Sitting of 3 July 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  MV Derbyshire
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  9.34 am
  Mr. Don Dixon: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving us the opportunity to raise this issue on the Floor of the House this morning.
  Many of my hon. Friends and I are annoyed and disgusted at the cavalier way in which the Government have treated the investigation and the MV Derbyshire Family Association—people who lost their loved ones in the tragedy some 16 years ago. I shall come to the details later, but first I pay tribute to the many people and organisations that have kept the issue on the political agenda for many years, including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who has done more work than anyone in the House to keep the matter in the public eye. He has initiated emergency debates under Standing Order No. 20, tabled early-day motions, asked numerous questions, raised the matter in an Adjournment debate and presented a petition. He has been relentless in trying to get at the truth about this terrible disaster, as have other Members of Parliament whose constituents lost their relatives on the Derbyshire, not least my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington).
  I also pay tribute to my old comrade, Jim Slater, who was general secretary—later president—of the National Union of Seamen. Jim spent the last years of his life fighting to get at the truth about the Derbyshire. Indeed, I recall sitting one Sunday evening at Littlehaven harbour in South Shields, watching the ships coming into the Tyne—something my wife and I often do on a Sunday night after I have left this place and gone back to civilisation—when Jim came along, taking his youngster for a walk. Within minutes, we were talking about the Derbyshire. Jim always had it on his mind. Unfortunately, that was the last time I spoke to him, as he died shortly afterwards while attending a war veterans' rally in Liverpool.
  I also pay tribute to Paul Lambert, chairman of the MV Derbyshire Family Association, who lost his brother on the ship, and to the rest of the association. Those people have fought so hard and shown such patience in their fight for the truth and natural justice for their relatives who perished on the Derbyshire.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I lost two constituents, Peter Taylor and Griffith Wyn Williams, on the Derbyshire. In view of what he was saying about the rights of the
  884
  families, is it not high time that they had full representation in any further inquiries and access to any further information that is available, so that their suffering can at last be put to rest?
  Mr. Dixon: I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall come to that point later. I appreciate that he has also taken an interest and attended our meetings in the House.
  I also pay tribute to the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—formally the National Union of Seamen—which has been involved ever since the sinking; to the International Transport Workers Federation, which located the wreck; and to Dave Ramwell and Tim Madge, authors of the book "A Ship Too Far—The Mystery of the Derbyshire". I would recommend that book to anyone, and I sincerely hope that the Minister has read it.
  On 29 January this year, I received a letter from Paul Lambert, chairman of the MV Derbyshire Family Association, in which he informed me that, at a meeting 10 days earlier, he was told by Mr. Frank Wall, representing the Department of Transport, that there would be no nominated experts from the association on the forthcoming return to the wreck of the Derbyshire. Following those representations from Paul Lambert, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport on 6 February, requesting that nominated experts from the MV Derbyshire Family Association be allowed on the forthcoming return to the wreck. I received a reply on 4 April from the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, saying that careful consideration was being given to my request, that he hoped to reach a decision soon and that he would let me have a substantive reply as soon as he had done so.
  On 10 June, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping wrote to me, saying:
  "we have concluded that it would not be appropriate for the Derbyshire Family Association … to be represented on the return expeditions."
  In January, an official from the Department of Transport told Paul Lambert that no member of the association would be represented. Six months later, after careful consideration, the Minister confirmed that. Like many other hon. Members who are present today, I do not believe that the Government ever intended to allow the association to be represented. That illustrates the shabby and disgraceful way in which they have treated the association.
  Not until the loss of the Kowloon Bridge in 1986 did a formal investigation into the loss of the Derbyshire take place, six years after it sank. Had it not been for the efforts of those I have mentioned and the hon. Members who are here this morning, the Government probably would not have revealed the truth.
  Let me give a few details of the tragedy. No doubt other hon. Members will elaborate on them. The Derbyshire was built by Swan Hunter at Haverton Hill, Teesside, in 1976. She was the last of the six Bridge class oil-bulk-ore combination carriers, which were the first of their kind to be built in the United Kingdom. The six ships were the Furness Bridge, later renamed the Marcona Pathfinder and launched in 1971; the Tynebridge, later renamed the East: Bridge and launched in 1972; the English Bridge, later renamed the Kowloon Bridge and launched in 1973; the Sir John Hunter, later renamed Cast Kittiwake and

  885
  launched in 1974; the Sir Alexander Glen, launched in 1975; and the Liverpool Bridge, later renamed the Derbyshire, launched in 1976.
  Of those six ships, only the first, the Furness Bridge, was built to the original design. Three of them had to undergo repairs at frame 65 to restore them to the original design and make them seaworthy. That left two, the Kowloon Bridge and the Derbyshire. The Derbyshire sank in September 1980, some 200 miles off Japan in the South China sea—amid waves, in a typhoon that she should easily have braved—while carrying iron ore concentrate from Canada to Japan, with the loss of 44 lives. She plunged two miles, so rapidly that there was no time to send a distress signal. There was not even time for an SOS.
  The ship was 145 ft wide, the width of a six-lane motorway, and 1,000 ft long, the length of three football pitches. She was twice the size of the Titanic. She was only four years old—three working years old—and she remains the largest ship ever lost from the British register. Forty-four people died on the Derbyshire, of whom 42 were crew—officers and ratings—and two were wives of officers on board.
  Despite the loss of so many lives, no formal investigation was carried out. Given such a massive loss of life, such an investigation should have been the norm rather than the exception; but, notwithstanding normal practice, the Minister announced in May 1981 that there was not enough evidence to justify an inquiry, although all the Derbyshire's sister ships had experienced problems.
  On 11 March 1982, on a passage from Hamburg to Brazil, the Tynebridge—the second in the six-ship series—encountered a North sea storm, and started to split badly around frame 65. Such was the captain's concern that he arranged for most of the crew to be airlifted to safety. The ship, with a skeleton crew, was towed to Hamburg. Inspection of the ship in dry dock showed that she had not been built to design, and the damage was attributed to the change in the method of connecting the cargo section of the hull to the aft-end engine room section. The region affected was frame 65, which coincided with one of the ship's ribs. Let me explain to those who do not know the construction of ships that a ship's ribs that run horizontally are referred to as longitudinals, while those that run vertically are called frames. The frames are numbered from the aft rather than the forward end: frame 65 is near the aft end.
  So alarmed were the surveyors of the damage to the Tynebridge that, unsolicited, they sent out warnings to the owners of similarly built sister ships. Two were given some strengthening treatment in the same year after similar damage was found in embryo form, and those repairs made the ships seaworthy for the first time. If actions speak louder than words, this is what the repairs said. First, the longitudinals—the spinal girders—should not have been terminated at and welded into the transverse bulkhead; they should have carried straight through the bulkhead.
  In all my years in the shipbuilding industry—in which I worked from the time when I left school at the age of 14 until I retired from gainful employment and came to the House in 1979—I never worked on a ship on which the longitudinals were constructed in that way. The butts
  886
  should have been staggered. When a house is built, the bricks are not placed in a single line; they are staggered to give them strength. The same applies to the longitudinals and frames on a ship. I believe that that is one of the reasons why the ship sank: there was a flaw in the bulkhead. I have no doubt that many of my hon. Friends agree—certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who, like me, has served time as a shipwright. Some of my other hon. Friends who are present come from that dying breed of Labour Members who have not only seen a pair of overalls but actually worn a pair, and it is good to see that they have turned up to discuss this important issue.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: My hon. Friend kindly referred to me as an ex-shipwright. Let me say, as one former shipwright to another, that the fact that the longitudinal ended where it did indicates a distressing design fault. I do not think that that has anything to do with the way in which the ship was built by the lads at the yard.
  Mr. Dixon: I agree, and I hope that some of my hon. Friends will elaborate on that. The ships were built to specifications laid down by law, and that is one of the reasons why I believe that there was a certain amount of cover-up over the sinking. The deck should have been at least 30 per cent. thicker, and the metal should have been D and E grade.
  A question that has never been answered is this: how do those who claim that the hull of the Derbyshire was up to specification reconcile that claim with the fact that many thousands of pounds needed to be spent on strengthening and repairing that part of the hull on her sister ships? Only one other of those similarly built sister ships was not restored to the intended design; that was the third in the series, originally called the English Bridge and later renamed the Kowloon Bridge.
  On 25 November 1986, the Kowloon Bridge, in an abandoned condition, struck Stag rocks, off the southern coast of Ireland, and gradually sank, splitting at frame 65. Following the loss of that ship, early in 1987. it was announced that there would be a formal inquiry into the loss of the Derbyshire. A report was published in 1989, stating:
  "The Derbyshire was probably overwhelmed by the forces of nature in Typhoon Orchid",
  and adding:
  "the evidence available does not support any firmer conclusion".
  I have a letter from Mr. J. F. Ibbotson, leader of the Australian branch of the MV Derbyshire Family Association. He writes:
  "One of our Group. in command of an Australian registered Bulk carrier and taking the same course and the same cargo to Japan. heard no distress signal from Derbyshire because her end may have come too quick—in seconds.
  The same member did not consider the Typhoon to be much different from the 30 or 40 each year which occur in the Typhoon season in which he has made safe passages for many, many years."
  So much for the forces of nature.
  Many people in the maritime industry believe that that formal investigation was a whitewash. It came about only because of the structural damage to the Kowloon Bridge, which finally embarrassed the Minister into calling the investigation. Some matters were not raised. The history

  887
  of cracking throughout the fleet was virtually ignored. Even the evidence from the Kowloon Bridge, which gave rise to the investigation, was ignored.
  Crucial witnesses such as Professor Bishop, an expert in ship science, were not called. David Swift, the Lloyd's Register of Shipping surveyor at the shipyard at the time of the "design change", wanted to give evidence, but was prevented from doing so. The wreck commissioner refused to consider reports that pointed to construction failure at frame 65. The "rule of bias" was broken as one of the assessors had already sat on the executive committee of Lloyd's Register of Shipping when its technical arm investigated the loss of the Derbyshire—the register has a vested interest in the outcome of the case. Some members of the MV Derbyshire Family Association were treated disgracefully when giving evidence at the inquiry.
  Forty-four lives were lost on the Derbyshire. Many other seafarers' lives have been lost in bulk carrier tragedies and many more are at risk. If the accident had happened in any other mode of transport—in aviation, for instance—all aeroplanes would have been grounded and unlimited money would have been spent to identify and to rectify all the problems, but that is not so in the maritime industry. It seems that seafarers' lives are not counted in the same context as those lost on aeroplanes or trains.
  I support and agree with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the MV Derbyshire Family Association, which believe that the second survey should be a joint and open investigation—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)—including representatives of the Ministry of Defence, the association's advisers, and appointed experts of the European Commission, under the control of an independent chairman. That would ensure that all parties accepted the second survey. After all. the association's advisers provided all the technical input for the first and successful wreck survey. It seems that Government Departments, having gleaned information from the association, have slammed the door firmly in its face.
  If natural justice is to be seen to be done, the MV Derbyshire Family Association advisers should be included at all stages. Even at this late point, I appeal to the Government to have second thoughts and to allow those representatives to be on the survey.
  9.51 am
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on securing this debate on the Floor of the House. His comments show the understanding in the House among those who either have worked in the shipbuilding industry or, like myself, were seamen. I first became involved in the MV Derbyshire case in the 1980s, through one of my constituents, who lost her husband in that terrible tragedy. Had there been no MV Derbyshire Family Association, the loss of the Derbyshire would have been long forgotten and none of the important things that have happened since then would have taken place.
  I shall concentrate on my right hon. Friend's point about the way in which the MV Derbyshire Family Association has been treated over 16 years. We must remember that the first visit to the site of the Derbyshire disaster took place without the Government's assistance.
  888
  It was the association, the people who gathered around it, and people who know the business and come from the maritime world, who took the initiative and, against great odds—some said that it was an impossible task—found the Derbyshire. That was the first breakthrough for the association.
  We must understand that, in times of war, when ships are sunk by enemy action, the families of the people involved suffer as much distress as the families of those who lost their lives on the Derbyshire, but they know how and why their brothers, sisters, husbands and fathers died. The Derbyshire families do not know how or why the Derbyshire crew died. Their determination has ensured that the matter has stayed on the agenda for 16 years.
  It does the Government no credit to exclude the MV Derbyshire Family Association from the next visit to the wreck. There is no logical argument that convinces me—or any fair-minded person—that it should not be part of the return visit to the wreck site. It has assisted and constantly argued the case. It found the wreck, the first great breakthrough.
  About two or three weeks ago, I attended a meeting in London. Up to that time, the MV Derbyshire Family Association was firmly of the view that it would be part of the team to visit the wreck. There was no reason to think otherwise. At that meeting, the bombshell was dropped that the association was not to be included. The view that that is an absolute scandal is shared across the political parties in the House. Those families have been tortured for the past 16 years. We must understand that only the bonding of those people has led to the matter staying on the agenda.
  The ship was not rusted up or an old tramp steamer. It was built to a modern design, with all the technology available to man. A big question mark hangs over not just the Derbyshire, but bulk carriers in general. As my right hon. Friend said, that is why the issue goes far beyond the MV Derbyshire Family Association and the United Kingdom. Throughout the world, there is concern about bulk carriers. People who have lost relations on those ships are not satisfied. The Government have a clear responsibility to open the door for the families to ensure that nothing is hidden. The Government should have nothing to hide, but there is a suspicion, which is founded on fact, that decisions have been taken to exclude the families from the next visit.
  As my right hon. Friend said, I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will reconsider the position. Only yesterday, in an another place, Lord Dean of Beswick and Lord Clinton-Davis raised the matter again with the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, who will still not concede the point that the MV Derbyshire Family Association should be represented at the next visit to the wreck.
  I hope that the House will recognise that this is no longer a single Member echoing the wishes and desires of the MV Derbyshire Family Association, but a cross-party matter. Between 60 and 70 Members of Parliament have signed a motion formally supporting the association. That support will be ever-growing in the other place and in this House.
  The issue will not go away. The association will ensure that it does not. It is seeking compassion from a Government who apparently have no compassion. I hope today that the Minister will use his good offices to ensure

