembering that the same historical ties played a large part in making this country rich.
I asked Mr. Howard how an asylum seeker could pursue an appeal if benefit were withdrawn. He replied that an asylum seeker could pursue an appeal from outside the country. For asylum seekers an appeal right from abroad is useless. It is useless to those in most need of it; those who have already been returned to a country in which they fear persecution. We are talking about many of the most vulnerable people in the world. If one had suffered torture, one would use whatever means one could to escape, including obtaining false documents, and one would have a natural fear of officialdom. That would inhibit one, on the day of arriving in a strange country, where people spoke a language one might not understand, from telling one's whole story truthfully. In other legal fields such trauma is allowed for. I think of rape cases where it is quite properly understood that trauma will prevent someone from telling the truth, perhaps for a long time, until the victim feels much more secure with the people to whom she is speaking.
I hope that Members of the Committee will take seriously the report of the Glidewell Panel. The panel has received evidence from a wide range of those individuals who have close experience of immigration and asylum matters. Here are two of its comments:
"We are not convinced that the clauses, when implemented, will guarantee protection for those asylum seekers with a well-founded fear of persecution. We urge the Home Office to take account of other human rights criteria when determining claims for exceptional leave to remain, particularly the 1984 UN Convention against Torture".
One of the points the Glidewell Panel makes deserves close attention. It states that the 1993 Act had effectively created a "culture of disbelief' in the whole Home Office machinery—a culture of disbelief about the legitimacy of claims to asylum. It states that that is the reason for the rapid and dramatic decline in the proportion of asylum seekers granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. Those figures are then used to justify the belief that most asylum seekers are "bogus".
I take exception to the word "bogus" whenever it is used in this context. I feel very angry when I read that word in a newspaper like the Daily Mail. I feel even more deeply disturbed when I read in Hansard of another place the Secretary of State for Social Security using the word "bogus" repeatedly, unsupported by any evidence. I have been glad to note that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has avoided using that word in your Lordships' House. The word is finding its way into a wider and more damaging situation. One of the submissions made to the Glidewell Panel was from Newham, a borough that I used to know well. Sajida Malik of the Newham monitoring project told the panel of her own experience of that climate of fear while working with children in schools in the borough of Newham. She says:
"I was horrified by the things I heard young children talking about. For example, when we raised the issue of asylum seekers and refugees they talked about them in the context of being bogus—welfare scroungers, beggars, dirty and disgusting".
Home Office figures for 1990–95 show the total number refused both refugee status and exceptional leave to remain. In 1990 the figure was 17.5 per cent. of the

1051
applicants. In 1995 it was 78.9 per cent. Those figures do not prove that there have been more bogus applicants. Rather they prove that the gateway to entry has been drastically narrowed by deliberate policy and by encouraging the culture of disbelief.
One further comment seems to me to be relevant to the amendment. I believe that the use of the categories contained in Clause 1 is likely to be self-defeating. Rather than speeding up the process it is highly likely to increase the time spent on cases which require substantive consideration. I hope that noble Lords will read the evidence presented to the Glidewell Panel by the chief adjudicator on page 13 of the report. If most of the initial listings on the fast track have to be adjourned, it will take longer overall. The Bill obliges the adjudicator to take fast track cases first. If a large number is adjourned, other asylum cases will be put back. So will standard immigration cases. The adjudicator is obliged to set a date for hearing within five days, but a log-jam could easily mean that the date he has to set will be 12 months or more away.
This debate should not be about numbers but about justice. The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture insists that individual cases must be dealt with on an individual basis with thorough examination of statements and claims. The fast track approach is inappropriate for those who claim to have been victims of torture or in danger of torture. Such cases should explicitly be taken out of the scope of the Bill. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I support the amendment. It seems to me that torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, or the threat of it, are the ultimate and appalling acts that people do to their fellow human beings. I should declare an interest. Until a year ago I was director of the Refugee Council.
Anyone who has met persons seeking safety in this country who may have suffered from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment will know that the normal human reaction is not to be able to talk about it—certainly not immediately, and possibly not for quite a long period of time. I remember meeting some of the Bosnians who had been held in Serb detention camps. They came to Britain under a Home Office scheme. One or two felt able to talk about the most terrible things that had happened to them. Many others were not able to speak; and sometimes weeks later they felt more confident and could talk about their appalling experiences. Some of the victims of such treatment may feel that they can never talk about it because it is too awful; they may have difficulty in coming to terms with it.
One has to envisage that background against the intentions of the Bill. My fear is that anyone who finds it hard to describe his experiences will have difficulty in obtaining justice under the Government's procedures. For the reasons I have given, if an individual cannot say, "This is what happened to me. This is the threat. This is the reality of what I suffered", it will be difficult for him to persuade officials of his circumstances in such a way that the decision is made for him to stay in this country.
1052
There is a dilemma there. I appreciate that in the fullness of time those individuals may suffer simply because of their inability to describe and express their experiences. However, in a number of instances, given time and less pressure to state their situation quickly, they may find it possible, perhaps through a professional adviser, a lawyer or another adviser, to begin to explain what has happened to them so that their case may be put for them to the Home Office by their lawyers or advisers.
I am anxious that anyone who has been subjected to torture, or the threat of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, be given enough time to have his case put for him and properly considered. If we are to subject to further problems people who have already suffered in this way, I fear that a fast track process will deny justice to those victims of torture, or those who fear torture, even more than that process will deny justice to other people. It is for that reason that we must be enormously concerned about the Bill's implications.
The amendment may apply quite properly to persons fearing torture or inhuman or degrading treatment who may not otherwise qualify under the 1951 Geneva Convention. Nevertheless, this country has properly signed other international instruments concerned with torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. An individual may fear torture or inhuman or degrading punishment, even if he is outside the convention. In such instances it is surely proper that other international conventions that we have signed should be brought to bear. That is one of the aims of the amendment.
I trust that as a country we would not willingly send anyone to another land where there is a high risk that he may suffer in some of the ways suggested in the amendment. My fear is that the procedures which the Home Office adopts and which are in the clause may well have that outcome, even if it is not intended. That is why I see the amendment as at least one safeguard to prevent that happening.
The Duke of Norfolk: I put my name to this amendment because more and more torture is experienced and takes place in the world. The provision should be spelt out in the body of the Bill. The right reverend Prelate moved the amendment extremely well and I have nothing to add.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: This is an important short debate and I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the way in which he moved the amendment. I wish to add two thoughts to what he and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said. First, victims of torture are often those most likely to fall victim to two of the subsections of Clause 1; that is, they are likely to travel with fraudulent or false documents. If they come from countries so savage that they are willing to use torture for judicial reasons, it is unlikely that they would he able to leave with their documents in proper order. Almost by definition, they are likely to be the most genuine of refugees when they fall short of the provisions of the subsections of Clause 1.
Secondly, I urge the amendment on the Committee because, as the noble Duke said, it is crucial that the provisions in the amendment he spelt out on the face of

1053
the Bill. We may receive well intentioned assurances, but the Bill will go forward into legislation and be with us for all time, as governments, administrations and Home Secretaries change. Therefore, it is crucial that we single out victims of torture as a special category, if only to give a lead to other countries to treat them as special cases. I add that many of those who suffer torture do so for upholding the very ideals in which we most believe.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I rise to underline the point that behind the amendment is the contrast with the shortness of time allowed under the fast procedure. The noble Baroness gave us an indication of that: a month to first determination and a possible 17 days afterwards. There is a contrast between that shortness of time and the difficulty that people who have been tortured have in expressing experiences that they have been through. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has already made the point, but it came home to me particularly as I was recently reading an account written by one of the hostages in Lebanon. In the preface to his book he mentions the intense difficulty he had in articulating his experiences. If that is true for someone who is well educated and articulate, it is likely to be just as true for someone who is less well educated.
In looking through the briefings, I was struck by an account of a young Tamil who had been tortured. I was struck not least because I know Colombo and Sri Lanka well and was in Colombo last November when Tamils were being rounded up and taken to local police stations. The account describes how a young Tamil was rounded up by the local police, in an earlier event. He was detained, kicked, punched, his hands stamped on; his body repeatedly burned with cigarettes; his head frequently smashed against a wall; he was hit with rifle butts and with a PVC pipe filled with something weighty; he was stabbed with bayonets and on some occasions tied to a door and beaten. That is what one means by "torture". That victim's brother bribed the police to free him and he eventually escaped to the UK. His first claim for asylum was refused and it was only after that refusal that medical reports were received. The medical and psychiatric reports brought out the torture to which he had been subjected. Had he been put through the fast-track procedure, time would not have allowed all that to emerge.
Behind the amendment lies the fact that people who are the most likely of all to be returned to situations of immense distress are those who may find it most difficult to articulate their case in the short term and with the fast-track procedure. That is why we press the amendment. I support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Winston: I wish to add my personal experience to the debate. Sometimes when one sees first-hand accounts of such experiences, they strike a deep chord. This is a crucial amendment. I can think of three people whom I know to he particularly articulate; one is a practising physician and scientist; one a pure scientist
1054
working in my field and one a university teacher. All are highly intelligent. Of the two women, one was subjected to rape and one to sexual abuse. The third was simply tortured. What struck me about all three individuals is that it took them many months before they were able to come to terms with any of the aspects of their treatment and before they could talk about it. It is interesting that one of the people who went on to do a PhD with me ended up publishing over 70 internationally recognised papers. She has proved to be an extraordinarily useful member of society and I wonder what would have happened had she not had the opportunity of asylum. Had she been "fast-tracked", I am sure that it would have been impossible for her to seek refuge as she did.
Baroness Seccombe: Members on all sides of the Committee are, I am sure, keen to have a system that welcomes asylum seekers to this country in a sensitive way, particularly those who have suffered or fear torture. It must be a terrible experience. I am sure that that is constantly in the Minister's mind as we go through the Bill. So it was with great sadness that I listened to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool because I feel that the Government's motives are truly honourable.
Earl Russell: The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, is right that it is important to have these provisions on the face of the Bill. One reason I believe he is right is that drawing attention to the subject may do something to improve the standard of burden of proof that is at present required by the Home Office. The proper standard of burden of proof is, I understand, that set out in the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith, in Siva Kumaran: that the applicant's fear of persecution should be well founded means that there has to be demonstrated a reasonable degree of likelihood that he will be persecuted for a convention reason.
At present, the adjudications that we are getting on the subject of torture require a good deal more than that. Take, for example, this refusal letter:
"The Secretary of State has considered the medical report — submitted in support of your claim, but he does not consider that this provides conclusive evidence that you were tortured".
It is the word "conclusive" that clearly indicates a mistaken requirement of the standards of burden of proof. Again, let us take this letter of refusal:
"The scarring on your back shows evidence of injury, but the Secretary of State is of the opinion that this does not show the cause or reason".
I am afraid that it is literally as well as proverbially true that scars do not speak. Scars cannot by themselves show the reason for which they were inflicted. The normal formulation of expert witnesses is that the scars are entirely compatible with the applicant's story. That satisfies the standard of proof set out in Siva Kumaran. That seems to me to be the appropriate standard for which adjudicators should look. I hope that the passing of the amendment will make that clear.
It is well known to the Committee that I do not believe that the Department of Social Security is a soft touch. I believe exactly the opposite. But its requirements on believing an applicant on burden of

1055
proof are a great deal more appropriate than those we find in the refusal letters. The following is a commissioner's ruling of 1985:
"The tribunal may reach this conclusion even though the only evidence is that of the claimant himself. There is no rule of English law that corroboration of the claimant's own evidence is necessary. In some cases a tribunal may rightly think that they cannot act on the claimant's uncorroborated evidence, either because it is self-contradictory or inherently improbable, or because the claimant's demeanour does not inspire confidence in his truthfulness. It is seldom safe to reject evidence solely for this last reason".
One reason for passing this amendment is to tell that to the Home Office.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the amendment will be given careful consideration. I am not sure whether its drafting is perfect—indeed, I have some doubts as to that. But the important point, as was stated by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, is that if we accept this amendment or something like it, we insert the word "torture" into the Bill, and thereby draw the attention of those who will have to administer the legislation over the years to the significance of cases of torture. Therefore I hope that, whether or not the Committee decides to accept the amendment as it stands—on which I am more than prepared to listen to the argument of my noble friend the Minister—I hope that she will look very sympathetically indeed upon an amendment that includes the word "torture".
Baroness Rawlings: Several noble Lords have cited tragic situations involving the torture of asylum seekers. We are debating Amendment No. 3, which has two parts. If I understand it correctly, sub-paragraph (b) would allow claims not from those asylum seekers who have suffered torture but from those from countries with a "recently documented record of torture". I wonder why those people are included in Amendment No. 3.
On another point, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool inferred that Canada took many more asylum seekers than we do in this country. I suggest that that country is somewhat larger than ours, and that the population is considerably smaller. I wonder whether we should be comparing this country with Canada.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked a question about the second part of the amendment; namely, where these people would be if the amendment were passed. The answer is that there would still be very good protection to make sure that only genuine applicants for asylum are accepted into this country. All the amendment states is that the procedures in Schedule 2 to the 1993 Act, which extend the range of fast track procedures, would no longer apply to such people. Therefore I do not think that the noble Baroness's intervention in any way diminishes the case that has been made for this amendment.
The Duke of Norfolk: There is no need to go into matters such as scars and the medical evidence of torture. When I served with a group of Soviet forces in East Germany a well-known torture was to stand the
1056
prisoner outside, pour a bucket of water over him and let him freeze for a bit. That is torture, just as much as whipping and bashing.
Baroness Blatch: Torture is a difficult and emotive subject on which to exercise judgment dispassionately. It is an abhorrent practice and one which we all condemn.
There is nothing between ourselves and the supporters of these amendments on what the object of our policy should be. The Government attach very great importance to ensuring that victims of torture who come here for refuge should receive protection. Moreover, such people engage our international obligations. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Torture is almost by definition a form of persecution and a person who has a well-founded fear of torture is very likely to qualify for asylum under the terms of the 195] convention. If, exceptionally, he does not meet those criteria, he may well engage our obligations under other instruments, such as the European Convention on Human Rights. In short, a person who has a well-founded fear of torture is granted either asylum or exceptional leave.
Amendment No. 3 relates to Clause 1. We do not believe that it will help to identify and deal speedily with genuine victims of torture. But we do believe that it could be widely exploited by people seeking to evade the accelerated appeal procedure.
Amendment No. 3 would prevent a certificate from being issued if the country of origin has a recently documented record of torture. But what does a "recently documented record of torture" actually mean? There are, for example, very few countries indeed where there are not from time to time allegations of brutality by members of law enforcement agencies. But that is very different from saying that torture is systematic and widespread, or that a particular asylum seeker would be at any risk of torture if removed. On the face of it, that part of the amendment alone would suffice to prevent the issue of a Clause 1 certificate in a high proportion of cases and without any real basis in a substantial risk to the applicant.
The amendment would also prevent a certificate being issued if the applicant "shows a reasonable claim" that he has been tortured. The meaning of these words is very unclear. We believe that that formula would open up a claim of torture to exploitation by the unscrupulous, in the same way as our asylum procedures in general are at present exploited by those whose claims are not genuine. For example, asylum seekers from designated countries would have an incentive to include a claim of torture in their application as a mechanism for circumventing Clause 1, and that would considerably reduce its effectiveness.
I turn to Amendment No. 16. Sub-paragraph 4(a) allows a certificate to be issued under Clause I if a claim does not show a fear of persecution on one of the grounds specified in the 1951 convention. The amendment would prevent a certificate under sub-paragraph 4(a) if the claim showed a fear of torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment. We agree that a person who claims a fear of torture will normally have

1057
done enough to avoid a certificate under sub-paragraph 4(a). However, we oppose the amendment because it departs from the precise wording of the 1951 convention. It is that convention which has been incorporated into United Kingdom immigration law and which should he reflected in the drafting of this Bill. We do not consider it would be appropriate to import terminology not contained in the 1951 convention.
It is important to remind the Committee that the Bill deals with asylum procedures. It is quite true that if people do not qualify under the asylum procedures, we still have an obligation to conform under other international obligations.
Baroness Seear: Is the noble Baroness saying that under other rules in the proposed legislation tortured people will be adequately covered? Have we not received abundant evidence of people who have quite clearly been tortured but who have been sent back to their own countries? In the light of all that evidence, it is surely not sufficient to say that the provisions here will be adequate.
Baroness Blatch: We want to do everything possible to make sure that genuine applications are properly considered. Indeed, one of the problems that we have at the moment is that many applications are not genuine from the very beginning. Such applications make it difficult to give time to genuine victims of torture.
Much has been said during the course of this debate about people who simply cannot express their claim of torture. If they do not, or will not, express it, it is impossible to consider it. Unless a claim of torture is made, it cannot be properly considered. We are trying to arrive at a situation whereby a genuine claim of torture is properly considered and, if genuine, is well-founded at the first stage of consideration. A substantive claim will then go on either to receive asylum or to be considered if it does not conform precisely to the 1951 convention.
That was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who is attempting to transport other international obligations into the Bill to widen the criteria of the Bill itself. We want to keep the criteria of the Bill totally and absolutely consistent with the 1951 United Nations Convention, so that exceptional leave to remain or other international obligations are invoked if the case does not fit entirely within the asylum procedures. The intention is that genuine victims of torture should be picked up by the system. I hope that nothing I have said detracts from our genuine desire to see that such cases are properly considered.
One has to say that mistakes have been made in the past, and no doubt will be made in future; but we want to minimise the possibility of mistakes being made. The term,
"torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment",
which the amendment would insert into sub-paragraph 4(a), is taken from the European Convention on Human Rights. We are of course bound by our obligation under the European Convention in the asylum field, as in other areas. If an applicant's case engages our obligations
1058
under the European Convention but not the 1951 Convention, then it is our policy to grant exceptional leave. The European Convention already provides an avenue of redress for the individual through the European Commission and Court of Human Rights. For those reasons we believe the amendment to sub-paragraph 4(a) to be both unnecessary and inappropriate.
All sides are agreed about the aims of the policy. We all agree that the objective must be to identify genuine victims of torture. Achieving that objective depends on having in place proper practices and effective training for our caseworkers and our interviewers. We need to concentrate on these practical issues rather than on legislative measures.
In my written response to the Second Reading debate I referred to the very great importance and weight which is attached to any evidence of torture, especially when supported by a medical certificate. Caseworkers already have access to the guidelines for the examination of survivors of torture which have been prepared by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. But we want to be absolutely sure that our arrangements are as effective as we can make them and that they attract confidence.
That is why, following a meeting between my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office and a cross-party group of parliamentarians, we asked officials to meet the Medical Foundation to discuss ways in which our procedures may be further improved. The meeting which took place recently was constructive. We are following up a number of suggestions made by the foundation, and I hope that we shall be able to report more fruitfully at a later date. The Government believe this to be the right response to concerns of this nature, and one which will achieve the results we all desire.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool talked about the Glidewell Report and referred to a lack of belief. First of all, I do not accept what the right reverend Prelate says. The fall in the recognition rate in the late 1980s, which was referred to, and in the early 1990s, coincided with a massive rise in the level of exploitation of the asylum system by people who were not refugees. The level of claims rose from 4,000 in 1988 to 45,000 in 1991. Since 1992, the recognition rate has remained reasonably stable at between 3 per cent. and 7 per cent. But the number of cases granted asylum in 1995 was more than double the number granted in 1979–1,295 compared with 525. And the number of cases granted asylum or exceptional leave in 1995 was 5,705—the fourth highest annual figure ever recorded.
It would be equally wrong to suggest that we have tightened up our interpretation of the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees which, in any event, is determined ultimately by the courts, not by the Home Office. We also use a discretionary grant of exceptional leave where the convention criteria is not met in individual cases but where there are compelling compassionate circumstances to justify leave to remain outside of the normal immigration rules. In 1995 16 per cent. of all decisions were grants of exceptional leave to remain.

1059
Other reference was made to time constraints. The time constraints only come into play after there has been substantive consideration of the claim when time is given to gather evidence and to collect evidence such as medical certificates. The concerns expressed could be an argument: what does one do if somebody does not talk, does not make the claim for torture or does not explain why they believe they have been tortured? If they do not do it, the concerns expressed could be an argument for never reaching a final decision, never actually coming to a decision in a case for a refused asylum seeker, just in case, at some time in the future, when they do feel more at ease, they are able to reveal that they had been a victim of torture.
I have to suggest that that particular suggestion and that particular system would be unworkable given the number of people who claim a fear of torture and a fear of persecution, and those who have a well-founded fear of it once the substantive case is heard and it is heard again at appeal.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: I believe that on all sides of this Committee there is a wish that torture should be on the face of the Bill. That is an important issue and principle. I am certain that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has a genuine intention to protect. But I remind her that she said no doubt mistakes have been made. It is precisely our concern that the fast-track procedure makes it more likely that mistakes would be made in the future. If the Government are concerned at the drafting of sub-paragraph (b) of the amendment, it is open to them—if the Committee agrees to the amendment—to bring an amendment to that to find a more effective wording, but I believe it is right that we should seek the opinion of the Committee and I ask that the amendment be put.
5.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (Amendment No. 3, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 143; Not-Contents, 124.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Acton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Addington, L.

Carter, L

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Avebury, L

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E

Cornwallis, L.

Bancroft, L.

Craigavon, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Birk, B.

David, B.

Blackburn, Bp.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Blease, L.

Desai, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Diamond, L.

Borrie, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brentford, V.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Drogheda, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Dubs, L.

1060

Ellenborough, L.

Molloy, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Monkswell, L.

Ezra, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkland, V.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Fitt, L.

Nicol, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Norfolk, D.

Gallacher, L.

Ogmore, L.

Geraint, L.

Peston, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Glasgow, E.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Glenamara, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Richard, L.

Gregson, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Grey, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rochester, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harrowby, E

Russell, E.

Haskel, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hayman, B.

Sandwich, E.

Healey, L.

Seear, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B

Serota, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sewel, L.

Hooson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stedman, B.

Strafford, E.

Hughes, L.

Swinfen, L.

Inchyra, L.

Taverne, L

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tenby, V.

Judd, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Thurso, V.

Kirkwood, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Kissin, L.

Tope, L.

Lawrence, L.

Tordoff, L.

Liverpool, Bp. [Teller.]

Turner of Camden, B.

Lockwood, B.

Varley, L.

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Warnock, B.

McNair, L.

Weatherill, L.

McNally, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Wharton, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

White, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mayhew, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Meston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mishcon, L

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Carnock, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller]

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Bethell, L.

Courtown, E.

Biddulph, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Blaker, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blatch, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Boardman, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Bowness, L

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Digby, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Elles, B.

Brookes, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L

Burnham, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B

Cadman, L.

Geddes, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gisborough, L.

1061

Goold, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Munster, E

Harding of Petherton, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Nelson, E.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Northesk, E.

Harvington, L.

Orkney, E.

Henley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Hertford, M.

Oxfuird, V.

Holderness, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Pender, L.

Hooper, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Howe, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Huntly, M.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Hylton-Foster, B.

Quinton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rawlings, B.

Kimball, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Reay, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rees, L.

Leigh, L.

Rennell, L.

Lindsay, E.

Renwick, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Romney, E.

Long, L

Saint Albans, D.

Long, V.

Seccombe, B.

Lucas, L.

Sharples, B

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sherfield, L.

Lyell, L,.

Skelmersdale, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

McConnell, L.

Strange, B

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Sudeley, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Tebbit, L.

Marlesford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tollemache, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mersey, V.

Ullswater, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Vivian, L.

Milverton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wise, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wynford, L.

Mountevans, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.46 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 4:
Line 15, leave out ("in general").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 is the third of the amendments to the redrafted Clause 1. It is an attack on the wording which is central to this part of the Bill; namely, that in the judgment of the Secretary of State:
"there is in general no serious risk of persecution".
We debated this point on Second Reading. I am aware that the wording has not been invented by the Government but is part of an international agreement between officials in the European Union. However, that does not make it any less dangerous. It is extremely dangerous for us to accept that the judgment as to whether there should be a fast-track procedure for an asylum application is that there is "in general" in any particular country a risk of persecution.
Persecution does not happen in countries in general. It happens to people in particular. It happens particularly to minority groups in countries in which there is no risk of persecution in general to the majority but where there is a very serious risk to the minority.
Before I start to give examples, let me ask the Minister these questions. What does "in general" mean? How would it be interpreted? Does "in general" mean that 75 per cent., 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. of the people in a particular country need fear no risk of persecution? Is it a matter of the severity of the persecution? Would it mean that the risk could involve detention but not torture? Is it a matter of whether there is persecution not of groups but of individuals? All those questions, to which there are and can be no adequate answers, reveal the inadequacy and danger of the phrase "in general".
A number of noble Lords on earlier amendments—indeed in the debate on the clause itself—referred to particular countries in which there is severe persecution of minorities. Perhaps I may give just a few examples. I refer to Pakistan and to the persecution of the Ahmadi population, and, in parts of that country, of the Christian population. In India people in Kashmir and people of the Sikh nation risk persecution, detention and even torture. In Romania, Bulgaria and unfortunately several Eastern European countries, there is persecution of the Roma or gypsy people. All of those are examples of persecution of minorities in countries of which it is fair to say that there is in general no serious risk of persecution. Yet for those people who are in the minorities who are persecuted the issue is as severe as it could be.
I appreciate that the difference here is not between an application being rejected outright and being dealt with properly, but between the fast-track procedure and the more normal procedure. Of course, as soon as we have declared that there is in general no serious risk of prosecution in a particular country that starts to he believed by the immigration officers and it sets the state of mind with which they look at applications from that country. Inevitably, that means that people who are genuinely being persecuted in those countries will he less likely to gain asylum.
Look at the effect on appeals of the designation of such countries. It is still true of course—I acknowledge this, and thank the Government for it—that there must be individual consideration by the adjudicator on appeal, but if that is the case, surely there are going to he that many more appeals. Where then do all the arguments for the saving of time and staff, which lie behind the whole thrust of this Bill, find their justification?
Judge Pearl, the chief adjudicator, giving evidence to the Glidewell panel, pointed out the possibility of a perverse effect, and said that the provisions might actually make things worse. He described to, the Glidewell inquiry the situation with regard to appeals— as I was there I heard him myself. There arc 2,200 appeals into the system every month and they arc settling no more than 700. In other words, there is a net addition of 1,500 appeals every month to the numbers under consideration. He said that if we are going to

1063
prioritise, as we are required to do, appeals by those who fall under the categories described in Clause 1 of this Bill—they are very wide categories, much wider than the phrase "without foundation" which was used in the 1993 Act—not only will there be a slow-down in the number of appeals; there will be a standstill. They cannot go backwards, but there could be a standstill in the consideration of appeals for those not subjected to the fast-track procedure. That cannot be a sensible way to deal with the undoubted problem of an increase in the number of applications and an increase in the number of appeals.
On Second Reading we had a very considerable debate on the issue of delays and who was responsible for them. I do not think it appropriate, although I have many answers to the Government's arguments, to embark on that debate again in Committee and on a specific amendment. For the practical reasons that it will not save time or money, or solve the delay problem that the Government have identified, and for reasons of principle in that there is a real distinction between actual persecution of individuals and a general risk of persecution in a country as a whole, I believe that the amendment deserves the favourable consideration of the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and to explore, if I may, the Government's intention with regard to the words "in general". The noble Lord referred in particular to India. Perhaps I may detain the House for a moment with one or two personal reflections about when I was in India at a conference conducted by the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation with regard to the launching of the new Indian Commission on Human Rights. That is a very welcome development and many of us are pleased that there is such a commission.
One of the issues which has particularly concerned the Indian Commission on Human Rights is the number of people involved in peaceful and non-violent activities—there are also violent activities—with regard to the issue of the future status of Kashmir. In a public report the Indian Commission on Human Rights drew attention to its concerns about the way some people who supported the different constitutional settlement in Kashmir had been detained and in some cases very badly treated in police stations in that area. That is not a piece of evidence from somebody from outside that country, but from a concerned local citizen—someone, if I may say so, at a high level of standing in the country.
The other personal observation I want to make concerns a country also on the white list; namely, Romania. Perhaps the Minister will tell us a little more about the force of the words "in general" in that regard. In my capacity as a director of an organisation called Project Liberty, which is concerned with building democratic institutions in Eastern Europe, I have visited Romania on many occasions. Unquestionably, it is a country which is struggling its way towards democracy, and I would not want to suggest anything that would discourage that, but there is one substantial group of Romanian citizens which it is widely agreed has suffered serious disadvantages and in some cases
1064
extremely bad treatment at the hands of the Romanian police. That is the so-called Roma, the gypsy minority population in Romania.
Many organisations in this country, specifically Amnesty International, the Refugee Council, and others, have been concerned about the treatment of Roma people in Romania. This is a matter that has been raised also, as the noble Baroness will know, in the Council of Europe on more than one occasion with regard to the attempt to try to build up a new treaty on the treatment of minorities. I would therefore be extremely grateful if the noble Baroness could say something about countries which are "in general", I agree, countries which cannot be associated with systematic persecution, but where there may be a particular minority, religious or ethnic, which cannot be regarded as being treated in a way that we would regard as appropriate for full citizens. I would particularly like to draw her attention to the cases of the Kashmiri dissidents in India and the Roma people in Romania, without delaying the House by giving details of some extremely harrowing instances of treatment in both cases.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps it might save time if I spoke on this amendment to the question of Bulgaria on which I have a separate amendment later. It relates to the problems of minorities, which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has raised and upon which my noble friend Lady Williams has now expanded in referring to the particular case of the Roma, which is not unique to Romania but also extends into Bulgaria.
I could not understand why Bulgaria should be put on the designation list when I thought about the human rights problems that exist there. They have been clearly identified by the US State Department and by Human Rights Watch and many others. I remind the Committee that Human Rights Watch said:
"ethically motivated violence and the failure of the authorities to provide redress for victims of such crimes continued to he a dominant human rights problem in 1995. The Roma minority continue to be the target of much police violence. Reports of xenophobic attacks and mob violence intensified during 1995, and the police and prosecutors failed to take forceful steps to bring the perpetrators to justice".
Human Rights Watch drew attention also to the restrictions on the free expression and association of people identified as ethnic Macedonians. The leaders of the United Macedonian Organisation, OMO Ilinden, were banned from meeting and that ban was upheld by the courts. It mentioned that 45 religious organisations have been refused registration since 1994 when a new law was passed forbidding non-profit-making organisations from operating without official permission. The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee says that there is a "religious witch-hunt" against certain minor sects. It cites cases of police searches for religious literature and even of individuals being dismissed from their posts because they belonged to the wrong faith.
Judge Alexey I Ivanof of the Regional Court of Sofia. testifying before a congressional committee on 27th November 1995, said that although Protestants had been part of Bulgaria for over 150 years, they often feel as though they are second-class citizens.

1065
When I sent a copy of the annual report of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee to the Minister who deals with human rights, Sir Nicholas Bonsor, asking for his observations and drawing his specific attention to the closure of a Moslem group, the persecution of the Roma and the restrictions placed on religious groups, and suggesting that the OSCE's High Commissioner for National Minorities should take a look at the position, he made no comments about the substantive allegations that appeared in the report. He remarked that, since the HCNM's mandate was to give early warning of minority problems which may lead to conflict, his omission to visit Bulgaria made it appear that he did not consider that it was the case; that there was no likelihood of the persecution of minorities there escalating into an actual conflict.
I pointed out that the HCNM took a much broader view of his mandate; that he had visited 11 countries in the spring and summer of 1995 and that he went to Bulgaria in 1994. I emphasised too that the important question was whether or not the allegations made by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee of discrimination against minorities such as the ethnic Turks and Roma were true and whether the perpetrators of racist violence were seldom, if ever, prosecuted, as alleged.
The Minister replied that he did not wish to cast doubt on the committee's findings, nor to dismiss as insignificant the problems that minorities experienced in Bulgaria. He suggested that I pass the information on to the HCNM which would pursue it in confidence. In other words, he was saying that the case made out was not proven and needed to be examined. If that is the case, it is difficult to imagine why Bulgaria should be included on the list and whether or not the proposals should have been kept in abeyance until further and better particulars were obtained.
Some of the matters raised are susceptible to verification without a great deal of research. The facts in regard to the persecution of the original Moslem community under their chief mufti, Fikri Sali, are that he was unceremoniously dismissed by the government and replaced by a gentleman called Nedim Gendjev, who had been the leader of the Moslems during the communist regime and the faithful stooge of the dictator Tordor Zhivkov. He did not dare put his own name forward as the chief mufti, but was appointed as the President of the Supreme Religious Council by a national conference convened by irregular means on 3rd November 1994. A former sergeant major of the Labour Corps, Hadji Basri Hadjisherif, was appointed chief mufti. Those people had no religious training whatever and neither did the journalist named Dobroudjaliev who was appointed director of the Islamic Institute.
The government therefore swept away the hierarchy of the Moslem faith that existed after religious freedom had been restored in 1989, and replaced it with the people who had been the stooges of the old communist dictatorship. I should like to know whether the kind of situation that we face in Bulgaria, where there is no doubt at all that religious and ethnic minorities suffer serious persecution, means that there is no persecution
1066
"in general". Because the persecution applies only to the ethnic Turks, the Roma, the Sinti, to certain Moslem groups and Protestants, does that mean that the persecution that they suffer is specific and not general? Have the words "in general" led to the placing of Bulgaria on the list?
It would be helpful if the Minister could deal with that point in her reply. It may save time later on if we know precisely what the connection is between the words "in general" which appear on the face of the clause, and the decision to place specific countries like Bulgaria on the designation list.
Baroness Blatch: One of the difficulties, I suspect, that we shall encounter as we go through the course of the day, is that there is a great deal of repetition in relation to some of the subjects. Specific amendments are tabled discussing specific countries, and I shall do what I can not to continue to go over that ground for the purposes of responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, with regard to the point made about oppressed minorities within a country. However, for the moment I shall address the argument in relation to the words "in general".
Clause 1 provides for the designation of countries where it appears to the Secretary of State that there is in general no serious risk of persecution. That involves making a judgment as to whether the general risk of persecution in a particular country is sufficiently low to warrant designation. Amendment No. 4 would delete the words "in general". However, those words are necessary in order to make clear that the assessment being made is of the level of risk in a country rather than the risk to an individual. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, there may be individual cases in which a serious risk is established. Indeed, although there is currently a very high refusal rate for the countries we regard as candidates for designation, asylum or exceptional leave have been granted in a small number of cases. It does not follow from this that designation is inappropriate. The words "in general" are needed in order to make that clear.
It is entirely right that applicants from countries where conditions are not in general unsafe and which produce large numbers of asylum seekers but very few genuine refugees should be asked to show that there are exceptional circumstances in their case.
It has been suggested that the words "in general" would allow the Secretary or State to designate a country where a majority of the population was not at risk but which was seriously persecuting minority groups within it. That is patently not a tenable interpretation of the Bill. The wording clearly rules out designation of any country where there is a significant level of persecution, even if it is targeted at minorities. Our list of candidates for designation excludes a number of countries which generate large numbers of unfounded asylum claims, but in which there arc nevertheless sufficient concerns about human rights that the requirement of the Bill is not met. Nigeria is an obvious example.