  889
  that the House's opinions are passed on to the decision makers who have excluded the association, and that justice will be seen to be done by including it in the return trip.
  9.58 am
  Mr. Matthew Banks: I am pleased to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this important Adjournment debate. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) for persevering with his colleagues in seeking to be successful in the ballot for this debate. I am conscious of the fact that, because of his responsibility as a former deputy Chief Whip, the House has not had the pleasure of listening to contributions from the right hon. Gentleman. Towards the end of this Parliament, I am sorry only that we have had that particular pleasure now, on such a deeply upsetting subject.
  There is broad agreement across the House on a variety of aspects concerning the Derbyshire, but I shall draw attention to one slight difference of emphasis. I agree with the right hon. Member for Jarrow that he and a number of his colleagues are a dying breed. I do not think that there are many shipwrights on Conservative Benches, but I am conscious of the right hon. Gentleman's point. I remember the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) as a tour de force and one that I shall remember for a long time.
  Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Banks: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I do not intend to make a long contribution. As I know that the hon. Gentleman also wants to make a speech, and to be fair to other Opposition Members who wish to do so, I would prefer to make progress.
  I have always been sympathetic to the MV Derbyshire Family Association's 16-year campaign. Its commitment and that of the RMT and the International Transport Workers Federation accurately to identify the causes of the sinking of the Derbyshire on 9/10 September 1980 has been total. No matter what caused the vessel to sink, the DFA's claim for compensation is much more understandable and deserving than the multifarious and cynical grievances that squeeze public finances these days.
  Any Government must act responsibly even in the most wretched circumstances. As all the inquiries and reports have never dispelled doubts about structural failure, understandably Opposition Members, some of my hon. Friends and, to some extent, myself have consistently raised the spectre of a cover-up on behalf of the taxpayer since the privatisation of Swan Hunter, as the reason for compensation not being paid for the loss of the Derbyshire's crew. The DFA, perhaps naturally, has followed the lead of Opposition spokesmen in making such accusations, but I believe that some of them are groundless.
  The Department of Trade and Industry completed a preliminary inquiry into the loss of the ship in November 1980, but the inspector concluded that, in the absence of any direct evidence, he could not draw any firm
  890
  conclusions as to the cause of the vessel's loss. It was subsequently decided that a formal inquiry would not be held, because a court could not reasonably be expected to establish the cause of the casualty.
  Replying to a parliamentary question in 1986, the then Secretary of State for Transport, the late Nicholas Ridley, stated:
  "While I have every sympathy with those whose relatives were lost with the Derbyshire I have concluded that a formal investigation, conducted some five-and-a-half years after the loss of the vessel, is not likely to produce any significant additional evidence about the cause of her loss, beyond what is contained in the Department's report. I do not therefore propose to order one."— [Official Report,21 March 1986; Vol. 94, c. 315.]
  The Department's report into the circumstances attending the loss of the MV Derbyshire stated:
  "in the last analysis the cause of the loss of the Derbyshire is and will almost certainly remain a matter of speculation."
  However, following the acknowledgement of structural problems with the Derbyshire's sister ship, Kowloon Bridge, after its break-up off the south-west coast of the island of Ireland, the then Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), announced on 12 December 1986 the establishment of a formal inquiry, while pointing out that the report of the damage suffered by the Kowloon Bridge concluded
  "that there was no evidence of design defects or of structural failures of the kind that were suggested might have been the cause of the loss of the Derbyshire.—[Official Report. 25 November 1986: Vol. 106, c. 142.]
  The formal investigation was concluded on 10 March the following year and confirmed my hon. Friend's prognosis—although doubt still remained about possible structural failure. The report's main conclusion was:
  "The Derbyshire was probably overwhelmed by the forces of nature in Typhoon Orchid, possibly after getting beam-on to wind and sea, off Okinawa in the darkness of the night of 9/10th September 1980, with the loss of 44 lives."
  The three main recommendations of the court dealing with maritime searches, tropical storm guidance and water drainage from cargoes were satisfactorily dealt with by the then Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), who is in his place on the Front Bench. Despite tangible new evidence presented three years later, in 1990, by the hon. Member for Garston, the Brunel university paper and film of the Kowloon Bridge wreckage, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), accepted advice that the new evidence was apparently not tangible enough.
  The RMT—with which I have the occasional disagreement—to its credit, and the International Transport Workers Federation found the funds to finance a marine search for the Derbyshire and succeeded in locating it two and a half miles beneath the South China sea, near a speck of an island called South Daitoo, 1,000 miles south-east of Japan. However, sonar and video material of the Derbyshire's resting place was judged inconclusive by the chief inspector of marine accidents.
  I hope that any lingering suspicions about the Government's motives can be put to rest, not only because of the appointment of Lord Donaldson to initiate an assessment but because of their acceptance of his key conclusions and a return expedition. Successive Secretaries of State for Transport have acted honourably

  891
  throughout this long-running saga, always on the advice of advisers. Even Opposition Members would have need of advisers if ever they took office—although one or two of them do their best at times to pretend in a cack-handed manner that they know it all.
  The Government's actions have shown that opportunities have been given to overturn the original verdict and that the decisions not to do so were taken fairly. As Lord Donaldson said in his assessment:
  "The United Kingdom cannot, in my judgement, be criticised for having failed to mount an expedition to find the wreck of the Derbyshire, hearing in mind the cost and the slim chance of success. However, the situation has been transformed by the discovery of the bow section and the opportunity which is now presented of making a truly scientific study of that section, of searching for and possibly finding and examining the stern section, and of a general study of the wreck site, albeit of a clearly defined nature."
  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues on the need to keep the return expedition entirely independent, which means—regrettably—that DFA representatives might have to be excluded. Their attendance would be as prejudicial to the gathering of evidence as sending a representative of Swan Hunter or the Treasury. I want a satisfactory resolution to the case as soon as possible, which means leaving as little to fortune as possible.
  In an exchange in the other place last week, Lord Clinton-Davis, the Opposition's transport spokesman, pointed out the difference between the more profound motives of the DFA in comparison to the opposing interests of the ship's owners and insurers and of the cargo owners. The Government should not approach the matter in that light—no hostages to fortune is the mindset that the Government must adopt if the case is to be resolved as quickly and as fairly as possible. Lord Donaldson remarked that this really must be the last re-examination of the wreck.
  Over the past 15 years, 149 bulk carriers have been lost at sea, with the loss of 1,144 lives. Nine of them were lost in 1994, with 123 lives lost that year. No major design modifications have resulted, which is unacceptable. As a member of the Select Committee on Transport, which has taken an interest in the matter—particularly, in this Parliament, in relation to the survivability of roll on/roll off ferries-I shall be interested in the evidence that returns with the expedition concerning the design of long, heavy ships—even if one bears in mind the fact that the Derbyshire was double-skinned and the relative safety of hatch covers on bulk carriers. Some people might say that the appalling record of bulk carriers in terms of losses is largely attributable to most of them being single-skinned and aging.
  I hope that the independent expedition will be helpful to members of the International Maritime Organisation's maritime safety committee, which I hope will retain its interest in bulk carrier safety after the expedition has ended and despite the cessation of the correspondence group's activities, particularly concerning the 1966 international low-line convention.
  Lord Donaldson wrote in his independent assessment:
  "Under Article 94 of International Law of the Sea Convention, which in this respect is tacitly accepted as binding on the United Kingdom. flag states are under an obligation to investigate and report on the loss of vessels flying their flag. The purpose of this obligation is to ensure that lessons learnt become available to the whole international maritime community. If this obligation were
  892
  taken seriously by all, or even most, flag states there would be a mass of information available on bulk carrier losses. Sadly there is not."
  The United Kingdom is no longer a major flag state, but we remain a world leader in the struggle to achieve safety at sea. The Select Committee on Transport has recognised the leading role that the United Kingdom has taken in pressing for improvements in safety standards. I trust that the Government will continue in that role.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I understand that the winding-up speeches will begin at 10.30 am. Four hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye to speak in the 20 minutes before then.
  10.10 am
  Mr. Bill Etherington: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on being so succinct in his summary of the subject of this debate. I also appreciate the efforts made by my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who have pressed this matter from the outset—long before I was elected as a Member of Parliament—and have kept it alive. I also echo the tribute paid to Jim Slater, who was conscientious and sincere in trying to get a good deal for his members and their families.
  The former National Union of Seamen and the International Transport Workers Federation have accomplished something that the Government have failed to do. It is quite reprehensible that the Department of Transport has had to be dragged every inch of the way. This debate has been made possible only because of the endeavours of people who accomplished what the Department of Trade and Industry and its inspectors thought was impossible. Paul Lambert, chairman of the MV Derbyshire Family Association, has also been a stalwart in this matter.
  I have two constituents who lost people on the Derbyshire, and I hope that they realise—as I hope that the DTI and Ministers realise—that this matter will not go away. The fact that 16 years have elapsed makes no difference. The matter must be pursued until a satisfactory conclusion is reached, regardless of what that conclusion might be.
  It is interesting to note that when the Derbyshire was built in 1976 it was described as an "innovative design". One of the most important aspects when dealing with a new design is to ensure that it is built absolutely and entirely to specification. We have evidence that these ships were not built to specification. Even worse, perhaps, is the strange disappearance of the ships' plans made by Swan Hunter's naval architects. The plans should have been registered with Lloyd's, but they were never presented there and no one has had sight of them since. On the balance of probability, it is reasonable to assume that the Derbyshire was not built to specification, and that that was a paramount factor in what happened later. Apparently the MV Furness Bridge complied with the specifications, but it was the only one that did.
  The failure to conduct a formal investigation in 1980 shows that the Government do not rate the loss of 44 lives very highly. It is a matter of fact and of history that

  893
  seafarers' lives have always been relatively cheap, not only in this country but all over the world. They receive inadequate compensation and often work in appalling conditions for some of the worst employers the world has ever seen.
  There has been much talk about frame 65. My right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow mentioned that the longitudi-nals should have staggered joints. He used the analogy of building with bricks. To take the analogy a little further, when one builds a house one does not build four separate walls and then join them at the corners with cement. One interlocks them, for strength. If one built a house with one brick on top of another, there is automatically a line of stress that is almost guaranteed to fail.
  It is also interesting to note that the shipbuilder had to send out warnings to the owners. Again on the balance of probability, that shows that the design was inadequate and that the ships had not been built properly. That is no reflection on those who worked in the yards. For those who do not know, I should say that shipwrights and shipyard workers work to drawings. If the foreman is satisfied with how the drawing is executed, that is how the job is done.
  I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) for sending me a copy of the book, "A Ship Too Far". I read it with great interest and learned much from it. It is one of the best books I have read, and I think that everyone should read it. All credit is due to those who wrote it.
  The inquiry was appalling. Although we hear so much about open government these days, knowledgeable people—naval architects and others with great knowledge of shipbuilding and the effects of storms on ships at sea—were not allowed to give evidence as they wished. Such proceedings make an inquiry no more than a charade, and completely humiliate those trying to present their case.
  It is deplorable that the most anti-union Government in the western world have had to rely on the trade union movement to further this investigation. That is an appalling indictment. I hope that not only the MV Derbyshire Family Association but everyone in Britain will take note of the way in which the Government have acted on this issue.
  Hon. Members have mentioned Brunel university's investigation and the photographic evidence produced by the International Transport Workers Federation. That evidence should be seen by all hon. Members. One significant fact shown in the photographic evidence is that the load of iron ore reached the sea bed before the parts of the ship's structure. I always thought that steel was heavier than iron ore. I leave hon. Members to decide for themselves the implications of that, but it tells me—again on the balance of probability—that the ship broke up at or near the surface.
  I ask the Minister to make resources available so that parts of the ship's structure can be raised from the sea bed. It can be done. We can land men on the moon. We have space probes. We live in an era in which we have the technology to accomplish that task; all that is required is the political will. I believe that the Government owe such an investigation to the 44 citizens of this country who perished. It is important for the families to be allowed, once and for all, to have some peace of mind
  894
  and some rest. They have had 16 years of bashing against a brick wall with no worthwhile response from the Government. It is time to put that right.
  It must not be forgotten that another ship, within a very short distance of the Derbyshire, managed to get through the "storm of all storms"—which we are now told was only an average storm for that part of the world. That should signify something.
  There has been a catalogue of mistakes and a lack of political will to carry out investigations. It has been a shameful incident. Such conduct would be shameful for any Government—regardless of which country they governed or which party was in power—after such an incident.
  10.18 am
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) for raising this matter. He represents the constituency in which I was born, and I have many happy memories of that area.
  I also wish to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman publicly for the work that he did on the Committee of Selection, where he served with great distinction. Last Wednesday, we had a rather ill-tempered debate in which the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) made some very unpleasant remarks about the Committee, which shows their wilful ignorance. If every Committee worked as amicably as the Committee of Selection works, the House would be a happier place. During the time he was on that Committee, he was always completely fair and always kept his word. I am grateful to him.
  I became involved in this matter because of a constituent called Captain Dave Ramwell, who has made the Derbyshire a cause celebre. He has spent I know not how many days and weeks delving into the matter and finding out an enormous amount of information. He deserves praise for his efforts. His work has always been painstaking, and whenever he has written to me he has been extremely polite. I pay tribute to him because, but for his work, much of the information that has been gleaned about the incident would not have come to light.
  The Derbyshire sank without trace way back in 1980 near Okinawa. In 1982, the sister ship—the Tyne Bridge—started to crack during a storm in the North sea. The Tyne Bridge sailed under the Italian flag and went to Hamburg, where it was inspected by an Italian surveyor who decided that the damage was caused by the method of construction at frame 65, a point to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) referred. I understand that Lloyd's Register of Shipping agreed with the Italian surveyor's decision and that the owners were warned about the difficulties that such ships, faced. At that time it also said that, of the four sister ships, only the first to be built—the Furness Bridge—had been built correctly. That brings me up to date and to the main thrust of my comments.
  We are now to have the first forensic investigation of a ship that had hitherto disappeared. I believe that the information obtained must be disseminated as widely as possible. In this respect, I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: In view of the time available, I will make a short intervention rather than a

  895
  speech. I simply wish to be associated with the campaign that my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and his colleagues are waging. I, too, have a constituent who lost a relative on the Derbyshire and I take a continuing interest in the matter. I wish to record my appreciation of all those who have been leading the fight for the investigation and to ensure that the campaign continues because the issue will not go away.
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's intervention.
  The MV Derbyshire Family Association wants its representative involved. The Department of Transport promised that the association would be kept informed of all developments. I attended an all-party meeting in the House on 30 April this year at which we were told that no decision had been made as to whether the DFA would be represented. We were also told that no decision had been taken on the direction that the investigation would take. I think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) tabled a written question and received an answer on 7 May which confirmed that position.
  Mr. Loyden indicated assent
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman confirms what I have said. What I find difficult to understand is that, on 10 May, a seminar was held during which a man called Professor Faulkner let the cat out of the bag and said that things were not quite as we had been told.
  I shall conclude my remarks shortly because I know that the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) is desperate to make a contribution to the debate, but I will first quote briefly from the most recent letter that I have had from my constituent, Captain Ramwell. He writes:
  "The Viscount"—
  Viscount Goschen, Minister for Aviation and Shipping—
  "did not explain to the DFA his reasons for denying their representative a presence on the expedition: he merely informed Paul Lambert of the decision. There were so called reasons given, but they were cosmetic.
  If DOT appointed assessors are not balanced by a DFA assessor then the maritime world will not be able to place confidence in that part of any report that falls under the DOT. This is not to reflect adversely on the DOT appointed assessors; it is to say that the Rule of Bias—as at the Formal Investigation—is being broken.
  The first visit was backed by the families' union representatives … Far from that being a drawback, it precipitated the re-investigation about to take place."
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister has listened to the pleas made by right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House because members of the DFA feel very aggrieved at what has happened.
  10.23 am
  Mr. Frank Cook: This is the first contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) since he was appointed to the Privy Council. I congratulate him on that elevation, and on being successful in securing this debate.
  I have about 100 pages of notes on this subject. It is a constituency interest, as the Derbyshire was built in my constituency. I must say that it was built despite the work force's protestations that the standards of workmanship
  896
  imposed on them by management were unacceptable. The Lloyd's surveyor was also moved on because he so consistently and persistently pointed to the technical defects highlighted by my colleagues today. I agree with everything that my colleagues have said and with every tribute that they have paid. To repeat their comments would simply waste time and cut short the time available to me, so I shall concentrate on the facts that others have perhaps not been able to put together.
  In this context, I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) because the inconsistencies that he pointed out provide a good framework in which to place my comments. The hon. Gentleman said that he is an active member of the Select Committee on Transport. In the post this morning I received a copy of Which?, a publication not renowned for a lack of reliability. It states on its front cover, "Not again! When disaster strikes, why are the safety lessons so often ignored?" The accompanying article has the sub-heading, "Too little is done after a public transport disaster to make sure the same thing can't happen again". While the hon. Gentleman might think that the Select Committee is doing a good job, Which? has different ideas. I recommend that he read it.
  The hon. Member for Southport highlighted other inconsistencies which deserve further illumination. First, the Donaldson report stated that the views taken of the debris field on the ocean bed were inconclusive. The natural response to that is that they deserve a better and closer examination. Secondly, however, Lord Donaldson said that this must be the last visit to the debris field; 'in other words, we had better make sure that this investigation is a good one.
  I am sorry to labour the point about the MV Derbyshire Family Association's technical advisers, but who found the wreck? It was the technical advisers funded by the unions. Despite protestations to the effect that the Government had made various efforts in this respect, nothing was done other than to go through the motions of an investigation. Indeed, it is on record that informed commentators such as, for example, the Lloyd's surveyor were debarred from giving evidence. They were not invited to do so, despite their consistent appeals to be heard. I suggest that that is a clear indication that the pursuit of the truth was less than energetic.
  Photographs of wreckage—specifically a lifeboat—were taken by a passing Japanese tanker. The photographs were then transferred to the owners of the Derbyshire, Bibby Line. Astonishingly, they were then returned to Japan and cannot be found. However, it has been established that the photographs showed clearly that the damage to the lifeboat was consistent with its having been ripped from its davits—in other words, due to a sudden submersion. Why did the photographs go missing? Why are the drawings not available? Why are the technical advisers not being allowed to accompany the expedition to ensure that it is conclusive and exhaustive and that the people who had the nous and the technical know-how to find the wreck in the first place have the opportunity to comment on behalf of the families now?
  The Government say that they want to keep the survey independent. They say that the Department of Transport, the Marine Safety Agency and the marine accident investigation branch will also not be represented, creating the perception that it is a completely independent expedition. However, the Marine Safety Agency and the marine accident investigation branch are merely divisions

  897
  of the Department of Transport, and the Department of Transport is certainly being represented as it is the Department that has appointed the two assessors and is paying them.
  The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) referred to Professor Faulkner, who was one of the two principal advisers to the Donaldson inquiry. He will be a member of the survey and he has been a principal spokesman. I like Professor Faulkner, but in all my work on the issue, I have been aided by a constituent, Gordon Finlayson, who served as an engineering officer on the Kowloon Bridge and who experienced some of the problems. He and I have written numerous letters, two of which elicited this comment from Professor Faulkner:
  "Both letters show a refreshing breadth of objectivity—
  I am pleased about that—
  "compared with what I now regard as depressingly closed minds from the DFA advisers".
  It was not depressingly closed minds that set about finding the wreckage field. It was not depressingly closed minds that were persistent enough to take photographs of the wreckage and to bring them back to prove that they were right. Yet now, when we are to have a conclusive, exhaustive and final examination, those minds are suddenly described as depressingly closed.
  The Department of Transport has been condemned for its lack of vigilance over the incident. Many vessels have been lost and hundreds of lives have been wasted, quite apart from capitalist concerns such as lost cargo and insurance pay-outs. I appeal to the Minister, who is normally a most reasonable man—I do not say that facetiously—to have second thoughts on this occasion. For God's sake, let him do the decent thing and allow at least one technical adviser to go to the site who knows what has happened and what we may find.
  10.31 am
  Mr. Graham Allen: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) for cutting his remarks short. I will do the same to allow the Minister to have 15 to 20 minutes in which to reply, because we wish to hear from him.
  This debate shows the House at its best and its worst. It shows it at its best because the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) has persistently been raised on the Floor, through the use of every possible parliamentary device, by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), whose work is an example to us all of the way in which a constituency Member should carry out his job—with great tenacity, using every device in the House.
  The debate also shows our weakness, in that Parliament has been unable seriously to hold the Government to account over the past 16 years in order to get a serious and full investigation into what really happened to the Derbyshire. People who care about our Parliament, regardless of party, should pay close heed to that point. Let us get it right this time and let us ensure that in future Parliament has the teeth to ensure that such incidents are investigated thoroughly and quickly, even if the Executive choose to handle the matter differently.
  898
  It is unacceptable that, after 16 years, we still have not had a proper and full investigation of the Derbyshire incident. That has not only let down the families of those concerned, but has meant that the crucial issue of bulk carrier safety has not been raised. It was only when I assumed this brief for the Labour party six months ago that I realised the full horror of the safety record of bulk carriers.
  One estimate is that a large bulk carrier has been lost every month since 1971. That is an incredible figure. More than 2,000 lives have been lost. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow said, if such an accident happened at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted or one of our regional airports, there would be an outcry. The Government would be brought to book at the Dispatch Box day after day until an answer was found. Yet the loss of one bulk carrier a month is regarded as something that we can pass over relatively quickly.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Many are lost without trace.
  Mr. Allen: As my hon. Friend says, many bulk carriers have disappeared without trace. Last year, six bulk carriers and 84 lives were lost. Some 118 bulk carriers have been lost in the past six years, with 587 lives lost. We can rattle off statistics, but what they prove is that life is cheap at sea. I could give many more examples, but I am keen to move on so that the Minister has time to reply.
  We need to analyse what happened to the Derbyshire and we need to ensure that the wreck is thoroughly examined. In addition, there is the wider question of the British merchant fleet, which is now in a parlous state. We are about to lose critical mass unless we ensure that we produce ships that are absolutely safe and of very high quality. If we do not, we shall not be able to compete with the Filipino crews and the foreign-registered vessels. It is essential that we recapture our reputation for high quality and high safety. That will be to the benefit of seafarers, masters and ship owners in this country, as well as to the benefit of the invisible earnings from ship broking and insurance about which we hear so much.
  Mr. Winston Churchill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Allen: No. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to press on, because I must give the Minister some time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  The figures that I have given are for the years after the regulations were tightened and after the International Maritime Organisation increased its efforts to ensure that ships were safer. The figures for the years before the loss of the Derbyshire are probably a lot worse than those that I have given today.
  It is a scandal that the dependants of the seafarers who died were not on the list of the named parties. It was only after NUMAST—the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers—made an official application to the wreck commissioner that the families were finally able to contribute to the proceedings. Even then, the cost of representation for families and dependants had to be met by the two UK maritime trade unions, despite their substantial contribution to the investigation and despite the fact that solving the mystery of the MV Derbyshire was clearly in the public interest. Why was representation funded from public sources for

  899
  those associated with the King's Cross fire, the Piper Alpha disaster and the Clapham rail crash, but not for those involved in the tragedy of the MV Derbyshire?
  Colleagues on both sides of the House have pointed out the weaknesses of the assorted investigations that have taken place since the tragedy. I will not list them again. It took an expedition organised by the MV Derbyshire Family Association, with funding from the International Transport Workers Federation, to find the wreck at a depth of 4,000 m. The expedition used the company that found the Titanic and the Bismarck. There are almost echoes of a tragic film script in going to such lengths to try to get to the truth.
  Last year, Lord Donaldson reported on structural reliability. He said that it was a "realistic possibility" that design faults had led to a fracture at bulkhead 65—the very point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow. We now know that a further expedition will visit the site later this month as reconnaissance, and that a fuller investigation will take place next year.
  One or two colleagues referred to insurance. Insurance practices should deter poor maintenance of ships by, for example, penalising builders or owners for malpractice. I hope that the Minister will make it clear what further steps to tackle poor standards he will urge, in conjunction with responsible ship owners and insurance companies, at Euro-pean Union and International Labour Organisation level.
  The vessels were built by the private owners of Swan Hunter, but the liability is consequent upon Government and Lloyd's. If the Derbyshire families make a breakthrough and the Government and Lloyd's become liable, how will that affect the dozens—indeed, hundreds—of bulk carrier losses since 1971? That may provide a clue to why the Government have dodged and edged and not been clear, open and honest about what happened to the Derbyshire. When big money is at stake, it seems that lives are cheap, but insurance is expensive.
  Finally, I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions. I hope that he will answer them today. If he cannot, perhaps he will do us the courtesy of writing to hon. Members. Why does the Minister continue to refuse access to the remaining documents held by his Department relating to the Derbyshire when there should have been full disclosure of the documents for the Government inquiries in 1987 and 1988? Lord Donaldson was given access to those documents, but the MV Derbyshire families were refused. Approved drawings of the construction of frame 65 would be crucial in any normal legal proceedings. Why has the Department of Transport never insisted on such plans being produced? Did they go missing from the original source, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North suggested?
  The Department of Transport claimed that the 1985 draft report into the loss became the bland 1986 version in the light of comments received and further information that came to light. Why will the Department not reveal the nature of that information and those comments? The MV Derbyshire Family Association released all the information that it has on the case, including evidence recovered from the wreck.
  Why were there no investigations of the shipyard that built the MV Derbyshire and her sister ships—in respect of quality control, material and standards of workmanship—to determine whether she was sound when launched? If they really believed that the Derbyshire was
  900
  structurally sound, why did the builders finally warn owners of similar vessels of the dangers? Why did they warn the Liberian flag state of the potential failure of the World Pathfinder—a renamed sister ship—at frame 65?
  I emphasise the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House that representatives of the families should be involved in any further investigations. They are not from Lloyd's or the shipowners. They will not be strong-arming officers in the Department of Transport. They need to be involved for fundamental emotional reasons. It is important for them to find out the truth, not to screw compensation or insurance payments out of the Government.
  I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the cogent, eloquent and experienced voices that have been raised on both sides of the House. Although I have a number of further queries for the Minister, I shall not take up any more time. We need to hear from him, as do the MV Derbyshire families. He can rest assured that, weak as we are in holding Government to account, if we fail to get an adequate response hon. Members who are here today will continue to raise the matter in the House until our concerns are satisfied.
  10.42 am
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on his recent elevation to the Privy Council, which has caused great pleasure among hon. Members on both sides of the House, and on securing this morning's important debate. In the 16 minutes left to me, I may not be able to do justice to all the points that have been made. That is a matter of great regret and deep frustration, as a number of serious points have been made and some important matters need to be put on the record on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my noble Friend Lord Goschen, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping.
  The right hon.Gentleman spoke about the Government revealing the truth about the Derbyshire as if the Government were aware of the truth, but did not want it to be known and were unwilling to allow it to be disseminated. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) suggested that it was part of the Government's intention to conceal liabilities that might otherwise accrue to their fat-cat friends in Lloyd's. I completely reject any such assertion.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and his predecessors who have dealt with the matter over the years entirely share the ambition of right hon. and hon. Members to determine, if at all possible, the reasons for the loss of the Derbyshire, not least so that lives may be saved in future.
  Reference has been made to the number of bulk carrier accidents. Such accidents are a tragic reality. I should make it quite clear at the outset that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping and all those Ministers who have dealt with the matter, which includes me, share a sense of urgency and a strong ambition that the matter should be exposed as much as possible.
  I am extremely mindful of the concerns of the MV Derbyshire Family Association, to whom my right hon. Friend and I wish to express our heartfelt and deepest sympathy. We know that a wider public share those