1067
The criteria that we use are that the country generates a significant number of asylum applicants; that the applications from that country prove to be unfounded in a high proportion of cases, but that there is, in general, no persecution. We would use again as factors, stability of the country, the state's adherence to international human rights instruments, its democratic institutions, elections and political pluralism, freedom of expression by individuals and the media, and availability and effectiveness of legal avenues of protection and redress. It must be said that every individual case, irrespective of whether or not it is a designated country, is still considered on its merits.
I turn to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. The situation in the countries we intend to designate is one of substantial safety and security. That does not mean that they are entirely without problems or that genuine cases of persecution will never arise. It would be unrealistic to insist on universal safety and, indeed, such a requirement is unnecessary given the safeguards which will continue to apply under the Bill.
Designation will allow us to deal more quickly and more effectively with the great majority of applicants who do not qualify for asylum. That must be in the interests of genuine asylum seekers. But the procedures used will allow exceptional cases, such as the small number from the seven countries who qualified for asylum last year, to be selected for more detailed consideration. Of course, all refused claims will continue to attract a right of appeal to an independent adjudicator.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I thank the Minister for giving way. Can we, between now and the Report stage, look at the specific issue I raised? I take the point that we cannot ensure that every individual would be free of persecution—that would not be true of any country in the world—and I also take the point about the general level of persecution, but the particular cases I mentioned concern groups which are targeted specifically and individuals who are part of such groups. That is to say, it is not really individuals but a specific minority that is at risk. Will the Minister give some further consideration to that issue because it is a special case? It is not the same as a case of a country which has a generally good record but there may be one or two individuals who have been unfairly treated.
Baroness Blatch: I was going to give an example to address that point. Without pre-empting too much of the debate which may come later, I intended to use India as an example because it was mentioned by the noble Baroness.
India is an established, pluralist democracy—as the noble Baroness would agree—with well-developed legal institutions. Most of India is generally peaceful and there is no evidence of significant persecution or abuse as defined in the United Nations convention. In 1995, 98 per cent. of asylum applications from Indian nationals were refused. We accept that two particular areas of India—the Punjab and Kashmir—have experienced human rights abuses. However, militant
1068
unrest in the Punjab has now largely subsided, and many fleeing the troubles in Kashmir have gone to other parts of India, as we would expect under the internal flight principle.
Applications from Kashmiris in this country are rare. Moreover, there are signs of improvement in Kashmir. The Indian Government intends to hold elections in the state, militant leaders have been released from prison, and the International Red Cross has now begun its first substantive visit to detention centres. India has a national Human Rights Commission to investigate allegations of human rights abuses.
So it is the case that generally the country is peaceful, it has democratic institutions in place, but within that great country there are groups of people who, for one reason or another, are subject to human rights abuses. I like to think that the way in which we have approached that question answers, in part, the point raised by the noble Baroness.
Reference was again made to the Glidewell Report, and to comments made by Judge Pearl, by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Judge Pearl is reported to have told the Glidewell panel that the intake of the appellate authority currently exceeds its output, and that while this remains the position the need to give priority to increased numbers of certified cases will lead to longer waiting lists for other appeals.
We listen very carefully to the Chief Adjudicator's advice. The Chief Adjudicator has presided over a remarkable expansion of capacity and output since his appointment, with the assistance of a major investment of resources, which is continuing. It is not the Government's position that wider use of the accelerated appeal procedure will of itself reduce overall delays, but we are convinced that it is a necessary part of a wider programme of measures. The package also includes major additional resources now being invested in the appeal system and the improved procedural rules on which the Lord Chancellor has just published proposals after consulting the Chief Adjudicator.
It is important to send, as a deterrent, a signal that unfounded claims will he dealt with speedily—fairly, but speedily—and if fewer such claims are thereby made overall delays will be reduced and genuine refugees will then receive asylum more quickly.
It has to be said that Judge Pearl also told the Glidewell panel that the number of special adjudicators was being increased substantially, that the number of hearing rooms was being increased, that the asylum appeal procedure rules were being strengthened, and that there were government proposals that the adjudicator should be given important new powers to determine preliminary issues and issue procedural directions. These new measures were welcomed by Judge Pearl, and Clause I must be seen in the context of a wider package of measures.
I hope that I have given an explanation of the importance of the words "in general", of how we arrive at the view that countries should go on to the designated list, and some of the factors that we take into account. We also recognise the existence of the examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. But underpinning all of

1069
this is the fact that, whatever country they come from—designated or otherwise—cases will be considered individually.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As to the last point that the Minister made about the evidence of Judge Pearl, as I said earlier, I was there and I heard his evidence, and I can confirm that what she said is right. He reported to the panel on the increase in the resources being made available to him, both in terms of numbers of adjudicators and space, and his hopes for improvement in the procedural rules. All that is true; it is very valuable and we welcome it.
That leads me to say, however, that it is a pity that, as that session was so helpful, Ministers and officials of the Home Office—presumably on the instruction of Ministers—declined the invitation to appear before or provide written evidence to the Glidewell panel. The quality of our consideration of the Bill—certainly my consideration of the Bill—would have been better if Ministers had participated in what, after all, was a very effective and, as we shall see in the course of our debate, a very persuasive consideration of the issues raised by this Bill.
It still does not really answer the fundamental questions. The Minister's answers are summed up by her remark that the Bill deals with the level of the risk—and I interpret that as in a given country—rather than the risk to an individual. That is the key. It is a risk to an individual that we are concerned with.
though of course the Minister is technically right in saying that every individual case will be considered, there is and must be a difference in the quality of the consideration between those under the fast track procedure and those under the normal procedure. That must be the case. If more time and effort is spent on determining whether the application or the appeal is justified, then there must be a higher quality of consideration.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord. There is absolutely no distinction whatsoever in the quality of the consideration of the substantive case. The distinction arises in the length of the appeal process once a determination as to whether somebody qualifies for asylum or refugee status has been made. But the distinction is not there at all; every single asylum application is considered substantively in exactly the same way, whether the applicant comes from a designated or non-designated country. It is only following the decision resulting from that substantive consideration that there is a distinction in the appeals system.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In that case it is very difficult to see what is being gained. We have to distinguish between the original application and the appeal. It is true that everybody is still entitled to an appeal—and we will come on to the issue of the further appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in later amendments.
1070
In the case of an individual applicant, the whole process, as far as that applicant is concerned, consists of the way in which the application is considered and the way in which any appeal is considered. Taking those two together, there is a difference—and there must be a difference—in the quality of consideration.
The Minister did not answer my questions about what was meant by "in general". She did not say whether it meant that the minorities were isolated, or that it related to individuals rather than groups. She did not say whether it was concerned with the severity of the persecution. None of that was answered, either in her general response to what I said or in her response to the particular issues which other noble Lords raised.
The words "in general" are designed not to clarify but to obfuscate the issue. They are designed to make the distinction between the countries which are on the list and those which are not easier to manipulate rather than more just.
The Minister went so far as to say that the words "in general" were needed in order to justify the designation. If that is the case, it is the classic circular argument. If one has decided to have a designation and then one decides to make a distinction between countries which are designated or not, then one has to find a form of words which justifies making a distinction. I listened to what the Minister said about the general political considerations. I understand them and, to some extent, I respect them, but site has not justified the words "in general". Those words are dangerous for individual applicants because they generalise the position in individual countries and they should be got rid of. I seek the opinion of the Committee on this amendment.
6.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (Amendment No. 4, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1), shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 127.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dubs, L.

Addington, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Falkland, V.

Avebury, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bancroft, L.

Gallacher, L.

Birk, B.

Geraint, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Borrie, L.

Glenamara, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gregson, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Grey, E.

Carter, L.

Hamwee, B.

Chichester, Bp.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Haskel, L.

David, B.

Hayman, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Healey, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Diamond, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Donoughue, L.

Howell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

1071

Hughes, L.

Rea, L.

Inchyra, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L

Jeger, B.

Rochester, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Runcie, L.

Judd, L.

Russell, E

Kilbracken, L.

Sandwich, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Seear, B.

Kissin, L

Serota, B.

Liverpool, Bp.

Sewel, L.

Lockwood, B.

Shepherd, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stedman, B.

McNair, L.

Taverne, L.

McNally, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Tenby, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mayhew, L.

Thurso, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mishcon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Molloy, L.

Varley, L.

Morris of Castle Moms, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Nicol, B.

White, B.

Ogmore, L.

Williams of Crosby, B. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Addison, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gisborough, L.

Arran, E

Goold, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Goschen,V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Greenway, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Biddulph, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Blaker, L

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Blatch, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Boardman, L.

Henley, L.

Bowness, L.

Hertford, M.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Holdemess, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Brentford, V.

Howe, E

Brookeborough, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Brookes, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Burnham, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cadman, L.

Kimball, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kingsland, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Carnock,L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Chesham, L [Teller.]

Leigh, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lindsay, E

Clark of Kempston, L

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Colwyn, L.

Long, V.

Courtown, E

Lucas, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lyell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Devonport, V.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Drogheda, E.

Marlesford, L.

Elles, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Elton, L,

Mersey, V.

1072

Miller of Hendon, B.

Rees, L.

Mills, V.

Rennell, L.

Milverton, L.

Renwick, L.

Monson, L.

Romney, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Saint Albans, D.

Mountevans, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sharples, B.

Moyne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Munster, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mutton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Nelson, E.

Sudeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Tebbit, L.

Orkney, E.

Teynham, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ullswater, V.

Pender, L.

Vivian, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rawlings, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Wynford, L

Reay, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.29 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 5:
Line 16, at end insert ("for the reasons stated by the appellant").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 5 is a comparable but different approach to the same problem of the imprecision of the designation procedure. I shall not be very happy if I am told in response to the amendment that the designation procedure requires imprecision if it is to take effect at all. It' the Government required imprecision as a precondition of having the designation procedure, it would be much better if they gave up the designation procedure, because imprecision in designation is the key to injustice so far as concerns individuals.
We suggest that in line 16 of the new clause there should be inserted, after the phrase "in general so serious risk of persecution", the words "for the reasons stated by the appellant". It may not he immediately obvious what that means. It means that the appellant has to state the reasons, but the precondition of the appellant stating reasons is that the Government have to state reasons. It is not enough for them to designate a country in the list; they have to say that it is based on an issue in the country rather than the country itself.
I give an example. A number of noble Lords have referred to Pakistan. It may be that an appellant from Pakistan says that he is a supporter of the Pakistan People's Party, which is the opposition party in Pakistan, and that he hears threatening noises. I believe that a great number of us would say that if an individual was a member of an opposition party—noble Lords opposite should listen to this because they will experience it—he might be discriminated against in all kinds of ways. In certain circumstances such an individual may be persecuted or even prosecuted. However, that is not the same;.s justifying refugee status. If as a Member of the Opposition in this country I went to another country and said that I being persecuted, I do not believe that too much attention

1073
would be paid to me. Of course, there are reasons why people in Pakistan can be persecuted. Reasons have been given. Membership of religious minorities is the classic example. Another example is membership of the Roma people in eastern Europe.
What we say in this amendment—which we believe is helpful to the Government—is that they can be more precise in their designation because they can say that a country is on the list not just tout court because it is on the list, but that there are specific reasons for it. On that basis, it may be possible for them to extend the list. They may say that Pakistan, which would not normally be on the list—we have the Minister's assurance that it would not be—could be included provided the reason for an application reflected genuine persecution, but not for other reasons. One would have a much more sensitive list, and perhaps a longer one, that paid more attention to the needs of individuals. The appellant would have to show that he was appealing not only because of the country he came from but because the reason did not fall in with the Government's grounds for exclusion. Otherwise, we would face the same problem discussed on the last amendment. Complex cases will clog the fast track and the appeal system.
One of my objections to the whole designation procedure is that it has a built-in inaccuracy and tendency to generalisation. That inaccuracy may appear to be justified on the ground that the cost of the original applications under the fast track will be less than they would otherwise be. I suggest to the Committee that in the end the adjudicators would have to rule whether the procedure was correctly dealt with under the fast track. That in turn will give grounds for more appeals and expenditure on the appeal procedure. I cannot say whether it would cancel out any other savings, but certainly it would seriously reduce them. Above all, the generalisation involved in the designation procedure will produce injustice for individuals. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 5 envisages that the Secretary of State should produce a list of grounds which do not give rise to a serious risk of persecution in a particular country. If an applicant then based his claim on one of those grounds, a certificate could be applied on refusing the application, but certification would not be available if the claim was based on a ground not contained in the order. The scope for abuse would be enormous. We consider that such an approach would be unworkable. First, it would not be feasible for the Secretary of State to specify in his designation order an exhaustive list of grounds or scenarios which would not give rise to a serious risk of persecution. Every single case is different and must be considered on its merits. Secondly, the Bill as drafted prevents designation if there is a serious risk of persecution for any of the reasons specified by the 1951 convention, namely race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Thirdly, the designation concept would be undermined and present real scope for abuse if applicants could bypass it simply by including in their claim a spurious ground which was not specified in the Secretary of State's order. Even if he could not demonstrate that the ground applied in his
1074
case, the applicant could prevent the Secretary of State from issuing a certificate. Under our approach there would be no opportunity for such evasion. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That was a very short reply. I believe there were two critical words in the Minister's reply, the first of which was "exhaustive". I certainly did not claim that the Secretary of State could produce an exhaustive list of grounds for application which would be included in a designated list. Even if it were exhaustive at one time, it would not be exhaustive over a period of time. Anything which improves on the blanket consideration—one is either in or out of the country—is better than the existing situation, or the situation as proposed by the Bill. The second significant word used by the Minister was "spurious". The noble Baroness said that it would he easy for an appellant to put forward a spurious ground because of knowledge of the list which had been produced by the Government in relation to that country. If one devises a scheme entirely on the basis that people will tell lies, either one needs an extremely simple system which excludes everybody or a rather complicated one which attempts to anticipate the lies and deal with them. I suggest to the Minister that the word "spurious" does not mean that anybody can just claim anything that he likes on a spurious basis and expect to get away with it. That would not be possible. It would be possible immediately to identify that the ground specified by the appellant did not bear any relation to reality. The Secretary of State could then genuinely refuse a certificate. I am not convinced by the answer.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord. The noble Lord is wrong about that. If an applicant, whether it applied to him or not, could find a reason that was not specified by the Home Secretary, then he could claim that reason. It would mean that he could not be given a certificate. So the reason could be used, and the scope for using it would be considerable, because it actually by-passes and short-circuits the system.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I find that answer to' be in conflict with what the Minister said in her first reply about the protection which already exists under the 1951 convention. This is an issue which is relatively close to that which the Committee has already decided. So I do not believe that it is appropriate to seek the opinion of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 5, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. I, Amendment No. 6:
Line 16, at end insert (", but no such order shall include Bulgaria").
The noble Lord said: I had rather hoped to cut this discussion short by speaking about Bulgaria on the earlier amendment, but, since the noble Baroness did not so much as mention Bulgaria in her reply to that amendment to leave out the words "in general". I shall

1075
have, not to repeat what I have already said, but to underline some of the points that I was making and show how they conflict with the answer that she gave on that occasion.
I would remind the Members of the Committee that this is the only occasion we have for discussing individual countries, because, when the first designation order comes before the House, we will have to vote on them altogether, even though we might make speeches which are directed towards the inclusion on the list of particular countries. One way of cutting short the next sequence of debates would be for the Minister to say that, instead of having an omnibus designation order when the time comes, the Secretary of State will introduce individual designation orders country by country, even if they are all tabled for debate on one occasion. That would be a way in which the Members of the Committee would be able to vote against the inclusion of a particular country on the list, something which otherwise will not be possible.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the Minister gave some general criteria which would be applied in deciding whether to include a country on the list. Two of them that I noted particularly were: adherence to international obligations and the availability of avenues of redress. In the case of international obligations, I should like to draw the attention of Members of the Committee to the OSCE's Copenhagen Declaration which goes beyond conferring individual rights on members of minorities and actually places a positive obligation on the participating states of the OSCE to promote the identity of their minorities, to allow them to form associations, to link up with corresponding minorities of other countries, to create institutions, and so on. None of that happens in the case of Bulgaria. I mentioned the disallowance of the religious registration of a number of sects—a point which the Minister has not yet covered—and, in particular, the persecution of adherence of the original chief mufti, Fikri Sali and his replacement by a person who was a stooge of the old communist regime.
I do not know whether the Home Office is aware of that, because it seemed to be a matter that was not familiar to the Foreign Office. As my noble friend Lady Williams said on an earlier amendment, there seems to be some lack of communication between the Foreign Office and the Home Office, whatever the Minister may have replied to that point. In the case of Bulgaria, there was a distinct ignorance about the state of affairs of the minorities, not just of the Roma, who have been at the centre of attention so far. They do not actually know about the position of the religious minorities, or of the others, such as the Turks and the Sinti, who are equally subject to persecution.
On the question of the availability of avenues of redress, specifically, the former chief mufti, Fikri Sali, did go to the Supreme Court. His application for restoration to his position was rejected on the ground that the creation of the new Supreme Council and the appointment of a chief mufti by the government was a matter within the discretion of the government and was not a matter for the Moslem community to settle on its own.
The criteria described by the Minister have been seriously violated in the case of Bulgaria, and it ought not to appear on any list. As this is the only opportunity we shall have to debate the matters specifically, in distinction from any other country that may appear on the list, I venture to suggest that the Committee should take the opportunity of striking it off the list at this stage. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: Anyone who considers Bulgaria in the context of this Bill will almost immediately think of the Bulgarian atrocities. Of course, the point is that now the boot is on the other foot, but that does illustrate that there are some very long-term tensions in Bulgaria—long-term tensions on a level such that one does not expect them to disappear instantly. One hopes to see them diminish, but it is perfectly possible to imagine a situation in which Bulgarian Turks could have a well-founded fear of persecution, even if there might be, in general, no well-founded fear of persecution in Bulgaria as a whole.
My noble friend was quite right to draw attention to the relevance of this case to the misguidedness of the words "in general". I am glad that he has tabled the amendment, and I hope that it will receive attention.
Lord Dubs: I am a little puzzled about something that the Minister said in reply to an earlier amendment, but it is equally relevant to this one. What I have in front of me is a Home Office document called Asylum and Immigration Bill Background Notes by the Home Office. The Minister said that even if people are on a fast-track procedure, their case is still considered in the same detail—I am not sure that those were her exact words—as people who are not on the fast-track procedure. That is the substance of what the Minister said. Obviously, it is as relevant to this amendment as to others. I am therefore puzzled that, in this background paper by the Home Office, it says in the paragraph headed, "Introduction":
"Applications for asylum from citizens of designated countries would be subject to streamlined substantive consideration and to an accelerated appeals process".
I am puzzled as to what the words, "streamlined substantive consideration" mean. I should have thought that they mean that, in some way, the consideration on that basis is less thorough than for other cases; otherwise, there would be no point in using those three words, and there would have been no point in putting them into this particular paper. I say that I am puzzled because the Minister suggested that it was only the subsequent stages that were speeded up under the fast-track procedure, and it was not the way in which the full case would be considered. I hope that we can have some comment from the Minister as to whether I am right in saying that there is an inconsistency between what she said earlier and what the document says.
Baroness Rawlings: Bulgaria is a civilised country. It is civilised enough to have been accepted as a member of the Council of Europe. We should not forget that. After all, there are many minority problems and we cannot be the conscience of the world.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, wishes to prohibit the Secretary of State from designating certain countries. We think that that is wrong in principle and because we disagree with his assessment of the four countries concerned. We have heard about Bulgaria and, no doubt, we shall hear later of the other countries.
I have to say, as somebody handling the Bill, that I have had something like five different sets of groupings for the amendments today. I find it extremely difficult that only part-way through the proceedings this afternoon did I know that we were going to deal with these amendments singly.
Lord Avebury: I am very sorry about the way in which this matter occurred. As the noble Baroness knows, until I walked into the Chamber this afternoon, I was not aware that the four amendments had been grouped together. I tabled them individually and it was clear that my intention in doing so was to have a separate debate on each of the countries concerned because it will not be possible to do so later.
Baroness Blatch: I accept entirely the personal explanation which the noble Lord gives. We have been in touch constantly with the noble Lord's parliamentary office and until I walked into the Chamber today I thought that the groupings had been agreed. I am afraid that the noble Lord must take up the matter with his office.
I do not accept that the Bill should list countries whose designation is prohibited. If the Secretary of State considers a country unsuitable for designation, he will simply not designate it. If Parliament is not content with an order tabled by the Secretary of State, as I said earlier, it can vote against it.
We have accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that the initial designation order should be by affirmative procedure in both Houses. Therefore, we shall have an opportunity to debate the suitability of the countries listed and to vote on the order. Any subsequent order will be laid before Parliament under the negative procedure.
The noble Lord's proposal would also undesirably blur the distinction between primary and secondary legislation. Conditions in countries of origin may change over time. Countries which are unsuitable for designation at present may become much safer in the future. That is why we need the flexibility provided by secondary legislation.
If we did construct a list of countries where there are at present significant risks of persecution or danger to people living in them, it would not be the list suggested by the noble Lord. Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan are examples of countries where repressive regimes or major upheavals have made it necessary to grant asylum
1078
or exceptional leave in significant numbers of cases. Yet they do not appear on the noble Lord's list, which studiously avoids genuinely dangerous countries.
The situation in the countries we intend to designate is one of substantial safety and security. That does not mean that they are entirely without problems, as I said earlier, or that genuine cases of persecution will never arise. It would be unrealistic to insist on universal safety and, indeed, such a requirement is unnecessary, given the safeguards which will continue to apply under the Bill. Designation will allow us to deal more quickly and effectively with the great majority of applicants who do not qualify for asylum. But the procedures used will enable exceptional cases, such as the very small number from the seven countries that qualified for asylum last year, to be selected out for more detailed consideration. And, of course, all refused claims will continue to attract a right of appeal to an independent adjudicator.
I do not accept that Bulgaria is unsuitable for designation. Considerable progress has been made in the establishment of democracy, particularly following the April 1990 Law on Political Groups and Parties. Bulgaria's National Assembly is a democratically elected body and recent elections have been declared free and fair by international observers. Bulgaria is a party to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Bulgarian Government are committed to obtaining membership of the European Union, as my noble friend said. We do not accept that past mistreatment of minorities by the former communist regime justifies a presumption of future mistreatment. We recognise that there is discrimination against some minorities within local communities, including the Roma minority. But the Bulgarian Government have taken steps to address these problems and to prosecute offenders. Last year, 99 per cent. of applications for asylum were refused. Although the vast majority of Bulgarian asylum applications are unfounded, each application is considered individually and asylum will be granted when the circumstances warrant it.
Bulgaria's present problems are mainly economic, with fairly high unemployment and inflation, a high budget deficit, foreign debt problems and a rising level of crime. It would appear that the economic situation coupled with greater freedom of movement has contributed to the number of asylum applications.
Considerable progress has been made in the establishment of democracy in Bulgaria, particularly following the April 1990 Law on Political Groups and Parties. Chapter 2 of the constitution, which took effect on 13th July 1991, establishes the basic provisions for Bulgarian citizenship and fundamental human rights. Furthermore, it commits the state to the provision of basic social welfare and education and to the encouragement of culture, science and the health of the population.
Freedom of movement within the country and the right to leave it are constitutionally enshrined and not limited in practice. Every citizen has the right to return to Bulgaria. A number of former political emigrants were granted passports in 1994 and returned to visit or live there.

1079
There are many ethnic minorities in Bulgaria. In July 1991, the country adopted a new constitution which provides for individual rights, equality and protection against discrimination. Bulgaria still has some progress to make in its treatment of minorities (particularly the Roma/gypsies), and racism and xenophobia still exist, but much progress has been made across the whole range of human rights since the fall of the communist regime.
There is some resentment of gypsies and incidents against them such as illegal detention, search and seizure and general harassment are known to occur. It has been reported that the police are frequently either the perpetrators of violence against such people or fail to intervene when attacks are instigated. However, the Government have introduced reforms in order to address many of these problems, including investigating and prosecuting charges of excessive use of force by police; programmes to hire gypsies as police officers; programmes to improve relations between the Romany community and local police, and job and literacy training for gypsies. Where ill-treatment by local authorities and communities continues, there is no evidence that this is condoned at a national level. Popular feeling does exist against gypsies but this is not condoned at a national level and perpetrators of attacks are prosecuted if caught.
I could go on about Bulgaria. As we have said, there is certainly a case for individuals to prove their case and provision is made for them in the proposed system, but to say that Bulgaria is as bad as the picture painted by the noble Lord is rather over-stating the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked about the streamline consideration. That refers to the short procedure introduced by the Home Office last year. It does not require legislation and does not detract from full consideration. It involves shorter intervals before interview and between interview and decision. That is consistent with all that I have said previously on the amendment.
Baroness Elles: Before my noble friend sits down, will she confirm that Bulgaria is a member of the Council of Europe and is now a high contracting party to the European Convention on Human Rights? Anybody persecuted in Bulgaria has the right to go to the European Court and appeal against any persecution or violation of rights against individuals.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to my noble friend for making that point because she is absolutely right. I made the point that Bulgaria is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. That is a point very well worth making.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness is correct about the Council of Europe. It is true also that Russia is now a member of the Council of Europe but I might be anxious if I were a Chechen living in Russia. I am perfectly well aware that we have not designated Chechnya. But the point to which I return over and over again, because the point in logic keeps recurring, is that the fact that a country may be safe for the majority of its citizens does not mean that it is safe for all of them. I should like to
1080
know whether the noble Baroness accepts the view of UNHCR that it should never be presumed that any country is totally safe for all its citizens.
Baroness Blatch: I must say unequivocally that we have never stated that any country is absolutely safe for all its citizens. That is one reason why we have used the words "in general". We make a presumption that even those countries which are designated will necessarily have well-proven cases of people who have a well-founded fear of persecution. The system is geared to sort out the genuine asylum seekers from those who have come from countries where there is in general no threat to the population. However, we have never claimed that there is any country which is wholly safe for all of its people.
7 p.m.
Earl Russell: If the Committee will forgive me, I have nearly wound up. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments because they advance the job of defining the points at issue. But we are here subjecting the nationals of some countries to a different procedure from those we use for the nationals of other countries. I think that on Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, used the phrase I am about to use. We have a rebuttable presumption that claims from those countries are less likely to be well-founded than those from others. I should be grateful if we could have an explanation of how that is to be squared with Article 3 of the UN convention which states,
"The contracting states shall apply the provisions of this convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion—"
That, I think, is not a problem at present—"
"or country of origin".
Surely two different procedures discriminating by country of origin must risk being interpreted as infringing Article 3 of the UN convention.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I am a little worried that pragmatism—which I realise is rather a dirty word in these debates—seems almost to have been forgotten. For example, the right reverend Prelate referred to the generosity of Canada. I happen to know from visits I have had from Vancouver in connection with educational matters that there is considerable resentment of Chinese people in Vancouver, to the extent that a number of schools are imposing quotas. I was even more alarmed when the noble Earl, Lord Russell, started to extend the provision to almost—dare I say?—every minority in the world. I do not think that anyone in this Chamber, Christian 'though many of us are, envisages this country becoming a refuge for minorities who suffer certain problems.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord appears to he speaking to an amendment that we discussed earlier which proposed to strike out the words "in general". We are now supposed to be discussing Bulgaria.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I thought that Chechnya was mentioned in the debate. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, knows as well as I, historically

1081
Bulgaria has had problems. There is a Turkish minority there. In no sense is it envisaged that if a problem arises—such as has arisen in Cyprus—we should admit large numbers of that Turkish minority into this kingdom. If the party opposite were in government, I prophesy that it would not open the frontiers of this country to the Turkish minority in Bulgaria. Please let us not forget pragmatism. Let us talk about morality, but let us mean to implement that. Does the party opposite intend to repeal this legislation? Does it intend to follow the noble Lord's proposal, and, if there is a problem in Bulgaria—or, dare I say, in other parts of the Balkans—to open the frontiers of this country? Would the party opposite stand for election on that platform? These are matters that we must think through before we talk about them.
Lord Avebury: I do not know whether the noble Lord listened carefully to the earlier part of this debate. No one is proposing to open the door to minorities. What we are discussing now is the proposal to delete Bulgaria from the putative list designating certain countries as subject to the fast track procedure which is to be published by the Secretary of State. If I may say so, I thought that it was disingenuous of the Minister to accuse me of not tabling similar amendments on Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan when she knows perfectly well that those are not the countries which the Secretary of State intends to place on the list. The four countries which are the subjects of these amendments are countries in respect of which the Secretary of State has notified his intention of dealing with by means of the list. That was why I thought it wise to allow the Committee the opportunity to at least consider each of them individually to see whether it was our intention that such countries should be placed on the list, or at least to give some warning to the Secretary of State that he should consider these matters a little more carefully.
The Minister is naive as well as disingenuous in thinking that because a country holds elections and has a constitution it necessarily respects human rights, either in a domestic or an international context. I refer her to the United States Department of State report on Bulgaria of 1995. I shall read a couple of sentences from that report. It states,
"The constitution provides for freedom of religion. However the Government restrict this right in practice. The ability of a number of religious groups to operate freely continues to come under attack both as a result of Government action and because of public intolerance".
As for the measures in the constitution which allow political parties and other groups to function freely, I asked the Minister in an earlier debate whether she would comment on the government's refusal, since 1990, to allow a Macedonian rights group to be registered, as an example of the incompatibility of Bulgaria's actual behaviour with what is stated in the constitution. I can point to examples all over the world where governments have fine constitutions but they do not bother to abide by them. One should take a look at the old Soviet constitution which was full of material about its citizens' human rights but it did not bother to observe those human rights. The Minister and her right
1082
honourable friend ought to think about this matter carefully, if the principal argument for placing a country on this list is to be that it has a constitution, that it runs elections, or even that it has been allowed to enter the Council of Europe. There are many states in the Council of Europe which I would not have admitted. We discussed Turkey earlier. Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe, and yet no one would conceivably suggest that Turkey should be placed on the list for designation. I think the noble Baroness has said that there is no such intention.
I had rather hoped to receive a better explanation of the reasons why Bulgaria appeared on the list, and that the Minister could have addressed the problems of the religious minorities, which she totally ignored. She mentioned that some measures had been taken to address the matter of the Roma minority. I think that she did not refer to the Turks or the Sinti, let alone the Macedonians. However, the religious minorities are one of the most important subjects as regards the complaints that are made by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, as I said in my earlier speech. I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's remarks. She has not justified placing Bulgaria on the list. However, for the time being, I shall not ask Members of the Committee to accompany me into the Division Lobby because we all need to reflect on what has been said by the Minister and to decide whether we want to pursue this matter at a later stage in the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: Before the amendment is withdrawn, if that is the intention of the noble Lord, I should say that I responded to this amendment. The noble Lord wishes to put on the face of this Bill, which is primary legislation, the names of four countries which should not be considered for designation. I am simply saying that there are better candidates, if one were going to do that. We do not believe that this is the place for that provision because we have said what procedure we intend to put in place for considering designated countries. However, if we thought that there were four countries that were of such concern to the Committee that it wished to state on the face of the Bill that those countries should never be considered for designation, we should not have chosen those particular four countries. I have named other countries that I believe would rank rather higher.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the UNHCR. The UNHCR has made clear that it does not regard designation as inherently incompatible with the 1951 convention provided that claims are still considered on their merits. I have said many times today that claims will be considered on their merits. We are satisfied that there is no inconsistency with Article 3 which is concerned with the treatment of persons who have been granted refugee status. In the particular case to which I have referred, certification applies only after a refusal has been given to an asylum seeker. That means that we are entirely consistent with our obligations under the convention.
Lord Avebury: I do not know whether the Minister is being deliberately obtuse, but I have just explained why I put these amendments down, and not amendments