  901
  concerns. I pay tribute to the long-running campaign of the DFA. Its perseverance has ensured that investigations into the ship's loss have progressed this far and I commend it heartily for that.
  Let me deal first with the length of time that it has taken to mount an expedition, because the Government have been accused of a reluctance to carry out a detailed investigation. I do not agree with that assertion. At the time of the loss, in the absence of any material evidence about the cause, it was thought that a formal investigation would serve no useful purpose. The Department commissioned extensive research into the structural design of the ship and investigated reports of defects in sister ships. Those reports have been published.
  There is a clear rationale for the difference between the draft report and the final report. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North invited me to write to him. In view of the concerns that hon. Members have expressed, I shall take up that invitation, but I am quite clear that no sinister implication can be drawn from the fact that the interim and final reports reached differing conclusions.
  Following the loss of the Kowloon Bridge in 1986, a formal investigation was set up into the earlier loss. That formal investigation—an independent, wide-ranging public inquiry—reported in January 1989 and found that the evidence available supported no firmer conclusion than, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) said, the Derbyshire was probably overwhelmed by the forces of nature in Typhoon Orchid. No doubt that comment will be familiar to the right hon. Member for Jarrow.
  In 1990, at the request of the then Secretary of State, two items of new evidence were considered. The first was the research paper by Professor Bishop that attempted to demonstrate that the Derbyshire fractured at frame 65, and the second was underwater film of the Kowloon Bridge, which purportedly revealed a fracture at frame 65. Both those items were examined by the marine accident investigation branch.
  In March 1991, the chief inspector of marine accidents advised the Secretary of State that the material did not constitute new and important evidence and did not warrant the reopening of the formal investigation, but that position was transformed by the success of the International Transport Workers Federation expedition in 1994, which located the wreck. That gave a new impetus to the real possibility of discovering the cause of the loss of the vessel.
  In March 1995, therefore, the then Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, appointed Lord Donaldson to carry out an independent assessment with the following terms of reference: first, to assess what further work would be needed to learn more about and, if possible, make a judgment about the cause of the loss of the Derbyshire; secondly, in respect of each option for further work, to assess the probability that the cause can be determined with reasonable confidence—if it cannot, we shall have to consider whether it is a prudent exercise to undertake; thirdly, to assess the costs likely to be incurred for each option; and, fourthly, to investigate what benefit to ship safety would be secured if the cause of the loss of the Derbyshire, or better understanding of it, were established and whether that would justify the likely costs involved.
  902
  In his report, Lord Donaldson made a clear recommendation in favour of
  "a second, extended and last examination of the wreck".
  He also concluded that although such an examination might cost about £2 million, it would be fully justified in the light of the potential benefits to ship safety. Importantly, he pointed out that the Department cannot be criticised for not having mounted a return expedition, bearing in mind
  "the cost and slim chances of success".
  As the House knows, we accepted Lord Donaldson's recommendation to carry out a further re-examination, and in view of the potential wider benefits to ship safety, the European Commission is sharing the cost with us. We announced on 3 June that the return expedition would be carried out in two phases. The first phase, which will be an initial and more detailed photographic survey than was possible during the 1994 ITWF expedition, is expected to take place later this month, and the second phase, the main expedition, will be carried out in early 1997. Oceaneering Technologies has been appointed to carry out the first phase. Its bid was the best technically of those we received, and it will use an advanced remote-operated vehicle.
  Officers from the Admiralty salvage office of the Ministry of Defence have been appointed to co-ordinate and manage the expedition, acting on the advice of the independent technical assessors. I have every confidence in their ability. Dr. Remo Torchio, the EU assessor, Professor Douglas Faulkner and Robin Williams, the United Kingdom assessors, Morgyn Davies and James Ward from the MOD and salvage officers and project managers will be on board the phase 1 survey vessel. I emphasise that officials of the Department of Transport, the Marine Safety Agency and the marine accident investigation branch will not be on board. We have an unique opportunity to make a truly scientific study of the wreckage site and especially to search for and possibly find the ship's stern.
  I am aware that, since our announcement to undertake the return expedition, the DFA has campaigned for full—as it puts it—"hands on" involvement and claims not to have been consulted about the arrangements for the return expeditions. It also claims that the expedition cannot be objective and impartial if it is not represented on it. I must differ with those assertions.
  We welcome the DFA's involvement and participation in planning the return. It has been invited by the assessors to comment and put its views on a number of occasions. For instance, at the Royal Institute of Naval Architects colloquium on 15 March, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) referred, the assessors invited those present, including the chairman of the DFA. to submit their views. The assessors have held discussions with the DFA's advisers and have continued to stress that they welcome comments and contributions from any party on the conduct of the return expeditions. I assure the House that the technical assessors have been, and remain, happy to discuss matters with the DFA and other interested parties at any time.
  We have given sympathetic consideration to the request from the DFA that it should be represented on or have some control over the return to the ship, but have concluded that that would not be appropriate. The association is one of a number of parties with an interest in the outcome of the

  903
  return expedition. This is the most important point that I want to get across: for one of the parties but not others, such as British Shipbuilders, Lloyd's Register of Shipping or Bibby's, to be represented on the return expedition could lead to suggestions that the findings lacked balance or objectivity and should be challenged.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, North said that if, for example, Lloyd's was found to be at fault in some way, its liabilities might be great. He said that that is why the Department has in some mysterious way colluded with Lloyd's to hide information. That is nonsense. Much more important, the hon. Gentleman must accept that, on that basis, if the DFA were allowed to attend on the return but not the other parties involved, such as British Shipbuilders, Lloyd's Register and Bibby's, the balance and the objectivity of the exercise would genuinely be compromised.
  It has been suggested that we allow a DFA observer on the return expedition. I believe that it is in its best interests not to be on board the return expeditions. In order to satisfy a formal investigation and/or to mount any international safety initiatives, it is absolutely essential that the results of the evidence gathered are seen as impartial, objective and thorough. To have the DFA represented would lead to challenges that the return expedition was partial, lacked objectivity and was undertaken with a specific purpose in mind. The same objections would of course apply to sending a nominated representatives.
  Mr. Loyden rose—
  Mr. Norris: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has prosecuted this case with assiduity. I hope that he will be brief.
  Mr. Loyden: Have any of the organisations that will be on the return voyage to the wreck voiced any objection to the DFA being part of the team?
  Mr. Norris: My understanding is that British Shipbuilders has indeed indicated its concern at allowing a DFA representative on board. I do not want to offer the DFA technical or legal advice, but I really think that those who clamour for a DFA representative on the ship should be aware of the extent to which the integrity of the expedition could be questioned if a representative of the DFA were allowed on the vessel but other interested parties were not. If that were allowed, the implications for the families of those on the Derbyshire—the DFA itself—would be very serious. The Department has no interest whatever in allowing information to be concealed from the DFA or anyone else. The manner in which the call for attendance has been made is simply misguided, and for very important reasons.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Is it not a basic tenet of this country that for justice to be done it must be seen to be done? Would it not therefore make sense to have representatives of all
  904
  interested parties on the vessel so that they can see that their interests are being fully served? If none of them is allowed on board, they will not know whether they are or not.
  Mr. Norris: It is clear that there are only two possibilities. One is that none of the representatives be allowed to be included, and the other is that all be allowed. I do not want to speculate on that because I do not have time to do so and it would not be appropriate. There is no question whatever about the integrity of the independent assessors, or about the integrity or impartiality of the European Union assessor. There is no question whatever of those assessors being compromised by the presence on the vessel of officials of the Department of Transport or the MAIB.
  In such circumstances, attendance of a representative of the DFA, unaccompanied by representatives of all other parties who may have a substantial and direct interest in the investigation's outcome, would be prejudicial to the prospects of the DFA and its interests. If the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) wants to pursue the notion that, somehow, all parties should be represented, I am sure that he will do so. I stress that the representation is in the interests of all concerned.
  There have also been calls for media representation and direct transmission equipment on board. I assure the House that all interested parties will be given access to the raw data that are retrieved, but direct satellite links or other media involvement would be wholly inappropriate. The media will not be represented on phase 1. The expedition will simply be concerned with gathering photographic evidence. A final decision will be taken nearer the time on whether the media will be included in phase 2,
  In the minute that remains, I should make it quite clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who I know took a great personal interest in the matter and whose decision it was to call on Lord Donaldson to examine the prospects of this further inquiry, and my noble Friend Lord Goschen have all made it absolutely clear that their interest, like mine, is in ensuring that, if there is anything to be learned from the wreck of the Derbyshire, it is learned in the interests of those who carry out their business in the great waters of the oceans and whose lives we all have a duty to protect.
  I know that we will never be able to satisfy all those who feel aggrieved about the circumstances of past investigations.
  The Department believes that it is now time to move forward, and we can do that only if all parties co-operate and share their knowledge and expertise, to establish what lessons can be learned in relation to the future safety of bulk carriers. I know that the people in the Department, including Mr. Frank Wall, whose correspondence has been mentioned, have at all times acted in a conscientious and concerned way, which is a great credit to their objectivity and to their tenacity in attempting to uphold the highest possible standards of discovery and disclosure.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

  Social Work
  11 am
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: It is 25 years since the Seebohm report revolutionised the provision of social work and social services in England, and slightly longer since the Kilbrandon report did the same in Scotland. I do not want to suggest at any stage during the debate that we should arrive at the position that Lord Kilbrandon once boldly described by saying that, if we went on as we were, we would soon need a professional qualification to help an old woman across the road. None the less, this is an apposite time for a debate on social work.
  When we talk about social work, who or what do we mean? First, we are talking about the fastest growing area of local government spending. Between 1990–91 and 1996–97, there has been a 67 per cent. increase in real terms; in the 25 years since Seebohm, there has been a tenfold increase in real terms. Expenditure this year in England was £7.3 billion—or £9.2 billion if the expenditure that falls to the Department of Social Security is included, as it should be.
  Social work involves a huge work force. In September 1995, there were 228.000 people in the United Kingdom armed services. At the same time, there were 238,000 full-time equivalents in local authority social services in England alone. Of those, about 53,000 are qualified social workers. That is a slightly complex figure, and I am not sure that I shall not contradict it later in my speech; finding my way through some of the figures has been quite difficult.
  If we include all the cleaners, caterers and so on who work for social services departments, the work force amounts to almost 1 million people, yet we seldom discuss those people in the House. When there are scandals, the media love to hunt for those responsible, in the process further damaging the public image of social workers, yet social workers and social work budgets are charged with undertaking, on behalf of us all, responsibilities that we as citizens find too painful, too difficult or too dangerous to undertake for ourselves. They deserve a debate of their own in this place.
  I wonder how many hon. Members are currently sustaining elderly or damaged relatives. How many of us have already turned, or will shortly turn, to social services to help us with that task? Social work is not a remote esoteric service that few of us will encounter personally. It touches most families in the land sooner or later, and it touches them at deeply sensitive points. Families fragment faster in this country than they do almost anywhere else in Europe—800,000 children have no contact with their natural fathers, the number of girls under 16 who conceive children grows every year, and 67,000 young people are in the care of local authorities, either directly or through fostering. I shall say more about those young people later.
  What sort of people are social workers? The popular view, fuelled by throwaway jibes in the media, is that they are young dolly birds fresh from college with no experience of life, who are easily thrown by encounters with practical mothers of six whose chief problems are too small a house or too small an income. Like most stereotypes, that image is wrong. Two thirds of social workers were aged 30 or more when they started their social work training, and 50 per cent. were over 35. Many already have qualifications in other fields.
  906
  If I list some of what social workers need to know, it will be seen both how complex their job is, and how important training for it is. Social workers are supposed to know about new legislation. Since 1979—I say this with some guilt—more than 50 Acts of Parliament have laid additional responsibilities on social workers. They are also supposed to know about new service arrangements, relevant research findings, how society is organised, the needs of different groups of people, the symptoms and treatment of mental health problems, including those resulting from alcohol or drugs, and about criminality and anti-social behaviour. They are also expected to know about the benefits system—we in the House know how often we alter that—as well as how to assess the strengths and weaknesses of families and other relevant networks, and how to work with families and carers in partnership.
  What is more, social workers need to know how to protect themselves against both violence—they are more vulnerable to violence and assault even than the police—and stress. One of the scandals of the present organisation of social services departments is how few of them have in place the kind of support for stressed colleagues that is now commonplace in the fire services and in the police. If ever there were a case of "Physician, heal thyself," this must be it.
  The profession is unlike most others in that women outnumber men—by 2:1 as managers, by 3:1 as social workers and by 4:1 as residential workers. Almost all home care staff are women. But in the higher reaches of management, men still outnumber women. That is partly, but only partly, because 90 per cent. of the men, but only 51 per cent. of the women, are full-time workers. Moreover, 20 per cent. of staff have a child under 12 or an elderly relative to care for, which adds considerably to the stress. Black and Asian staff are prominent in the profession and, interestingly, tend to be better qualified than other staff. It is a scandal that almost half of them have experienced racism from fellow workers and social work management.
  We are talking about an enormously complex and deeply sensitive task that takes workers into the very heart of the human condition. They are expected to control access to, and to ration on our behalf, the resources provided by the taxpayer—resources that are huge but still, by definition, inadequate. As the demands grow, they must refuse more often, and then accept the anger and despair of those to whom they deny help.
  Social workers are daily exposed to situations that raise in them doubts and fears about their own lives and circumstances. How many people can confront a crumbling marriage or a disruptive child without asking questions about their own marriage or children? They must also give authoritative advice about entitlements and legal issues, and argue with professionals in other areas, such as the police, teachers, doctors and magistrates.
  What is the training base on which social workers stand to do all that? I am afraid that it is pretty thin. Almost half of social services staff have no professional qualification at all, and the certificate of qualification in social work, which is held by 82 per cent. of professionally qualified staff, is only a two-year qualification. Peter Smallridge, Kent's director of social services, has pointed out that his staff are frequently involved in working with colleagues in Europe, although they are ineligible for employment in the EU because every other country in the EU has a three-year qualification.

  907
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the Association of Directors of Social Services how vital research and information is to effective service planning and delivery. He said:
  "I regard it as essential to have a vigorous and well-targeted research base for social services".
  Research methodology, as well as its application, requires skills that a crowded two-year basic training course is unlikely to impart effectively enough to meet my right hon. Friend's goal.
  Secondly, care managers are key personnel in the assessment of care needs and the management of budgets and resources, as well as in ensuring the quality of service. I wonder whether we are doing enough to equip them for their increasingly demanding and technology-based role.
  Thirdly, there is the added load on staff caused by the switch to user-led services. Citizens charters and the statutory recognition of carers have combined with the professional ethos of social work—which has always demanded that the client's wishes be taken fully into account—to raise user expectation and, rightly, to undermine the former tendency to prescribe solutions that the client meekly accepted. That puts further demands on staff at all levels, and it demands training.
  Fourthly, there is the horrifying statistic that almost half of all social services staff have no professional qualification. This means that most staff in residential homes, for example—where many of the most difficult and demanding clients are to be found—provide service with little or no formal recognition of their expertise, or lack of it. Research has found that most of them want to acquire qualifications, but have the least information on training opportunities.
  In passing, may I plead for the retention of NVQ level 1 as an invaluable doorway for ill-equipped school leavers into qualification? A similar dearth of qualification is to be found in home care workers. That must be addressed. By looking across the Chamber, I see that I have no need to say any more about the registration of home care workers. I understand the Government's reluctance to incur the expense of a third year of pre-qualifying training, but I urge my hon. Friend—whose reputation is deservedly growing year by year—to acknowledge the importance of upgrading the training of this key profession.
  One possibility put forward by Peter Smallridge, among others, is a post-qualification year, supported by academic assessments of assignments on subjects such as multidisciplinary assessment or work-oriented research. That would help my hon. Friend to meet the objectives set by the Secretary of State.
  There are three other issues that I wish to raise. First, we have an occupation that employs almost 1 million people in total and deals with the most damaged, difficult and threatening people in society, and there is no regulatory mechanism to govern it. There is nothing in place to stop a worker who has been sacked for bad practice in one authority instantly finding work in another. There are virtually no means of checking on someone's claims of either qualification or experience, and it is high time there were.
  The idea of a general council has been in the air since I taught at Edinburgh university 30 years ago, and I believe it to be necessary. I should prefer it to look rather like the Michelin guide, listing what people have done
  908
  and providing an indication of their qualifications—such as a rosette for having done a diploma in social work. A knife and fork for having achieved NVQ level 2 is perhaps a little further than we need to go, but the proposition that it should be a register of what people can do and the qualifications that they have achieved seems to fit in with the post-NVQ culture and to be a great deal more useful than merely a list, which can get rapidly out of date. In other words, it should be inclusive rather than exclusive. It should begin by listing those with qualifications, and move on to include the rest. But the idea that there is no mechanism for controlling the ethics or practice of social workers is dangerously bizarre.
  The second issue is volunteers. Survey after survey has shown that how a service is delivered matters almost as much as what the service is. I ran, as I have told the House before, a day in Coventry called "Heirs to the Millennium", at which 750 people came together to talk about how we bring up, or fail to bring up, children. On that day, we heard a client with learning difficulties demand that social workers should not patronise her; they should neither prejudge on the basis of where she lives, nor brush her aside if she dares to challenge what they say. That complaint is frequently heard—that social workers are all very well when it comes to empathising, until someone questions what they have said, whereupon they become highly authoritarian and rather cross.
  Children in local authority care tell us that the worst thing for them is when a worker fails to turn up as promised. Children in care are a particular worry. Again and again we learn of children, whose overriding need is for stability and continuing affection, getting a new worker—sometimes as often as every two or three weeks. It is a scandal that so many of the 67,000 children in our care suffer so much insecurity before leaving public care, very often into nothing satisfactory. This is where, pre-eminently, volunteers can help.
  A volunteer who commits him or herself on a continuing basis can provide a depth and length of care that statutory departments can seldom attain. The same is true of residential homes for the elderly. If we want to reduce the abuse of vulnerable clients, there are few better mechanisms than a steady stream of volunteers passing in and out of residential establishments, building a trusting relationship with a client or two inside.
  My local director has told me that one of his ambitions is to remove what he regards as the ghetto effect of putting up a notice saying that a home is run by Kent county council. He says that that is as effective as putting a moat around the home in cutting it off from the local community, who instantly feel that the home has nothing to do with them. I certainly endorse his ambition.
  Similarly, volunteers can reduce the demand for service. Homestart, which supports vulnerable families on a long-term basis, can show clearly how it has been able to prevent families from breaking up and becoming a complete charge on public funds. Drop-in centres for people of different age groups are important. One of the things about which we in Coventry heard more than anything else was that young people need somewhere to go to meet their friends, rather than simply walking the streets, prey to every possible opportunity for causing trouble.
  Neutral meeting places where divorced fathers can take their children are another crying need. Many fathers who get down for the day find themselves at an endless

  909
  succession of McDonald's and cafés, because there is nowhere to go. What they need more than anything else is quiet time with their children, and drop-in centres staffed by sensitive and welcoming volunteers are proving wonderfully successful in the small number of places where they operate.
  In social work, the opportunities for volunteering are endless. Professional social workers need to learn how to stimulate volunteer help, work confidently with it and sustain, with their professionalism, the volunteers. It used to be thought a threat to the professional if volunteers muscled in on the act but, increasingly, people realise that such work is an extension of the arm of the professional.
  Thirdly, it would be wrong in a debate on this subject to avoid scandal and malpractice. While it is true that many of the shocking cases that have recently come to light arose before the latest reorganisations, the danger will always be with us. Vulnerable people attract abusers, and there will always be abuse in local authority homes, private homes and elsewhere. What matters is that effective mechanisms should be in place to discover abuse promptly and root it out.
  Some vulnerable people, especially children, develop strategies for survival that depend on manipulating those who work with them. Teachers, social workers, doctors and others are increasingly vulnerable to false claims made against them, or to being seduced into inappropriate behaviour. The balance is never going to be an easy one to strike. Evidence suggests that, more often than not, children should be believed, but it also suggests that children will talk to professionals of any kind less readily than to relatives or friends.
  Social work cannot and should not be expected to be a ministry of happiness or to have a goal of eliminating all the sources of unhappiness and distress that social workers come across. When things go wrong, we have a duty to respond in a measured rather than a convulsive way. Social workers also have a duty to keep their heads. One of the more depressing features of the correspondence columns in Community Care is how often students choose research projects based on the latest scandal. Such prurient interest simply feeds back into the loop, fuelling still further the eagerness of the press and others to extract the maximum stimulation from other people's tragedies while clobbering social work along the way.
  The evidence about morale among social workers is confusing. The National Institute of Social Work survey suggested that most social workers enjoy what they do and a surprisingly high percentage claim that they would go on doing it even if they were rich enough not to have to work. The survey carried out by Professional Social Work, however, claimed that more than one third would not have joined the profession if they had known what it was like, and that 66 per cent. of those who work in the health service want to leave. I cannot possibly judge between the two surveys, but my hon. Friend the Minister needs to know that signs of strain are developing, and he should take steps to head it off.
  Finally, social work is indispensable. We depend on it, but we must ask ourselves two basic questions: why do we depend on it and should we depend on it so much? One of the key messages of Coventry was that each one of us should remember our responsibility for our fellow citizens.
  910
  The huge and rapid growth in social work is partly a reflection of the fragmentation of families, partly an effect of longevity and partly the result of an increase in public expectations that someone somewhere will pick up our pieces for us. It is also a reflection of the readiness of each one of us to shuffle off on to professionals responsibilities that, if we stopped to think, we could often take on. I am glad to have had the chance to thank the staff who take on those responsibilities for me, but there is much to be done if we are to raise their standards and self-esteem proportionate to the expectations we have of them.
  11.24 am
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful to be able to participate in this debate. First, I must pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mid—Kent (Mr. Rowe) for securing it and for his championing of the social work cause in this place—he has certainly done so during the nine years that I have been here. I also pay tribute to his previous role as the chair of the all-party panel on personal social services. The work that he did with that group for many years was widely appreciated on both sides of the House and throughout social work.
  The hon. Gentleman's speech was a little like mine will be—a case of "All Our Yesterdays". He remarked on the length of time that had elapsed since the Seebohm report, which revolutionised personal social services, which reminded me that I trained around the time of the Seebohm changes. I began training in social work in a specialist field and, by the time I had qualified, generic social work was required—people who could cover every area of social work specialisms.
  The debate is timely. I am more conscious than ever that social workers are perhaps in a no-win situation. I get angry in this Chamber when I hear some of the comments about social workers, which are based on a profound ignorance—comments from Opposition as well as Conservative Members. I hope that one of the issues that will arise in the debate is how we can better inform some of our colleagues about the skills and tasks mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's introductory speech. I know from bitter experience that social workers are in a no-win situation. Whatever one does in an individual case, one is taking the wrong decision in someone's eyes. I have been lambasted on many occasions, physically assaulted and attacked in the media for doing my job in local authority social work.
  I am conscious that social workers have to take decisions daily, particularly on child protection, and that, in the case of individual children at risk, someone will think that the decision is profoundly wrong and will attack the social worker. It concerns me that there is insufficient awareness, particularly in the House, among the Government and the Opposition, of the problems that are faced when one is coming to a proper decision, particularly in a child protection case.
  We should all be aware of the way in which changes in community care have placed local authority social workers in an increasingly difficult situation. The court ruling last week, for example, reminded us of the role that social workers play within local authorities as gatekeepers for scarce resources. They often have to tell people, "Yes, we recognise your needs, but sadly the resources are not available to meet those requirements."
  I appreciate this brief chance to consider some of the issues that concern people in various areas of social work, which is under attack as never before from elements

  911
  within the Government. I exempt the hon. Member for Mid-Kent and the Minister, but I am sure that they will accept that some of their colleagues, as well as some highly irresponsible people in the media and some people in my party, are ignorant as to what social work is about and what tasks social workers face daily.
  I was struck by an article in February in Professional Social Work—a magazine to which the hon. Member for Mid—Kent referred—which is the magazine of the British Association of Social Workers. The article mentioned the campaign against social workers at a national level, saying:
  "This campaign is aimed not at the power of social workers as a professional group—which is minimal—but at their symbolic position as negotiators of citizenship for the disenfranchised.
  If it succeeds, social work will become a technical activity in which tasks are separated from creative helping, and ethics are seen as irrelevant."
  That sums up many of the issues pointed out by the hon. Gentleman and many of the problems faced by social workers in defending the work they do now.
  One of the major problems faced by social work throughout its history is that its very existence is a permanent reminder to politicians of their failure to deal with a range of social and political issues. At least 50 per cent. of the individual cases with which I had to deal during my time in social work, were related to or caused by material problems and not by personal relationships within the family.
  I am conscious of the fact that, in recent times, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened. That is certainly the case in my constituency, and I suspect that it is the same elsewhere. The role of social work has been concerned more and more with dealing with those who have missed out on material wealth and a decent standard of living. Low incomes, unemployment and bad housing are often the basic reasons for social worker involvement. Other related factors may have led to referrals, but those are the root causes resulting in the involvement of, particularly, local authority social workers and organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
  To some extent, attacks on social work and social workers are often a camouflage for a failure to address those material issues. Those who attack social workers are often the very people who are not prepared to get their hands dirty by looking at the reasons why social workers are involved with people facing difficulties in their material circumstances. I am not just attacking the Government when I say that. My party needs to reflect on one or two of its recent announcements, which betray a naivety about the root causes of some of our social problems.
  The announcement about curfew orders nicely sums up the problem that I am illustrating. Superficially, the idea may appear attractive and many people might say, "Yes, we need that." However, beyond the soundbite politics, we need to look in detail at why such an idea might be suggested. It does not deal with the reason why we have a significant number of out-of-control youngsters roaming the streets or why those youngsters are in certain parts of our constituencies. It does not deal with wholesale family and community breakdown and the way in which we have ghettoised the poor in recent times. My party must look in greater detail at some of the issues when it comes to
  912
  office, because one or two of us will not be happy with superficial suggestions about sweeping the streets and getting people back into their houses. We need to look at what is going on in those houses and what is going on between families and communities. One or two people are not thinking as deeply about that as they should be.
  I am worried by the fact that some highly effective social work is under attack from the Home Office. The hon. Member for Mid—Kent did not mention the probation and after-care service. I accept that we are talking to a Minister from the Department of Health who is responsible for personal social services, but social work is an issue that covers other Departments. The role of probation officers now is worthy of examination. Of all the social work activities in recent years, the probation and after-care service has shone through as an example of success. It has diverted people away from offending and dealt with the rehabilitation of offenders.
  I suspect that the Minister is as uneasy as I am about the Government's attack on probation officers and the idea that we should introduce some sort of militaristic attitude that will toughen up the service and offer a different response to offenders. I believe that we are ignoring the tremendous achievements that have been made in probation work recently, and I hope that the Minister will press his colleagues in the Home Office to review again their thinking about the future of the probation and after-care service.
  I quoted from Professional Social Work, the magazine of the British Association of Social Workers. The article refers to social work becoming a technical activity. We should consider that issue. I am conscious of the fact that a deliberate consequence of recent policy is that we are moving away from what I saw as the basic job of befriending, counselling and assisting people, and towards the technical and administrative side of Government legislation. We need to look at what that means for the future role of social work and the training of social workers.
  I was fortunate to be involved with the Standing Committee that dealt with the Children Act 1989. I remember vividly the feeling across parties that, with that piece of legislation, we had achieved a major breakthrough for the future well-being of children. I am proud to have been involved in that, and I pay tribute to all hon. Members on both sides of the House who were also involved.
  My concern is that the implementation of that legislation has concentrated specifically on the technical aspects, a sort of legalism about whether one can intervene in a child protection case. That concentration has been largely at the expense of what I thought was the philosophy of the legislation—prevention. I believe that the real philosophy behind that legislation was a reminder that the real work with children and young people should be preventive, and that crisis intervention is only one small part of what we expect to see. I am worried that we are concentrating too much on that technical activity arid that a whole raft of policies involved with prevention are being forgotten. I do not blame local authorities for that. I appreciate that they have to deal with crisis intervention in a way that perhaps none of us could have anticipated a few years ago.
  The other piece of legislation that has gone through the House during my time here is the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. The hon. Member for