1083
concerning Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan. It is because the Home Secretary intends to designate these countries; and there is no question of him doing so as regards the other three countries to which she referred.
I am at a loss to know how the Minister suggests that the Committee would have had an opportunity to discuss the matter if I had not put down these specific amendments, although technically primary legislation may not be the right way to deal with the matter. I am giving the Committee an opportunity to say whether we consider that these specific countries should be included in the list to which the Home Secretary has already referred.
The explanation given by the Minister as to why Bulgaria should be included in that list falls well short of what I would expect. She did not once refer to the religious minorities who were at the centre of the remarks that I made on an earlier occasion.
With that expression of dissatisfaction, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 6, as an amendment to Amendment No. I, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 7:
Line 16, at end insert (", but no such order shall include Ghana").
The noble Lord said: I hope that we shall have a better explanation of the reasons why Ghana was included in the list than we had as regards Bulgaria.
In Ghana there is no question of the discrimination or the persecution being particular, although there are, of course, ethnic minorities in Ghana. I shall come to those later. Ghana is a state which has been ruled by President Jerry Rawlings for 15 years. He took power, unelected, as head of state. That was a position that he occupied for 11 years, until he finally allowed the people to vote him back into power in an election which was denounced as fraudulent by four opposition parties. Those parties then withdrew from the parliamentary elections of December 1992 giving Rawlings' coalition a walkover. It is, in effect, still a one party state, despite the elections to which the Minister attaches so much importance.
According to the US State Department, the Government dominate the print and electronic media, and control the radio and television stations and the two daily newspapers. The media never criticise President Rawlings or government policies. Although independent broadcasting is allowed in theory, bureaucratic delays in processing applications are used to prevent it in practice. When the Independent Media Corporation of Ghana started broadcasting without a licence, having waited for a year to obtain one, the police seized the transmission equipment and hung on to it in defiance of a High Court ruling that they had acted illegally.
There is an independent newspaper sector, but the circulations are small and confined to the major cities. The papers do criticise, but are vulnerable to the law on criminal libel—it is applied with particular severity in Ghana—under which a person may be prosecuted for
1084
publishing a false report which injures or damages the credit or reputation of the state. One victim of that legislation at present is my friend Mr. Kwesi Pratt, editor of the Weekly Insight and General Secretary of the Popular Party for Democracy and Development. He has been charged and faces either a prison sentence or a huge fine which could bankrupt him.
In May 1995 the Minister of Youth and Sports organised a gang of thugs who killed four people taking part in a peaceful demonstration against the new value added tax. The Government refused to commission an independent inquiry into the deaths, but in September they announced that a police committee had been unable to identify the murderers. The committee's report was not published.
It is reported that ethnic violence, which resulted in 20,000 deaths in the northern region in 1994, continued into 1995, though in the latter year only 150 people died. One reason for that lower death toll was that the Konkomba people—they were the principal victims of the ethnic conflict—were no longer going into the larger towns and cities where the conflicts had occurred, and had fled into Togo. According to the UNHCR's report, The State of the World's Refugees 1995. there were 97,700 refugees from Ghana in Togo and another 15,900 elsewhere in the region. Some of those people were victims of ethnic violence, but many others arc conscientious objectors and political dissidents, as well as people from the Eze tribe of the Volta region which straddles the frontier between Ghana and Togo. Many of the refugees do not bother to register—there are probably far more than the official figure of 113,000 given by the UNHCR—as happens elsewhere in Africa. So how can it be said that Ghana is a country where there is in general no serious risk of persecution if at least 113,000 people are officially classified as refugees by the UNHCR?
If one considers the mainstream politics of Ghana as opposed to the ethnic conflict, the UNHCR noted in November 1995 that although it was asserted that the achievement of a "controlled" transition to a democracy had been extensive, it was less clear whether the transition would continue in view of the precarious political and social foundation on which it was based. Ghanakwambo, the Refugees and Migrants Community Action Group in the UK, points out that,
"Rawlings' change from chairman of the coup d'etat provisional council to constitutional President of the Fourth Republic had not stopped the intimidation and violence against political opponents".
On the date that the group published a memorandum about the inclusion of Ghana in the list, two journalists and a publisher were on trial for "bringing the state into disrepute". According to the Ghanaian Chronicle of 26th February, when the three appeared at a circuit court on 23rd February, there was a display of thuggery in the precincts of the court, with armed men hurling insults and abuse at anybody they perceived as being anti-NDC (the governing party). Miss Ruby Ofori, a BBC correspondent, had to be rescued by the police and Ms. Adwoa Yeboah-Afari, another BBC correspondent, was also chased by the same thugs.
Mr. Rawlings himself can be aggressive and violent. I spoke to a man this morning who has been in the UK since 1989 waiting for a decision on his asylum application. He told me that in November 1992, when he was at the house of the then Minister of Youth and Sports, Rawlings arrived in a helicopter with a group of men armed with AK47s. There had been an attempted coup the previous day. Perhaps Mr. Rawlings thought that a plot against his rule was being hatched in that building. He came in shouting and screaming at the inmates of the house. My informant says that Mr. Rawlings threatened them all, making them kneel down at gunpoint, shouting "On your fucking knees". That is the conduct of the head of state of Ghana. Members of the Committee may have some difficulty in believing that a person in that position could behave in such a crude and vicious manner. But there are many similar stories about his irrational conduct, and the unceremonious treatment of anyone who gets in his way.
The most recent event of that kind about which I know personally was Rawlings' attack on his own vice-president, Dr. K.N. Arkaah, at a cabinet meeting on 28th December 1995. Dr. Arkaah telephoned me on 1st January this year to give me details of what had happened. He said that the president was angry because Dr. Arkaah's National Convention Party had held a very successful meeting at Kumasi two weeks earlier at which it was decided to bring the alliance between his party and the Government to an end. At that cabinet meeting, everyone was in his place at 10.20 waiting for the president to arrive. They stood as the president came in at 10.30. He went to the chair next to Vice-President Arkaah and started speaking from behind his chair. Suddenly Dr. Arkaah felt a tremendous blow from behind which knocked him to the ground. The president started to kick him as he lay there, screaming epithets at him such as, "You bastard". Dr. Arkaah did not reply or retaliate in any way. He is a much smaller man than the president.
According to Amnesty International, five Ghanaians who had recently returned to Ghana from the UK were arrested on 2nd September 1994 and charged with plotting a coup. I wrote to the Minister about this case. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said that in deciding to refuse those people bail after they had been 17 months in custody the authorities would no doubt have taken into account the seriousness of the charges. But the Minister seems to have accepted that it was normal that evidence was still being collected after such a length of time. Relatives trying to visit two of the people in the Usher Fort, where they had been detained previously, were told that they had been transferred to Mwasam maximum security prison. When they went there, the authorities said that they had never heard of the detainees. So we must assume that they are missing. The brother of one of them was taken into custody and interrogated in connection with the plot. When he was released, the family saw that he had been tortured: all his teeth were missing, he had bruises all over his face and he was bleeding from his mouth. They took him to hospital and he died there two days later.
The atmosphere of paranoia in Ghana is indicated by the fact that two other groups of people are also in custody for alleged coup plots. One was a group of soldiers and a Captain Mumuni Seidu; the other a group of five farmers who had been living in exile in Togo. According to the Refugee Council, the farmers had been beaten and tortured.
Ghana has been described by the Home Office as a fledgling democracy. If its research is as slipshod and selective on Ghana as it was on Nigeria, it is no wonder that it misses so much of what is going on there. Sometimes, when we raise concerns over human rights with Foreign Office Ministers, we are told that it does not have the resources to investigate most of the allegations received. That may be part of the problem. We are getting an inadequate and incomplete picture of human rights in many of the countries which allows us to say that no risk arises in a particular country. In the case of Ghana, that is manifestly untrue and the Secretary of State should indicate that he does not intend to place that country on the list. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I make the point that we need to make the distinction between the country in general for designation purposes and the individual case. The noble Lord has spoken almost exclusively on individual cases and those will have a proper and fair hearing. That is as it should be.
Specifically on Ghana, major constitutional changes in 1992 returned the country to democratic civilian rule. The constitution now guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms and the rule of law. Membership of political parties is widespread and open. Most recent reports, including the 1995 US State Department report, indicate that there are no known political prisoners or detainees. Amnesty International has confirmed that there is no evidence of politically inspired disappearances since the return to democracy. We recognise that there have been outbreaks of friction between Christians and Moslems and longer standing friction between tribes in the northern region of Ghana. But the authorities have reacted promptly to contain the disorder and to restore peace and the rule of law. Despite those conditions, 1,900 asylum claims were received last year, almost all of which were unfounded.
I wish to comment on all the aspects referred to by the noble Lord. Government economic policies in Ghana since the mid-1980s have resulted in financial stringencies for most of the population. It has to he said that the average per capita annual national income is still only about £300. Employment opportunities are scarce and qualified professional workers can expect salary levels which compare badly with remuneration for even menial jobs in the developed world.
Our assessment is based on independent monitoring. In addition to reports from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we take account of the views of other western governments, independent press reporting and reports from organisations such as Amnesty International.
President Rawlings has been mentioned. He received 58 per cent. of the vote in the November 1992 presidential election which was assessed as being

1087
largely free and fair by international observers. Parliamentary elections were boycotted by the main opposition parties, with the result that the present government were elected almost without opposition.
International monitoring of the 1992 elections by teams of observers, including representatives from the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and the Carter Centre, concluded that despite some irregularities, largely caused by the out-of-date and inaccurate voters' register, the elections were free and fair. A new voters' register has been compiled for the 1996 elections.
Membership of political parties is widespread and ordinary Ghanaians are not discouraged from joining the party of their choice or harassed for their political opinions. The constitution was introduced in January 1993, but political change had begun before that. Registration of voters to a new electoral roll took place in October 1995 and there has been considerable activity by opposition parties to select candidates to contest the elections which will take place in November and December this year.
The 1992 constitution, adopted on 7th January 1993, guarantees the fundamental human rights and freedoms of every Ghanaian citizen. There is no convincing evidence of widespread, systematic abuse of individuals' constitutional rights. Although there have been isolated reports of individuals abusing their authority, there is evidence that appropriate disciplinary or legal action has been taken against them and that victims who have suffered abuse of their human, civil or constitutional rights have received compensation.
The 1995 US State Department report cited two instances which it described as extra judicial killing of suspects in police custody. That was referred to by the noble Lord. In one case, the officers responsible have been suspended from duty pending the result of an investigation. In the other, the police were exonerated. It is not known whether a further reported death in custody is under investigation. Amnesty International has reported no politically motivated killings in its 1995 report.
The constitution of Ghana specifically guarantees respect for human dignity and prohibits torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Our assessment is that such treatment is neither systematically practised nor condoned by the authorities. Again, Amnesty International has reported no politically motivated disappearances since the introduction of the constitution. Our most recent information, including the 1995 US State Department report, indicates that there are no known political prisoners or detainees.
One could go on, but the last point with which I wish to deal was touched on by the noble Lord. It concerns the independence of the media. The constitution guarantees the freedom and independence of the media. The National Media Commission was established to ensure and oversee that. The commission has a majority of members appointed by non-governmental interests, such as the Ghana Bar Association which has traditionally campaigned for civil rights, and the press, writers, educationists and religious groups. Although television and radio were state-owned, about 30 licences
1088
were granted in 1995 to establish free TV and radio stations. The government control the two main daily newspapers, but there is a lively free press. Some publications are owned by opposition parties. All, however, freely publish views highly critical of the government and individuals in it, often verging on the libellous. Foreign periodicals are freely available in Accra and in other major centres.
My final point is that Ghana has already been included in the list of countries designated by Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Denmark. The noble Lord referred to many individual cases, all of which, if they came through the system, would be considered on their merits. If the individuals qualified for asylum under the 1951 convention, it would be granted. But for those who come seeking asylum, the practice is that the majority have not qualified.
Earl Russell: I do not know whether the noble Baroness is aware that she has erected an entirely circular argument. She has given us a country assessment which, at this time of night. I shall confine myself to calling "unexpected". Can she say who were the independent monitors to whom she referred? The Minister then advanced the fact that the vast majority of refugees from Ghana had not been accepted. She advanced those as if they were two entirely unconnected facts. The question is: are they two entirely unconnected facts or are they two entirely connected facts? The credibility of applicants is judged in relation to the country assessment. If the country assessment should by any awful chance be mistaken, many more applicants from that country will be found to be incredible than would otherwise be the case. That illustrates why we need the country assessments published so that we can consider and discuss them with people who have independent sources of information.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: On the final point, I have already given an assurance that when the designation list comes forward assessments will accompany it. The House will then have an opportunity to consider them.
I mention just three of the independent sources of advice: the United States State Department; the Carter Centre; and Amnesty International. I do not know whether the noble Lord has any criticisms of those organisations. I certainly believe that they are highly reputable in this field.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My noble friend did not say that he had any criticisms. He merely asked who the independent monitors were. That is a perfectly reasonable question.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, does not have the advantage that I have. I have listened to this debate from the beginning. There was an implied criticism that the independent monitors were not very independent. I am simply saying that I believe the three I cited—and there are others—are highly reputable in

1089
the field as the eyes and ears of the democratic world to make sure that where there is this kind of persecution it is rooted out.
Viscount Waverley: I recently visited both urban and rural areas in Ghana. I spoke with parliamentarians and persons at grass-roots level. I listened carefully to the Minister's explanation and I shall support the Government on this particular issue.
Lord Avebury: Without knowing where the noble Viscount went, it is very difficult for me to comment. I draw his attention to a comment I made earlier, which the Minister totally ignored; namely, that there are 97,500 refugees from Ghana in Togo, and 15,000 elsewhere in the region. Those people are recognised by the UNHCR as refugees.
I asked the noble Baroness this question earlier, but I am afraid she did not address it. How can it be that UNHCR has recognised 113,000 refugees in the region—a fairly large number in relation to Ghana's population—if, as she says, no general risk of persecution arises in Ghana and that we can therefore legitimately place Ghana on the special list of countries that are not supposed to give rise to any refugees? I believe the term used by lawyers in such cases is: res ipsa loquitur—the facts speak for themselves. If there are 113,000 refugees in neighbouring countries, that means that Ghana must be a country that gives rise to a flow of people recognised by the UNHCR as coming within the 1951 convention.
To repeat my remarks in relation to the earlier amendment, the noble Baroness again places far too much reliance on the existence of elections and constitutions. There are plenty of countries all over the world where elections are held but which do not observe human rights. Ghana is not the only one in that category. The Minister's quotations from the State Department report were selective. The State Department said that the elections were controversial; that the international monitors acknowledged irregularities; and that the four opposition parties claimed massive fraud in the elections and subsequently boycotted them.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I did say that the elections were controversial and that the opposition parties boycotted them. I also said that there were irregularities, mainly stemming from the very inaccurate and rather outdated register. I properly made both those points in the course of my remarks about Ghana.
Lord Avebury: That was not the only subject of irregularity. Certainly I concede that the noble Baroness mentioned the registers. They were a source of vehement complaint by the opposition parties. However, it was by no means the only case that was made against the validity of the presidential elections, as the noble Baroness said.
With regard to the rest of her comments, we rely on the State Department and Amnesty International. I was interested in her comment that both said that there were no known cases of disappearance in Ghana. I know that
1090
that was the case in relation to the State Department report. However, I am not familiar with the reference to any statement made by Amnesty International. Its annual report for 1995 has not yet appeared, and I believe will not do so until July or August of this year. I should therefore be very interested to know from where the noble Baroness received that information.
I spoke to the Ghana researcher from Amnesty International earlier today. Certainly that person did not tell me that, in the opinion of Amnesty International, there had been no disappearances. I quoted a case that came to my notice only today of two people alleged to have taken part in the coup plot who had been in custody for something like 20 months. They appear to have vanished while being moved from one prison to another. So at least one case of disappearance was drawn to the Minister's attention during the course of this debate.
Clearly my earlier remarks made no impression on her; nor did they in the case of Bulgaria. I shall have to leave the comments made this afternoon to speak for themselves, and for the Committee to judge, in the light of cumulative evidence that has been and will be presented on the four countries with which we are dealing now, whether we shall seek to overturn the order to designate these countries when it is placed before the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 7, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Salmon and Migratory Trout) Order 1996
7.35 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 20th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order prohibits fishing for salmon and migratory trout in the area designated, which covers rivers and streams in the counties of Dyfed and West Glamorgan. The main rivers affected are Solva, Western and Eastern Cleddau, Taf, Tywi, Gwendraeth Fach, Gwendraeth Fawr and Loughor. The order covers all rivers and streams which reach the sea between St. David's Head and Port Eynon Point.
Noble Lords will know that, following the "Sea Empress" oil spill, we attempted to secure prohibition on salmon and sea trout fishing by means of voluntary arrangements. However, we could not he absolutely secure on that. Therefore, this order had to

1091
be put into place as a precautionary measure to ensure that consumer safety was fully protected at the start of the fishing season on 20th March.
The order prohibits the taking of salmon and sea trout, properly known as sewin, in those areas, and their movement, supply and sale. We considered whether other migratory fish should be included in the prohibition order. We were advised, however, that fish such as the twaite, shad and sea lamprey are both rare and not targeted by anglers; the allis shad is a protected species and did not require inclusion; eels, primarily caught in the lower parts of the rivers, were covered by the prohibition order covering sea fisheries; and eels in the freshwater area beyond are prohibited from being caught in the close season between 14th March and 16th June.
The Government of course understand the frustration and concern of leisure and hobby fishermen. It has been suggested that we could have made other arrangements to ensure the protection of food safety. But any other form of prohibition would still have contained an element of risk, and we could not enter into an arrangement where some loopholes continued to exist.
For instance, we felt that a "catch and release" scheme would have been difficult to police and enforce; it would also have caused confusion among fishermen. We could not be certain that some fish would not have ended up on the table.
We also considered whether it might have been possible to postpone the start of the fishing season; but any change would have involved protracted procedures for the introduction of new by-laws by the former National Rivers Authority; we could not afford the time to go through that process; this was an emergency incident requiring emergency powers to put in place urgent and secure action.
With the cold spring, the fish were late in starting their run and we were not able to catch any for testing until after 20th March. We have now managed to catch and test enough fish to give a clear picture of contamination. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the results are most encouraging. We are not quite yet in a position to revoke this order, but we expect to be able to do so in the near future.
The House will know that these rivers are of significant economic value; the Government share the House's concern that restrictions should be removed at the earliest possible moment. Anglers and fisheries owners have shown considerable restraint and forbearance at this difficult time. Equally, they and we are anxious to ensure that the ban is removed only when we are satisfied that no danger exists and that the renowned reputation in this area for high quality fishing and food is maintained.
We are clearly concerned about economic losses and I welcome the fact that fishermen have organised a compensation fund claims panel to deal with the insurers. That covers the order at hand. I do not doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will have some questions to ask me; but, for the moment, I beg leave to move the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 20th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Lucas.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his explanation and in particular the words he was able to say towards the end of his introduction which shows that substantially more optimistic conclusions can be drawn today than were available in another place on 2nd April when the order was before another place.
The rivers in question include the Cleddau and the Taf—not the Taff, which is the river that runs into Cardiff—the Tywi, the Gwendraeth Fach, the Gwendraeth Fawr and the Llwchwr. Those—in particular the Tywi—are extremely important to the economy of West Wales. The Salmon and Sea Trout magazine recently described the Tywi as the best salmon and sewin river in Britain. Few who have fished on it would doubt that that is correct. Thousands of local people depend on fishing and fishing-related activities. The estimate of value to the local economy is in the region of between £5 million and £10 million a year. It is very helpful to hear what the Minister said; but the fishing season on the Tywi, for instance, starts in March and finishes in October.
This is my specific question: is it the Government's policy that anyone who suffers loss as a result of the "Sea Empress" and in consequence of this order should be compensated fairly and properly? I believe that is the Government's policy. Therefore I need to refine my question in this way. What is the precise basis of compensation going to be? What are the parameters which the Government consider appropriate? What about, for instance, those who have already bought their fishing permits—which are extremely expensive—for a season which is going to be curtailed? Are the owners of riparian rights going to be compensated; amateur anglers' associations; restaurant owners; those who run hotels and guest houses in the area; people who make their livelihood from fishing tackle shops?
There is quite a span of activity composed in those questions, I well understand. If the Minister feels that he would rather write to me, I equally understand that because of course the situation is changing day by day. But this has been a catastrophe to the local economy as well as to the local ecology. Is the Minister able to indicate at all the period of time which is likely to elapse before the order can he revoked? A part of the season has gone, not the best part I concede, but is it anticipated that the order will be withdrawn certainly before the September run of sewin? These are very important questions. As I said earlier I quite understand that the detail may not be available readily and I am perfectly happy with a written response. Other than that, I have no further observations.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, to reply to the second question first, the phrase I used was "in the near future" and that was intended to mean in the near future as ordinarily used by English people and not as ordinarily used by government spokesmen. If I were to promise to write to the noble Lord there would he a reasonable

1093
expectation that the order would be off before the letter arrived, given the length of time it normally takes to get letters out of the Government. So I hope for good news on that.
Samples of salmon and sea trout collected from the rivers affected by the order show only low levels of total hydrocarbons concentration and there is no sign of "Sea Empress" Forties Crude. We are encouraged by that. The chemical analysis of the sampling regime is being complemented by taint testing by panels of taste experts. I can report that they are having a great deal of pleasure from some very well cooked sewin in particular, and this work is also showing an encouraging outcome. When this is complete, we should have a clear indication of how quickly these restrictions can be removed.
So far as the sea fisheries are concerned (which are not strictly the subject of debate today) I should also like to say that the results for fin fish are encouraging. We are hoping that we shall be able to make some announcement on that but not, perhaps, at the same time as we lift the order for river fishing. But we are considering very carefully whether some variation can be made to the sea fishing order to exclude fishing for salmon and sea trout through the river mouth nets at the same time as the order we are debating this evening is lifted.
So far as compensation is concerned, that is a matter for the insurers and the international oil pollution fund. The basic principle is that any economic loss is covered. Anyone who has suffered economic loss as a result of this should be, if they so wished and if they consider their loss significantly sufficient, applying to the insurers and to the compensation fund for a recovery of damages. For those in the industries which might suffer slightly more longer-term damage, such as tourism, the effect on whose business might not be evident until the end of the summer season, they will have to wait until they know what the damage is until they can claim, unless they qualify as a hardship case, in which case the hardship fund is there to help them out immediately. With those words of comfort, I commend the order to the House.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am bound to say that was a most helpful and genuinely encouraging series of replies. They will be rejoicing in the "Salutation Arms" at Nantgaredig this evening, particularly when they hear that anyone who suffered economic loss is likely to recover, West Wales being what it is. I am very grateful that the Minister has been able to be so candid on this occasion because it is an issue which affects so many people. I am most obliged.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.45 to 8.35 p.m.]

Asylum and Immigration Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 8:
Line 16, at end insert (", but no such order shall include India").
The noble Lord said: I was very glad to hear from the Minister with regard to the last amendment that she and her department relied extensively on the evidence of Amnesty International because, as she will be aware, Amnesty International has recently published—I believe at the beginning of last month—a paper listing its long-standing concerns about the human rights situation in India. It lists torture, ill treatment of detainees and prisoners, and unfair trials of political prisoners. It says that the forces of law and order have used extrajudicial methods of exercising control, particularly in regions of internal armed conflict; that many people have disappeared after being taken into custody; that legal safeguards for detainees are ignored; and that judicial remedies are not available to the victims or their relatives. That is a point of particular importance, bearing in mind what the noble Baroness said on the earlier amendment; namely, that in deciding what countries to put on the list for designation particular regard would be paid to the availability of remedies for people who say that their human rights have been violated.
Special laws continue to deprive the people of protection, despite the fact that the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (known as TADA) was allowed to lapse in May 1995. In Jammu and Kashmir, the Public Safety Act is used for preventive detention and many of the provisions of TADA have been incorporated into the ordinary law. I want particularly to refer to the situation in the Punjab and in Jammu and Kashmir.
I take first the Punjab where the situation is better than it was, but it is still not good. The impunity enjoyed by the security forces in respect of earlier disappearances and extrajudicial executions is still maintained. The Foreign Office pointed out to me that, according to press reports, in 1992 there were 4,000 deaths; in 1993 there were 394; in 1994 there were 50; and in 1995 there were only 4. But it is dangerous to believe everything that one reads in the press. Even though the trend is downward, it does not mean to say that being an activist in Sikh politics or in human rights is now a safe occupation.
One particularly high profile case, of which I imagine the noble Baroness will be aware, is that of Mr. Jaswant Singh Khalra, a very well-known human rights activist, in which there are good grounds for thinking that he was extrajudicially murdered in custody. The Minister who deals with that area in the Foreign Office, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, tells me that our High Commission in New Delhi is monitoring the case closely and has raised it several times with the Indian Government. The Supreme Court of India decided last November to ask the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct an inquiry into Mr. Khalra's whereabouts and to report within three months. The deadline was then extended to the end of April and it is important that we should evaluate the

1095
present state of affairs in Punjab in the light of the CBI's findings. If those responsible for Mr. Khalra's disappearance and probable murder are arrested, a signal will be given to people in the law enforcement agencies who commit crimes that they are no longer going to be above the law as they have been for so many years past. If, however, there is further procrastination, or worse still, the CBI has nothing to say about the case, it will be clear that the situation with regard to impunity is as bad as ever, so this would be the wrong moment to form any conclusions about whether there has been any general improvement in the authority's attitude to the rule of law.
That case is not unique. I use it simply as an example. I give just one other example of the way that things work in Punjab. I refer to the case Harjit Singh, son of Kashmir Singh, who disappeared following his arrest on 29th April 1992. I use that case as an example to illustrate what happens if people complain to the courts. A three-year inquiry was followed by a report to the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chandigarh on 29th November 1995, but no conclusions were reached by that court, partly because of the lack of co-operation by the authorities and deliberate obstruction in the form of harassment and intimidation of witnesses, and partly because the Sessions Court seems to have been dilatory in pursuing its inquiries. The state failed to produce any evidence to support its claim that Harjit Singh had been killed in an "encounter" on 11th May 1992, the usual routine explanation which is given for cases of disappearance in Punjab.
The Parliamentary Human Rights Group wrote to the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court on 22nd March, suggesting that it should conduct its own investigation which might reveal some interesting material about why the inquiries by the lower court had taken so long, but so far we have had no reply.
As to whether or not it is safe for Sikh activists to return to India, there are several known cases where deportees have suffered violations of their human rights. I refer to the case of Kuldeep Singh who, after being deported from Germany following the rejection of his application for political asylum, was arrested by the Delhi police, taken to his house and questioned, using third-degree methods to extract information from him about how he got to Germany. I refer next to the case of Devinder Singh Bhullar, known as "Deepak", a known Khalistani militant from Dayalpura village. He was picked up by the police in 1995 and deported from Germany. It was reported that after he had been returned, he was produced in court and charges were made against him, but nobody has been able to ascertain that because the proceedings were conducted in camera.
Mr. Pal Singh Kooner was subjected to abuses after returning to India on holiday. He was not deported. Nevertheless, his case illustrates the dangers to someone active in Sikh politics because it happened as recently at 12th January 1995. In short, it is not safe to return Sikh activists or human rights workers who are refused asylum in the United Kingdom.
Turning now to Kashmir, it has been estimated by the All-Parties Hurriyat Conference, the umbrella organisation which includes most of the parties opposed
1096
to Indian rule of the portion of the state they have occupied since 1947, that since the intifada began in January 1990, 42,160 people have been killed, 27,021 wounded and 35,836 disabled for life. There is abundant evidence of continuing extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture, arbitrary detention, sexual abuse and collective punishment of villages and towns. As the US State Department says,
"Under the J & K Disturbed Areas Act, and the Armed Forces (J & K) Special Powers Act, both passed in July 1990, security forces have extraordinary powers, including authority to shoot suspected lawbreakers and those disturbing the peace, and to destroy structures suspected of harbouring militants or arms".
The Government's perception of the situation in Kashmir is of return to relative order, as I think the noble Baroness said in an earlier intervention. I am not sure how closely she monitors the situation, but we are constantly drawing the attention of Ministers to events that have happened very recently which indicate a continuing pattern of abuse which is as bad as anything that has happened in the past. The Foreign Office knows, for example, about the killing of Mr. Jalil Andrabi which happened at the end of March. It knows about a case even more recent than that when armed police entered the precincts of the Hazratbal Shrine in Srinagar, one of the holiest places in Kashmir, and after some altercation shot dead 11 members of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front who were in the precincts of the shrine. When the rest of them withdrew to the shrine itself, a bargain was reached by the intercession of one of the people who had been custodian of that place, that they were to withdraw from the shrine, and they were then to he given free movement by the Indian authorities. When they withdrew to a building nearby, the Indian authorities broke the bargain and stormed the building, killing 24 people and reducing the building to rubble.
In summary, that is the situation in Kashmir at the moment. The noble Baroness when she comes to reply will have to say how you can reconcile a situation of gross human rights violations such as we have there with the placing of India on any list which accelerates the procedures for dealing with applicants for asylum from such countries. At this late hour I shall rest my case there, although I know that there are others who would like to say more on the question of Kashmir in particular. I beg to move.
Viscount Waverley: I wish to speak on the complexities of Kashmir. I accept that there is international concern. I visited the region, including refugee camps, on the Pakistan side of the ceasefire line. It might be of some assistance to offer to the Committee a quick overview which illustrates those complexities.
This is arguably a three-sided dispute. India's perspective focuses on the bilateral nature of a dispute between India and Pakistan. India does not countenance foreign intervention, including from the United Nations. Its position is premised on legal, historical, political, strategic and secular arguments. India criticises Pakistan for assisting and encouraging terrorism and militancy, as well as for "internationalising" the issue. Its response to criticism of the military's record on human rights is to point to the improved openness and transparency.

1097
To Pakistan, Kashmir is unfinished business, an international dispute to be settled according to the relevant UN resolution, through a UN-supervised plebiscite to decide accession to either India or Pakistan.
To the Kashmiris, this is not simple a dispute between two sovereign nations, but a conflict among three parties. They insist on their right to self-determination, as described in a number of Security Council resolutions. Independence must be seen as a viable option to be weighed alongside accession to either India or Pakistan.
The positions of the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union are broadly similar. The United Kingdom maintains excellent relations with both India and Pakistan and both are members of the Commonwealth. Finally, I have spoken to both High Commissioners on the merits of the issue before us today. They wholeheartedly support the Government's position, as do I, and would so urge Members of your Lordships' Committee.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before we conclude the discussion on Amendment No. 8, I wish to make one or two brief points. First, I wish to pay tribute to the noble Baroness. Though there may be disagreement on many issues concerning this Bill and the matters around it, she shows a remarkable degree of patience and endurance. For that she deserves full praise.
Secondly, the arguments adduced by my noble friend Lord Avebury indicate the difficulties of a white list. I fear that the Government will find that it attracts to the discussion of what should and should not be on the list of so-called designated countries, the knowledge—it is a detailed knowledge—of people like my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Waverley. It will therefore be an almost impossible line to hold. I hope therefore that the Minister will take back some thoughts to the department—of which she is a jewel—that indicate that the whole attempt to try to produce a designated list will be marked by all kinds of pitfalls and difficulties. She may well come to wish that the proposal had never been advanced because the knowledge from all sides of this Chamber is so very deep that she will find that the attempt to put almost any country on the list will be fraught with difficulty.
Baroness Blatch: First, there is to be another substantial debate regarding all of these matters if the amendments are not accepted by the Committee tonight. It is interesting that different people speak from different perspectives; some see it through the eyes of specific individual cases; others take the overview and understand the complexities of interrelationships between different parties both within that country and how that country relates to its neighbours and, indeed, how it relates to its more international friends in the United States and Britain.
I want to continue to remind the Committee that we are talking about a country that has an increasing number of applicants to Britain, the majority of which do not qualify under the 1951 convention for asylum status. It is only that qualification, plus the criteria I read
1098
out earlier, that will be taken into account. But nothing inhibits or precludes proper consideration of every single case that comes before the Home Office for consideration under the asylum procedures.
I made some comments in relation to India when responding to points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, earlier. Perhaps I may add to them.
The Indian economy is the sixth largest in the world according to IMF studies and based on purchasing power parity. However, it has a number of serious structural problems and India is one of the 20 poorest countries in the world. There are areas of great poverty and in agricultural areas such as the Punjab, the poor farmers have an economic motive in claiming asylum overseas. Our assessment is based on independent monitoring. In addition to reports from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we take account of the views of other western governments, independent press reporting and reports from organisations such as Amnesty International. I shall return to that in a moment.
Militant unrest in the Punjab, which was under direct rule from Delhi from 1987–1992, has now largely subsided. The Sikh campaign for greater autonomy continues to be an issue, but the restoration of relative calm has meant it has recently been possible again to hold elections in the state. Participation in elections has risen steadily since 1992 while violence has reduced significantly. There were over 4,000 deaths during 1992, but 394 in 1993. In 1994 under 50 people were reported killed. The economy of the Punjab, traditionally India's most prosperous state, is again flourishing.
Amnesty International—specifically mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—reports and the US Government State Department Human Rights reports allege that there continue to be significant human rights abuses, despite extensive constitutional and statutory safeguards. Those include extrajudicial executions, torture and reprisal killings by security forces fighting separatist insurgents in Kashmir; extrajudicial executions by the police in the Punjab; torture, rape and deaths of suspects in police custody throughout India; and detention for prolonged periods without charges under special security legislation.
However, the same US State Department report details action that has been taken by the Indian Government to counter this situation. A National Human Rights Commission was established in 1993 and that has been described in the report as an,
"effective advocate for human rights".
One of its main priorities is torture and death in police custody and magistrates appear to be complying with the NHRC's directive to report all custodial deaths.
The State Department report also describes how the courts have been more active in prosecuting cases of custodial abuse, while the Supreme Court ordered the prosecution of a number of police officers accused of murder and fake encounter killings, and investigation of other cases of police abuse and negligence.
The insurrection in the Kashmir valley is India's major internal problem. Violence continues between militants seeking secession from India—a point made by

1099
the noble Lord, Lord Waverley—and the Indian security forces. The heavy-handed response of the Indian security forces to Kashmiri militants further alienated Kashmiri Moslems and encouraged increased support for Kashmiri militants crossing over from Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. An estimated 200,000 Hindus have fled the Valley since 1990, many of whom are now living in refugee camps. India continues to pursue a tough counter-insurgency policy. The Indian press report that over 10,000 people have been killed since the insurgency began.
The Indian Government announced their intention to hold elections in Kashmir in order to get a political process going in the state. Those are currently scheduled for May 1996, the same time as the Indian general election.
There has been international concern about the need to respect human rights; the importance of greater openness in bringing wrongdoers to justice; and of allowing investigations by international human rights organisations. The Indian Government have taken a number of steps to meet those concerns. The National Human Rights Commission set up in 1993 has shown an encouraging readiness to criticise the actions of the Indian authorities and the security forces. The Government also allowed greater access to Kashmir. A delegation of EU Ambassadors visited Kashmir in April 1995 and were given free access, including to detention centres. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights visited in May 1995. The Government recently agreed to give the International Red Cross a long-term monitoring role in Kashmir. It is also the case that the victims of abuse tend to move to other parts of India which are safer for them and rarely seek entry to the United Kingdom.
Various areas of India, particularly the state of Gujerat, have seen incidents of communal violence between Hindus (who form the majority of the Indian population) and Moslems (who form some 12 per cent. of the population). That came to a head following the demolition of the mosque at Ayodhya in December 1992 by fanatical Hindus. The police took strong measures to contain the riots which ensued. At least 550 people died and 2,500 were injured in those disturbances. The Bharatiya Janata Party, a Hindu party, was accused of fomenting the attack at Ayodhya and of seeking to exploit the disturbances which followed. The Indian Government responded by imposing President's Rule on states governed by the BJP, banning both Hindu and Moslem militant groups and arresting those who were actively involved in inciting communal violence.
India is a secular state—as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—and freedom of religion is provided for in the constitution. Moslems, in common with other religious groups, live, work and worship without interference from the Government. Moslems hold prominent positions in both the public and private sectors. The Indian Union Moslem League holds two seats in the lower house of the Indian Parliament.
Obviously I cannot comment on individual cases which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has just brought to the Committee's attention. I accept that there have
1100
been incidents pertinent to this debate. On Kashmir, there has been international concern about the need to respect human rights, the importance of greater openness in bringing wrongdoers to justice, and of allowing investigations by international human rights organisations.
The Indian government have taken a number of steps to meet those concerns. The National Human Rights Committee, set up in 1993, has shown an encouraging readiness to criticise the actions of the Indian authorities and security forces. For all of those reasons, and given that the people about whom we are now talking are not people who usually seek asylum—often they seek haven within the Indian continent without coming here—the truth is that those who have been seeking asylum have not qualified in the main under the United Nations Convention. Their cases have been fully considered, with all the rights of appeal, and the individual cases will continue to be fully considered on their merits.
For all those reasons, I invite the Committee to consider designation, which creates just a presumption, but which does not deny individuals the right to be considered properly and substantively, and also does not deny the right of appeal.
Baroness Seear: One fully understands the enormous difficulties in a country the size and variety of India, but if the countries and the circumstances that the noble Baroness has just described qualify for the white list, what on earth do we have to do to be black?
Baroness Blatch: First of all, I have not conceded black and white. I do not use those terms. It is the noble Baroness and her colleagues who have been using those terms throughout the course of the day.
I have given both the criteria for consideration to enter—not the white list, as the noble Baroness calls it, but the designated list—and said that that would be a matter for both Houses to consider. I have also given the statistics for these particular seven countries, where there are many and growing numbers of applications, most of which do not qualify under the United Nations Convention of 1951. It is for those reasons that the countries are designated.
That still does not deny full and proper consideration of an application. All that happens is that, following a substantive consideration, it is determined whether the certificate should be given or not. The presumption is in favour of the certificate, but if the particular circumstances of an applicant are such that the applicant qualifies, that applicant will be given asylum.
Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble she has taken in putting together a considerable weight of evidence to form her reply, even though she has been rather selective in her choice of material. It is on the basis of that selectivity that decisions are made whether to include countries such as India on the list.
I have not used the term to which the Minister takes objection during the whole of these proceedings. It is a coinage of the newspapers and not something that any noble Lord invented for the purposes of this debate.

1101
Whatever you call the list, to get a country onto it you examine facts and circumstances of the kind we have been discussing in relation to India, and you build up a picture from the individual case to the general. When I cite individual cases it is not because they are the only ones known to me. I could keep the Committee here a great deal longer if I were to relate all the individual cases that have been drawn to the attention of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group. In deference to the feelings of the Committee I shall not do that. It is sufficient merely to draw attention to some examples of a situation which is all-pervasive.
When the Minister says that these things are being addressed by the Indian authorities and that the National Human Rights Commission is doing a wonderful job, I wonder whether she knows that the legislation which set up the National Human Rights Commission specifically barred it from investigating any allegations of human rights abuses in Kashmir. I do not see the Minister assenting or denying that proposition, but it is a fact. If she goes back to the parent legislation, she will find that the National Human Rights Commission is forbidden to look at anything that happens in Kashmir. Extra-statutorily, it has done so in one particular case only where the Government invited it to look at a massacre which occurred in a town called Bijbehara where something like 50 peaceful demonstrators were killed by the Indian armed forces.
That massacre has already been investigated by Justice Bahauddin Farooqi, who took evidence from a great number of villagers who were eyewitnesses to the tragedy. The National Human Rights Commission relied entirely on information supplied to it by the government and the authority of the state. It more or less repeated the conclusions of Justice Bahauddin Farooqi that these people had been extra-judicially killed. But that was the only incident of which I know where the Human Rights Commission has intervened to examine a case of human rights violations in the state of Jammu in Kashmir.
The Minister said also that there is greater access to Kashmir by outside organisations, and she quotes specifically the European Union ambassadors and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. But if she looks at the reports of the individual rapporteurs from the UN Human Rights Commission, and of the working groups which report to the Commission, she will find that none of them has been allowed entry. The report of January 15th 1996 of the working group on enforced or involuntary disappearances said:
"It is the view of the Government of India that the suggestion of the working group regarding a visit to India is deemed inappropriate and unnecessary."
The special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions, Mr. Bacre Waly Ndiaye, in his report of 25th January 1996, expresses his dismay at allegations of deaths under torture and the lethal force used by security forces in their efforts to curb the separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir. Due to the systematic allegations of violations of the right of life in India, the special rapporteur would like to reiterate his
1102
interest in visiting India. He is concerned that no substantial progress has been made since 1993 regarding his proposed visit.
The special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, Dr. Nigel Rodley—a citizen of the United Kingdom, by the way—devotes no fewer than 122 paragraphs of his report of 16th January 1996 to India, just displacing Turkey, which has 94 paragraphs, from the head of the league table. A great deal of the material in Dr. Rodley's section on India relates to Kashmir. In the parent report of 9th January 1996, he concludes by saying that he continues to believe that the situation remains such that a visit to the country would be desirable and he regrets that the Government have not yet deemed it appropriate or opportune to invite him.
So there we are. The noble Baroness can quote the EU ambassadors and high commissioners, but these are the people whose job it is to investigate particular violations of human rights on behalf of the UN Human Rights Commission. Amnesty International has still not been allowed to visit Jammu and Kashmir and neither has the Parliamentary Human Rights Group of which I have the honour to be chairman.
The noble Baroness says that holding elections in Jammu and Kashmir is a step forward. I can assure the noble Baroness that that is not how it is seen by the people of Kashmir. They believe that it is entirely wrong to attempt to hold elections in circumstances where there is a curfew which begins at five o'clock in the afternoon, half a million troops are pinning the inhabitants down in their houses, no freedom of assembly or expression exists and the electoral register is six years old. How can one expect to have a proper and fair election under such circumstances?
I appeal to the noble Baroness not to place such reliance on elections as has been evident from the three speeches she has made on Bulgaria, Ghana and India, as though they were a panacea and that once one had people in the voting booths that would solve all the human rights problems that existed prior to that date. I can assure the noble Baroness that, because of the vehement opposition of all the parties in conference to a process of elections which does not allow them to express their opinion on the one issue which is of great importance to them, namely, the constitutional status of the territories of Jammu and Kashmir, they will not allow elections to be held. If the Indians insist on going ahead with elections the turn-out will be 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. So, please, do not let us get the impression that having an election in May is going to solve the problem or make it go away. It will simply exacerbate it by antagonising and raising the hostility of people still further to the continuation of Indian rule.
I know that there is no point in putting this matter to a Division at this late hour. However, I hope that some of what has been placed on the record this evening will help the Committee to decide that it is wrong in principle when the time comes for us to vote on an order which the Secretary of State will place before us calling for this and other states, which have no reason for being on it, to be placed on a list which makes their inhabitants

1103
subject to special procedures giving them fewer rights than other asylum seekers in the United Kingdom. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 8, as an amendment to Amendment No. I, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 9:
Line 16, at end insert (", but no such order shall include Pakistan").
The noble Lord said: As it is getting on, I shall not hold the Committee up at great length on the question of Pakistan, but I must reiterate a couple of the points which have already been made. There is the question of extrajudicial killings in the city of Karachi and in Sind, generally, which, as the noble Baroness is aware, is a subject of anxiety to the US State Department, Amnesty International and to many other human rights authorities.
Here again, the rapporteurs could play a useful role in reducing the level of violence. Every day we get reports from Karachi of killings by the security forces, and by the police and the rangers. I have no doubt that there are also killings by the MQM, which is the main organisation responsible for the Mohajirs—that is to say, the people who came into Pakistan at the time of Partition when they had to flee from India, but who still largely consider themselves to be a separate people. Because they have organised themselves into a political party which seeks a degree of separation from the state, there is a continuing political difficulty which has turned into a violent confrontation.
Both sides say that they want to end it by coming to the conference table and deciding how the constitutional future of the Sind province and of Karachi itself shall he determined. In the meantime, every single day people are being murdered on the streets and are disappearing. In those circumstances, if refugees from Karachi came to this country it would be difficult for us to claim that the general situation in that area and the province as a whole was not such as to cause a general refugee problem.
The question of the Ahmadis has also been mentioned. In the past few years I have had a great deal to do with the Ahmadis. I have had a good deal of discussion with them as to the infamous Ordinance 20 which was introduced under General Zia's regime. That penalises the Ahmadis so that in religious matters they cannot express themselves in the way that they wish. They cannot say that they are Moslems, use the call to prayer, display sentences from the Koran on their mosques and congregate to pray in the way that they wish. The upholding of this legislation by the Supreme Court last year has placed the whole of the Ahmadi community at a severe disadvantage. The effect of the legislation is to cause hostility on the part of the public as a whole toward the Ahmadi community. The problem is not simply the existence of Ordinance 20 and the legal action taken against Ahmadis in the courts. Serious though that is—it is in contravention of internationally accepted norms as to freedom of religion—the effect of the legislation on the minds of ordinary people is to incite them to think of the Ahmadis as being in some
1104
way unacceptable to Moslems as a whole and to the Pakistani state. Many Ahmadis are murdered. The murders are not properly investigated. A good many Ahmadis have had to flee into exile, as the noble Baroness will be aware.
Notwithstanding the fact that the rule of law generally prevails in Pakistan and that it has a democratically elected government—I concede this point to the noble Baroness—I believe that the situation in that country is somewhat different. There have been changes of government from one party to another. I believe that, on the whole, the democratic system works far better than in other countries that we see on the list. However, the fact that there are democratic elections is no guarantee that human rights will be observed. In the case of Pakistan in particular, I do not believe that it qualifies for inclusion in a list of this kind. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I deal specifically with Pakistan. Christians enjoy religious freedom under the law, and the majority of Christians continue to practise their religion openly. The Ahmadis—a minority Moslem sect—are subject to discriminatory religious legislation, but convictions remain rare. Some harassment of both Christians and Ahmadis occurs, but it is not systematic or government-led. Asylum claims from these groups will continue to be considered carefully and on their merits, but it should not he assumed that all are automatically well founded. The great majority of applications from Pakistan are not by Christians or indeed Ahmadis.
Pakistan is a poor country with great extremes in the distribution of wealth. The biggest sector of the colony is agriculture. Prosperity in most sectors is confined to a few family cartels, while unemployment grows among ordinary people. Although the framework of Pakistan's legal system is based on the constitution, it inherited many aspects of English common law filtered through British Indian law. The framework unites with elements of Islamic law to produce federal and provincial statutes. According to the Constitution of Pakistan, the judiciary enjoys almost complete independence from the executive.
Although Pakistan declared itself an Islamic republic in 1956, successive governments have guaranteed the civil rights of religious minorities. There is no systematic or government-led persecution of religious minorities, but discrimination and harassment exist. There are two main religious minorities which apply for asylum in the United Kingdom: Christians and Ahmadis. As I have said the Ahmadis are a minority Moslem sect, and are classified as non-Moslem under Pakistan law. There is no systematic or government-led persecution of Christians in Pakistan.
The constitution guarantees the civil rights of religious minorities, and Islamic law supports the constitutional position. Nevertheless, in parts of Pakistan Ahmadis face a problem. Most of Pakistan is peaceful, but there has been violence in Karachi and to a lesser extent in Hyderabad. The main reason for the violence is the confrontation between the MQM and the

1105
government, but ethnic and sectarian violence is also a feature. Shia and Sunni sectarian violence has occurred mainly in urban areas of the Punjab such as Jang, Faisalabad and Lahore. On occasions there has also been sectarian violence between Moslems, Ahmadis and Christians.
In terms of political rights and freedom in Pakistan, membership of political parties is widespread, and ordinary Pakistanis are neither discouraged from joining the party of their choice, nor are they harassed for their political opinion.
As a democracy there is freedom of opinion and assembly. Pakistan has a thriving newspaper industry with hundreds of titles, the vast majority of which are privately owned. In December 1985 freedom of the press was restored in principle when martial law was repealed and the constitution restored. In 1990 the press was further liberalised, and is now generally free to discuss public issues. The Government retain the power of confiscation for a wide range of prohibitions.
The case is that a small number of Christians suffer intimidation, vandalism and harassment by their non-Christian neighbours, or by misapplication of, or false accusations under, the blasphemy laws. The majority of Christians in Pakistan are, generally speaking, able to practise their religion openly. The stringency of the blasphemy laws has increased progressively since 1980 and may raise issues in exceptional cases and those are the ones that would be dealt with sympathetically and they are consistent with the United Nations Convention. Ahmadis are recognised as a minority religious group and their rights are safeguarded under the constitution.
Women in Pakistan: Pakistan's current constitution recognises the equality of men and women before the law, prohibits sexual discrimination within the civil service, and grants women the right to participate fully in all activities in the national arena. In 1979—I think the noble Lord is aware of this—Hudood Ordinances subordinated women's status to that of men. They brought together laws relating to theft, prohibition of alcohol and narcotics, "Zina" (rape, abduction, adultery and fornication), and "Qazf' (false accusation of Zina). In 1992 it was estimated that 2,000 women were held in prison under those ordinances. A further estimate concluded that 85 per cent. of women in police custody were sexually assaulted in detention.
However, in October 1992 the Sharif government approved an amendment to the code of criminal procedure that women should not be detained in police stations overnight and that they should only be interrogated in the presence of a close male relative. This amendment has yet to be passed by the National Assembly. Some organisations which aim to improve the status of women in Pakistan have emerged; various local groups offer legal and medical advice and assistance.
In January 1994, Benazir Bhutto established the first police station for women, administered exclusively by women. It remains to be seen whether further measures to improve the situation of women in Pakistan will follow.
1106
The point is being made that the majority of applicants from Pakistan do not succeed. Some do, and where they do, it is because the merits of the case are entirely consistent with the 1951 convention and, of course, there is additionally, for some, extra leave to remain.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I do not wish to prolong the Committee stage. I wish only at this stage to make one remark for the Minister to bear in mind. It seems to me that the very helpful descriptions that she has given us of the countries mentioned by my noble friend do, if anything, deepen one's worry about the designated list. I apologise for using the phrase, "the white list"; the Minister was absolutely right to pull me up. It is a phrase that has been used in journalism and it is not a phrase which ought to be used. I apologise for that.
The designated list, by the Minister's own submission, includes countries which have, in certain respects, troubling aspects in their handling of their citizens. What she has just said about the way in which the Pakistani police have dealt with some women detainees, in particular, does indeed deepen my own worries about the designated list. I should like her to consider very carefully before we come to the Report stage whether those names should be on that list.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If we are reaching the end of this series of debates about individual countries, I should like to add a few words to what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has just said.
I have listened attentively particularly to the Government replies. What struck me about them is the care which the Minister has taken not only to give the official viewpoint about human rights abuses—I am sure that she has been fair on the evidence available to her—but she has also gone out of her way to talk about the poverty in those areas and to answer in advance the arguments which might be made, but have not been made, about economic refugees from those countries.
If one starts by saying that a designated list which is justified because the poverty in those countries is going to push people out of those countries as economic refugees, then the list will he very extensive indeed. If we must accept the idea of a designated list, which I do not wish to do, I hope that we shall not feel that it is justified to include countries on that list because they are so poor that they will be an impetus for economic refugees who would not fall within the category of asylum seekers. That would seem to me to be extremely dangerous indeed.
Baroness Blatch: This has been an important, useful and informative debate. We shall clearly all reflect on what has been said. But at the end of the day, we are talking about an asylum Bill and having a fair but firm process and a genuine consideration of those people who come to this country seeking asylum.
We are bound by our European convention and United Nations obligations. But our starting point for a designated list is to select those countries from which we have the greatest number of applications and the

1107
highest number of refusals. That may be because there are economic migrants but there will be other reasons too. That is the starting point. I have given one example of a country where those criteria are met but about which we still take a view that the general level of human rights in the country is not acceptable, and for that reason the country is not on the list.
Having said that, we then go on to consider such factors as the stability of the country, the state's adherence to national and human rights instruments, democratic institutions, elections and political pluralism. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said about elections. He dismissed them as not being important. In fact, I believe that he said that it would be better not to have them. Elections are a first step. The noble Lord criticised me for saying that but they are a first step.
Lord Avebury: I did not say anything of the kind to the Minister. I said that elections are not a guarantee of human rights observations.
Baroness Blatch: We shall both read Hansard tomorrow, but the noble Lord did indeed make that point. I have never said nor have I claimed at the Dispatch Box that elections are a guarantee of anything. But they are a first step in the democratic process. The prediction was that only 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. would turn out if there were elections. However small is the turnout, it is a beginning and it is a first step. The opportunity to give people a voice is extremely important, however imperfect the system may be.
Elections and political pluralism are factors which are considered. Freedom of expression by individuals is considered, as is the extent to which there is a free press and the availability and effectiveness of legal avenues of protection and redress.
I end by making the point that if somebody arrives here with a well-founded fear of persecution which can be proven, irrespective of the kind of country from which he comes, his case will be given full consideration. It is only after such consideration that a determination is made as to whether or not there should be a certificate.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may say a few words in defence of my noble friend. I did not hear my noble friend say one word which could in any way be taken to denigrate elections. If he had said that, I am sure that there would have been protests from many parts of the Committee, including from these Benches.
My noble friend and other Members of the Committee attach the greatest importance to elections which are an essential guarantee of legitimacy. We use the same argument that was put by John Stuart Mill: however essential they are, by themselves they are not a sufficient guarantee of liberty because the people may desire to oppress a part of their number.
What one needs for a free country are both elections and a properly arranged rule of law. The praise of either of those things as necessary is not in any way meant to imply a denigration of the other. I hope that is now clear to every quarter of the Committee.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: I wish to clear up my views on elections and the misunderstanding which I think the noble Baroness may have arrived at because of something I said in relation to Jammu and Kashmir. The point there is that most of the people want either to become independent or to accede to Pakistan instead of being, as they are at present, under the rule of India. I do not wish to discuss the history of the matter, but the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir was a Hindu who took a majority Moslem state into the Indian Union in 1947. That is the cause of these difficulties because there is still a majority of Moslems in the Indian held part of Jammu and Kashmir who feel that they do not belong in the Indian polity and who would like another constitutional solution. In that particular case, if elections are held under the Indian constitution, under which every candidate has to take an oath of loyalty to the Indian state and no person may argue that different constitutional solutions for the territory are better than the one they have now, that is a bogus procedure. It is not a free and fair election which gives the people the opportunity of saying what kind of democratic system they would like to have.
Perhaps the noble Baroness will say to her friend, Mr. Narasimha Rao the Prime Minister of India, that this Government believe that a free and fair election—as in this country—is one that gives people total choice as regards the constitutional system that they want. If some people in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales wish to separate from the United Kingdom, it is permissible for them to form political parties to advocate that from an election platform and to publish newspapers that advocate those solutions. If that is the kind of process that the Government wish to see in Jammu and Kashmir, of course I shall support them wholeheartedly. However, when I have tried to put this point to Foreign Office Ministers—I have put it to Mr. Lennox-Boyd in the past, and now to Mr. Hanley—they refuse to he drawn on what they consider to be a free and fair election, and on what I consider to be a bogus procedure which does not give people any opportunity to express their views on the most important question that faces them.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I am rather puzzled. The noble Lord quite rightly criticised me for opening up a panoramic debate. We have dealt at some length with the problems of minorities in Pakistan and in Bulgaria. What we are concerned about in this debate is individuals. I am quite prepared to enter a panoramic debate with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord opposite as I have the same interest in history. However, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has referred to the problems of minorities.
I return to what I said earlier—for which the noble Lord criticised me—when I say that the debate concerning individuals is being lost in the problems of minorities. I suggest what I have suggested before; namely, that if anything terrible occurs to these minorities—let me take the example of Bulgaria, but Kashmir would be as worthy an example—we shall not be dealing with one or two people but with thousands.

1109
This debate has concentrated on a universal human problem of minorities. We are dealing with individuals. We are losing the point. Our fox has gone to earth.
Lord Avebury: If the noble Lord will forgive me, we are not dealing with minorities. We are dealing with elections. I sought to respond to the statement by the noble Baroness that I had said that I did not think elections were useful in solving human rights violations. In the specific case of Jammu and Kashmir, I sought to indicate why elections were an inappropriate response to the situation that those people face. In general, of course, we believe that elections are an important component of human rights. All I say to the noble Baroness is that one should not consider elections as a panacea.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that I may be forgiven for this intervention. We are on Amendment No. 9. We have now spent a quarter of the time apportioned to the Bill. I believe that the noble Lord has made his point well; I believe that the House has taken that point; and it is on the record. I wonder whether we could progress a little. I believe that we have about 25 minutes left for the business.
Lord Avebury: I was distracted by the intervention. I had been coming to the end of my remarks. I was about to say to the noble Baroness, as my noble friend has already done, how much I appreciate the immense trouble that she has taken to give full responses to the four amendments tabled on individual countries. I believe that the debate will turn out to be useful, not entirely for what the noble Baroness said, but for what she omitted to say. The debate illustrates the necessity for careful examination of the statements which have been promised by the Secretary of State in order to indicate the political and human rights conditions in each of the countries which it is proposed to place on the list.
In conclusion, I ask the noble Baroness whether it is possible for drafts of those papers to be presented to noble Lords prior to the debate. If we have any suggestions on how they should be amended, or how better to portray the human rights and political conditions in the countries concerned, perhaps we may submit our proposals. We did so as regards the Home Office's document on Nigeria, as the noble Baroness may remember. Many of those points were taken up. As I believe that we may claim to have slightly greater experience than the Home Office as regards what is happening in other countries, perhaps we could make a useful contribution towards the compilation of those papers.
However, the essence of the four debates has led me to the conclusion—I do not know about other noble Lords—that we have amply illustrated the fact that it is wrong to distinguish certain countries which are to be taken out of the mainstream and dealt with by another procedure within our asylum system. I believe that enough criticisms have been made of the human rights systems in each of those four countries—there are another three that we have not discussed—to indicate
1110
that the procedure is wrong in principle. We believe that such orders from the Secretary of State should be rejected and that no country should be singled out for the fast-track procedure. Having said that, I accede to the noble Baroness's suggestion and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 9, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 9A:
Line 16, at end insert ("and where the country concerned has indicated in writing its willingness to take the applicant.").
The noble Baroness said: I can move the amendment briefly. I shall speak more briefly than did my noble friend in moving the previous four amendments. However, it is important to recognise that there is a great tradition in British history, the tradition of the man or woman of conscience from John Bunyan onwards. My noble friend marvellously exemplifies the doggedness and determination of those men and women of conscience. They do not worry that everyone else wants coffee or to go to bed; they stick at it because they believe that the principle is right. I pay due tribute to my noble friend who has kept us debating for the past hour and a half.
Amendment No. 9A is a probing amendment. It is not addressed to those people who are returned to the countries on the designated list from which they come. We have discussed that situation in great detail; I do not wish to go over that ground again.
The amendment deals with the issue of people who are sent back to a friendly country, sometimes known as a third country. I am concerned with people on the designated list who may be returned to a third country rather than the country from which they originally came. I seek a written understanding of some kind in order to avoid the fairly cynical business of "pass-the-parcel". That has become, alas, a characteristic of the way in which we treat human beings in the world today. In other words, if you can land the refugees somewhere else, that is good enough, and you can wash your hands of them.
The amendment's purpose is to find out how far the Government will try to seek assurances from any country back to which they send someone, or to a third country to which they may have travelled on their way here. Do we try to discover whether such people will he accepted by that country?
I am sure that, like me, noble Lords have read of cases where refugees are shuffled from country to country. They are taken to airports, put on planes and sent back again and again. That is a disturbing characteristic of the modern world. I do not refer just to the United Kingdom but to all the countries of the European Union. One finds people being sent to and fro. Perhaps I may give one example of Zaïrean refugees who have been returned to Belgium. In most respects, Belgium is a democracy, a friendly country and a member of the European Union, but it has a disturbing tendency to send Zaïrean refugees back to Zaïre, one of the most brutal dictatorships that the world knows. I know because

1111
I once had the non-pleasure of chairing a meeting with President Mobutu who is by any standards a violent and brutal dictator.
I wish to ensure that we know that we are not returning asylum seekers, on the ground that they have a friendly country to which to return, to countries which might send them back to the country from which they started, and which could not be described as friendly. I believe that that is called refoulement. I wish to discover whether we have taken steps to ensure that refoulement will not occur when we return someone to such a country. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: This is an amendment of some importance. The UNHCR has observed that:
"It must be recognised that the notion that an asylum seeker ought to seek protection at the first available opportunity is not a principle of international law but rather a practice that some states have employed to limit the numbers of asylum seekers claiming refugee status in their own countries".
We are concerned here not about whether the country in question is law abiding and in general safe but whether the specific refugee is able to obtain access to the asylum process. I intend to refer to a number of cases in a moment, but before doing so I wish to put to the Minister a hypothetical case in which we are the third country. I shall be interested in her answer which will guide some of my behaviour in the course of later proceedings on the Bill.
Let us assume that there is a person with a well-founded fear of persecution in Chad. He wishes, being French-speaking, to claim asylum in France. Getting a flight out of Chad without being noticed is difficult as such flights are thin on the ground. So he escapes overland through Nigeria. He catches a plane from Lagos but can only find one to London and not Paris. Arriving in London he manages to make his way through to France which sends him back here under the third country rule. What do we do with that applicant? If we admit him to the process and allow him to claim asylum here, well and good. He will end up in a country where he does not speak the language rather than in one where he does, but his life and liberty will not be in danger, so perhaps no desperate harm is done. However, can the noble Baroness assure me that we will neither bounce him back to Paris which will set up a game of battledore and shuttlecock nor return him to Lagos?
The question of obtaining access to the process is crucial. I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the judgment of Mr. Justice Hidden last week in the case of ex parte Bostam. It concerned the status of Belgium as a safe third country. The court was much influenced, in finding Belgium not to be a safe third country for those particular applicants, by the case of Kwita, decided by the Conseil d'Etat in March 1995.
Belgium has what is known as the eight-day rule. That means that a person must claim asylum within eight days of arriving in Belgium. But of course in the case of people who have been in transit through Belgium before claiming asylum elsewhere, the question arises as to whether the eight days run from the first arrival in Belgium, or from the second. The Belgian Ministry of the Interior takes one interpretation; the Belgian Border Police takes the other.
1112
In the case of Kwita, who had been 12 days in Belgium and then claimed asylum in the UK and was sent back to Belgium under the safe third country rule, he was refused the right to claim asylum and sent back. That was the ground on which Mr. Justice Hidden decided that Belgium was not a safe third country.
We can find similar cases in most other countries of the European Union where the person was found not to be an asylum seeker because he could not get admission to the process. There is a case from the Netherlands, where the Dutch insisted that the woman was only in transit in Holland and readmittance was out of the question. The Home Office adjudicator said:
"Whether in fact the appellant was only in transit may he doubtful, but this is the view taken by the Dutch authorities on the evidence available to them. In the light of this latter, I cannot he satisfied that the applicant will be readmitted to Holland, nor that a claim for asylum would be considered by the Dutch authorities".
There are a number of other similar cases in the Netherlands, some of which were found to be proved by the Dutch ombudsman. It is one of the delights in dealing with what is in general a free country that authorities within the country itself may investigate these matters and find the complaints to be justified. However, no country is so free that it does not have technical restrictions on its asylum process.
I wonder, incidentally, if we rely heavily on the safe third country rule, whether because a great many planes land in London on the way to destinations in Continental Europe, we may get more people sent back to us than we send back to anywhere else. I wonder whether this process will be for the convenience of anybody at all.
If there is to be a safe third country procedure, it should be operated only by international agreement. That is the only tidy way to do it. That is what my noble friend's amendment asks. I am delighted to support it.
Baroness Blatch: I am in difficulty now, since neither the noble Baroness nor the noble Earl actually addressed the amendment on the paper before us. They talked about Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 on a similar subject. It would have been better to have had all these amendments grouped so that we could talk about returning people either to countries of origin, or indeed to third countries, and the arrangements being made for that. I shall therefore deal with the amendment before the Committee.
This amendment would make the certification procedure in designated country cases unworkable. In such cases, it would require us to consult with the authorities in the applicant's country of origin and obtain from it an undertaking that it would take the applicant back. That would have to take place before we could issue a designated country certificate. Third countries are a matter for another part of the Bill.
That is undesirable for a number of reasons. First, we have always taken the view that a country is responsible for its own nationals. The effectiveness of our control would be damaged if that principle were undermined. II we have considered a Ghanaian's asylum application and found that he is not a refugee, and that assessment has subsequently been confirmed by an adjudicator. removal would not put the failed applicant at risk. There