  913
  Mid—Kent talked about the increased resources coming into local authority social work. I think that he made the point that many of those resources relate to the transfer of social security functions to local authorities. That legislation brought about the assessment process and the care management process. I was talking only yesterday to someone in charge of a social work course in a university in West Yorkshire. He said that we should be looking at producing accountants from social work courses, because the job that they have to do in care management and managing scarce resources at local authority level requires technical skills that they are not being offered by current social work training.
  The recent supervised discharge order—the legislation that went through the House last year—concentrates on a narrow, technical area of mental health. I am worried that many of the wider issues in mental health, which relate to how people function in the community, particularly those coming out of psychiatric hospitals, are not being looked at. The legislation concentrates on one aspect—the supervision of people in the community who have a serious mental disorder.
  That is the media agenda. The media agenda for community care is that it has failed. It has not failed. Under successive Governments, it has been a tremendous success, but we are seeing a concentration on a small number of tragic cases, and social workers get the blame. Sadly, we are responding to that media agenda by introducing legislation that marginalises the role of social workers into one small technical element. I am not doubting the importance of that technical element, but it is at the expense of a range of other important issues.
  I endorse entirely the points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent on NVQs and the training of people who are not academic highfliers. People such as home carers are fundamental to social work. I want to concentrate on the training of social work professionals who attain social work qualifications, but I do not doubt that we need to consider carefully the hon. Gentleman's points about NVQs and the basic training of people who do crucial jobs, such as home care and caring, perhaps in residential social work, at a basic care rather than a managerial level.
  We must address the issue of the length of professional social work courses. We are way behind other European countries in having only a two-year course. I am conscious that three years' training is squashed into two, as a direct result of which we lose out on quality. There is immense concern in professional social work about the lack of degree status for qualified social workers.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, the complexity of modern social work has increased tremendously. He said that there have been 50 Acts of Parliament since 1979 which have changed the role of social workers. Sadly, their training does not reflect those tremendous changes, which he rightly identified.
  I am also concerned about the lack of training for residential social workers. It is to our cost that we have allowed a deterioration in the number of people being trained for residential social work. The inquiries currently under way as a result of events in Clwyd and elsewhere in Britain will no doubt pinpoint the fact that the lack of proper training for residential social workers is a significant problem.
  914
  I also welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on the current arrangements for practice placements for those undertaking professional training. Local authorities face huge difficulties in responding to the requirements of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work for practice placements for people on professional social work courses.
  I understand that the revenue support grant makes some assumption of funding for practice placements, but the message from local authorities, which believe in proper social work training, is that such funding goes nowhere near provision of the necessary resources.
  I endorse the point made about the general social services council. We come back time and again on issue after issue to the need for a professional register of people involved in social work. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that progress is being made on that. There is cross-party acceptance of the need for such a model. People who see damage done to people through bad practice in social work arising from the lack of a professional register are a little impatient.
  Hospital social work increasingly gives rise to all sorts of problems as a result of the relationship between local authorities and health care. I should have liked to say more on that, but I am conscious that time is limited. That area has not been sufficiently discussed in the context of recent changes in community care.
  Education social work has not been mentioned and I put in a plea for more consideration to be given to the valuable role of education social workers, in assisting young people to make the best of their education. The announcement last week of more selection will result in more people being written off. I was one of those who were written off at the age of 11, so I feel strongly on that point. People who drop out of the system need attention, and education social work has a role to play in that.
  Finally, I make one plea which I hope will be taken up on both sides of the House as a result of today's debate. There is complete and utter shameful ignorance in this place of the role of social work. I commend the hon. Member for Mid-Kent for flying the flag for social work for many years. We should press the Industry and Parliament Trust to consider placing Members of Parliament from both sides of the House in various types of social work, just as it places them in business. Labour Members need that as much as Conservative Members—increasingly, with new Labour. I hope that we shall consider that suggestion seriously. There are hon. Members who do not have a clue about what is going on in social work, and who should have the chance to learn before they open their mouths in the Chamber.
  11.44 am
  Mr. John Gunnell: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). The only two Conservative Members of Parliament who have taken an active interest in social services since I have been a Member of the House, which I recognise is rather a brief time, come, I believe, from Kent.
  I recognise the value of the work done by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent over the years. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield was a principal social worker in

  915
  the area that I represent, so I know that he has handled difficult case work, and he brings his active experience to the House.
  It is clear from today's debate—Labour Members might have their minds on a further meeting that is due to take place shortly—that relatively few Members take an active interest in the issue that we are discussing. That is a pity, but it is important that we should continue to act together. On most of the issues that we shall talk about, there is a genuine cross-party view.
  It is important that we make progress on those issues. It is notable that, in perhaps the most important domestic crises to be brought to the House in recent days—the abuse in north Wales, which is now the subject of an inquiry, to which I shall return, and the Dunblane massacre—those involved might not have committed such atrocities had appropriate action been taken earlier.
  We can learn things from those tragedies, which will be extremely important to the way in which we think in future. This is not an area where we need deregulation; we need increased regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield attempted to introduce the idea of regulation in domiciliary care. It is important that people who go into other people's homes should have a measure of trust, and that their credentials should have been examined.
  The process of vetting has been raised by the Dunblane massacre and events in Clwyd and will clearly be studied by Sir William Utting in the report that he is preparing for the House. I hope that that will result in recommendations on which we can act in order to safeguard the clients of social workers, those in residential care and those whose homes are visited by people as agents of social services or the community performing acts related to community care. It is important that such people are vetted, that the vetting procedures continue, that they take place rather more rapidly than is often the case today, and that we ensure that there are proper safeguards for the public in the way in which the services are organised.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Kent and my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield raised many important points which I need not repeat. I have no professional experience in this area, but I have experience as chair of the social services committee in a major city. Anyone who is chair of a social services committee rapidly recognises the valuable work that social workers undertake, and, as the hon. Member for Mid-Kent said, the real danger in which they find themselves. I read that those dangers come more frequently from people under mental stress, which we must take into account when attempting to legislate to minimise the dangers for people who work with such clients. Although I recognise that it is impossible to make the job completely free from danger, it is possible to ensure that help is at hand most of the time when the work is being done.
  People recognise the responsibility that social workers have, if for no other reason than that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield: when they make a mistake, it often has serious effects on people's lives, and if it becomes public knowledge, they receive regrettable media attention. It is important that the training of which the hon. Member for Mid-Kent spoke is put in place, because the decisions that social workers take are sensitive. He made it clear that there is a lack of training
  916
  at present. It is important that we have a sensitive understanding of the job that has to be done. There is a narrow line in the decisions that social workers have to take in many cases—about an individual client, about removing a child from home. Those decisions are finely balanced, and must be treated with understanding. There must be the necessary protection for the social worker, but our primary job is to legislate for the protection of the clients.
  There is serious evidence of a crisis of morale among social workers. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent mentioned two reports. In fact, both teach us aspects of the truth about social workers. Many people find it an extremely satisfying activity and would not exchange it for any other, and many people involve themselves in social work voluntarily because of the satisfaction that they get from the assistance that they can give. But a survey in Professional Social Work, in conjunction with the university of Central Lancashire, has some important lessons for us. It is a mistake to ignore its data, because they say something about social work as a profession today.
  The survey tells us:
  "Half of the profession has considered leaving social work in the past three years—mostly because of stress, frustration at lack of resources and the feeling that they are not doing the job they were trained for."
  That is a serious figure, which we should examine. We should look at the frequency of stress among social workers, because, having been close to them through my role in the city council and my continuing relationship with people who do that work in my constituency, I see the signs of stress. I hear of instances in which stress causes individuals to leave the profession or to have long periods of absence.
  According to the survey, which covered a large number of social workers—1,391—some 49.8 per cent. had had stress problems in the previous year. Those problems may not have been serious, but the social workers were asked to outline the effects that that stress had on them. Some 15.6 per cent. suggested that they had physical illness as a result of stress in their work; others felt that they had sleep problems as a result.
  Removing a child from home is a very hard decision to take. I have dealt with people who have had the job of deciding whether, because the child might be at risk, a baby has to be removed from the family at birth, and it is a difficult decision. People recognise the enormous emotional stress for the parents of that child, but they feel nevertheless that, for the protection of the child, it is necessary to remove it. But that is not a job that social workers do in a matter-of-fact way. It is a very difficult job, and one must retain some emotional detachment, but frequently the price of that is internal stress. Under the Mental Health Act 1983, it is the social worker who initially decides that a person needs to be taken into residential care for his or her protection. Those decisions involve emotion, and the price of detachment from those emotions is that one internalises them, which is likely to cause internal stress unless one can come to terms with it, and unless the rest of one's life is well regulated.
  Importance has been attached to the role of a general social services council. We should look at the extra demands that are placed on social workers as a result of the current system. In a way, the purchaser-provider split

  917
  is inimical to social services, because one is asking people to do a managerial job. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield spoke about that in technical terms, and assessment has a certain technical aspect to it. One is also asking social workers to build up a relationship with clients. It is often not possible to have a completely different person doing the assessment.
  Accountancy might be handled at managerial level, but frequently social services managers are not completely absent from their field, and the relationships that are built up between social workers and clients mean that assessment cannot be completely detached from care. That is another distinction between the way in which social work was viewed in the past and the way in which a market forces element has been introduced in aspects of social work.
  There is a need for a general social services council. The Minister and the all-party panel on personal social services have had frequent discussions about that, but it is important to move it forward. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that it is moving forward. According to the National Institute for Social Work, a general social services council is needed
  "for the protection of the public, who are entitled to expect high standards from staff who impinge so closely on the quality of their lives; for the protection of employers, who need to know that those they employ meet those standards and are fit to practise; for the protection of staff themselves, who have a right to take a pride in their work and to expect the confidence of the public."
  I have been talking about that to the Minister and to his predecessor during the whole of my time as a Member of the House. The matter has not been taken forward fast enough. It is time that we were able to offer social workers validation through registration. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that. Many social workers are concerned that the role of local authorities, which have an important role to play in social services, is decreasing. They are concerned about the extent to which that is seen as a positive move to transfer the work that local authorities do as a provider to private agencies.
  It should be stressed that the bulk of social service provision, including community care, can be provided mainly under the aegis of local authorities. I do not see the local authority as a diminishing provider, and I hope that the Minister agrees, but there is uncertainty in the profession.
  I am glad that we have been able to discuss the position of social workers, and I look forward to hearing from the Front Benches.
  12 noon
  Mr. Alan Milburn: The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) deserves all our thanks for initiating such a sensible, level-headed debate, which has been free of the crisis-ridden atmosphere that all too often dominates our discussions of social work issues.
  As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, this is an appropriate time at which to discuss the subject—25 years after the creation of the modern social services department. As he also said, in that quarter of a century the nature of social work has changed dramatically. We now have an opportunity to take stock, to appraise the successes as well as the failures and to plan for the future.
  918
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have drawn attention to the dramatic changes in social services in recent years. Social work has been in the front line of all those changes. Social workers, who are often vilified, provide invaluable services, usually for the most disadvantaged, and sometimes for the most disturbed and disruptive, members of the community. The overwhelming majority of social workers do a good job in very difficult circumstances. Their role requires them to make sensitive decisions within a tight legislative framework and limited budgets, and the legal context in which they operate is becoming ever more complex and demanding.
  The ink had barely dried on the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 before new legislation was being planned. We have had the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, the National Health Service Act 1977, the Mental Health Act 1984, the Registered Homes Act 1984 and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. All those Acts have changed the lives of many people, but they have also placed new and complex responsibilities on the shoulders of social services staff. In particular, they charge social workers with assessing need and commissioning services as well as delivering them.
  While every area of social work has been affected by those changes, children's services have inevitably attracted the most public attention. The recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Health of an inquiry into organised child abuse is welcome, provided that it leads to urgent action. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) rightly referred to the need for appropriate safeguards for children in need. Events in Staffordshire some years ago, and the crimes of Frank Beck, demonstrated how abuse can be organised, while Cleveland and Orkney showed how difficult it is to investigate.
  Inevitably, the pressures caused by a combination of new legislation and public opinion have led many social work staff to feel that they have moved too far from preventive work. There are no easy yardsticks in child care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) pointed out, social workers tend to be damned if they do and damned if they don't, but those who err on the side of caution, and on the side of the child, must surely be in the right.
  Unfortunately, life in front-line social work is pretty complex; it is rarely straightforward. Social workers perform statutory duties that have major ramifications for those they help. Although the thrust of the legislation requires them to involve users in decision making, in reality many people are referred to social workers against their will, and securing their co-operation requires considerable skill. Social workers often operate in the context of the courts, and are sometimes caught in a legal minefield.
  The onus on staff undertaking assessment for care management, and on those involved in direct care provision, is particularly challenging: the role requires a high level of decision-making ability and personal competence. The social work task is more diverse than it has ever been. Potentially, social workers could be working with all age groups, from babies to the very elderly, in different ethnic communities and in the field and in day and residential settings, dealing with issues ranging from health care to juvenile justice and offering

  919
  services ranging from family support to legal intervention. The depth and breadth of the tasks with which they must cope is immense.
  Perhaps it should come as no surprise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South pointed out, there is a crisis of morale and stress-related problems in social work. Social work has also been in the front line of the social and economic changes that have confronted Britain during the past two decades. People needing social work help tend to become ever more dependent, which makes the social worker's job ever more difficult. That, too, should come as no surprise. After all, during the past 17 years unemployment and crime have doubled, child poverty has trebled and the poorest in society have seen their real incomes fall. Arguably, our country is now more divided than at any point in this century, and all too often social work has picked up the tab for social division and economic failure.
  That situation cannot continue. The country will cease to be able to afford its key public services if our economy is not modernised and our society reunited. Unless we have a society in which young people feel hope again and families once more form the building blocks for stronger communities, our country's caring services will simply be overwhelmed, and social work will be reduced to a firefighting exercise.
  Central Government must take the lead. We need an approach that ensures that social work operates in the context of a new national effort to improve opportunity, spread prosperity and strengthen community. Social work needs to take place in an environment where a nationally led anti-poverty strategy seeks to tackle the unemployment, deprivation and sheer lack of hope that have come to dominate too many local communities. The time has come to relieve the pressure on our hard-pressed public services, including social services. That would allow social work to reclaim some of its heritage of family support, rather than sticking to its current role as merely a family crisis agency.
  Mr. Rowe: Not all the problems are directly related to poverty. The Trustee Savings bank survey suggests that people between the ages of 15 and 19 spend an average of £14 a week on alcohol.
  Mr. Milburn: I have some interest in that issue, as a former chairman of the all-party group on alcohol misuse. But I know from my discussions with social services departments—the hon. Gentleman will have had similar discussions—and with front-line social workers that many of the problems that they confront are a direct product of poverty and deprivation, particularly in inner cities.
  I am not just calling for a new policy approach in the Government's tackling of those difficulties; I am also calling for a new spirit of co-operation between Departments in policy making. All too often, the failure to co-ordinate policy in Whitehall produces cracks that cannot be papered over by local services. If social work is to meet the next century's challenges, therefore, a new approach to policy making and new national policies need to be accompanied by something else—the point that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent made about training.
  To juggle the often conflicting demands that social workers face, they clearly need to be properly and appropriately trained. The need, however, is not just for
  920
  the right sort of entry qualifications, but for appropriate in-work training that continually updates skills and knowledge. The most pressing priority is for all social workers to have to demonstrate general competence. Whatever pressures they face, there should be no excuses for incompetence. Service users should be confident that the professionals charged with making important decisions about their lives are working to agreed standards of practice.
  Currently, practice is measured against a range of standards, some of which are organisational and some of which are professional. Clarification is needed to ensure consistency and clarity. Standards for services and standards of practice and of conduct for staff should all be related to outcomes for users and for carers.
  Despite the heavy responsibilities that social workers bear, there is, as all hon. Members have said, still no statutory body to which social workers and other social care staff are responsible for their standards and conduct. In this sense, social workers are unique compared with their peers in the medical, nursing and health care professions. Labour Members back the creation of a general social services council, precisely to ensure the highest possible standards and conduct among care staff who work with vulnerable people.
  Although there is much work to be done to make the proposal a reality—perhaps the Minister will update us on that—and to ensure that it does not make demands on the taxpayer, a general social services council would have enormous benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South pointed them out. There would be benefits not only to users and employers but to staff. A GSSC would protect staff against people who are incompetent or unfit, and whose activities undermine confidence in the profession.
  A general social services council would give the social work profession the status that it deserves, but I do not want to create a new vested interest, divorced from other caring professionals. Social workers have a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable members of society and to promote a better quality of life for people under stress, but they are not alone in that task. We favour a multi-agency approach to service delivery. We want to end unnecessary duplication of effort and, most important, we want the multi-dimensional needs of service users to be reflected in multi-disciplinary working, where professionals from a variety of agencies co-operate for the benefit of the individual. After all, a person with a mental health problem who is living in the community is as likely to need help from a community psychiatric nurse and a local authority housing officer as from a social worker.
  All too often, however, multi-disciplinary working is frustrated by the lack of appropriate joint planning of service delivery. In that sense, the confusion in policy making at central Government level finds a ready reflection in what goes on locally. That is why I want local authorities and health authorities to work much more closely together in planning community care and in implementing its delivery.
  Such an approach is especially necessary if a "care in the community" approach to mental health policy is to command genuine public confidence. Time and again, in report after report, we have been warned of the fault lines in mental health policy and practice, which can give rise to tragedy. The messages are always the same,