1113
is no reason why the process should involve a requirement to obtain the agreement of the Ghanaian authorities before removing a Ghanaian to his own country. There is also the whole issue of confidentiality in relation to that.
Secondly, designation involves a general assessment about whether there is a serious risk of persecution in a particular country. In designated country cases we shall still consider the substance of the asylum claim, and if the applicant is found to be a refugee then the issue of a certificate will not arise. But if the applicant has not demonstrated that the individual circumstances of his case merit the granting of asylum, then it will be appropriate to consider certifying his claim and applying the accelerated appeal procedure. The question of whether the authorities of the applicant's country of origin would give a written undertaking to take the applicant in question back is an entirely separate issue, distinct from both the merits of the asylum claim and the safety of the country.
Thirdly, the amendment removes one of the key benefits of certification. In cases where a designated country certificate is issued, an accelerated appeal procedure will apply. It simply does not make sense to introduce a requirement which would delay refusal of the asylum claim and the issue of the certificate. There is no reason why a case would be prevented from entering the accelerated procedure in the absence of such an undertaking.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness is attempting to argue that the procedure would be unworkable if we had to get the agreement of another country before returning anyone to them. I thought I put forward evidence to suggest that it was unworkable if we did not get such agreement. If we are both right, the conclusion is obvious: the procedure is unworkable.
Baroness Blatch: We are talking about two different parts of the Bill. We are talking about somebody who comes from a country, applies for asylum, has a substantive claim considered and, at the end of the day, is both refused at the substantive stage and fails on appeal, and returns to the country of origin. First, there is the point of confidentiality. To contact the country and say, "one of your population has applied for asylum and we are now returning them" would breach a confidentiality. Secondly, they come from that country; they have the documentation for that country, and therefore returning to their own country is not the issue that has been both spoken to by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, who talked, and gave examples of, people moving through one country to another and being returned to a third country. That is dealt with in another part of the Bill. This part of the Bill deals with country of origin and a failed application.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I apologise to the noble Baroness if the drafting of the amendment is poor. As I tried to indicate to her, the purpose was not to concern oneself with the return to the country of origin of a person seeking asylum. I was concerned about the possibility that we might miss a situation in which
1114
somebody from a country on a designated list was returned to a third friendly country because they had travelled through such a country without ascertaining that they could stay and enter the process, as my noble friend said, in that country. With respect, I found it very difficult to put down an amendment under Clause 2 or Clause 3 which would actually reach the case of people who came from a designated list country. Hence I apologise to her, especially at this late moment, if I have got the drafting wrong. I perceive that she anticipated my amendment was directed towards a somewhat different purpose. I hope she will accept that the amendment was directed towards an important principle. I apologise if it is in another part of the Bill; but I could not see how to capture, if I may say so, people who came from a designated list through a third country or were returned to a third country except under Clause 1 of the Bill. If the drafting is wrong, I hope at least she will accept the purpose of the probing amendment and will at some stage give us some assurances on the matter, though I appreciate what she said about the drafting being wrong. I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 10 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 inclusive.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved, as amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 10:
Leave out lines 17 to 23.
The noble Lord said: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 10 and 13 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
If anyone is living in a country where there is a gross abuse of human rights, it is extremely difficult for that individual to apply to the government who is persecuting him or her in order to get a passport to leave. Therefore, people in such circumstances do what any of your Lordships would do, they get hold of a forged passport in order to leave the country. Similarly, if the individual happens to have a passport already, and requires a visa to move to a country of safety, then because it is extremely difficult to wait for the period of time it takes a country to issue a visa, the normal and sensible thing to do—which anyone would do—is to obtain a forged visa in the passport. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the 1951 convention recognise that asylum seekers may have difficulty in obtaining the appropriate documentation and visas. Article 31 of the Geneva Convention specifically provides that asylum seekers who enter a country illegally should not be penalised.
But there is a further difficulty facing asylum seekers. It is not in fact possible through the normal processes, even if one could hang about waiting for a visa, to apply for a visa in order to become a refugee. There arc some exceptions, such as the British Government's scheme which took a number of Bosnians from Serb detention camps. They were given entry clearance in Zagreb and came here properly documented, not as refugees hill certainly with limited leave to remain. Other people who arrive with the proper permits as refugees are the

1115
Vietnamese who come under the special scheme from Hong Kong—the Vietnamese boat people. They arrive as refugees.
For the rest, I contend that it is virtually impossible to obtain a visa as a refugee for any country in the world. So what do people do? If they are able to go through the process of applying for a visa, they need a visa to visit Britain or another country as either students or visitors. Visas are granted for those purposes. That might be the only way in which a non-forged visa can be obtained by someone seeking to escape from a country where he is suffering persecution and reach a country of safety.
It is a Catch 22 situation. If those people apply for a visa, they apply on the basis that they will be students or visitors—or perhaps they come for business reasons. Clearly, that does not represent the purpose of their visit so they are caught in that way. British immigration or the immigration authorities of other western countries can say that deception has been practised in the process of obtaining a visa. So such individuals are in genuine difficulties. They may have to obtain forged documents or forged visas; or, if they apply for visas, they cannot apply for the reasons for which they want to apply, namely, to seek safety in a western country. That is very difficult.
Therefore, it is almost inevitable that in that process an asylum seeker may have to tell lies in order to get the documentation. The lies are either because the documents are forged or because untruths have to be told in order to obtain the visa to get from their country into a western country such as Britain. So the path to becoming an asylum seeker in a western country is an extremely difficult one. Indeed, there is no proper process through which it can happen.
It is not surprising that when asylum seekers happen to arrive at a point of entry to this country, say, at an airport or perhaps Dover, they may well be fearful about admitting what they have had to do to get here. They may be traumatised by their experiences in the country in which they were being persecuted. They may feel very uncomfortable about their documents and fearful that the British authorities at the point of entry might treat them badly and send them back immediately.
So people do what in the same circumstances I believe that we would all do. They seek to enter the country and find out from other people—perhaps people who have escaped from the same country from which they have escaped—how the situation is in this country and how best they can put in their claim as asylum seekers. So that is the way it happens in most cases.
The purpose of these amendments is to give people who come here in the circumstances that I have described at least the opportunity of not being fast-tracked in the procedures under the Bill or under the 1993 Act. I do that because I am afraid I still believe, despite the Minister's protestations this afternoon, that being fast-tracked puts the asylum applicant at a disadvantage compared with people who are not fast-tracked. There has to be some reason for fast-tracking people; it cannot be that the situation is different but the same. I believe that there are
1116
disadvantages in terms of the way in which the individual who is fast-tracked has his or her asylum claim considered. I have to believe that because I cannot understand why the Government are going through the problems of having parts of this Bill, with all the arguments that are taking place, unless there is something at the end of it that the Government want to achieve.
I contend, therefore, that these amendments would lessen the disadvantage facing asylum seekers who happened to come with documents which were not genuine, or who had made a false claim in the process of getting their visas. I suggest a very simple provision. It is supported by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and it is provided for in the 1951 convention. I would argue that the two amendments simply make the situation a little less difficult for those asylum seekers who have had to use such devices to find safety in this country in their escape from danger. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Earl Russell: It may save the time of the Committee if I speak now to Amendment No. 11. Perhaps my noble friend Lady Williams can speak to her Amendment No. 12 also. That would save us having several replies.
What the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has said about deception is extremely important, and I agree with every word of it. It is part of the culture of being a refugee. It is recognised as such in the UN convention under Article 31. It was, I believe, recognised by the noble Baroness in her helpful general reply on Second Reading. I am unable to lay my hands on that at the moment, but if my recollection agrees with that of the noble Baroness, I hope that we may take what has been said as correct.
The provisions will affect people who enter the country with forged passports, people who have lost their passports, or people who tell a story about their passport which is reasonable but which is nevertheless, not believed. That can happen. I do not want people to be at risk of telling a story that appears to them to be reasonable not to be believed. It is also a matter of concern to me whether the Home Office wishes them to come with passports or without because they can he penalised either way. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, they instinctively assume that being fast-tracked is being penalised, but if they come without a passport, they get caught for that also. A refusal letter says things like:
"The Secretary of State also notes that in spite of your claim that you were being harassed by the Ugandan authorities and you left that country in fear of persecution, you were able to leave Uganda through normal channels, using a passport issued in your own name.—The use of your passport further undermines your claim to have fled Uganda in the circumstances you allege."
The Government can have one of those arguments or the other, but they cannot have both of them. Which one are they going to give up?
Lord Avebury: Might I ask the noble Lady to reflect on the case of Dr. Muhammad al-Masari, the Saudi dissident?
Baroness Blatch: It is not easy.
Lord Avebury: I shall remind the noble Baroness of the circumstances of his case. When he left Saudi Arabia he went to the Yemen and obtained a Yemeni passport there. He came to the United Kingdom from the Yemen, presumably as a visitor but then applied for asylum after arriving here. The point I want to make to the noble Baroness is that ever since then her colleague in the Home Office, Miss Widdecombe, has referred to Dr. al-Masari as an illegal entrant, and she did so, as I understand it, on the basis that he possessed a Yemeni travel document and had obtained presumably an entry certificate in San'a as a visitor to come to the United Kingdom when in fact he had the intention of seeking asylum as soon as he arrived here.
I think this case illustrates very well the Catch 22 situation referred to by my noble friend. Dr. al-Masari obviously could not leave Saudi Arabia with a Saudi Arabian passport, having been in detention there, suffering persecution by the Saudi regime. The only way he could get out of the country was by leaving clandestinely over the nearest available frontier, which happened to be the Yemen, and obtaining the travel documents of that country with which to come to Britain.
Again, I should like to ask the noble Baroness what she wants people to do. If they are genuinely fleeing persecution, should they throw themselves on the mercy of their persecutors and say, "We wish to have a travel document to leave your country because you have been persecuting us"? In those circumstances, how many people does the Minister think will be allowed to leave Saudi Arabia, Uganda or any other country? Or is it perfectly proper and valid, as the UNHCR maintains, for them to go into a neighbouring country, obtain a passport there by whatever means are available to them and seek entry to the United Kingdom for a purpose other than that which is declared?
Also, does not the noble Baroness think that it would be for everybody's convenience if it were made clear at ports of entry to anybody seeking asylum that, if they possess an invalid travel document and fail to declare it on the spot, they will lose the opportunity from then onwards to do so? And if, after having submitted themselves to the initial examination of the immigration officer, they apply to someone else for asylum a couple of hours later, they will have forfeited the opportunity of being treated as a bona fide asylum applicant.
Would it not be best for notices to be displayed at the ports of entry to the United Kingdom informing people of the penalties, if they intend to apply for asylum, of failing to declare that they entered with false documentation? The Minister smiles. She obviously believes that it would not be right to inform people of the consequences of internal United Kingdom legislation of which, clearly, they must be unaware. As someone said to me the other day, if I went to Brazil and were seeking asylum there, I would obviously not
1118
be familiar with the ins and outs of Brazilian asylum legislation. Why, therefore, should people coming from Saudi Arabia or Uganda be expected, at the point of entry where they are subjected to an examination by an immigration officer, perhaps having suffered considerable trauma in escaping from their country of origin and coming via a third country, to remember that the first thing they should say is, "I am sorry, but this Yemeni travel document which I am using is not one to which I am entitled and I made incorrect statements in applying for the entry certificate in San'a"? I shall he grateful, therefore, if the noble Baroness will reflect on those points when replying to my noble friend.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: It may be for the convenience of the Committee and the noble Baroness if I speak briefly to Amendment No. 12 so that the Minister can respond to Amendments Nos. 10 through 13 together. It is directly relevant to the arguments already adduced and I can be brief.
Amendment No. 12 seeks to remove from the Bill the section dealing with invalid travel documents. The fundamental problem is one referred to by both the Minister and my noble friend; that is, that just as those who are seeking to enter this country without legitimate grounds would probably appear without valid travel documents, it is also the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, pointed out, that the people who have the strongest possible arguments for seeking asylum will also appear without valid travel documents. If one seeks to depart from places like Kinshasa or Nigeria, it is unlikely that one will get away if one carries legitimate travel documents. One would not be allowed out of the door.
Therefore, the dilemma for the Minister and her department—and indeed for all of us—is that both the very best and worst cases fall into that category. Those of us who want to protect the very best cases want to make sure that people who carry either no passport or a passport which is false will not, on those grounds alone, be dismissed. They may well be the people who have the strongest possible case for seeking asylum and face the greatest possible danger of persecution if returned to the country from which they came.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Perhaps I may intervene to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. The Minister will remember that last week there was an exchange between the Home Secretary and myself in which he expressed his feelings that anybody coming to this country ought to trust immigration officers, and indeed the whole process, sufficiently not to have to resort to any kind of deceit at the point of entry. That is the question at issue here and noble Lords opposite have talked in general terms about the reasons why people do not produce documents at that moment.
Let me share with the Committee one particular case which illustrates the difficulty in which so many people find themselves. I am a little reluctant to tell the story because, as the Minister said earlier this evening, there are matters of confidentiality. If I tell the story in general terms it will make the point. It concerns a

1119
Nigerian lady, a Christian, who married a Moslem and had two children. The two children were shot and killed and she and her husband made their way to Lagos to build a new life. They were both shot in the street and taken to hospital by a woman. The wife was informed later that her husband had died, and she was left on her own. The woman who had taken her to hospital eventually took her into her own home and advised her that she must leave the country, and that the only way to do this was to take a false passport, to make her way to this country, and to obtain entry into this country on that passport. This she did.
The case is still before the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. I know that some noble Lords have been in touch with the Home Office about this particular case, but the point I am making is that, as I understand it, an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is not possible under the abbreviated procedure. Had that woman gone on to the fast-track procedure the appeal which is at present under consideration would not have been possible for her. That is one of the points at issue.
Baroness Blatch: As I understand it, in the case that the right reverend Prelate has referred to—if that lady were actually fleeing—first of all, she was not fleeing from a designated country, or one that it is not planned to designate. If she were fleeing from persecution and arrived in this country with a false passport, and explained why she had a false passport at the point of entry, there would be absolutely no threat to that lady at all. She would be decidedly helped from the moment of arrival if she claimed asylum and explained why it was that she had a false passport.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. In this particular case, because she had been advised not to say anything to immigration authorities she came into the country on the false passport and did not declare it at that moment. That is why she is now in such difficulties with her application.
Baroness Blatch: I have always thought it is more difficult to be deceitful than to be honest at immigration control. You have to have some courage to look people in the eye and lie to them. I regard that as being much more difficult when somebody is asking them questions.
If these measures are put in place the hope is that that certainly would not happen and that those advising such people would advise them that it is better to be honest.
As to the amendments, I have shown a degree of frustration about the organisation of these amendments. When I saw them this morning I found it almost inexplicable that we had separated out the amendments. We have an amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh, and Lord Dubs, who say remove paragraphs (a) and (b). We have another amendment which says just remove paragraph (a), and we have a third amendment which says just remove paragraph (b). They are exactly the same amendments; there is nothing different about them at all. I tried to have them discussed jointly and I was told that it was not
1120
acceptable, so they were all separated, and at the last minute they are all back together again. They are in fact identical amendments, and I shall treat them as such.
Article 31 of the 1951 convention says that we must not penalise refugees who enter unlawfully provided that they present themselves without delay. Clause 1 does not in fact penalise them. There is a crucial distinction between using false papers to flee the country of origin and using them to gain entry into this country. Sub-paragraph (3) is aimed at those who seek to frustrate our asylum procedures—not somebody else's—by withholding passports or passing off false documents.
It is that deception which is aimed at the United Kingdom, and not at their own country when they are away from the danger that they are fleeing. Asylum seekers who present themselves properly as required by Article 3 and who are honest with our immigration officials will not be adversely affected.
Reference has been made to Dr. al-Masari and to my colleague in another place, Ann Widdecombe. I can say that Ann Widdecombe is absolutely right in that Dr. al-Masari is, and was, an illegal entrant. He gained his passport and travelling documents by deception in the Yemen. He managed to come through immigration controls in this country with what looked like documents which were in order, but which turned out not to be in order. What we know of Dr. al-Masari is that he is not a shy, coy, retiring or traumatised gentleman; he is someone who could quite easily, at the point of entry, have sought asylum because he believed that he had a case for doing so. He could have admitted why it was that he had to acquire his documentation in that particular way, but he chose not only to deceive the Yemen, but also the authorities in this country.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: The point I was making to the Minister was that he was perfectly entitled to obtain the documents as a means of escaping from Saudi Arabia. What I understand she is now criticising is the fact that he did not declare at once, at the port of entry, that the documents had been obtained in the manner she described. Does it really make any difference whether he said, at the instant of seeing the immigration officer, that that was how the documents had been acquired or that he said so 24 or 48 hours later, when obviously he intended to apply for asylum at the time he left the Yemen?
Baroness Blatch: I make no criticism of how he acquired the documents, but I do make a criticism of how he deceived the immigration officials in this country in order to gain entry. I also say that he is, and was, at the time, an illegal entrant. He arrived here and gained entry by deception and that is the point I am making. The reason I make that point is that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, criticised my honourable friend in another place for describing him as an illegal entrant. I join with my honourable friend in another place and make the same comment.
Earl Russell: Can the noble Baroness say how she reconciles the answer that she has just given with the wording of Article 31 of the UN Convention on Refugees? It states:
"The contracting states shall not impose penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence on refugees who come in directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1 enter or are present in their territory without authorisation provided they present themselves without delay to the authority and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".
We recognise that convention. As I understand it, Dr. al-Masan was well within both the letter and the spirit of it. Why is that illegal?
Baroness Blatch: I have made the point that Dr. al-Masari was not within the letter or the spirit of that article. He did not present himself without delay and he did enter by deception. Therefore, he did not give good reason as to why it was that he had documents which were not in order as he came through immigration at the port of entry. I have made the point that Article 31 does oblige us not to penalise somebody if they present themselves without delay and if they give good reason for having false documents, but he did neither.
Earl Russell: "Without delay" does not mean at the point of entry; it means without delay after entry. I have read the words several times today and I can give them no other meaning.
Baroness Blatch: We are talking about the Bill. The amendments are about the new proposals that will be in place and that is the whole point of this debate. We have added two conditions for people to present themselves at the point of entry because we believe that is the fairest thing. It qualifies them to receive benefit and their cases will be considered substantively anyway. We believe that it is easier for them to be honest at the point of entry, having fled from danger in their own country, if that is what they have done. If they come here without documentation there should be some reason for it. That reason should be given at the point of entry. If they come with documentation that is not in order that should also be admitted at the point of entry and reasons given; otherwise, they have to resort to deception. In those circumstances, there is no way that they can pass through immigration unless they resort to deception. We are simply saying that they should not resort to deception.
Sub-paragraph (3) addresses a growing form of deception carried out by those who abuse our asylum procedures. In 1994 nearly 3,800 undocumented passengers applied for asylum on arrival at Gatwick, Heathrow and Dover. In 1995 this figure rose to over 4,800. But it is perfectly clear, from our close liaison with carriers and check-in procedures abroad, that the vast majority of passengers who arrive without a travel document would have been in possession of one when they embarked, either forged or genuine. They have therefore already successfully fled from their country, in which they claim to fear persecution. In concealing, destroying or disposing of their passport before presenting themselves to the immigration officer they are withholding crucial evidence from the United Kingdom authorities. Indeed, that is usually their
1122
intention. Some wish to conceal the fact that they travelled on their own passport, since this may give the lie to their claim that they are being sought by the authorities in their own countries. Some wish to conceal the fact, which their passport would reveal, that they have travelled here from a safe third country, in which they could have sought asylum. Others try to conceal their true identity or nationality. At the end of the day it is considerably more difficult to effect the removal of someone who is without travel documents.
We have consistently made clear that we expect asylum seekers to be completely honest and frank with our immigration authorities on arrival in this country'. Dishonesty and concealment damages credibility. Above all, it damages their credibility. Parliament has endorsed that principle, since it is already present in the immigration rules. Paragraph 341 makes clear that destroying, damaging or disposing of a passport, other document or ticket relevant to an asylum claim may damage credibility if no reasonable explanation is given. We accept in principle that there will be circumstances where a genuine refugee needs to use false papers in order to flee a country in which he has a genuine fear of persecution. Under the Bill no adverse consequences arise for the asylum seeker merely because he presents an invalid or forged passport, provided that the applicant declares the forgery to the immigration officer. But what is unacceptable, and casts doubt on credibility, is an attempt to pass off a fake identity or forged passport as genuine. It is the dishonesty inherent in such an attempt which triggers the accelerated appeal procedure. That is why we are unable to accept Amendment No. 13 that inserts a reasonable explanation caveat into subparagraph (3)(b).
Baroness Seear: There is insistence on honesty. At the point at which the immigrant steps off whatever he steps off will there be a notice in a language that he knows telling him that he has to be honest? I find it quite extraordinary that, having escaped from persecution and undertaken an appalling journey to get here, the first matter that people must think about is to be honest. Will people be told that?
Baroness Blatch: It is quite incredible to believe that there should be notices telling people not to lie as they pass that point. If somebody arrives at immigration or passport control he or she will be asked questions. The person either has documentation or does not have it. If not, it is important that the person gives the reason for not having it. If the person has false documentation and that fact is picked up at the point of entry it is important that the person should say so. We hope that as immigration officials ask these questions they will remind people that it is better to answer them honestly rather than that there should be notices that they should tell the truth as they pass through the gates. But people look immigration officials in the eye and pass themselves off in this way either by telling lies or having false documentation that goes undetected. In many cases that is the intention, as I have just said.
Baroness Seear: I do not want to labour this point, but I find it quite incredible. One has escaped under very difficult circumstances; one has escaped from a country which is trying to persecute one; one is probably in a state of terror, this is one's last chance of surviving, and one is expected to arrive like a good schoolgirl and speak the truth like a good girl guide the moment that one comes into the country. I find it incomprehensible that anybody can believe this.
Baroness Blatch: The millions of people who come through our ports of entry every year are asked, as they pass through customs or through immigration, to give information. The most difficult part of the whole project for people fleeing persecution is to flee the country and to find a way to obtain some kind of document to get out of that country. They have managed to flee that country. They have travelled, very often, through a number of countries to come to this country. When they come to the port of entry the immigration officials will of course tell them that it is better to tell the truth. In relation to the millions of people who come through our major airports, to suspect that each one of them may be having a last chance of survival is quite extraordinary for all the people who have to deal with them. When the immigration officials are questioning somebody who has documentation that is not correct, just as in the case of the customs officer, when he looks us in the eye and asks: "Have you anything to declare?", it is actually better that you tell the truth rather than be dishonest with them. You do not have notices up simply saying: "Tell the truth when you are asked the question."
It is an extraordinary thing, but immigration officials will clearly remind people that when they are being asked a question it is better for them, particularly if they are seeking asylum, to tell the truth at the point of entry. That is better than having notices up in the many different languages which would be needed at Heathrow Airport, Gatwick Airport or Stansted Airport. I do not know how many languages are spoken by people coming through those airports, but I suspect that if it is not many hundreds, it is certainly many tens of languages. It is very difficult. There is an expectation that people should be honest as they come through the ports of entry.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Perhaps I may make one final appeal to the Minister on this issue. I do appreciate that she is very loyally arguing the case for her department. The kind of example given by the right reverend Prelate and one with which some of us—I am sure, also, the Minister—are familiar is where somebody is in a state of desperation. He may have lost members of his family; he may have lost all his family. He may have been tortured, beaten and detained by police. He may know very little about the United Kingdom.
Such people come here and they are faced with men and women in uniforms who look very much like the people who have beaten them up, tortured them or raped them. We know that they are not like that, of course, because we live in this country, but the asylum seekers do not know that they are not like that. To them, they are just another set of officials. They are terrified. They want to survive. They have had a very tough experience.
1124
I know that the Minister is a lady of compassion and I ask her to consider whether it is really fair to apply to such a person the tests that would be applied to, for example, a tourist coming here from a safe country to enjoy a couple of weeks looking at our heritage.
Baroness Blatch: First, I hope that the noble Baroness will not patronise me by saying that I am just being loyal to my department. I am not just being loyal to my department. I am speaking very much as a believer in this piece of legislation. I care very much about genuine asylum seekers being treated fairly. I care passionately about making sure that they do the right thing. I am concerned also about the numbers of people who do, quite intentionally, deceive at the ports of entry to this country. It is partly for that reason that we are trying to eliminate the need for that.
Those people are considered quite separately. If I am coming through as a ordinary tourist and my passport is not in order or I do not have a visa, I should be treated, quite rightly, as though I am deceiving with intent. If somebody is genuinely fleeing persecution as in the case described by the right reverend Prelate—and that was a very serious case—there are two factors to take into consideration. It would actually be better to give an explanation at the port of entry. I just wonder about the person who has to deceive his way through the port of entry. Where does he go then? At some point he has to say: "I wish to have asylum." At some point he has to go to authorities to do that.
Secondly, it is very important to have advice. But that person's case will be considered substantively in any event, irrespective of how he passed through the airport, whether it was by using deceit. We are saying that for the purposes of the new procedures which are to be put in place, it is better that he should say at the point of entry that he is seeking asylum; that his documentation is not in order or does not exist at all; and give reasons for that.
We know that there are people who exploit the system. They remove passports quite deliberately on aeroplanes or boats. We know that people put them down toilets on aircraft because it is then more difficult to find out where they come from and who they are. We are trying to say that people should have an explanation why they either have no documentation or documentation which is not in order. We are simply asking people to tell the truth in their own interests.
As I said, we accept in principle that there will be circumstances in which genuine refugees will need to use false papers in order to flee a country in which they had a genuine fear of persecution. In this Bill, no adverse consequences arise for asylum seekers merely because they present an invalid or forged passport, provided that the applicant declares the forgery to the immigration officer. What is not acceptable is to pass off false documents as genuine. It is the inherent dishonesty which is the problem.
Those presenting false papers to our immigration officers are not doing so out of necessity. By definition. they have already fled the country in which they claim to fear persecution and such deception cannot be condoned. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which

1125
an applicant would have a reasonable explanation for attempting to deceive our immigration authorities in such a blatant manner.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness once again, but she said that she found it difficult to imagine a reason. Many people facing something more important than any court case in this country prefer to have an adviser to help to present their case. Is it or is it not a proper reason for preferring to make the application in the country rather than at the port?
Baroness Blatch: In the new procedures, we are saying that it is preferable not to continue to lie through immigration control, which those people must do if they are not going to admit that they have no documentation or forged or improper documentation. But even if they do not do that, as was the case of the lady mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, their case is still considered and they still have an opportunity to give the reasons why they did not do that. We are simply saying that in the new procedures, it is preferable for them to make that declaration at the port of entry. It seems extraordinary, as I say, that you need more courage to be deceitful than you do to be honest.
Subsection (3) will not prejudice the consideration of the asylum claim on its merits. If the claim is valid, asylum or exceptional leave will be granted, regardless of document abuse or deception used on arrival. As I have said, it will not penalise the genuine asylum seeker who has to travel with false papers provided that he is honest and declares the false papers on arrival.
The provision addresses a growing form of abuse of our asylum procedures and I urge the Committee not to accept the amendments.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may correct her on a mis-statement that she made about the case of Professor al-Masari. She said that he was and is an illegal entrant. She is obviously unaware that her right honourable friend the Home Secretary has recently granted Professor al-Masari four years' exceptional leave to remain in this country. Therefore, he is not an illegal entrant. He is a person with leave to remain that has been granted in the most exceptional circumstances by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Blatch: The point I was making is that he arrived in this country illegally and his case is being considered.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Blatch: If I may finish the point. What is also interesting is that having come through by deception—which is how he arrived at the port of entry—his case was considered and he was given exceptional leave to remain. He did not have substantive consideration, as the noble Lord knows, but nevertheless
1126
he was given exceptional leave to remain even after having come through the port of entry with documents that were not in order.
Lord Avebury: Hansard will show tomorrow that the noble Baroness said that Professor al-Masari is, and was, an illegal entrant. She has now had to admit that he is not because since the Home Secretary gave him exceptional leave to remain he is here lawfully.
Baroness Blatch: He is, and was, an illegal entrant. That is how he entered this country. He came into the country illegally. I stand by the description that he came into this country illegally. "Entrant" is the word I used; he entered the country illegally. That cannot be changed just as we cannot change how we were born. He entered the country by deception.
Lord Dubs: I have listened hard to what the Minister has said. I am trying to disentangle the many elements in her arguments. Of course, no one is happy that people tell lies as a general proposition about human nature, but we live in a world where people are seeking safety and fleeing from distant countries. They have perhaps little or no knowledge of English. They are not graduates of a British or American university. They are not fluent at understanding what goes on in this country, yet we expect those people to understand the subtleties and nuances of our system of immigration control. I contend that that is unrealistic.
After all, the Minister said that people may, with their forged visas or forged passports, have crossed a number of frontiers. If people are to be expected to admit that their documentation is not proper, in the sense that it may have been forged to help them escape, the first point at which they would have to declare that is when leaving the country from which they are escaping. If they happen to get a flight out of the country to escape persecution, they ought, I suppose—by the Minister's own strictures—to say to the airline, "This is my passport and it is forged".
Of course, the Minister is not suggesting that. However, the fact is that people who are escaping from those countries are—because that is the nature of their dilemma—having to use forged documents, and are occasionally having to tell lies in order to get out of the country from which they are escaping. Such people have had to tell lies on a number of occasions, possibly even to officials at a British Embassy, to try to obtain a visa, but suddenly they arrive in Britain and instantly, as soon as they leave the 'plane and reach our immigration control at Heathrow Airport, they are supposed to change and start to tell the truth.
If such people have had to use deception all the way along the line to get out of their country, I contend that, much as I wish all human beings could always he honest, in that situation it is not surprising that they may not know that that is a point when they ought to he honest because it will help them with British immigration control. The normal human reaction would be to say, "Look, I have got this far with this document. let me get into Britain and then let me consider how to apply for asylum". That is the way most people would work. I suggest that if the Minister were in that position.