  921
  particularly the failure to communicate and to co-ordinate. Only better co-operation between health and social care professionals can overcome those problems.
  Specifically, urgent action is needed to clarify the relationship between the care management procedures operated by social workers and the care programme approach operated by clinicians. Thought should also be given to improving multiagency training in the health and social care sectors.
  The changes that I have outlined—a new national effort to tackle poverty and disadvantage, improved policy co-ordination both nationally and locally, and new standards safeguards—will help to overcome public concerns about social work. They will also help to give a new lease of life to a profession that deserves support for the role that it plays in overcoming social exclusion and in promoting social cohesion. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent and all those who have spoken have done the House and the country a favour in highlighting the importance of the profession, and the changes that are needed to ensure that it flourishes.
  12.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowls): I echo what has been said in saluting my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). His belief in and experience of social work and care shone through his speech. We owe him a great debt for bringing this subject to the House. I hope that it will lead to other debates on social work as that great area of professional work develops. I suspect that we also look forward to taking his Michelin guide on our travels around the country. "Eat out with your social worker" is a new concept.
  When talking about a person with learning difficulties, my hon. Friend rightly talked about the need to understand people's needs, and even people. We must get the "Don't patronise me" message across. I have heard it said by people with learning difficulties. "Don't talk over my head", and "Don't talk down to me" are other messages that we should get across.
  The same applies to my hon. Friend's message about that dreadful term "care leavers". As young people move from care to independence, we have a common duty to enable them to pick up the reins of adulthood and to benefit from their past care. We must ensure that they do not experience a sudden drop off. I endorse too what my hon. Friend said about volunteers. He is a specialist in that matter. We would do well to listen to him and to develop it much more.
  I acknowledge too the complementary experience of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I always try to be helpful, so I will do my best to answer the request from old Labour to help to educate new Labour. It does not understand, he said, so I understand that request. We will do what we can over the coming months and years.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the probation service and its role with the police, those involved in education and others, in diversionary work to help young people to avoid getting into difficulties that can lead to custody and other problems. That is an important matter. He talked about crisis intervention work, which, of course, is important. I hope that he was
  922
  not underestimating the emphasis that we have placed, through messages from research and other areas, on the need to concentrate on prevention, so that today's problem does not become tomorrow's crisis. I note too his interesting thoughts on the Industry and Parliament Trust. Perhaps not industry, but someone should, perhaps, be doing just that.
  I acknowledge the comments of the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) about social workers' role and job having challenges, stresses and strains. I hope, however, that we will take the opportunity not just to talk about the gloom and doom that may come from surveys, but to talk up and to celebrate social workers' achievements. Ultimately, that will do social workers and social care workers a greater favour than concentrating on the downside.
  I salute the 1 million men and women working in the private, public and voluntary sectors who devote their careers to the care of the most vulnerable children and adults—from child welfare, child protection and child custody, to the mentally ill and people with physical, sensory or learning disabilities, to people who are frail of body or of mind, to addicts who abuse their bodies and their minds. We salute social care workers today, and I do so when I travel around the country and witness the dedication, care and creativity that characterises the work of the best of them.
  We hear about cases of poor quality, political correctness, intrusiveness, rigidity and, sometimes—sadly—of downright wickedness. Such instances often catch the headlines and are rightly condemned, but they are not the reality of the vast majority of people working in social care, who provide high-quality service and daily perform tasks and make decisions that most of us would rather not perform and make.
  This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Seebohm reforms, which not only founded modern local authority social services departments but created what has in effect become the fourth pillar of the welfare state, ranking alongside the NHS, social security and education. In the quarter of a century since Seebohm, each generation has brought its own perspective and innovation to social care. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) reeled off some of the legislation that has been enacted in the interim. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Children Act 1989, but I would add it to his list. Those measures are notable landmarks of change and, most recently, we have seen legislation and progress in respect of mental health. carers and direct payments.
  This year, total social services spending, including DSS preserved rights spending on community care, has risen to £10 billion—a figure approaching the spend on NHS family health services. Local authorities are employing about 233,000 staff in the various sectors of personal social services, and about 90 per cent. of field social work staff are qualified. If the voluntary and private sectors are included, the figure rises to 1 million. During the past decade, there has been a considerable shift in clientele; more people now work in domiciliary and day care services and occupational therapy, reflecting a move away from residential provision. Social workers are engaged in a wide range of services for highly dependent people who are vulnerable by reason of age and condition, as well as in specialised services such as mental health, young offenders, adoption and fostering.

  923
  I pay unreserved tribute to the way in which front-line social workers and social services staff in general have responded to the challenges that they faced at a time of structural, service and ethos change. Local government reorganisation, new responsibilities for community care, care at home rather than in a home, expansion of the range and type of service provider, services tailored to people rather than people made to suit services and greater empowerment, independence and choice for service users are challenges that social workers in all sectors have striven to meet.
  We have opened doors to real choice and dignity for people who need care services, and forward-looking social workers and social service directors welcome that development. Making a difference to the lives of the people who, to a greater or lesser extent, rely on social care does not and should not mean taking over or controlling their lives. The values and ethos of social service professions have developed over the past 10 years into a general movement towards the real empowerment of service users. The whole thrust of social service changes, whether in respect of adults or children, has been to give users a greater say in the care support that they are given and a stronger voice in the way in which they are helped to live their lives. That movement has been reflected in the wide range of policy and practice changes that, through legislation and guidance, we have encouraged or required authorities to adopt.
  In social services, the human and social values underlying the citizens charter were already well developed by the time that they were set out in the community care charter—for example, through the direction on choice for people needing residential care. Community care reforms put a new emphasis on consulting service users and their carers fully.
  The Children Act 1989, and its regulations and guidance, make the interests, wishes and feelings of the child paramount whenever practicable in decisions affecting his or her future. Complaints procedures were established with a genuinely independent element. In all, the greater involvement and stronger voice of service users in all aspects of their care that has been led by social workers enables social workers to do their jobs in ways that should preserve people's real dignity.
  While there is much to applaud in the difficult and complex work performed by social workers, we recognise that, sometimes, things go wrong. At the lower end of the scale of seriousness, there are still to be found occasional examples of a faded and outmoded political correctness. Many hon. Members will have had complaints from independent sector providers concerning the over-zealous regulation that persists in some areas—the sort of thinking that found its way into parts of the first draft of what was then known as "Home Life 2", which the House debated not long ago. My Department has issued practice guidance to restore a proper balance in the way that adoptions are handled.
  Mr. Rowe: Perhaps my hon. Friend is underplaying some complaints from the private sector, which feels strongly and has evidence that there is more than just bureaucratic discrimination—that ethos discrimination makes life extremely difficult for the private sector.
  Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope that the discrimination that is felt in some parts of
  924
  the country will be overcome as more authorities, elected members and managers understand the benefits to service users of the best of the independent sector.
  At the other end of the scale of seriousness is abuse. We all appreciate the careful and dedicated work that social services put into child protection. There is no knowing how many catastrophes and how much suffering have been prevented. I recognise that the work of many staff in helping young people to rebuild their lives often goes unrecorded. Many cases of abuse uncovered in recent years occurred 20 or 30 years ago, sometimes in facilities outside the social services or for which local authorities did not at the time have the same responsibility that they do now.
  None of us can feel comfortable about failures at member or manager level to discharge the responsibility of protection from abuse. I am glad of the welcome given to Sir William Utting's thorough review of safeguards, to ascertain whether they are adequate. Sir William will bring forward any recommendations that he thinks fit, and we will study them carefully.
  Regulatory and management safeguards, and the regulation of social services personnel, are also important. We intend to issue before the summer recess a consultation document that will describe and report positively on suggested standards of conduct and competence that we commissioned from groups led by the National Institute for Social Work and Price Waterhouse. That work has shown that such standards can be articulated in social services. The consultation document will seek views on the various possible mechanisms for disseminating and enforcing professional standards.
  One mechanism is the creation of a statutory council, broadly of the kind used to regulate standards in other caring professions. I fully understand the wish of many people working in social services and of the all-party panel for a general social services council, and I am aware of growing support among social service employers for such a council.
  Our consultation document will give full weight to those views, widen the canvas of discussion to user and wider consumer interests that have not so far contributed substantially to the debate, and outline practical issues. A large number of people work in social services, but not all social care—particularly at the sharp end, involving vulnerable groups—is provided by people with backgrounds suitable for registration with a professional body.
  Existing statutory councils in other professions have never found it easy to spot in advance individuals who are subsequently found—for example, after disciplinary proceedings or criminal conviction—to he unsuitable to work with vulnerable people. Nor have they invariably concluded that it is just or reasonable that individuals whose registration has been removed or suspended should be permanently banned from practising their vocations. Our consultation document will—I hope constructively—expose those issues, which we certainly realise must be tackled.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent also raised the issue of training. Although the three-year case is yet to be proven, I accept his point about the need to examine post-qualifying education to discover whether we can ensure that it is adequate to keep people up to

  925
  date and to achieve the right combination of academic and practical training. We will certainly consider what he said, and I shall discuss it with him on a future occasion.
  This has been an interesting and useful debate. Social workers will continue to have a key role in delivering services to vulnerable people. We owe it to them and to those whom they serve to do all that we can to help them perform that role effectively. That is the best way to ensure that people working in social work deserve and achieve the public respect and standing that comes from an often difficult and challenging job that is well done.

  Holiday Airlines (Safety)
  12.30 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Most people have only one annual holiday, which they save for throughout the year. Therefore, it is very important to them to know not only that they are protected by correct safety laws, but that they will receive proper protection from their country's legislation.
  Over past months, I have become increasingly concerned about the number of cheap holidays advertised, which means that many holidaymakers buy holidays but are not aware that, in some cases, a holiday advertised by a perfectly reputable travel agent may not necessarily have behind it either an aircraft or even an aircraft slot that would allow a flight to land at a particular airport at a particular time.
  I believe that almost all our holidaymakers would be confused if we were to ask them to what protection they are entitled. Most people who buy a British holiday from a travel agent assume that they are reasonably safe—which has always been the case in the past. Unfortunately, there has recently been a growth in the numbers of brokers who lease planes after they have already sold the holiday, and in the numbers of tour companies that do not have confirmed aircraft or proper planning to run holidays in the manner in which they were presented to the tourist.
  Does that matter? It matters enormously. A responsible airport authority will respond quickly if an airline does not have permission to land an aircraft at a particular airport at a particular time, but which instead exercises a mild form of blackmail and tells air traffic control, "We have so many hundreds of British holidaymakers on board. We therefore must land—otherwise, there may be a problem". But that is not a good basis on which to organise a travel industry.
  In April, therefore, I wrote to the Secretary of State to set out some of my worries about travel companies, check-in procedures, the way in which international rules are applied, and the actions that Britain is taking to ensure that we are complying in every way with necessary safety standards. I am not overwhelmingly impressed by the fact that I wrote to the Secretary of State on 23 April but received a reply only this morning, 2 July. The Department should not be commended on its sense of urgency in this matter.
  The letter is astonishingly complacent. I should explain that all the countries with which we normally deal are party to the Chicago convention, and that they should adhere to its rules. Some time ago, the Federal Aviation Administration in America—which is also party to the Chicago convention—became concerned about the safety of American nationals, and instigated a series of checks. Some of the checks were audits on the ground, but many of them consisted of banning or limiting the action of certain foreign airlines.
  In conjunction with the Governments concerned, the FAA went to the countries in which those flights originated, and checked on safety standards and maintenance. In fact, that exceeds the requirements of the Chicago convention, and many people would say that it was breaking some of the convention's terms.
  The FAA took those actions because it believed that American nationals on holiday needed to be protected. When I began to question the Government about our