1127
that is how she would behave. She is being a little unrealistic to expect people to behave otherwise. They have not had the benefit of hearing this debate.
Baroness Blatch: I simply make the point that they have clearly travelled great distances, having used great ingenuity, both to escape in the first place and to come round the world. England is where they want to come. They have obviously chosen it as a haven. Having arrived here, we do not expect them to understand immigration law, but we do expect them to tell the truth. When they are asked why their documentation is not in order, it is actually more difficult—especially if there is a language problem, or if they are nervous or traumatized—to be deceitful about that than it is to be honest. They have arrived at the country they want to come to. That does not prevent them from receiving advice. They can of course take advice, but it is important that they are honest with the officials whom they have to meet at the airport or the port of entry.
Lord Dubs: I understand what the Minister is saying, but it does not accord with my experience of human behaviour. If people arrive, having had to tell untruths all the way along the line in order to escape from their country and obtain their documents, forged or otherwise, and they then arrive at another country, Britain, where they meet immigration officials, the normal human reaction would be to say, "If I have got so far with my forged passport, let me get into Britain and then let me work out how I apply for asylum". They will not know that suddenly because they have touched down on British soil the whole system changes and they have to be honest from the moment they reach British immigration control. I contends that that is not normal human behaviour. We should not expect people to behave like that. I honestly think that the Minister is being unreasonable in suggesting otherwise.
I regret that people who come to this country to seek asylum sometimes destroy their documents. I wish they would not; it is a regrettable form of behaviour. However, there is enough evidence to suggest that sometimes people do so to disguise the fact that their documents are forged, and on the advice of people in some distant country from whom they purchased the forged documents. They may destroy those documents because they were badly advised. But the fact remains that they were acting on advice and they did not know that they should have kept their forged documents. There may be other reasons.
I do not condone that action. I fully accept that it causes enormous difficulty for our immigration people. It is one of the most difficult areas. However, I do not
1128
believe that the Bill will deal with that problem. I fear that the Bill weakens the position of the individuals who have to use those means (I have described them more than once) to get here.
Let me draw some comfort from something that the Minister said. I shall make a proposition. The Minister said on a number of occasions—as I am sure she will agree, but Hansard will confirm it—that people should have an explanation as to why they have arrived with forged documents. I believe that that is what the Minister said on several occasions, although perhaps not in those words.
Let us suppose that the Minister were to accept Amendment No. 13. I would happily withdraw Amendment No. 10. Amendment No. 13 provides,
"without giving a reasonable explanation of his failure to do so".
That seems to meet almost to the letter the point made by the Minister on a number of occasions in the past half hour. If the Minister were to accept Amendment No. 13 I am sure that Members of the Committee on the Liberal Democrat Benches would not move Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. I would happily withdraw Amendment No. 10. Acceptance of Amendment No. 13 would be a way forward. It would meet the Minister's and our concerns.
Finally, if the Minister is in doubt about examples, I have Amnesty International's document, Slamming the door, which cites an example of an individual who fled from Iran, acquired a forged Spanish passport (I believe in Turkey) entered the country, went to the Home Office Asylum Division in Croydon, applied for asylum and eventually was given refugee status, despite having done all the things the Minister has said that people should not do. He did so because that was the only way for him to get here.
I hope that the Minister will consider accepting Amendment No. 13. If so, we shall have done a good evening's work.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 10, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 13, as amendments to Amendment No. 1, not moved.]
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at a quarter before eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Committee on the Education (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Tuesday, 23rd April 1996.
The Committee met in the Moses Room at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. But the House has agreed there shall be no Divisions in this Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should also explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. This Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and will then resume after 10 minutes.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Will the Report Stage be in the full House?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Yes.
On Question, Title postponed.
Clause 1 [The Scottish Qualifications Authority]:
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert (", from amongst persons nominated by, or by bodies appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of, the Universities of Scotland, education authorities, colleges of further education, institutions of further education, central institutions, educational advisers, teachers employed in educational establishments and grant aided and independent schools").
The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name and that of my noble friend, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. It would be appropriate and convenient for the Committee if we were to discuss Amendment No. 2 together with Amendment No. 1. I am personally grateful for the guidance which has just been given about the procedure in Committees of this nature in the Moses Room. I was not part of the usual channels which agreed to this procedure because I am one of the awkward squad. However, if I had been part of the usual channels, I would have argued strongly on a matter as important as this Education Bill, with its implications for nursery provision, that the measure should be taken in the much
CWH 2
larger forum of their Lordships' House. Be that as it may, this is the procedure. I accept that, and I shall play my full part.
The amendments I propose to Clause 1 deal with a matter we raised quite strongly at Second Reading and which, I see from the report of the Select Committee sittings in Glasgow, was raised quite strongly by witnesses appearing before that committee. They concern the whole question of membership of the Scottish qualifications authority and the ability of the Secretary of State—whoever is Secretary of State, because we are not talking about personalities here—to appoint up to 15 of its members. We on this side of the Committee agree with the establishment of the Scottish qualifications authority, replacing, as it does, SCOTVEC and the Scottish Examination Board and bringing them all together in one comprehensive organisation. We are not opposed to that; it fits in with the Government's proposals on the Higher Still project which, again, we on this side of the Committee fully support.
Our concern, as expressed in these amendments, is the composition of the Scottish qualifications authority. It has to be understood that the funding of the authority will come 70 per cent. from local authorities and those educational organisations that use the services of the authority. But there is no legislative right for those authorities who are funding the Scottish qualifications authority to have seats on its administrative board. The purpose of these amendments is to seek to write into the legislation the statutory right of the authorities, who will be funding by and large the Scottish qualifications authority, to have representation, and that the nominations for service on the board of that sector of education—the local authority sector and the various organisations that will use the SQA services—should come from these organisations and the Secretary of State would then automatically appoint them to the board.
It has also to be explained that up until 1st April, when the present arrangement came into being, the local education authorities in Scotland had a statutory right to be represented on the Scottish Examination Board. As regards the putting together of the budgets of both organisations, although in the past two years SCOTVEC has not consulted CoSLA on the composition of its budget or on the way in which it intended to spend the budget, up until the present time, there has been a statutory obligation on both the Scottish Examination Board and SCOTVEC to consult CoSLA on the composition of the budget, the compilation of the budget, and the way in which the budget was to be spent. So these statutory rights were with the old local authorities before the new unitary authorities came into being. It is only as a result of the new proposals in this legislation that these statutory rights are being removed from local authorities.
Therefore, I would hope that, from what was said in evidence to the Select Committee sitting in Glasgow by the various witnesses and what I have said today, the Minister will be persuaded that there ought to be provision in respect of a group or organisations which will provide 70 per cent of the funding of the Scottish qualifications authority. There ought to be statutory

CWH 3
provision in the legislation for representatives from these organisations on the Scottish qualifications authority. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: The amendment deals with a problem which we always have whenever we consider a new board, especially one to do with education, and that is the question of who takes part. We need the relevant people to be concerned with the board itself. In the past, I have sat through many Committee and Report stages and we have had a long list of bodies of those to be included. This is a slightly different approach as it concerns persons who are nominated, or who appear to have connections with the matter. If you are doing this, you are probably saying these are the groups of people who must be consulted because they have the knowledge and they have the funding. Surely this is a body which must be incorporated and, although I was unaware of it, these groups are apparently already involved. Surely that makes a very valid case for them being connected, and I am afraid that the first point made by the noble Lord is also brought home here.
We have a potentially very controversial point here, and it is probably the only really controversial point on the first part of the Bill. The more I have listened and thought about the Bill, the more unhappy I have become with the idea that we cannot actually vote in the Committee stage. This is probably the first example and I should make the point here and now that I had not realised just how potentially constricting this procedure is. I hope that on a matter as important as this the Minister will not take a stance in Committee and come up with something which we regarded as unreasonable because we cannot actually vote on it. It is a very important issue.
It is worthwhile bringing this into context here. It is to be hoped that we can get some assurances on this or a similar amendment or possibly a provision on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: These two amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, are important because they bring before the Committee formally the feelings of a number of groups which want to make sure they are represented on the new Scottish qualifications authority. We know it is natural that they are anxious about the matter but there are snags to it. We had a considerable discussion with a number of people when the Scottish Select Committee took evidence in Glasgow in March and it was interesting to hear what those with experience of the system as it now stands had to say. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, instigated the discussion and he may want to comment on that.
At paragraph 47 in the Select Committee's report, Dr. Hamish Long of the Scottish Examination Board said that he liked the kind of balance that was provided by that board as now set up and he justified that. He was followed by Mr. Miller, who is the chairman of both the Scottish Examination Board and the SCOTVEC. He thought that the way the SCOTVEC works at the moment, which is that none of the members see themselves as representing any particular sector, was better and he explained that. He made a very good case
CWH 4
for the Bill so far as that is concerned and the way in which it is currently set out. I support that view. We also discussed that on Second Reading and there is evidence that when people do not see themselves as representing particular sectors it is easier to have a balanced and good discussion.
As regards Amendment No. 2, in which the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, suggests that not less than one-third of the total membership should be individuals appointed by some local authority associations, up to a point that applies. However, I appreciate that the local authority associations are pointing out to us in their briefing that they have a particular interest because 70 per cent. of the costing is met by them in so far as they pay the charges. I am not sure that that is the answer because if the local authority members only were appointed by CoSLA the problem would be that they would be speaking for themselves but others would not. Do we refer to CoSLA? I am not sure whether we can for the sake of our discussions.
I do not believe that there is any way in which they can have a special place but it might be helpful if they could. They certainly have a special role in the whole performance and we appreciate that. Although I cannot actually support either of these amendments I have a certain sympathy with Amendment No. 2 in that it identifies the special role of CoSLA on the authority.
The arrangement whereby the Committee stage of the Bill takes place off the Floor of the House was raised by the noble Lord and mentioned also by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It seems to me there is a balance to be struck. It is rather nice when not very many people usually participate on purely Scottish Bills to have plenty of time and to sit on days that suit noble Lords who are taking part as opposed to having the business squashed in early on Monday or late on Thursday which so often happens to us on the Floor of the House. I like that; I like the informality. I thought when I took part in the Committee stage of the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill that it was rather a satisfactory way of doing things, although I appreciate that if one wishes to move a large number of amendments there will be more to vote on probably at Report stage. It cuts both ways. However, I am somewhat in favour of the arrangement so far. We shall see how it goes today and tomorrow.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Sewel: I should declare an interest at this stage as a vice principal of the University of Aberdeen, especially in relation to the matter before us. The difficulty with the clause is that it is undefined. It leaves a totally unstructured agency to take over. It is not a matter of who wishes to be represented on it but of those the authority needs to have on it in order for it to work and to do the job it seeks to do. Most importantly, the work of the authority has to command confidence. Those who have recourse to the examination procedure and who use it either as consumers or employers need to have confidence that the job is being done properly. That can only be done if the authority is constituted in a proper and appropriate way.

CWH 5
It is difficult to see how a Scottish qualifications authority can carry confidence with universities when universities clearly depend upon school examinations as a means of judging entry if the universities as a representative group are not on the authority to begin with. That is the same for all the various bodies to which the amendment draws attention. It is not a matter of who wants to be on it; it is whom the authority, needs to have on it for the authority to do the job and carry confidence. A degree of structuring is absolutely essential.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): The arrangements that led to the Bill being taken in the Moses Room were agreed through the usual channels. The benefit is partly as described by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. In addition, we can at Report stage go over ground we have probed in Committee and the House can be divided and opinion sought. So noble Lords are not being robbed of the opportunity to test the opinion of other noble Lords.
I am grateful that we shall be able to scrutinise the Bill with the range of experience and expertise that we have. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, has considerable experience of various parts of Scotland's public life and my noble friend Lady Carnegy is a former convenor of a regional council education committee. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, as he pointed out, is a vice principal of the University of Dundee.
Lord Sewel: Aberdeen.
The Earl of Lindsay: I apologise to the noble Lord. The useful point is that we shall be able to look at the issues that arise using their combined experience and scrutiny.
I recognise that there has been some concern that the Bill does not contain provisions specifying how the Secretary of State should choose members of the SQA. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, articulated that. In that regard I found the report of the evidence to the committee most helpful.
The constitution of the board of the SQA was given careful consideration during the drafting of the Bill. The existing SEB system, in which constituent interests are guaranteed a set number of places, was considered to be too inflexible. It was also felt that the board itself was too large. These were key findings of the Policy and Financial Management Review of the SEB, published in 1993. The SCOTVEC structure, which has a smaller board, appears to have worked much better.
It is intended that the individuals whom the Secretary of State appoints to the board of the SQA will bring a breadth of experience covering a broad range of interests. However, specifying that interest groups should be able to nominate members for appointment would limit the scope for the Secretary of State to make appointments covering a wide spectrum of abilities and experience or to cater for other important interests.
The pitfalls in this approach are underlined in the proposed amendments and were picked up by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. One of the pitfalls, for example,
CWH 6
is that the amendment does not refer to the interests of industry or employers, while the other amendment reflects only the interests of the local authorities.
I understand, however, that there is genuine concern that the members of the SQA should represent a balance of views and I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that the funding of the SQA will rely to a large part on the fees that will come from local authorities. I can say that local authorities have an interest that will require to be properly represented on the SQA. I also assure the Committee that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland intends to consult a wide range of interests before making any appointments to the SQA. There is no way that consultations with CoSLA could not represent a large and important part of the consultation process. There will therefore be very substantial opportunities for CoSLA to make its views known in the consultation process.
I hope that this will allay any concerns that your Lordships may have about the representative nature of the SQA membership and, with the assurances that I have given about the certainty with which the local authorities will be represented on the SQA and the certainty with which the consultations will include CoSLA, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Before agreeing to withdraw the amendment, I wish to make two points. First of all, so far as the Minister has gone, to a small degree there are encouraging signs in the sense that we have been given a guarantee of consultation. Consultation is one thing but it is a completely different thing altogether to accept the outcome of that consultation when making the appointments. Perhaps before these amendments are withdrawn I may ask the Minister where the Knox Committee fits into all of this. While consultations with CoSLA will go ahead, is it the case that any nominations that come from the education authorities or from CoSLA itself must first go for vetting to the Knox Committee? If that is the case I would have thought that the consultation itself is fairly meaningless. I hope that once the Minister has taken advice, he will be able to clarify the point that I am making. This is such an important issue that I do not want to withdraw the amendment now because I want to hear the Minister's response to the two questions that I have asked. However, I can give an assurance that we shall want to return to the matter at the Report stage.
The Earl of Lindsay: I can certainly answer one of the noble Lord's questions. The Knox Committee will be a significant feature of the consultations that take place as regards the Secretary of State making appointments to the SQA. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would remind me of the second question.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I was paying such close attention to the advice that he was receiving that I cannot remember it myself. I said that the first question about consultation was one thing and asked whether the Secretary of State would accept the advice that flowed from that consultation and appoint the people.

CWH 7
For example, in the consultation with CoSLA is the Secretary of State reserving the right to refuse to accept the advice that flows from that consultation?
The Earl of Lindsay: It would be very fair to say that the consultation, which currently takes place before the appointment of the members of a number of bodies in the public sector, is not merely a cosmetic exercise after which the Secretary of State ignores all the advice that he has been given. So the consultation that would take place prior to appointments to the SQA would, I would suggest, be significant in the final composition of the SQA. I cannot think of any appointments made following consultation where the consultation has not played a formative part in the final composition of whatever body it is.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I am grateful to the Minister for responding to these questions and I reserve the right to return to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Accreditation function]:
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 37, after ("qualifications") insert (", including Scottish Vocational Qualifications,")
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Stockton, I beg to move Amendment No. 3 and with the Committee's agreement to speak to Amendments Nos. 4 and 16. My noble friend apologises as he is unavoidably prevented from being in the Committee today. He put down these later amendments after discussion with City and Guilds. I, too, had earlier discussions with them but I have not been able to get in touch with them for further briefing today. I only knew last night that my noble friend would not be able to move the amendments. My noble friend suggests that I move them briefly. If he feels it is necessary, in view of the Minister's reply today, he will press the matter further at Report stage.
The grouping is somewhat strange. I was not able to have it rearranged this morning because there was a great deal of grouping going on in relation to the other Bill which is being dealt with in the House.
My understanding is that City and Guilds' main anxiety continues to be their fear that the new Scottish qualifications authority, and notably its accreditation committee, will not give them fair treatment when application is made for City and Guilds qualifications to be accredited for use in Scotland. They also continue to query whether the Bill is worded so as to disfavour or even exclude them. Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 16 seek to improve the wording in that respect.
When the Select Committee took evidence, City and Guilds chose not to submit written or oral evidence, but they wrote to the Minister beforehand. I took the
CWH 8
opportunity, nevertheless, to put their anxiety to the Minister for Education in Scotland, Mr Raymond Robertson, when he came before the Select Committee. The Committee will see the record of the exchanges at paragraphs 8 to 11 of the report. My honourable friend the Minister gave a number of assurances. He told the Select Committee that he would be having a meeting with City and Guilds. I do not know whether that has happened yet. He told them that the new authority would operate in the same way as SCOTVEC, that the accreditation committee would act independently of the rest of the functions of the SQA, that no staff of the new authority would sit on the accreditation committee, and that, should the Secretary of State perceive what he described as "nobbling" of the committee by the authority, the authority would tell it to back off.
The Minister also pointed out that 108 other accrediting bodies were dealing with SCOTVEC at the moment. They were happy with the arrangements and, he presumed, would be happy with the new arrangements which were the same. Those were good assurances, but I do not know whether City and Guilds have completely accepted them.
The way the present system operates was explained by the chief executive of SCOTVEC in evidence to the Select Committee. This is clearly an important matter to City and Guilds. My noble friend the Minister may have more to say now in response to these amendments than he had before, and I shall listen with interest to what he has to say. What I have said also applies to one or two of the following amendments. However, I have not regrouped them because I thought that to do so at the last moment would be unfair to Members of the Committee and to the Minister. It is quite difficult to divide them so I have spoken to subsequent amendments as well. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: When the Minister replies to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, it will be important to put on the record the purpose of the accreditation committee. The accreditation committee will be established in order to accredit the qualifications awarded by the Scottish qualifications authority. These need not be employees of the Scottish qualifications authority, but they will be appointed in order to accredit the qualifications awarded by the Scottish qualifications authority. Against that background I can certainly fully understand the concerns of the City and Guilds and of the other professional and non-professional vocational organisations which are worried that the accreditation committee may not take into account the views of those various professional and vocational bodies in accrediting the qualifications to be awarded by the authority.
As the noble Baroness said, this is a serious matter in terms of the qualifications that will be awarded. It is a new start and it is right that we do our best to try to get this in context and to get it right as the accreditation

CWH 9
committee will play a very important and crucial role in the whole question of the qualifications that are to be awarded.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for moving the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Stockton and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, for his remarks. I very much hope that I can give assurances on all the points raised by my noble friend. Like my noble friend Lady Carnegy, I shall deal also with the points raised in Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Clause 3 provides for the process by which SQA will give approval to qualifications which meet certain criteria. SQA will have to publish these criteria. In the case of SVQs these will take account of a number of factors, including the national occupational standards set by industry lead bodies; standards of design, assessment and quality assurance; and current national policy.
This process will secure the delivery of a consistent national framework of high quality qualifications without the administrative constraints of individual decisions by Ministers. SQA will, however, operate with general and specific policy guidance and will be subject to a statutory power of direction by the Secretary of State. It will also have a duty to have regard to the interests of persons using its services. Within this framework, SQA will have discretion to exercise the functions conferred on it by statute.
There is, therefore, no need for the Secretary of State to approve the accreditation criteria. There is also no need for particular qualifications to be specified on the face of the Bill. This was considered during the drafting of the Bill and was rejected as being too inflexible for primary legislation since the names and details of qualifications are subject to change over time. I can, however, assure noble Lords that the SQA will accredit SVQs as SCOTVEC currently does.
The provisions in Clause 21 are important to the functioning of the Bill and it may be helpful if I spend a few moments explaining the purpose of the particular drafting adopted. At various points in the Bill reference is made to SQA qualifications. Clearly we need to understand what this means. Clause 21 defines the term as qualifications devised or awarded by SQA. This means that, for instance, SQA has the power to determine the entitlement of a candidate to an award of Higher English or to review and develop what is at present a SCOTVEC HNC. There are of course many other examples.
The only purpose of using that term is to avoid having to say, on each occasion,
"a qualification devised or awarded by SQA".
There is also a different group of qualifications where the SQA will have a role—qualifications accredited by SQA. In some cases these will also be SQA qualifications; that is, devised or awarded by SQA. In others they will be qualifications devised and awarded by other bodies. In the latter case the SQA's role is limited to accreditation and it is not appropriate for all the other functions of the SQA to be brought to bear on these awards.
CWH 10
That is the function of the current wording—clear separation between types of function. I would draw noble Lords' attention to Clause 3 dealing with accreditation. Nowhere in this clause is the term "SQA qualification" used. This is not an accident. It is carefully drafted to achieve the purpose of drawing a necessary distinction between types of function. I recognise that the full import of the definition may have been misinterpreted as being prejudicial to other bodies and my noble friend Lady Carnegy in introducing these amendments suggested that there may be some sort of prejudice. I can assure the Committee that that is not the case. The current drafting reflects the needs of other awarding bodies and in fact the amendment would give the SQA extensive powers over other awarding bodies and their qualifications. I assume that is not the intention either of my noble friend Lady Carnegy or my noble friend Lord Stockton.
Moving on to the grouped amendments, Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, I should like to make it clear that there is no intention to change the existing order.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I stuck to the grouping.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am happy for other noble Lords to comment on the second group of, amendments but I was responding to my noble friend Lady Carnegy who had spoken to those amendments when moving Amendment No. 3.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I understood that we were discussing the group made up of Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 16 and that we would come in time to Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8.
The Earl of Lindsay: I think I have covered the points raised on Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 16 and therefore hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and my noble friend the Minister for their comments on these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, emphasised the importance of the accreditation committee. I could not agree with him more. I am not sure that I would go along with the conclusions he was drawing from that, but it is indeed a very important committee.
My noble friend the Minister has clarified considerably what his honourable friend the Minister for Education said to the Select Committee. It is slightly complicated to understand the various references to the qualifications in the different parts of the Bill. I shall read with interest what he said and so I am sure will my noble friend, the City and Guilds people and probably members of other bodies who have an interest in this matter. I thank him very much for that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 4, leave out ("a") and insert ("an independent")
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Stockton, I beg to move Amendment No. 5 and I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 also in his name. I shall not speak to Amendment No. 8 until I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, has to say. I might wish to comment after he has spoken.
Amendment No. 5 suggests that the committee carrying out the accreditation function on behalf of the SQA should be defined on the face of the Bill as an independent committee. That underlines the feelings of the City and Guilds about what the role of the committee should be.
Amendment No. 6 suggests that the committee should be appointed not by the SQA but by the Secretary of State. I believe that the wording of Amendment No. 6 is slightly contradictory to that of Amendment No. 5, but the Committee will understand the spirit of what is intended in my noble friend's amendments.
Amendment No. 7 suggests that members of the accreditation committee should be neither employees nor members of the Scottish qualifications authority: the members of that authority should not be involved in the accreditation committee at all. The amendments are all aimed at securing the total independence of the accreditation committee from the SQA.
Amendment No. 8 suggests something rather different and we await to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, has to say about that. I beg to move.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Perhaps I may apologise for misleading the Committee when I said in my earlier intervention that members of the accreditation committee need not necessarily be employees of the Scottish qualifications authority. In fact, Amendment No. 8 seeks to ensure that they need not be employees of the Scottish qualifications authority.
Before I say a few more words about the amendment perhaps I may say that as one who listens and learns all the time, I have learnt today that if one tables amendments to a Bill but cannot be present, one should get the most loyal government supporter to move those amendments in one's absence. While I have a high regard and great liking for the noble Baroness, perhaps I may say, in great kindness, that every time she rises to speak she reminds me of those wonderful Gilbertian words from Gilbert and Sullivan's "Iolanthe", "I've always voted at my party's call and never thought of thinking for myself at all!". The Government are fortunate indeed to have such a loyal supporter as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy.
Amendment No. 8 seeks to insert in the Bill a provision that the members of the accreditation committee will be drawn from,
"the interests of, training providers, industry and commerce",
in order that their interests are represented, and it takes on board in legislative form many of the points that the noble Baroness is making on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton. If this were inserted in the Bill there would be no grounds for doubt in future about the
CWH 12
interests—not the individuals as my noble friend Lord Sewel said earlier on, we are not talking about the individuals who should be appointed—required to be represented for the accreditation committee to operate properly. Amendment No. 8 seeks to ensure that these interest groups are included in the accreditation committee itself and that they need not be employees or members of the Scottish qualifications authority.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that when I was contacted yesterday by my noble friend Lord Stockton, who had a very unforeseen difficulty that prevented him from coming here, I suggested that, rather than leave these important issues unaired at Committee stage to be aired for the first time at Report stage, perhaps my noble friend, Lady Carnegy, given her experience and background in education, would be able to do a very competent job of moving them and raising the issues. I believe my noble friend Lady Carnegy has done a very competent job.
The description or the Gilbertian terminology of being a loyal supporter would bring joy to the Chief Whip of my party because my noble friend is certainly not an uncritical supporter. She does not agree with everything and makes her views very well known to us with determination in such instances. I pay credit to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for the extent to which she has been able to articulate these issues.
I would like to make it clear that there is no intention to change the existing arrangements whereby awarding bodies in addition to SCOTVEC and SEB offer qualifications in Scotland. On establishment of SQA these arrangements, which apply to a wide range of qualifications, will continue to operate as at present. I am conscious that there are particular concerns about the position of SVQs. SVQs form part of a national framework of vocational qualifications. SCOTVEC acts as the accreditation body for SVQs on behalf of the Government to ensure that they are based on national occupational standards and other quality assurance criteria and that they have mutual recognition with the NVQs which are available south of the border. Other awarding bodies have agreements with SCOTVEC to award SVQs. These agreements will transfer automatically to SQA on passage of the Bill. Consequently, these awarding bodies will continue to be able to be involved in the SVQ market as they are at present. It will also be open for other awarding bodies to offer SVQs provided that the accreditation criteria are met.
Clause 3 puts on to a statutory basis a structure which is presently in operation in SCOTVEC for the accreditation of vocational qualifications put forward by awarding bodies. It is designed to create a clear separation between the accrediting and awarding sides of the body. It has worked well in practice and over 100 bodies have had their qualifications accredited by SCOTVEC. I recognise that there has been some concern that the Bill does not contain provisions to define the procedures for the appointment of members of the accreditation committee. However, the clause makes strict provision about the composition of the

CWH 13
membership of the accreditation committee to give it a full measure of independence from the ordinary decision-making structure of the body. It provides that the majority of members of the accreditation committee must not be members or employees of SQA. It also provides that a quorum at a meeting of the accreditation committee can be established only where the majority of members present are neither members nor employees of SQA. It is also intended that this separation should he carried through to the administrative support provided to the committee. For this, and all functions of SQA, there are strict rules about conflict of interest.
Turning to Amendment No. 7, the Secretary of State does not intend that officers of SQA should be members of the committee. However, it is likely that some board members, particularly those with a background in industry and other relevant areas, will have the right sort of experience and knowledge to make a substantial contribution to the accreditation committee.
I would anticipate that many members of the committee would be drawn from the groups mentioned in Amendment No. 8 which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. However, restricting membership of the committee to only those groups would limit the possible candidates for membership and would exclude other important interests such as education.
With regard to Amendment No. 6, the Secretary of State has an interest in how SQA selects nominees for appointment to the accreditation committee. SQA will have guidance on this from the Secretary of State and he may, if he chooses, make a statutory direction either generally or specifically on SQA's discharge of this function. I do not feel therefore that it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to appoint the members of the accreditation committee or for specific provision to be made on the face of the Bill as to the categories that members should be appointed from.
Turning to Amendment No. 5, the internal structure of SQA will ensure that the accrediting and awarding functions are clearly separated. Most importantly, the modus operandi of the committee must be acceptable to the Secretary of State. The procedure of the accreditation committee and SQA's relationship with it will be subject to administrative guidance and to the Secretary of State's direction-making power.
To put this beyond doubt, the Government intend to seek provision for the Bill to state that the Secretary of State's direction-making powers extend to the activities of the accreditation committee. I understand the fears that have been voiced about this part of the Bill, but we are completely confident that we can give the necessary assurances to render those fears groundless. On that basis, I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw her Amendment No. 5.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank my noble friend again for what seem to be fairly clear reassurances to City and Guilds in so far as Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are concerned. As to my motivation in moving amendments on behalf of my noble friend, that was brought about entirely by my concern that City and Guilds' anxieties should be not only recorded but responded to because they were genuine anxieties. They
CWH 14
have had copious reassurance now and a very clear description: it will be for my noble friend Lord Stockton to talk to them, as I shall too, to see whether they are now happy about the Bill.
I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that I believe the Chief Whip on occasions regards me as public nuisance No. 1, and that is saying something in the party which I have the honour to support. As for the noble Lord, Lord Ewing's comments on his amendment, we have heard what my noble friend said about the difficulties of restricting the membership of the accreditation committee. So with those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 5.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Quality assurance]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 19, after ("procedures") insert ("particularly as they affect students with special educational needs").
The noble Lord said: First, I agree with my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford when he suggested that, while accepting the Minister's worthiness and sincerity, there is a vagueness in most of the Bill as regards appointments and reassurances, and although I would accept reassurances from the Minister, he might not be there all that long. I do not know how long he may be there, but the passage of the Bill or the Act may take six months. There is a feeling that reassurances are given, perhaps with sincerity but a little lightly by the Minister in terms of appointments. That is why this amendment does not seem terribly important on the surface, but in fact to a group or a community it is vitally important.
The amendment seeks to guarantee that the interests of students with special educational needs, as defined in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, are protected, and that the quality assurance procedures will not inadvertently discriminate against them. There really should be a thrust in us all to make sure that people are not disadvantaged because of educational needs.
The current position in relation to students with special educational needs is that assistance is available with internal assessment, scripting invigilation etc. and if the quality procedures are driven exclusively by the Scottish qualifications authority, there could be a danger—I am not saying there will be—that the needs of these students may be marginalised. The amendment seeks to ensure that these students' interests are protected by making arrangements for the quality assurance prescriptive to be put on the face of the Bill. I am sure the Minister will agree with the sentiments, but I hope he will also agree with the letter of what the amendment is trying to do. If the words are not quite suitable, I am sure that he will find words that will do the same job. However, I hope he will give us an absolute assurance that he will provide something on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: This is a very short amendment, but it is very important. One very simple reason for

CWH 15
tabling it is that when we deal with special educational needs, we encounter a multiplex of problems, which is virtually never-ending and is growing, because we are getting better educational establishments which are bringing far more people, who have been sidelined in the past, into the educational structure.
If we talk about quality assurance this becomes even more important for the simple reason that people often take courses and exams in non-conventional ways. I shall talk very briefly about one that I know and that is dyslexics who, for instance, dictate exams. There have been arguments, and long-running arguments, about whether this appears on the examination certificate. That has scared far more people who are taking the exams than it has done employers, because employers are not that worried as long as they know the person has the knowledge and skills. There have been cases where this has bothered them. This is just one example of what could be going on. Unless quality and provision are tied in together, we are potentially storing-up problems. If these two are worked in together in the structure of the Bill, we will prevent this happening and prevent a great deal of anxiety apart from anything else.
Apart from the practical considerations of running it, you will be dealing with a perceived and possibly imagined problem. I hope the Minister will take this into account when he replies for the simple reason that he will forestall a great deal of trouble and put people's minds at rest by merely saying that these have to be taken into account on the face of the Bill. It is not much to ask and it could potentially solve many problems.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am very sympathetic to the sentiment behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Indeed, there is nothing we disagree with in the objectives that the noble Lords are speaking towards. However, I believe that the objectives about which the noble Lords are worried are very well covered in other clauses of the Bill.
Both SEB and SCOTVEC have a very strong track record in this area. Very comprehensive arrangements are made to ensure that students with special educational needs have the opportunity to gain full access to qualifications. The Secretary of State will expect SQA to maintain this standard of provision.
In addition, the Bill makes explicit provision in Clause 7 that SQA shall have regard to the interests of persons using its services. That includes all persons and all types of persons. All students, including those with special educational needs, are covered by this.
There is, therefore, no need to provide expressly for the needs of students with special educational needs in relation to quality assurance. I should also point out to the Committee that the Higher Still development programme, with its widely praised provision for special educational needs, demonstrates conclusively that there is no necessary conflict between high and rising standards and making appropriate provision for the assessment of students with special educational needs.
CWH 16
In addition to Clause 7, I would also draw attention to Clause 2(1)(e). SQA will make appropriate provision for special educational needs under the subsection which deals with the arrangements for assessment of students undergoing education and training.
The combination of the general provision and duty imposed in Clause 7 and the specific detail of Clause 2(1)(e) certainly covers the general points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and the specific example raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Clause 4(b), which is where the amendment is placed, allows SQA to supervise the internal arrangements by which education and training establishments contribute to consistency in standards. This seeks to ensure that consistent standards are applied between institutions and classes of institution. In addition to directing the Committee's attention to Clause 7 and Clause 2(1)(e), I would stress that Clause 4(b) is aimed in a direction different from that which the noble Lords speaking to the amendment have perhaps understood.
The important point is that I can certainly give the assurances that noble Lords need and I can point to the fact of the Bill in giving them. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, was perhaps worried that assurances given by a Minister today may not count for much at a later date, either because the Minister has gone or because time has elapsed. I am speaking in and on the public record, so even in the unlikely event of Ministers having to change, the public record remains.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Before my noble friend Lord Carmichael responds to the Minister, will the Minister answer a technical question? The rights of students with special educational needs are clearly defined in Section 1(5)(c) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. In the repeal schedule of the Bill presently before the Committee there is no reference whatever to that section of the 1980 Act being repealed. What takes precedence? Section 1 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 is not being repealed by this legislation. Is that still the position in relation to students with special educational needs, even after the present Bill is on the statute book? That point must be cleared up.
The Earl of Lindsay: The best solution may be for me to write to the noble Lord on this specific point.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Yes, provided that the noble Earl the Minister does not write to me to tell me that he now proposes to introduce an amendment to repeal that section of the 1980 Act. It will be all right for him to write to me to tell me that Section 1 of the 1980 Act, defining the rights of students with special educational needs, still prevails.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I do not know whether the Minister, nodding in apparent agreement in dumb language that he will not be repealing the Act, is an assurance or not. It gets back to the whole question of things not being on the face of the Bill. He also said that it is now on the public record. The Minister must know from his experience here that it is always easy and

CWH 17
possible for a later government, maybe 10 or 15 years from now, to redefine something and find reasons for not accepting the words that the Minister has used.
The point made by my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford needs answering and we cannot do much with the amendment until we have a written assurance from the Minister.
The Earl of Lindsay: I can give the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, the assurance he needs right now: Section 1 of the 1980 Act is not affected by the Bill.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: We will look at it closely and see the effects. However, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 10:
Leave out Clause 4 and insert the following Clause—
QUALITY ASSURANCE
("In respect of bodies awarding qualifications accredited by SQA, SQA may, in its role as accrediting body and with the approval of the Accreditation Committee, make such arrangements as are considered necessary to be satisfied with—

(a) the quality of procedures used by awarding bodies;

(b) the quality of the internal arrangements used by awarding bodies for monitoring and controlling the effectiveness of such procedures.").

The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Stockton I beg to move Amendment No. 10. Clause 4, as my noble friend stated in relation to the last amendment, deals with quality assurance. The amendment redrafts Clause 4 to make clearer the procedures governing bodies other than the Scottish qualifications authority which seek accreditation of their awards. That clarification is felt to be necessary. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say.
The Earl of Lindsay: I hope I can give the necessary clarification to my noble friend. The Government are committed to securing consistently high standards in education. We shall expect a similar commitment from the SQA to build on the undoubted success of the existing bodies. The amendment would remove the power of the SQA to monitor the quality of assessment procedures of presenting centres offering SQA qualifications. This is an absolutely vital function of an awarding body.
The amendment replaces Clause 4 only with a power to monitor the procedures of awarding bodies whose qualifications have been accredited by SQA. This would be a considerable restriction on the exercise of SQA's powers. Monitoring in relation to accreditation is in any case inherent in that process. The requirements in this regard will be published under Clause 3(1). It is therefore unnecessary to include provision as proposed in the amendment.
As the objective of the amendment is already met in Clause 3, and as the text which the amendment seeks to remove is of such great importance, I hope that my
CWH 18
noble friend will be able to withdraw the amendment and that my noble friend Lord Stockton, on reading Hansard, will feel considerably reassured.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank my noble friend for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Incidental Functions]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 34, at end insert ("with the agreement of such local authority associations as exist")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to put the local authorities, through their associations, in a position where they play a key role in the consideration of the financial estimates of the Scottish qualifications authority. The question may be asked: why? The answer is simple. They are the major paymasters. It boils down to that.
The present estimate is that 70 per cent. of the income of the Scottish qualifications authority is likely to be contributed by the local authorities. If that is the case, it seems only reasonable that those who pay the bill should at least have some involvement in the construction of the financial estimates of the body they are, perforce, paying for. As I understand it, the current situation is that the Scottish Examination Board has a statutory duty and is required to agree the level of its fees in consultation with CoSLA, and this seeks in a form to take that relationship on to the new authority.
There is a danger that if a body such as this does not have some check on it by the people from whom it is seeking its income it runs into at least some temptation of taking on a slightly irresponsible life of its own. There needs to be this kind of check or, if not, some kind of combination of power without responsibility. We all know of the description as regards taxation without representation and we would wish to avoid that as well.
I hope the Minister can give some assurance that the paymasters will be involved in some form in seeking the agreement—certainly stronger than consultation—when the authority draws up its financial estimates.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I expressed some sympathy earlier for the position of CoSLA in the authority, and this is the part where its interest is greatest. CoSLA has been kind enough to write to me and has reminded me that as regards the Scottish Examination Board the local authority funding is 92 per cent. of the whole, whereas as regards the SCOTVEC it is 50 per cent. and in future, as the noble Lord said, it is likely to be 70 per cent. It certainly is a problem for local authorities in that if fees get completely out of hand they will not be able to afford them, so they have an interest in at least commenting on what is proposed. Their interest and that of the new authority cannot be separated and I hope that my noble friend will have something nice to say about that.
The Earl of Lindsay: Of course I have something nice to say about all the concerns raised by other noble Lords on this Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for explaining this amendment to us. We recognise that the users of the SQA services have an important interest in the policies to be adopted by the SQA and not least among those policies will be the level of fees. We also recognise that the local authorities are likely to be the predominant source of the SQA income, as was pointed out by both the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy. However, we are not persuaded that it would be fair or even democratic to the other users of the SQA services that one group of purchasers should have the type of special financial control that is being proposed in this amendment, even if at present they collectively provide a high level of SQA's income.
Clause 6 provides for the Secretary of State to determine criteria in the setting of charges by the SQA. Those criteria would seek to recognise the interests of all the SQA customers. In addition, Clause 7 requires the SQA to have regard to the interests of those using its services. This provision will also require the SQA to take into account the financial interests of local authorities.
The Government intend that the procedures by which the SQA sets its fees should be known to its customers and that the stages should incorporate consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, asked for at least some involvement by local authorities and they will have that involvement through the consultation on the stages and the procedures through which SQA goes in setting its fees.
Common sense dictates that the leverage which consultation with the principal customer will offer to that principal customer will guide the SQA in the decisions which it reaches. So I can assure both my noble friend and the noble Lord that the just interests of local authorities in the setting of fees are bound to be reflected both in the consultation process and indeed through Clauses 6 and 7. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sewel: I thank the noble Minister for his comments. I would hope to nudge him a little further at some stage, but I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Regard to certain considerations]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 38, at end insert—
("and shall consult such persons mentioned in paragraph (b) on the exercise of its general functions under section 2 of this Act and the function of accrediting qualifications under section 3 of this Act").
The noble Lord said: The Minister may be slightly tired of hearing this kind of argument and he may describe it as a niggly amendment. However, I am afraid that I do not quite see it that way. It is too often the case that a body is meant to have regard to the fact that,
CWH 20
when we are dealing with education, technology and the modern world, things are changing rather rapidly. The amendment that is down in my name proposes that such a body shall consult, not just try to double guess, what the users of the service will want. It should consult the users of the service before it makes an important decision. This seems to be a fairly simple proposition. I know the Minister will be able to say that it will be in touch all the time, but I would like it specifically detailed that it has at some point to discuss and find out what the users of the services really require at any particular period. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: I can stress to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that it is intended that the SQA should be responsive to the interests and needs of its customers and indeed many of the assurances given in Committee to date have underlined this point. Both SEB and SCOTVEC in practice consult widely at present in relation to the exercise of their functions and we will expect SQA to build on this firm foundation.
The possibility of achieving such responsiveness by requiring SQA to consult its customers was considered during the drafting of the Bill. Therefore we do not have a quarrel with the principle behind the amendment. It became apparent, however, that this would be impractical. It would be extremely difficult to be certain that such a requirement had been properly fulfilled given the very wide range of customers and the difficulty in identifying interests in relation to the different powers of SQA. It would also place a large and inflexible burden on SQA in managing its day-to-day affairs.
It is considered appropriate, however, for there to be some requirements in the Bill to show that the interests of customers should be a significant consideration. I consider therefore that the present wording of Clause 7(b), which provides that in the exercise of its functions SQA shall,
"(b) have regard to the interests of persons using its services".
is sufficient for this purpose. It delivers the assurances that the noble Lord seeks, but without doing so in an impractical manner. The duties span the whole range of the SQA's functions under the Bill or under any other enactment. This is a wide ranging duty but expressed in a flexible way. It will be for the SQA itself to determine how to meet the duty in a particular case though it would have to have regard to any advice which the Secretary of State might give on this question. In many cases this might mean that SQA will consult.
I hope with those assurances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I did not realise that there were flaws in the amendment in that the width of consultation could be endless and the protests of those who were not consulted could cause a great deal of trouble. On this occasion, I have to take the point of view that the Minister's best wishes will be the ones that will be put forward and will be acceptable to all the bodies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Transfer of staff to SQA]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 8, line 14, leave out ("Subject to subsection (3) below,").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting point. The words to be deleted are redundant. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Dissolution of the Scottish Examination Board and of the Scottish Vocational Education Council]:
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 9, line 9, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to introduce a termination date for the Scottish Examination Board and SCOTVEC in order that the local authorities will have a clear indication at an early stage and in order also to co-ordinate the introduction of the Government's own Higher Still proposals.
The Bill proposes that the termination date will be indicated by Parliamentary Order. It seems to me that the Bill is destined for the overspill period in October and November of this year. It has not yet been to another place. It will take some considerable time. I certainly do not anticipate the return of the Bill to your Lordships' House before the Summer Recess. We shall be into October of this year and local authorities will still have no indication of when the termination date will be. Once the Parliamentary Order has been laid it will have to lie for 40 days. We are running up against a very tight timetable.
To be helpful to the Government and to break the habit of a lifetime, I would suggest that it would be in the Government's best interests, if they are not happy with our amendment, to introduce an amendment themselves that would include in the legislation the termination date for the Scottish Examination Board and SCOTVEC; otherwise the Government could, in terms of timetable, be in very serious trouble indeed.
Breaking the habits of a lifetime, I move this amendment in order to be helpful to the Government on the one hand and to the Scottish local authorities on the other. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: There is a considerable point here. The Bill itself provides that various parts of it will come into force on such a date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint, and different dates may be so appointed to different provisions for different purposes. Probably Members of the Committee understand that when they look at the Bill as a whole. It also provides that there may be transitional arrangements. At the same time, a great many people are involved in the implementation of power and in the various qualifications which are catered for by the new body. I refer not only to the local authorities, although it is natural that they are particularly concerned and have told us that.
CWH 22
If the Minister does not accept the amendment, can he tell us how he will give notice to all those concerned when this particular part of the Bill comes into action in order that they can make the proper arrangements? If they have only short notice it will be very difficult indeed.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, is trying to be helpful to the Government and I shall be helpful to the Committee in responding to this point. I will describe the process by which the SQA will be established and will take on its functions. The SQA will be established by order of the Secretary of State; it will then enter a transitional period during which it will get itself ready to take over the staff and property of the SEB and the SCOTVEC and to take on its substantive functions. During the transitional period the SEB and the SCOTVEC will continue to exercise their current functions.
When it is considered that the SQA is ready to take on its functions the Secretary of State will set the transfer date. On that date the staff, property and all other rights and obligations of the SEB and the SCOTVEC will be transferred to the SQA. Substantive functions will then be assumed from legislation. After the transfer date the two bodies will have more limited functions, winding themselves down ready for dissolution. That is the period for which Clause 19 provides. During that time the SEB and the SCOTVEC will prepare final accounts and reports. They may also be required to assist the SQA in the transfer of their property or rights to the new body.
The proposed Amendment No. 15 would require the SEB and the SCOTVEC to be dissolved on 1st April 1997. I understand that some users of the SEB and the SCOTVEC have indicated that it would assist their preparations if a date were specified in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, has suggested. It is difficult to estimate at present how much time will be needed for the preparatory stages and for the completion of the winding-down stage. If the SQA were not in a position to take on its functions by the specified date of dissolution of the SEB and the SCOTVEC there would be no other body to carry out their duties. Even when the transfer date has arrived and the SQA is fully operational, the SEB and the SCOTVEC may not have carried out their final functions.
As the Bill stands, only once the Secretary of State is satisfied that nothing further remains to be done will a date be set for the dissolution of SEBs and SCOTVEC. The Bill gives the Secretary of State discretion as to the timing of the various stages that I have described. Such discretion is necessary to ensure that the transfer is as smooth as possible.
I should like to reassure my noble friend Lady Carnegy that there is no intention that anyone involved in such a process shall be caught by surprise through short notice being given. Due notice will be given so that a smooth transition can be achieved.

CWH 23
I assure your Lordships that as much notice as possible of all these stages will be given to Parliament and to the public. On the basis of the background and assurances I have been able to give, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: On the basis of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Interpretation of Part I]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Grants for education of children under school age]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 11, line 16, at beginning insert—
("(A1) This section is subject to section 36(2A) below.")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 17, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 42 and 44. Amendment No. 44 is the key amendment. It is the anti-fraud amendment and as such will receive the support of the entire Committee.
The difficulty arises because this will be the first occasion on which a major universal service will be provided by means of a voucher scheme. I cannot think of a comparable major service that has been provided in this way. As such, we are in unchartered waters and one of the most dangerous unchartered waters relates to the financial provisions and particularly fraud. It is not difficult to imagine circumstances where unscrupulous providers could tempt or offer arrangements with people bearing the voucher (a voucher with a face value of£1,100, but not cashable for cash) which would be fraudulent. That is clearly unacceptable and undesirable.
When we were in Glasgow, I raised this point with Mr. Robertson and he quite genuinely took the point and indicated that the Government were in consultation with the National Audit Office. But even his words indicated that perhaps the National Audit Office was in consultation with the department. At the end of the discussion I asked Mr. Robertson, at paragraph 33 of the Select Committee report, whether we could,
"look forward to some statement perhaps from the National Audit Office to show that they are satisfied with the audit?"
The Minister replied "Yes". I thank him for his very clear "yes" on that point. The amendment therefore seeks to put in form the "yes" which the Minister gave then—that the scheme will not be implemented until the Comptroller and Auditor General certifies satisfaction with the financial provisions and particularly that he is satisfied on the score of fraud and the extent to which it can be minimised. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: On the general point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, in moving the amendment, this is the first time that a public service has been funded by means of vouchers. It is perhaps wide of the mark but it is interesting in this context that the Labour Party has recently put forward a proposal to withdraw benefits from 16 to 18 year-olds and use the money for the provision of education and training. That implies the use of vouchers. The noble Lord smiles broadly, looking at me as though I do not know what I am talking about, but it sounded to me as though the voucher scheme could have a place. The noble Lord can perhaps tell us whether that is a gleam in the Labour Party's eye. That is my only comment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Having heard that contribution, Gordon Brown will extend training up to the age of 70.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: Some of us need it! I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has seen fit to raise the fundamental issues involved in Part II of the Bill. Indeed, Amendments Nos. 17, 42 and 44 seek to delay the coming into force of Part II of the Bill until 1 August 1998 with the extra pre-condition that the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is head of the National Audit Office, should be satisfied that the scheme has minimised the risk of fraud.
I appreciate the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, about fraud, but I do not believe they constitute a reason for putting back the date when the voucher initiative is applied to the whole of Scotland. The recent Audit Commission report on pre-school education concluded that the voucher system will need powerful procedures to prevent fraud. The Government entirely accept that recommendation and will ensure that such powerful procedures are in place for the initiative's pilot year and beyond. The department will be discussing counter-fraud measures with its own internal auditors and with the National Audit Office as well as with the voucher management company.
Naturally, the details of the measures to be employed to counter fraud cannot be made public—they would be of little value if they were—but they are being put in place and will be rigorously monitored throughout the course of the pilot year. The Government will welcome the National Audit Office's involvement in developing payment, accounting, monitoring and reporting systems and the National Audit Office will be free to investigate the effectiveness of the system's anti-fraud mechanisms in practice.
The National Audit Office operates by advising on the development of systems and by examining their implementation. It is not for me to commit the Comptroller and Auditor General or his department to any particular form of statement at any particular time. I am confident that the National Audit Office, vigilant as it is, will look closely at the systems of the voucher initiative at the appropriate time.

CWH 25
Preventing fraud, as your Lordships know, is one of any government's primary responsibilities. This Government take that responsibility very seriously across the sweep of their policies and in relation to the voucher system in particular.
The amendments do not make fraud any less likely to happen. They simply seek to delay the voucher system's extension to the whole of Scotland. On that basis I would urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment, especially as I have assured him that the Government place a very high priority on fraud prevention.
Lord Sewel: I thank the noble Earl for what he says. I am not quite sure whether he is giving me a guarantee that the scheme will not be implemented until the Comptroller and Auditor General is satisfied. If that were to be the case, of course, it would change my position significantly. At this stage I am prepared to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 11, line 16, at beginning insert—
("(A2) This section is subject to section 36(2B) below.").
The noble Lord said: I am afraid that the guts here are again in Amendment No. 45. This amendment proposes to delay the implementation of the scheme. Its origins lie entirely in the evidence that we heard in Glasgow. At that time the Minister set great store in the pilot year to iron out the difficulties and to evaluate the scheme robustly—and great credit to him for indicating that it would be a robust evaluation. I believe he said that there was everything to play for in light of the pilot and the evaluation.
When we questioned witnesses it is fair to say that the recurring theme of what they had to say—be they providers themselves or be they those involved in evaluation of education schemes like Professor McCall from Strathclyde—was that their concern was quite simply that if one sought to evaluate the pilot scheme it would be virtually impossible to put the pilot scheme in place, have it running, evaluate it and make modifications in light of the evaluation in time for the scheme to go national the following August.
The amendment seeks to give time for the Government to get the scheme right in their own eyes, to make sure that there can be a robust evaluation, that the pilot can be properly and comprehensively considered and for the scheme to be modified in the light of any difficulties and shortcomings that the evaluation shows up so that it can be properly implemented a year later.
In Glasgow, in relation to the evaluation of the scheme itself, a great deal depends on the specification of the evaluation study. For example, it is necessary to look at whether there is an increase in provision—there may or may not be an increase in provision as a result of this scheme. It is necessary to look at the actual price movement in the private sector as a result of the scheme. A powerful argument from the Scottish Consumer Council was that because the value of the voucher was not sufficient to cover capital expenditure, there may be
CWH 26
no new players entering the market, and if that is the case the consequence is likely to he an increase in the price level rather than an increase in the number of places. So there are movements in the price level.
There has to be an assessment of the scheme in terms of geographical access. We have heard about the difficulties of the remote rural communities in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. There is also the question of social access and whether in areas of relative social deprivation the scheme would increase access to nursery provision. We have heard about the way in which the scheme would add to the smooth transition from nursery education to primary education for the majority of children. The basic fundamental point is an assessment of the quality of the nursery education that is to be provided. It is a very complex evaluative scheme.
In Glasgow, the Minister indicated that he would make available to us the specification of the evaluation, and I hope that that can be made available shortly so that it can inform our discussions at a later stage. If that is the case, I am very grateful indeed.
By listing what are the basic areas that the evaluation of the scheme should cover, it shows that in fact it is more than a tall order to say that you can have the scheme in place, do the evaluation and implement from June to August, when in fact much of the test of the scheme will only be possible towards the end of the school year. Many of the aspects of the scheme can only properly be tested after it has been given a full year of running. That is the argument behind having that period of delay: it is to enable a full, proper evaluation and modification to take place. It is on that basis that I move the amendment.
Lord Addington: The idea of having some kind of trial period of this new voucher system is a very sound one, but it is totally meaningless if there is not a sufficiently vigorous test. The suggested two-year period was recommended by virtually everybody, and when we were in Glasgow everybody concerned said that two years was preferred and that one year was the bare minimum. The noble Lord has just moved the recommendation of the expert witnesses who said it was the only real time scale in which they could do the job properly. They, thought that with one full year they might possibly be able to get something out of it. The Government's time scale was thought by those people who knew what they were talking about to be too short. If this trial period is to mean anything, it must provide the information to create a judgment, and if it is too short and does not take account of the pressures of the educational year, then surely any trial period is totally meaningless. Thus, this amendment or something like it—some extension—is absolutely essential to making this process in any way valid.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It is pretty obvious that within two years, let alone one year, the longer-term benefits of a voucher scheme will be difficult to detect, because the effect on public attitude and on what parents see as the possibilities of nursery schooling will build up as time goes on and as people come to understand

CWH 27
what the possibilities are for them of using their vouchers in various ways. However, the sheer mechanics of how the vouchers are issued, whether people are able to use them, whether the local authorities can deal properly with the funding in this way, and the immediate snags will become obvious in the shorter term. Whether one has one long pilot scheme or several fairly brief ones depends on what one is trying to get out of them. It seems to me there is merit in having a series of short, sharp pilot schemes which show their tactical problems.
The Scottish Consumer Council is anxious about what it describes as the lack of information about the details of the scheme. That was its worry, much of which will emerge as time goes on. It is worried about that and therefore it would like the pilot to reveal as much as possible about the nature of the scheme. However, to say that one year can be of no use and that two years would be much better is probably not completely relevant. I think that it will be a long time before we know how this scheme will develop so I am not sure how much merit there is in this particular suggestion.
Lord Sempill: While I agree with many of the sentiments that have been issued regarding some of the concerns, specifically those relating to fraud and the validity of the test, I wish to reaffirm a very strong observation which I had of our experience in Glasgow. It is that the whole concept is seriously flawed and certainly does not have the support of the people whom we interviewed. We wish to reaffirm that point.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to Members of the Committee who raised issues in this area, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. My noble friend Lady Carnegy produced by far the most practical explanation of why a one-year pilot will be very effective and very successful. In addition to the points that my noble friend made about the practical problems which will be highlighted and can be solved, I believe that I can completely reassure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. The opposition of principle voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, was discussed at length on Second Reading. Therefore, while it is suitable to have this continued opposition on the record I shall not return to the Second Reading defences of why we believe in parent choice and greater diversity of nursery education.
We are anxious that the voucher initiative and the consequent expansion of pre-school education should be introduced in all parts of Scotland as soon as possible. The voucher system, as your Lordships will be aware, is to be piloted in areas within four new unitary authorities from August this year. The operation of the initiative in the pilot year will be closely studied by the Government, by the pilot authorities and, most importantly, by the independent researchers appointed for that purpose. The remit of the independent evaluators will be to study the system's operation in all its aspects and to report on their conclusions and
CWH 28
I believe I am in a position to send the exact specifications of the remit to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, as he requested.
I believe that some may have seen the remit of the operational evaluation of the pilot year and it is indeed very wide, broad and testing. So the categories and issues which the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, seeks to have scrutinised and evaluated will indeed be scrutinised and evaluated. The level of provision is absolutely essential. The impact of vouchers on the provider market; the volume, type and distribution of places; and indeed parental views will be sought by the evaluators.
Quality will be the job of Her Majesty's inspector. So that will be done in any event by that body. The Government set great store by this evaluation: we are intent that the voucher system should deliver the best possible results for its ultimate beneficiaries, namely children in their pre-school year. I stress to both the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the findings of the evaluation will he emerging over the course of the year. If, in the scenario the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, paints, the evaluation only starts at the end of the school year, data having been gathered over that school year, and is then rushed, with conclusions being sought before the start of the next year, I would agree with the noble Lord that one is working to a very tight time-frame. However, we are talking about ongoing evaluation and ongoing assessment. We intend to share the ongoing assessment and the ongoing evaluation with providers and consumer interests as we go along. We shall not be sitting on information as it emerges. It will be available for all those who are involved to discuss and to evaluate themselves. Any glitches in the operational systems will be put right as the pilot year proceeds. The conclusions of the evaluation will also influence how the voucher system is applied nationwide from August 1997. The central point, which I hope meets the valid concern of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is that the evaluation and the assessment are ongoing and therefore continuously arising and continuously open to discussion.
The Government are not careering ahead. We are moving steadily and with care to achieve the objective of expanding provision for the pre-fives. By August 1997 in Scotland, with the results of the pilot evaluation assimilated, we will be ready to extend the system nationwide. I see no justification for another year's delay in implementation. The only effect would be to deny another cohort of pre-school children the expanded pre-school provision from which they could benefit. We know they could benefit: that is why we are determined that the voucher system that we intend to implement through the pilot year and then nationwide is the right way forward in terms of increasing the diversity and the quantity of good pre-five nursery education. I hope that with the real assurance that I have been able to give to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, about the actual process and timetable of evaluation, he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sewel: I thank the Minister, particularly for his assurance that we can have the specification, which would be very helpful. I am afraid that I find difficulty

CWH 29
in accepting his optimism that the pilot and the evaluation will be done, and satisfactorily done, in order for the scheme to be implemented on the present timetable. I have to tell the Minister that the Government will find it very difficult, if they are to stick to this timetable, to assure us that they are taking both the pilot and the evaluation seriously. That is a worry. However, at this stage, I beg leave td withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 11, line 16, after ("may") insert—
("(a) make grants for the purpose of pre-school education to any parent of a child who—
(I) has not attained school age and
(ii) has not commenced attendance at a public primary school by virtue of Section 32 (4) to (7) of the 1980 Act,.
and who satisfies such conditions as he may by order prescribe; and
(b)").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 19 stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie. It is a very straightforward amendment in that it removes the bureaucratic process envisaged by the Bill—that is, giving a voucher to parents who will then present the voucher to a local authority or a school or education provider which will then present it to the Government for the money. The amendment reverts to the simpler process of the local authority providing a service for all those children who are attending its schools currently—the status quo for all those who are happy with their present situation. Those who are outside the system at the moment, those who do not have places, will become part of the voucher scheme.
We are saying that those for whom there is satisfactory provision pre-age five now in place will carry on receiving this type of education. Those who find themselves outside would immediately go into the voucher system. It is a very straightforward system which tries to meet the Government halfway. It says that there will be freedom of choice for those who require it and that if people do not choose to enter the local authority schemes the voucher scheme will be there to provide for them in the private sector or elsewhere. I hope the Government see the proposal as fairly straightforward and not totally antagonistic towards them.
The second amendment in the name of my noble friend says that the scheme shall not come into being. However, the process we are going through now makes the amendment inappropriate, because it is an amendment on which one could have picked a fight and discussed matters, seen what was going on, and tested the opinion of the Committee on the scheme as a whole. I therefore grouped it to enable us to have the discussion here and then it could have been dispensed with when the time came. I thought it best that it should be discussed to let people know the sentiment behind it.
A substantive amendment, Amendment No. 19, allows freedom of choice but also enables the Scottish local authorities to carry on doing the very good job
CWH 30
they are currently doing in large parts of Scotland. It adds an element of choice for those few who are not included. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: Amendment No. 19 is not antagonistic, but Amendment No. 22 is somewhat provocative. I shall deal with them separately.
Amendment No. 19 would extend the power to make grants under the Bill so that grants might be made to parents as well as to providers of education. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, assumes that we intend to give the power of choice to parents, and indeed so we do. If I hear him correctly, he argues that rather than giving vouchers to parents and using parents to determine what grants should be given to providers, it would he more straightforward to give grants directly to parents so that they could make payments to providers themselves. This is an attractive proposition, especially for those with five children, because the volume of grant to which one might be entitled with a large young family would be a significant boost to the household budget.
There is much to be said for enabling parents to purchase pre-school education directly, but the proposition has one fatal flaw which is that it will not stand the test of public accountability. It is not part of the Government's intention to ask Parliament to approve provisions giving additional resources to parents as parents. We are debating an Education Bill and it is the Government's purpose to further pre-school education.
Our proposals have been carefully worked out with proper safeguards for the public purse. They will not permit money that Parliament intends for good education provision to be spent on poor value provision or on simple childcare, or on the general demands of the household budget or the Christmas shopping list. The noble Lord's amendment is in danger of allowing all those things.
The advantage of paying grant to providers is that, with the aid of a simple, and cost-effective voucher system, it enables parents to have the same opportunities for choice as if they received the money directly themselves. Moreover, parents will not have to worry about the complex accountability requirements that might otherwise be needed. They will also have the guarantee they need that there is proper control over the quality of the education their child is receiving.
Amendment No. 22 seeks to prevent a voucher system for pre-school education being established at all, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington suggested. The principle of whether or not we should have vouchers for pre-school education has been debated at length both at Second Reading and briefly today. We believe that it is the best means of securing greater and more diversified provision of pre-school education. We believe that a place for every child in his or her pre-school year whose parents wish it will be provided over time with this system. The voucher initiative will not only facilitate the provision of more places but will also foster quality, diversity and choice.
We are making a substantial investment in this initiative and we are seeking to ensure the welfare of future generations and genuine parental choice. We want

CWH 31
to encourage provision across all sectors, whether public, private or voluntary. We want to ensure quality in the provision of that education.
This principle will no doubt emerge in later amendments today and perhaps on Report and we can discuss it from a Second Reading angle as and when the subject arises. However, with the certainty that there are benefits for children and with the certainty that we can achieve the right mechanics so that it is a low-cost scheme with robust anti-fraud procedures and it is workable and efficient, I hope that, when we come to it, the noble Lord will not wish to move Amendment No. 22.
Lord Addington: The Minister's answer was not unexpected. It is one that will have to be studied and, indeed, studied by my noble friend when he sees the report of today's proceedings. We may well return to this subject in the light of those studies after further discussions between myself and my noble friend. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 11, line 16, leave out ("persons") and insert ("local authorities").
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee I do not propose to move Amendment No. 21 but I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 25, 29 and 31. Like most people nowadays, I am strongly in favour of expanding the provision of pre-five education in Scotland. Indeed, many education authorities have made considerable progress in expanding pre-school provision in their area. I must stress that very often it was in partnership with the private sector and with the voluntary organisations. As we move through the Bill, it is important to show that there is no antagonism to the private sector as such, it is just that we believe that by and large there is a better spread of education if the local authority plays a major part in its provision.
We welcome that pre-school education will be given a higher profile and we welcome the proposals for its expansion. However, as was made clear at Second Reading and at every stage—I remember the evidence in Glasgow—many associations within the education world are opposed to the voucher scheme and do not believe that vouchers are an appropriate means of providing a high quality and equitable system of pre-school education. The voucher approach is unnecessarily complicated, bureaucratic, expensive and is likely to create serious problems in monitoring and attaining high standards of provision. My noble friend Lord Sewel spoke earlier of the possibility of fraud and no-one would doubt that the more diffuse the idea of vouchers becomes in the community, the more likely the risk that there could be fraud involved in it.
I move to Amendment No. 25 which inserts the provision that: Section 1(2) of the 1980 Act (which makes provision that the duty of an education authority to secure that there is made for their area adequate and efficient provision of school education and further education shall not include the provision of school education in nursery schools and nursery classes) shall cease to have effect. We want the education authorities to be the important people as regards the provision of pre-school education—not the only people, but the important people.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 31 stress the importance that we place on local authorities being involved in the provision of education. We seek to amend the legislation to ensure that the Secretary of State can only delegate the arrangements by undertaking any of the functions relating to the making of grants; these must be done through the local authority.
I find it difficult in view of the lack of trust. We had some of it in Glasgow recently and on Second Reading. Underlying everything there is a feeling of a lack of trust in the local authorities, and yet the local authorities are probably more examined, not just by government organisations, but by the users of the service themselves. No one demurs from going to their councillor and objecting to what their local authority is doing. It is much more difficult to object to a small nursery unit when your child is involved in it in a personal way. I have tried to point out that local authorities have encouraged, where possible, voluntary organisations, private organisations and private individuals to take part in nursery school education and under-five education but I believe strongly that local authorities should be the ones handling the basic finances in this area.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: These amendments are designed to channel all the money through local authorities. The noble Lord says that there is no antagonism in local authorities towards the private sector and, of course, he is quite right; we know that. I am sorry, have I misunderstood the amendment?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Local authorities work hard and more and more are encouraging private education and voluntary organisations in partnership.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sorry, but that was what I was trying to say. I appreciate that point because I know that local authorities have worked very closely with the regions and worked very closely through voluntary organisations. However, we should not look at the proposed voucher scheme entirely through the eyes of the providers and, particularly, entirely through the eyes of the local authorities.
It is interesting to see the different perceptions of the possibilities for the scheme when one talks to local authority people and to people on the ground who are interested in getting an increase in nursery education, particularly, I have found, in the rural areas near where I live. Various nursery schools, nursery units, have been started privately and are trying to do a cost effective job. However, it is not possible to get enough children to come in from the local area because people are paying and there are not enough people who are prepared to

CWH 33
pay. It is pretty obvious to me that if people have a voucher in their hand and it is a voucher adequate to secure for them a place in a school which somebody has started nearby and which would, of course, have to meet the criteria for the voucher scheme, provision would arise which, at the moment, the local authorities cannot imagine would happen.
This is where the thinking is a little narrow and where it would be even narrower if this amendment were adopted. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is again looking at me as if I do not know what I am talking about. He may he right but I have been discussing the possibilities with a number of people who are in this position and they see possibilities which the local authority has not yet envisaged. Should this amendment be adopted, it seems to me that one would cut off all those possibilities. We know that the local authorities know a great deal about nursery education. No one is a greater admirer than I am of what has been achieved. But there are further possibilities. We need expansion, particularly in rural areas where we have heard in the evidence that there is very little provision.
This amendment would be a mistake. It would limit the scheme very much because it would make it possible only to do that which the local authority envisaged. If the statutory requirement on local authorities was to provide the whole thing the cost would be very great. That is a different point.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): There is a Division in the House and so we shall adjourn for 10 minutes.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.40 p.m. to 5.50 p.m.]
Lord Sewel: If I have understood the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, correctly, it is that there may be small groups of nursery aged children in rural communities whom the local authority does not see as being sufficient in number for nursery provision to be made available but that under this scheme the private sector may be able to move in and make such provision. I believe that that is the gist of what the noble Baroness said.
The difficulty is that the voucher is pitched at a level of £1,100 which covers the recurrent costs for a 50 per cent placement; indeed, much of the criticism we heard in Glasgow was that this does not provide for the capital costs of entry into the scheme. The difficulty is that new providers would be unlikely to set up nurseries in rural areas for a small number of children given the low value of the voucher. One of the benefits of the amendment is that local authorities could use the voucher value to build on their existing primary provision without the capital costs involved.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful for the able manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, moved the amendment and for the response by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. My noble friend is right when she says that the thinking behind the amendments is somewhat narrow and that they are possibly too provider-oriented rather than being oriented towards the recipients or the
CWH 34
beneficiaries. However, the central point I wish to make to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is that we have a very high regard for the provision that local authorities currently make in terms of education. Their record stands well; we fully acknowledge that. When this Bill is enacted the role of the local authorities will continue to be central, be they acting by themselves or in partnership with the private sector or, indeed, the voluntary sector.
At present, local authorities have a power to secure the provision of pre-school education but they are not under obligation to do so. We believe that this amendment seeks to impose an obligation upon local authorities. It is based upon the Opposition's commitment to expand pre-school education predominantly through local authority provision. The Government, on the other hand, are committed to encouraging diversity and parental choice in expanding pre-school education. We believe that all providers of pre-school education have an important role, whether they are from the public, private or voluntary sectors.
The voucher system will not discriminate between pre-school centres, other than on the basis of quality. Only those centres which convince Her Majesty's inspectors of schools that they have the capability to deliver a good quality of education will be permitted to enter the system. Once centres are members of the system, parental demand, enhanced by vouchers, will encourage growth. This will be growth across all sectors, offering parents real choice; that is, the public sector, the private sector and, indeed, the voluntary sector.
None of this means, however, that the Government underestimate the importance of local authorities' involvement in this initiative, as I have already stated. Their role will continue to be extremely important. Local authority provision is widely respected and appreciated, and deservedly so in very many cases. It would be surprising if many parents with vouchers deserted good quality provision in the public sector. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and I live in a region with a very high standard of education.
Local authorities' responsibility for meeting special educational needs will also continue. Noble Lords will be interested to know that the funding presently received by them for this crucial area will not be affected by the voucher initiative. I accept that it can be argued that the effect of the proposed amendment would not be to make authorities the sole or predominant providers, but merely to give them responsibility for securing adequate provision, which could be achieved by contracting with other providers in the private and voluntary sectors. I do not find that persuasive. The Government's firm belief is that parents, through the exercise of choice, should influence the volume and distribution of places across the various sectors and that authorities should not be in a position to shape the market in which they already have a substantial stake as providers.
The amendment would result in authorities having either an exclusive or a controlling interest in the provider market. Neither outcome is consistent with our vision of a diversified and customer-responsive market.

CWH 35
On either outcome, parents' freedom to choose where their children should receive pre-school education would be restricted. For that reason, I am unable to accept the amendment.
The Government are committed to encouraging diversity and parent choice. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 would confine the proposed arrangements to specified local authorities and reflect the opposition's commitment to expand the interests of local authorities rather than those of parents and children. As I have stressed on more than one occasion, we want the provision to be recipient-led, consumer-led, rather than producer-led.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 29 and 31. The Government's policy is that the issue and redemption of vouchers will be handled by a single agency, and for the pilot year a firm has already been contracted. Substantial economies of scale are likely to be available from such an arrangement. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, suggested that the system would be complicated and bureaucratic, that it would not deliver quality and would be open to fraud. We take fraud extremely seriously and I have already explained to the Committee the efforts that we will be making to counter that. We will make every effort to make this as simple a system as possible.
On the accusation that it will be too bureaucratic, we are certain that the cost of running the system will be about 2 per cent. of the value of the vouchers, and we believe therefore that it will be a very cost-effective system.
On the allegation that the quality will suffer, I do not believe it is sound. It certainly could not be substantiated before the evaluation comes in. As I have said, Her Majesty's inspector will be checking the quality of the education and local authorities are involved in licensing childcare. There are therefore various means by which quality will be maintained.
If the Bill is enacted it will be the Government's intention to delegate to the voucher management agency the payment of grants and perhaps other functions such as the maintenance of a register of persons eligible for grants. Economies of scale would be lost by confining such an important function to local authorities. In any event, it would be inappropriate for functions under Clause 23 to be delegated generally to local authorities since they are likely to be one of the major recipients of grants.
For all those reasons we believe these to be unsatisfactory amendments and, given the serious assurances that I have given on some of the points, I would urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Before my noble friend Lord Carmichael responds, did I correctly hear the Minister say that the private firm to run the voucher agency scheme had already been contracted? If that is so, how long is the period of contract that has been given to the company and why on earth have a pilot scheme if the Government have already made arrangements to put the whole scheme into being?
The Earl of Lindsay: All that has been contracted is 12 months of a pilot operation.
6 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: This is something that we shall certainly want to go into on Report. Two per cent seems quite a bargain. I do not know how many grants they will be giving out to make a living from 2 per cent., bearing in mind the other overheads as well. I think it will be considerably more unless it is to be a second-rate business.
I should like to ask the Minister a question. The noble Baroness, Baroness Carnegy, spoke about parental choice and the lack of provision of nursery education in certain areas of the country, but said that in some areas it is beginning. Can the noble Baroness give us any idea of the private nursery places in her area, the ones with which she is now familiar? One of our suspicions is that there is always private nursery education available if one pays enough for it, but the vast majority of parents are not able to pay anything like what a private nursery school costs. As far as I know in my area, which is a city centre, for lots of people it is right out of their budget; they could not possibly do it. Many people have said, and most people believe, that with the £1,100 voucher all that will happen is that the fees will go up. There may be a slight reduction in the fees as against now, but it will still be much more expensive than most people can afford.
Before I withdraw the amendment, can the noble Baroness give us any idea of the sort of cost of nursery schools? I understand that Fife, as the Minister said, has a very good reputation and I understand it reckons it is costing between £2,400 and £2,600 per year per child at a nursery school. I wonder if that is the sort of figure that the noble Baroness is thinking of?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sorry I cannot give the noble Lord chapter and verse because I do not know about the costs. I believe that the Scottish Consumer Council in its original submission said that it thought the effect of a scheme of this sort would be to drive down the costs of nursery school provision. It may be right about that; I do not know.
We had an exchange during the collection of evidence and I cannot remember with whom I discussed the question of why it would be wrong to have a nursery school in a private house. I know various people south of the Border who do this and have very good nursery classes in their own houses and in their own gardens, and it does not have to be a big garden or a big house. I was interested that when we were collecting evidence there was an assumption that this would not be a wise thing to do. It of course reduces the cost enormously if that is the way it works, and certainly one of the units that I was discussing was in a private house. However, I am sorry that I cannot give chapter and verse; I wish I could.
The Earl of Lindsay: It might just help the Committee if I touch on the value of the voucher and the additional provision for capital expenditure as regards the local authorities, which noble Lords opposite have mentioned. The voucher value will not cover the full cost of the high-cost places and it was never designed to do so. It is nevertheless a generous contribution by the taxpayer, and párents or local authorities who go for higher cost places can indeed top up the cost themselves.
However, a recent Audit Commission study of the position in England and Wales confirms that the voucher value enables the taxpayer to meet either the whole cost, or nearly the whole cost, of provision of all kinds. The study shows that the voucher value more than meets the average cost of playgroups and nursery classes, and most of the expense even of relatively high-cost, part-time nursery school places.
I would also say a word on capital expenditure. In the private and voluntary sectors, any capital needed for expansion will, as ever, be raised commercially. Now with the support of voucher income, education authorities set their own priorities for capital expenditure and voucher income can be used to meet loan charges. In addition, of course, there are also the new-found freedoms under the private finance initiative for local authorities. That may give some assurance on the issues raised by noble Lords opposite.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister has given us a great deal of information and it is something we will be able to look at with care and get advice on, but we will certainly be raising it at the next stage of the Bill when we go back into the House. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 11, line 22, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Grants under this section shall be payable for a limited period in order to evaluate their effectiveness and shall be additional resources over and above that which would otherwise have been available.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 23 gives the Minister an opportunity to clear up what has become a major issue in relation to this legislation. Before I speak to the amendment perhaps I may make it clear that in discussion on Clause 23 stand part I shall return to three of the points the Minister has just made; first, about the value of the voucher; secondly, about the ability to top up the voucher; and, thirdly, about the ability to use the value of the voucher against borrowing. Certainly two of those three issues do not apply to local authorities. I shall come back to those points on clause stand part.
Amendment No. 23 relates to the pilot scheme. When at Second Reading we discussed the whole question of the Government injecting new money into the old scheme, the Minister chided me somewhat for saying that the scheme would not cost the Government a penny piece, and that all the money to run the scheme would
CWH 38
be taken from the local authorities and would be redistributed through the voucher scheme. The Minister chided me and said that the Government were putting in,
"£30 million of new public money"—[Official Report, 11/12/96; col. 1143.]
I quote his own words from the report of the proceedings at Second Reading.
At almost exactly the same time as the Minister was saying that, a report appeared in the Scotsman of 12th December. It was written by a reporter called Elizabeth Quigley and headlined "No extra money for nursery voucher scheme". Although the comments are not attributed directly to the Education Minister, Raymond Robertson, he certainly makes no mention of any additional resources, either for the pilot scheme—that is what the amendment deals with—for the voucher scheme itself. What this amendment seeks to ensure is that the money to finance the pilot scheme—and the four areas for the pilot scheme have already been announced—will be new money and will not be money taken from the education budget and redistributed. I need not go any further on that. All we want with this amendment is an assurance that the money to fund a pilot scheme in the four local authority areas where it is to be operated will be new money, additional to the money for education that is presently allocated. I seek that assurance from the Minister.
The Earl of Lindsay: I can assure the noble Lord that £3 million of new money is being made available for the pilot year. Just to set out clearly how the financing of the main implementation of the nursery voucher scheme will work—because I remember as well as the noble Lord does that we had some interchange about this at Second Reading—we expect the initiative in Scotland to cost some £70 million in a full year once it is up and running. Part of the funding of the initiative in broad terms—some £40 million of the £70 million—will come from re-applying part of the education authority funding for pre-school children. To the re-applied local authority funding, the Government will add some £30 million of new funding each year once the pre-school initiative has been extended nationwide. Both in the pilot year, and indeed in a full year once it is up and running, we are making a substantial investment in this with new money.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I am grateful for the assurance that, in relation to the pilot scheme, it will be absolutely and totally new money, and no local authority will have money withdrawn from it in order to fund or finance a pilot scheme. As regards the issue of additional resources, which both the Minister and I touched upon, 1998–99 is the earliest it is anticipated that this scheme could be extended nationwide in Scotland. We are talking about some time in advance, which, at present, is irrelevant. I accept the assurances that the Minister has clearly given, that, in relation to the pilot scheme, it will be totally funded by the Scottish Office centrally. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

CWH 39
The Earl of Lindsay: I accept that £3 million of new money is being made available for the pilot scheme starting this August. We anticipate that the total cost of running the pilot scheme will be in excess of £4 million. If I understand the information I have correctly, just over £1 million will be recycled among those local authorities who will be involved in the pilot scheme. Approximately £3 million will come from the Government and the Scottish Office in the form of new money, and just over £1 million will come from the local authorities who are involved in the pilot area.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: It seems absurd that a local authority should have to pay for the privilege of participating in a pilot scheme, but against the background of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 11, line 25, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall make capital consents to local authorities in support of capital expenditure.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 24 is also quite a simple amendment which does not require either a complicated presentation or a complicated answer. It deals with the whole question of capital consents for local authorities. There are a number of local authorities which have very little nursery education, and one I can think of off-hand is the Western Isles. If, after this scheme has been introduced, the Western Isles, as a local authority, were to require capital consent in order to provide the infrastructure to meet the parental choice that the Minister keeps talking about, can we have an assurance that the Secretary of State will readily and willingly give the capital consent?
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, for explaining the question behind Amendment No. 24. If I could set out the background to this, it would help. We believe the amendment is unnecessary for a number of reasons. First, the local authorities are free to set their own priorities for capital expenditure and would themselves not welcome a return to specific consents. Secondly, the voucher value is set at a level which will, in general, cover loan charges and capital repayments, and authorities which give appropriate priority to nurseries as regards using capital consents will be able to put voucher income towards loan charges. Thirdly, renting rather than building may be the better answer. In any event, in many cases new buildings may not be needed. The use of spare or under-used classrooms is an important issue at present, as was highlighted by the Accounts Commission in its report entitled Room for Learning last year. This will often provide an appropriate solution to the problem of finding space for additional nursery provision without the need to meet more than marginal costs. I hope with that background I have reassured the noble Lord on the general issues he raises.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I am a simple chap. I do not understand what the Minister is talking about when he says that in the case of the local authorities the value of the voucher can be offset against the interest charges on the loans. The voucher in the beginning comes from the local authority. The principle of Part II of the Bill is that based on information provided by the Department of Social Security and, in some cases, the Child Support Agency, the parent of every four year- old child in that local authority's area will receive a voucher for £1,100, the £1,100 being deducted from the local authority concerned. This is what we were told at Second Reading. Where does the £1,100 come from?
The Earl of Lindsay: The cost of the scheme when it is up and running will be some £70 million, £30 million of which will be new money. That is new money being injected into the system. So, of the £70 million which will be going into nursery education, only £40 million will be coming from the local authorities' grant. There will be substantial new money in the system beyond that which is being taken from the local authorities.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: This is an important point that should be clarified. Is the Minister saying, as distinct from what he said at Second Reading, that it is not now the case that £1,100 for a four year-old child in the local authority's area will be deducted from the local authority's education allocation? If that is what the Minister is saying, how much will be deducted per child from the local authority's education allocation?
Lord Sewel: Am I right in saying that there is a major difference in the ratio between old and new money in the pilot scheme and the main scheme? As I understand it, in the pilot scheme it is £1 million of old money coming from the local authorities and £3 million of new money coming from the Government. In the main scheme, it is a ratio of 4:3 of old money and new money. If there is such a difference in the ratio between old and new money, between the pilot and the main scheme, will this not totally distort the evaluation?
The Earl of Lindsay: That factor, which can easily be taken into account, will not totally distort the evaluation. It is a matter of the evaluators keeping a clear head and simply coping with the information which the noble Lord has just described.
I offer a further explanation to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. On national implementation of the voucher system in 1997–98, we propose to deduct funding from local authorities' AEF so that it can be reissued in grant through the voucher mechanism. The actual sum will be the equivalent of the voucher value multiplied by the number of children in the pre-school year who would have been educated by education authorities in the absence of a voucher system. Our current estimate of that is just over £39 million.
As regards the method of distributing the deduction among authorities, we suggested two options in the consultation paper published last August, but there was no consensus on the preferred option. In any event, none of those matters has yet been decided, nor should it have

CWH 41
been. It will all be discussed with CoSLA in the usual way of the local government finance negotiations. I hope that gives noble Lords some of the information that they sought.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Perhaps I may take this simple fellow down the road just a little further. If the value of the voucher is to be multiplied by the number of four year-olds in the local authority's area and the value of the voucher is £1,100, am I not right in saying that the local authority will have deducted from its education allocation £1,100 multiplied by 10,000 if there are 10,000 four-year olds in its area? That is what I have been saying all along. The Minister seems to be taking a long round-about road to say that I am wrong. Am I wrong or am I right?
The Earl of Lindsay: I told the noble Lord that he is right. If there are 16,000 four year-olds in an area 16,000 vouchers will be regularly spent in that area. In fact, a greater degree of money will be spent on the provision of nursery education after the voucher system has been introduced. Therefore if the local authority happens to be the principal provider it will stand a very good chance of remaining the principal provider for the extra 4,000 four-year olds who will suddenly come into the system.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: This is not a private discussion and anyone should feel free to join in! At present, the local authorities provide nursery education at a cost of roughly £2,500 per four-year old child. If there are 16,000 children, as the Minister says, in a local authority's area and the parents each receive vouchers for £1,100, and even if the £1,100 is returned to each local authority with no ability to top up, then less money is being spent. The top-up scheme does not apply to local authorities; it is only in the private sector that parents can top up the voucher.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Surely this matter should be dealt with when the central government grant is arranged with the local authorities. As I understand it, the local authorities will lose £1,100 for each child who is with them at the moment. The noble Lord is right in saying that. If those children return to their nursery schools the local authorities will get that back and they will be exactly where they were before. In the Minister's own area, Fife, a small proportion of four year-olds are not in the local authority schools. The question will be: where will those children go? If they go to the local authority schools it will help them. If they do not, it will be a question of how other provision is made. The schools will be in the same position provided that the families do not leave them to go to other nursery schools. Then the schools will lose some children, which obviously will be a problem for them but they will have to adjust. Is that not correct?
The Earl of Lindsay: I should like quickly to deal with this point. If the authorities create more voucher sponsored places with the new arrangements than they were providing before the new arrangements, they will be better off than they were under the old system.
CWH 42
Secondly, it is up to local authorities to decide among themselves as to whether they want to top up.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): We have a Division and I believe that it is the wish of the Committee to adjourn for a Division. The Committee is adjourned for 10 minutes.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 6.23 p.m. to 6.33 p.m.]
The Earl of Lindsay: Because of the quantity and density of detail in this area, the most constructive offer I can make is that I write quickly to the noble Lords opposite setting out the detail and what is behind some of the issues we have been discussing. I would just clarify one point with regard to the deduction of the £1,100 times the number of pupils in a local authority area. The deduction will be the number of four-year old pupils that that local authority is presently educating, not the total number of four-year olds in that specific local authority area.
The other small point which I might clear up at this moment regards the ratio that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was worried about of the pilot scheme where some £3 million of new money is contributing towards an overall package worth about £4 million, versus the main scheme where we anticipate £30 million of new money playing its part in an overall scheme of about £70 million. In the pilot scheme areas, that £1 million of local authority money represents the extent to which they are educating pupils at present who are four-year old pupils. Therefore, that reflects the number of pupils who are not being educated at the moment—hence the government contribution of £3 million.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: The Minister has made a very important statement. Up until the present time, it has always been understood, certainly by the local authorities, that all the calculations from the previous local authorities—Fife region and Central region—have been based on a deduction of £1,100 for every four year-old child in their local authority area. What the Minister is now saying is that the deduction will in fact be for every four year-old child that is presently in nursery education. What that means is that in the case of the Western Isles, where the level of provision is very low indeed—almost non-existent—only a handful of parents will be entitled to this voucher.
The Earl of Lindsay: In the case of the Western Isles, I am not immediately familiar with the details. The advent of the voucher system will be very beneficial and they will have a very small deduction, because they are currently educating very few four-year olds. However, a voucher will be delivered to the parents of every single four year-old in the area. Therefore the ratio of money being deducted versus new money being injected will be a very good ratio as far as the Western Isles are concerned.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: The Minister has anticipated what I was going to say. In the case of the Western Isles, where up to now provision has been almost non-existent, they are going to benefit

CWH 43
substantially, whereas in the case of authorities like the old Fife region and Central region, where provision has been at a very high level, they are going to suffer. Fife has produced figures showing that it will suffer. It will be penalised for the previously high provision. However, we should leave the matter for today and return to it at Report stage.
The Earl of Lindsay: Fife region would suffer only if, once the vouchers have been delivered to the parents, the parents then find another kind of nursery education that they prefer to the current provision of nursery education in Fife. If most parents are satisfied with the education service they are getting from the Fife regional council then they will stay with the Fife regional council.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Am I right in thinking that for every child in Fife who is in a local authority nursery at the moment £1,200 will be deducted, and that if the children go back to continue in the nursery school where they are, that money will return to Fife? That is what I was trying to say before—that they will be in the same position as they were before. It is the children who are not in the present local authority system who will affect the scene.
Lord Sewel: Is the Minister saying that is the main scheme as well as the pilot scheme?
The Earl of Lindsay: That is correct. If education authorities continue to provide for as many pre-school-year children under the voucher system as they did before, the effect of these arrangements will indeed be cash neutral. If authorities create more voucher-funded places, their funding will increase. Given the popularity of much local authority provision and pressure on places, it is highly unlikely that authorities will lose funding overall, and very probable that they will secure additional funding through the vouchers.
Lord Sempill: Is the calculation of £70 million guaranteed to give pre-school education to all four-year-olds in Scotland; and if so, what would be the cost to the state if they undertook it themselves?
The Earl of Lindsay: The £70 million would enable all four-year-old children in Scotland to receive nursery education.
Lord Sempill: If that calculation has been made, have the Government worked out what it would cost if the state had to provide the education for all four-year-olds in Scotland; or is it exactly the same figure?
The Earl of Lindsay: I am afraid I do not have that figure with me.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: We have had a good discussion and I shall just add one point before I withdraw the amendment. The point about the local authorities being in balance falls flat if a large number of parents decide not to return their voucher to the local
CHW 44
authority. It falls flat on two counts; first, because they have not returned their voucher; and, secondly, because the capital expenditure incurred by the local authority in order to provide the nursery accommodation hitherto is therefore lost. That is where the whole scheme falls flat. However, having said that, and having indicated that we shall want to return to this point at a later date, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Part II of the Bill demonstrates the fundamental difference between the Government and certainly the Labour Opposition on the Bill. We have a fundamental objection to the whole question of the voucher scheme. It is interesting that the Minister has used extensively today the word "voucher". I mentioned at Second Reading that nowhere in the Bill, from the front cover to the back cover, does the word "voucher" appear. The reason why the word "voucher" does not appear is that the Minister and his advisers know perfectly well that the whole thing is highly unpopular. I shall not persuade the Minister today that the Government have got it wrong, but what I shall do, and do in no uncertain terms, with a maximum of 44 weeks until the calling of the next general election—from the date on which the Bill goes on the Statute Book, assuming that is the second week in November, we are down to 18 to 20 weeks—is to place firmly on record that an incoming Labour Government will stop this scheme. There will be no voucher scheme in nursery education provision in Scotland.
We have seen already the pilot schemes in the early part of their operation here in England. It is interesting to read the reports of the early results of the pilot scheme. It is interesting to listen to the interviews on the early results of the pilot scheme. One has to look and listen long and hard before one finds anyone, even in the pilot stage of the scheme in England, who is in favour of the scheme. I do not intend to repeat myself; I have it clearly on record at Second Reading that this scheme is socially divisive. It is educationally inappropriate and it will not do anything for nursery education in Scotland.
The socially divisive part of the proposal is clear. The parents in a village community get their nursery vouchers. Some are able to afford to top-up that voucher, because a voucher will only buy £1,100 worth of nursery education. An £1,100 voucher will not buy any more than £1,100 worth of nursery education whatever the Minister says; there is no escaping that fact. Then some of the parents decide that they can afford to top it up, and Miss Smith next door decides for obvious reasons, being a single parent, that she simply cannot afford to top it up. So we have the two children going to the nursery together, let us say, at nine, half-past nine or ten o'clock; we have one coming home at lunchtime because his or her mum cannot afford to top it up, and the other one staying on in the afternoon. Whether the Minister likes it or not, that is socially divisive.

CWH 45
It was to the rural communities that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, addressed herself at an earlier stage in our proceedings. It is the rural communities that will feel the impact more than the urban communities. But it will have its impact in the urban areas of Scotland as well.
Raymond Robertson, in his speech to which I referred in the Scotsman of 12th December last year, laid great emphasis on the whole question of parental choice. Raymond Robertson referred to parental choice in the context of the assisted places scheme, not in the context of this scheme. We are not debating, and the Bill has nothing to do with, the assisted places scheme. But there is not even parental choice; there is school choice. If the school decides not to take the pupil, the school does not take the pupil. That is not parental choice.
I shall put forward a proposal to the Minister, because we will not be voting on this today. We shall come back to this on Report. If the Minister is interested in introducing real parental choice, I invite him to come back on Report with an amendment to Clause 23, which says that the parents go and collect the vouchers, not have them sent to them. That is real parental choice: the parents right at the beginning can choose whether or not they want to go and collect the voucher. That is real parental choice. But of course the Minister will not do that. The Government will not do it. There is no parental choice. You get the voucher whether you want it or not. It is not enough to say, "Ah, but they have parental choice on how they spend it." Some vouchers, because of the domestic situation, will get lost. There will be all sorts of confusion about what is happening to wee Johnnie's or Mary's nursery education.
That is not my main objection. My main objection is to Clause 23 in Part II of the Bill. This is the part of the Bill that separates both main political parties in Scotland. Certainly, in the United Kingdom as a whole, the whole question of vouchers for nursery education separates the main political parties. I say again and put on record that we will not vote on it here today but we shall come back to it at Report stage. An incoming Labour Government—and this should be absolutely clear—will stop this scheme dead in its tracks. It will not be implemented. That should be absolutely clear.
Lord Sewel: I accept that the Government, in going down the road of vouchers, believe that it will increase provision and increase choice. I believe that there is a very real chance that it will fail on both counts. I can illustrate this by notional figures.
Let us assume that there is a local authority nursery, which is at the boundary of financial viability with, say, 20 children. I use the figures purely for the sake of illustration. If it gets all the vouchers for those 20 children it can continue and maintain its financial viability. The Minister argues that if the local authorities are successful in retaining those presently attending local authority nurseries, local authority provision has nothing to fear. Let us assume that five children are taken out of local authority nursery provision and that their parents use the voucher to gain entry to the private sector. They use the voucher and use the top-up fees, because all the evidence we have received indicates that
CWH 46
it will be necessary to top up the voucher if you move to the private sector. The Minister shakes his head, but all the evidence we heard in Glasgow from those who are providing private provision indicated that, even to recover the recurrent costs, let alone the capital costs, it would be necessary to charge top-up fees. So the five children move out of local authority provision and the local authority is left with the income from 15, which takes the total amount of income below the level that allows the local authority to provide the nursery povision on a financially viable basis. The local authority, faced with that, withdraws from nursery provision in that area. It simply cannot afford to maintain it with the loss of income.
At the end of the day the sum total of the effect of the voucher scheme in that particular example, and it is a valid example, is that five pupils move across from local authority provision into the private sector and 15 pupils have no nursery provision at all. In other words, there is a decrease in provision and the choice exercised by the five denies provision for the 15. That is one of the fundamental weaknesses of this scheme.
Lord Addington: Clause 23 brings in Part II of the Bill which everybody has been protesting about. Part I of the Bill is something which we would all, generally speaking, welcome and the other parts of the Bill do not inspire the same amount of protest.
When we bring in this voucher scheme we are bringing in something which can potentially, if not actually, cause division. It is bureaucratic; it is wasteful. In certain parts of Scotland it certainly has the potential for undermining pre-school education, which works. With that in mind, if we had the opportunity to divide on this I would certainly be supporting those noble Lords who have spoken because this is not the best way forward and it is that, and only that, on which I base my opposition to the clause.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It is very interesting that we continue to have coming from the parties opposite this intense dislike of putting the power to choose into the hands of local people; the power to choose something which is run by the local people or something which is run by somebody else. The arguments remind me of when Parliament discussed the question of choosing a school. There was intense suspicion that it would not work and it would upset all the arrangements. There have been problems, one of which is addressed in the Bill but, on the whole, it has worked very well. From the very start in Tayside people were allowed to choose their school, there was never a problem. I remember saying that in Parliament when we were discussing how necessary it was for everybody to have a choice of schools, and nobody believed it.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness. The Bill, if enacted, would amend the position. Parental choice in choosing schools is not working. The amending provision is in the reserved places part of the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sorry. I did not quite hear what the noble Lord said.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: The Bill, if enacted, would amend the parental choice legislation to which the noble Baroness is referring because it did not work.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have just said that. There have been problems and one of them is addressed in the Bill. Of course there have been problems but, on the whole, it has worked extremely well. The fear of this system is the fear of something different. As I hear the noble Lords opposite speak, New Labour seems to be very like old Labour: there is the fear of innovation, the fear of allowing people to have a say in what they are doing.
It will be very interesting to see, as the pilot develops, how people react to it. One cannot tell whether there will be time before the next general election for people to know enough about the possibilities. One seldom has a single issue playing a great part in the result of a general election but it will be very interesting to see whether people want to have a voucher for nursery education. I hope that will come through and that, whoever wins the next general election, people will have some confidence about this scheme as a result.
It is very sad to be quite so negative and to be following the producers all the time instead of listening to what people want. They want to choose, they want more nursery schools and they want more nursery schools in rural areas. Although we do not bet in this House on the outcome of legislation I should have thought that one would win if one bet on an increase in nursery education in rural areas as a result of the scheme. I am increasingly certain of that. There will of course be problems to be ironed out, and there will be changes in the way the system works as it is developed. But as a general principle and as a way of expanding nursery education, it seems that the providers are wrong, and the parties opposite are wrong in being so fearful of it. I hope it will go ahead.
Lord Goold: I am surprised at the pessimism of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, with regard to the ability of local authorities to keep their pupils. I should have thought that, with the voucher system, people would want to spend their vouchers, that people who are not at present taking the benefit of local authority nursery schools would want to use their vouchers and that the numbers in all nursery schools would increase, in addition to new ones starting up.
Lord Sewel: That goes also for the evaluation, but there will not be time to take it on these issues.
The Earl of Lindsay: I was grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Goold who makes the extremely good point that the opposition of noble Lords opposite to this clause and to the principle behind Part II is in part driven by pessimism and in part driven by some less attractive qualities than pessimism. Just 56 per cent. of four year-olds in Scotland currently receive nursery education and so 44 per cent. of Scotland's four year-olds will be in a position to request and purchase nursery education with the advent of the voucher scheme. There will potentially be a huge expansion in the provision of pre-school education because of this initiative.
CWH 48
We believe that parental choice should be the driving force. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, has an extraordinary definition of parental choice if he prefers a system whereby he would make parents go to collect their vouchers—for what reason I do not understand, and why that should represent better parental choice I do not claim to understand. We want to deliver those vouchers to the parents themselves without making them trail round the country to pick them up. Of course vouchers can get lost among the mess in the kitchen, but whether you pick the voucher up by car or whether it has arrived the post, will not make it any more likely to be lost.
We are convinced that this route will increase nursery education provision and increase parental choice. It breaks new ground and therefore outside this House I am not unsympathetic to some of the concerns people have. This is a scheme with which they are not familiar and therefore one tends to entertain the darkest notions when one is not quite sure what is coming one's way. But I am astonished at some of the deliberate scaremongering that is coming from noble Lords opposite, particularly as it can only undermine the confidence that some parents will have in the prospects which this initiative hopes to offer.
The Domesday scenario pictured by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is technically possible but, as I said, with a huge increase in the demand for nursery education in Scotland resulting from nursery vouchers it is very unlikely that a local authority school which is offering decent nursery education will start losing children. There may be another provider of education nearby which attracts five children from the school that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was imagining. However, at the same time there will be many more children in that area who suddenly, for the first time, have access to nursery education. If that school is providing a service of some quality it has no need to fear. If it is providing a service that is inferior to the service being provided by other competitive providers then it does have something to fear. But beyond that, there is a huge increase in customers and consumers who will be requesting and demanding education.
I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goold. On the whole, local authorities have a good record, especially in some areas, of providing nursery education. They will find that their market of potential customers is about to increase significantly and therefore there will be winners and not losers.
I would like to stress a point that I made earlier. The Audit Commission studied the position in England and Wales and it confirmed that the voucher value enables a taxpayer to meet either the whole cost, or nearly the whole cost, of provision of all kinds. We see no reason why the commission report on England and Wales should not have a relevance to the circumstances in Scotland.
I could defend Clause 23 at length, but I shall not do so because we more or less covered the ground in the debate on the various other amendments. I summarise by stressing our fundamental belief that we want to see nursery education expanded; that parental choice should be the driving force behind it; and that not only

CWH 49
increased quantity and diversity of education from local authorities, the private sector and the voluntary sector should ensue but, indeed, quality will also be a watchword of the Scottish initiative on nursery vouchers.
We realise that there is no issue of principle as regards the clause and this part from noble Lords opposite. Pessimism is the less attractive feature of the Opposition as regards the principle. It is the absolute determination to prevent parents from being the principal point of choice that I find much more uncomfortable and much more unattractive. No doubt we shall return to debate Clause 23, Part II, at the Report stage when we can cover this ground again, but at the moment I would commend to the Committee that the clause stands part of the Bill.
7 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Before I beg leave to withdraw my Motion that Clause 23 shall not stand part of the Bill, I give notice again that we will return to this matter on Report. I am always interested to hear Government Ministers, particularly for Scotland, complaining that Opposition politicians are distorting their case. I think I have said before that when I was a Minister at the Scottish Office there were nine or ten press officers. There are now around 35 or 36—almost four press officers for every Tory MP in Scotland—and they cannot get their case across; and we get the blame for that. There is nothing between the Minister and myself on Labour-controlled authorities, and they are all more or less Labour-controlled in Scotland now. There is nothing between us on the desire to expand nursery education and to involve parents in the decision-making process—nothing between us on that at all. Our objection is to this divisive voucher scheme and to the dangers that it holds. That is why it will not be introduced under a Labour Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): The Question is that Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say Content.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: We cannot vote in this Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: It was read out at an earlier stage. I go through the Committee stage clause by clause. It is just the same as any other Committee stage. By convention, as I am sure the noble Lord will be aware, there are no Divisions. There are facilities but I go through the Bill clause by clause, amendment by amendment, and accordingly I put the
CWH 50
Question that Clause 23 stand part of the Bill. It will stand part of the Bill. I understand that that is the will of the Committee.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: We are under a difficulty now. If when we come to Report stage we are told that the Committee decided that Clause 23 should stand part of the Bill, does that mean that we cannot return to this matter at that time? I have to say that if the Lord Chairman's ruling earlier today had been in line with what the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman has just said, we could have voted now on this. My understanding is that all through this Committee's proceedings no votes have been taken or recorded. So can we return to this or can we not? Because if we cannot return to it, we want to vote on it now.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: We were told at the outset of the Committee stage that there would be no votes, and because of that we can return to absolutely anything. We always go through every clause and we accept every clause at Committee stage, so that fits in entirely with what was agreed.
Lord Addington: What we are doing here, as I understand it, is merely discussing everything, but the form of the discussion is the form we take for a normal Committee stage. It has been accepted that we will allow everything to go through in an unamended form. Am I correct? Is that in effect what the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman is saying about this—that we are going through the clauses, and it is a case of agreeing to disagree without committing ourselves to any discussion made here; and it is merely a convention and a matter of words to keep us progressing through the Bill as is normally done inside the Chamber? If that is it, it covers everybody's concerns.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am sure the noble Lord was here at the commencement of proceedings this afternoon, when the Lord Chairman proposed to the Committee a document that I have before me. I will not go through it again, but I hope that I may clear up any problems with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—that this Committee goes through each stage of the Bill just as if we were in Committee elsewhere in the House, and that is what I have done today. I understand that there may be further discussions on Report but that will be a matter for the whole House, which will receive the report of this Committee.
The Earl of Lindsay: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until tomorrow.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned until tomorrow at 3.30 p.m.
Committee adjourned at seven minutes past seven o'clock.

  Anti-personnel Landmines
  Anti-personnel Landmines
  ECJ: UK Memorandum
  ECJ: UK Memorandum
  Crown Copyright: Acts of Parliament
  Crown Copyright: Acts of Parliament
  Acts of Parliament: Internet Publication
  Acts of Parliament: Internet Publication
  Exercise Co-operative Nugget
  Exercise Co-operative Nugget
  Wheelchairs: Voucher Scheme
  Wheelchairs: Voucher Scheme
  Youth Treatment Places for Juveniles
  Youth Treatment Places for Juveniles
  Income Support: Accuracy Percentage Target and Outturn
  Income Support: Accuracy Percentage Target and Outturn