  927
  reaction to some of the difficulties, I was appalled to be given what I can only call the brush-off. I asked, for example, whether we were following an action plan similar to the FAA's. I received a reply that said, "You should ask the FAA." On a Sunday afternoon, I managed to obtain information from the Internet about which countries and which categories were banned—information that Her Majesty's Government were unwilling or unable to give me.
  Moreover, the FAA, when asked, provided me with someone who was prepared to come to London to talk to me about the airline safety records of various countries. The FAA not only maintains long lists—which constantly change, because it is a moving operation—of countries which it believes have safety problems, but instigates talks with people in those countries. Many of the airlines that fly into the UK are already on the FAA's banned or limited list.
  I was very concerned about that. However, I have been told in this letter—which I have read only very briefly—"We are not concerned about the FAA. We have carefully considered the implications of the FAA programme for our dealings with the states in question." It states:
  "We have concluded that we could reasonably take the FAA findings as evidence that something may be wrong … we are less convinced that as signatories to the Chicago Convention we could, or indeed should, simply replicate FAA action".
  If that is the Government's attitude—fine.
  Why is this issue so important? I recently received a letter from a holidaymaker who had been on the "notorious" Excalibur flight. The letter is from a very sensible family, who wrote to the reservations manager of Globespan to set out some of what had happened to them on their outward and inward flights. It states, first, that there were
  "Severe problems on outgoing flight, due to lack of tickets"
  and that there was no clear information about the plane.
  The letter continues:
  "Despite numerous telephone calls, three separate sets of tickets failed to arrive, until the day before departure.
  Flight 066 split between two different airlines, causing a further three-hour delay. Despite claims this was unforeseen"
  the staff handed out pre-printed letters. I do not know whether that means that the airline foresees that it will have problems not with particular flights but with every flight. It does not inspire confidence.
  The letter goes on:
  "All party members seated separately"
  in the aircraft, resulting in some small children being separated from their parents. There were "foreign-speaking cabin staff", and, despite the fact that it was a daylight flight, they were ordered to keep the cabin in darkness.
  The return flight was even more horrific. The letter states:
  "Following check-in, three fire engines and men in breathing apparatus working on the plane, causing initial concern and delay".
  They were informed at last that the plane was ready. An announcement was made for the front half of the plane to board, but the rear-half passengers would have to wait, because the mechanics had not finished. The captain announced that the delay had been caused by an electrical fault. That was rectified, and the plane was ready to take off.
  928
  They then experienced a further, absolutely horrifying catalogue of problems, including finding themselves in a smoke-filled plane. Eventually, 91 of the passengers refused to travel on the plane, and had either to find their own way back or to sit up in the airport all night. That is scarcely a sensible way to operate any airline.
  I then inquired into not only Excalibur but Air Ops. Air Operations, or Air Ops, is a company which has produced a series of most interesting names, and which keeps reappearing. I have been questioning the Department about it for some time. Air Ops recently went into liquidation, but has been resurrected as Air Ops International. It is currently applying for permission to operate between the United Kingdom and various European destinations.
  The company is Swedish-registered, and all the safety inquiries that I have made of the Department were met with the answer that this country has no problems with Swedish air safety standards, and is quite happy to accept Swedish-registered planes. That is fine—we should be happy to do so when we know that safety standards are equal to ours—but if someone leases a plane, parks it at a British airport, fills it with British holidaymakers, flies it, possibly with a foreign-speaking crew, to a third country, returns it to Britain and parks it at the same airport without ever returning it to its country of origin or the country where it is registered, it must be clear that it is not undergoing either spot checks or day-to-day monitoring. It is true in the abstract that Swedish safety laws are excellent, but if an aircraft never goes back into Swedish air space, how on earth do we know that its safety standards are being maintained?
  Let us consider Air Ops in detail. The company is owned by Thomas Johansson. Mr. Johansson was formerly involved with airlines such as Time Air, Omega Air and Sultan Air, all of which have gone into liquidation. As I said, Air Ops has been resurrected as Air Ops International. It is clear that not only individual holidaymakers but the Civil Aviation Authority has been having difficulties. I asked what debts were owed to the CAA by Sultan Air when it went into receivership. I also asked what was happening about flights operated by Air Operations Europe as a result of the High Court ruling of 10 October 1994, and about Omega Air and the other companies.
  The reply that I received was very instructive. I was told that Sultan Air left no outstanding debts, but that, on 10 October, the High Court ruled that Air Operations Europe had been the operator of a particular aircraft against which the CAA obtained an order of sale, and that, at a further hearing on 14 November, the High Court ruled that, unless payment of outstanding route charges and the CAA's costs was made, the CAA would be at liberty to proceed with the sale. Not surprisingly, the money was forthcoming, so no detention action was taken against that aircraft. When it is explained in detail what is happening with other aircraft, it becomes clear that, whenever difficulties arise, these companies simply go into liquidation, and then reinvent themselves under another title.
  I asked the Secretary of State for Transport to place in the Library copies of an operations certificate issued to Air Operations Europe. I was told that the certificate of airworthiness for the particular aircraft about which I had made inquiries
  "was withdrawn after problems were found during routine maintenance and the aircraft was therefore not allocated to any particular flight".

  929
  I was told that, if I wanted to know anything else, I should ask the Swedes.
  I have a strange, old-fashioned idea that British Members of Parliament have the right to question the Government of the day about the safety in the air of British nationals in their own country. It is not adequate to deal with the matter by talking to the FAA or the Swedish authorities. I am happy to do so, but I am now asking the Government what they intend to do, and how.
  I also asked questions about many of the countries on the FAA's list, which is, in effect, its list of forbidden countries. I asked why a country such as Ghana was receiving assistance although the FAA thought that there were problems with it. I also asked about Bulgaria, which was an education in itself. The Government acknowledged that the Department had
  "received 36 passenger complaints alleging various problems or deficiencies with flights using aircraft registered in Bulgaria. The Department asked the UK Civil Aviation Authority to conduct an independent assessment to ensure that International Civil Aviation Organisation standards were being applied. This assessment was carried out in February 1996".—[Official Report, 1 July 1996; Vol. 280. c. 348–49.]
  That does not say whether the result was good or bad, but there are still a number of difficulties, and it is clear that a number of countries are flying aeroplanes here to pick up British holidaymakers, although there is reason to doubt that they know what they are doing and whether the holidaymakers are being carried in all safety.
  I have a number of urgent things to ask the Government. I want them to take immediate action on air audits. We must know whether the pilots of foreign aircraft are complying with the correct safety rules, whether they fly when suffering from fatigue, how many hours they fly, and whether they are safely in control of the aircraft. Holidaymakers must know that a foreign aircraft is insured to the same level as a British one, and offers the same protection. It is no good demanding that when it is too late, and when passengers have been put in a highly dangerous situation.
  Furthermore, the Government must revise their attitude towards spot checks, almost irrespective of an aeroplane's country of origin. If we know that aircraft are flying in and out of this country without returning to their country of origin for checks, we must ensure that we do the work that should be done in the country of origin.
  It is absolutely essential that we give holidaymakers the right to ask for their money back if, when they arrive at an airport, they are offered an aeroplane that does not comply with the information given to them at the time of booking. At the time of booking, people should be told the flight, the carrier and the conditions under which they are to fly. Such matters cannot be got ignored by saying that we are party to international rules, and that, if we comply with them, everything is being done to protect British holidaymakers.
  There has been an enormous burgeoning of cheap holidays—more and more people are flying around the globe on holiday with their families. This means that many companies are moving in on this trade, without providing the proper protection. They are prepared to break the law, to use crews who do not speak English, and sometimes to put pressure on the air traffic control
  930
  services. This will not do. The Minister is looking at his watch, because he thinks that I am being ungenerous in not leaving him more time.
  In view of the questions that I have been asking and the pressure that I have been putting on the Department of Transport, the Government have known for three months how concerned I have been. Even so, they managed to reply to my initial letter, sent on 23 April, only this morning. If that is an indication of the urgency with which the Government intend to address the problem, all that is left for individual Members of Parliament to do is to make public our very real fears about the way in which British holidaymakers are being carried abroad—in what may be sub-standard aircraft on substandard tours. I do not want this situation to continue. We must protect our holidaymakers on every holiday.
  12.49 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), with her customary perceptiveness, notes that I am concerned about the time I have available to respond to the points she has made. She knows very well that, the longer she talks, the less time I have to reply. If there are items with which I am not able to deal fully, I shall write to her. I will write to her on the Balkan Bulgarian Airlines issue.
  The most recent check on Ghana Airways was on 16 May. Standards on one or two on-board safety items only just met International Civil Aviation Organisation standards, but they were not sufficiently worrying for the aeroplane concerned to warrant detention. If the hon. Lady wants to ask further questions about that, or about any of the other issues she raised, I shall be happy for her to do so.
  I rather agree with the hon. Lady on Air Ops. If there is a disparity between the place of registration of the airline and its principal centre of operations, we must be satisfied that that does not allow lower standards than should apply to such an operation. I note the hon. Lady's points on that.
  The hon. Lady is rightly concerned about holidaymakers travelling on chartered foreign aircraft. Last year, more than 30 million passengers were carried on all charters from the United Kingdom—an increase of 40 per cent. over the past four years. Around 86 per cent. of those passengers were carried by UK airlines, a fairly constant share.
  There is no evidence that the proportion of charter passengers carried by foreign airlines has increased. Of course, the absolute number has increased as the total demand has risen, but I do not consider that this need be a cause for concern. Many of the airlines taking holiday tours and many of the aircraft used are regularly involved in other air services, such as scheduled flights to and from the United Kingdom.
  Flying on foreign aircraft does not mean flying on unsafe aircraft. Foreign aircraft, like British aircraft, are subject to internationally agreed safety controls and standards. I should like to take a few minutes to describe the safety system under which international aviation operates.
  The fundamental basis, as the hon. Lady suggests, is the International Civil Aviation Organisation—ICAO. The signatories to it accept and comply with the annexes

  931
  to the Chicago convention, which establishes a number of minimum standards for the safe operation of aircraft. The system of mutual interdependence is reinforced by specific articles in the convention, including an obligation that states will accept certificates and licences provided by another state, as long as ICAO safety standards are being met by that state.
  The hon. Lady made great play of the Federal Aviation Administration investigations. I make it clear to her that the ICAO system is the only practical and sensible way in which international aviation can operate. It would simply not be practicable for every state to check every flight entering its borders against its own national standards. However, that does not preclude a state making checks if it has grounds to question whether the ICAO safety standards are being met. If states have no evidence, they have no right to make checks, which is a clearly established principle.
  So we have an international system, which we firmly believe is the only practicable basis for organising safety worldwide, backed up by domestic legislation in the UK. That legislation provides that, with the exception of European Economic Area airlines performing intra-EEA flights, which do not need a permit, all other airlines wishing to perform a public transport service to or from the United Kingdom must obtain a permit from the Department. Before that permit is granted, we must be satisfied on a number of points.
  The key points are as follows. First, has the airline been approved by its authorities as being competent to operate the type of flight concerned? Secondly, has the aircraft been certified as airworthy by the aeronautical authority of the country of registration? Thirdly, does the airline have adequate insurance?
  Confirmation of those points is normally obtained by the airline submitting appropriate documentation. If we have any doubts about whether the documents are valid or whether they are issued on the basis of ICAO standards, we do not issue a permit until those doubts have been resolved. That may mean that we have to consult the authorities in the country concerned, or we may ask the Civil Aviation Authority to visit the country to clarify safety oversight procedures.
  Once a permit has been granted, we continue to monitor the safety standards of the airline and the country concerned. If we have evidence to suggest that safety standards may no longer be meeting ICAO requirements, my Department makes the appropriate checks. Again, that may mean consulting the overseas authority, but the Department may also ask the Civil Aviation Authority to conduct a physical inspection of aircraft at a UK airport.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: How often?
  Mr. Norris: If such checks reveal serious safety concerns, the authority can detain the aircraft, and the Department can withhold permits. The hon. Lady asks how often inspections are carried out. If she had been listening to what I have been saying, she would have known that the instigation for such inspections is the one I have just outlined. Incidentally, I note in the 1996–97 programme inspections of Nigeria Airways, Viasa of Venezuela, Ghana Airways, Air Zimbabwe, Cameroon Airlines and Syrian Arab Airlines. If the hon. Lady wants evidence of any further inspections, I shall be happy to provide it.
  932
  The procedures apply to holiday flights involving foreign aircraft, just as they do to other flights. There are three ways in which foreign aircraft may be involved. First, a foreign airline may offer a flight directly to the public to its own country. Secondly, a UK airline may lease a foreign aircraft for a holiday flight. Thirdly, tour operators may charter foreign aircraft for flights between the United Kingdom and a country that is not that aircraft's country of registration—so-called fifth freedom charters. My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping announced on 19 June the results of a review of these fifth freedom operations, and I will return to that in a second. I emphasise that all these flights are equally subject to the safety procedures I have just outlined.
  As UK operators are subject also to certain European legislation, there are additional procedures to be followed for flights involving foreign aircraft leased with their crews to United Kingdom operators. Under EC regulations, member states are required to satisfy themselves that leased aircraft will be operating to standards equivalent to those applied to their own carriers.
  UK airlines wishing to lease foreign aircraft require permission from the Department of Transport, and prior approval of the operation from the CAA. Where the CAA does not know enough about the foreign airline or about the standards imposed by its regulatory authority, it will carry out a safety audit of the carrier and the authority to satisfy itself that UK equivalent standards are being met. The cost is met by the UK airline wishing to lease the foreign-registered aircraft.
  We have taken a number of steps recently to improve the effectiveness of the international system and the oversight of foreign aircraft. Some were announced by my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping on 10 January, and we have built on them subsequently. On the international front, we are assisting ICAO in the implementation of a programme to monitor member states' adherence to the ICAO safety standards.
  Our latest information is that 35 states have requested ICAO teams to visit them, six of which had been visited by mid-May. CAA inspectors are due to take part in a number of forthcoming visits. This initiative is vital, because it tackles the safety problems at source; we are firmly committed to it.
  We are similarly committed to European initiatives, which have been accelerated by the Puerto Plata accident in the Dominican Republic, in which a number of German holidaymakers were killed. The European Civil Aviation Conference—ECAC—is putting in place a safety assessment programme. The first priority will be to ensure that information about possible safety problems is collected and disseminated to all ECAC members to help them monitor the operation of aircraft to and from their country.
  This means that, in the United Kingdom, we shall have access to more evidence about the standards of aircraft carrying our holidaymakers on which to decide whether to withhold permission for particular flights or to ask the CAA to inspect particular aircraft. It also means that ECAC will be able to put together the evidence from a wide range of sources about the way in which safety standards are being applied by foreign aeronautical authorities, and to identify states that need to be assessed in depth.
  The ECAC initiative is the basis of proposals drawn up by the European Commission, which were presented to the June Transport Council. My Department took part in

  933
  the high-level group chaired by the Commission, which discussed the proposals, and will make whatever contribution it can to the further work for which the Council has called.
  What about action here at home? We announced in January that we had tightened up the procedures for considering permit applications, particularly for foreign carriers wishing to operate to the United Kingdom using a leased aircraft registered in a third country. A statement is now required from the applicant setting out which airline is responsible for the safe operation of the flight, whenever aircraft leased with crew are involved.
  We have increased the number of inspections of aircraft carried out by the CAA. In 1995, the authority carried out four inspections at the Department's request; so far this year, it has already carried out twice that number—eight—the last two just last week. The authority visited Bulgaria in relation to Balkan Bulgarian Airlines. We are satisfied with that country's compliance with ICAO standards and with safety oversight procedures there. Inspections can lead to aircraft being detained and permits being withheld, and although none of those we have requested this year has done so, the increased number of checks sends a clear message to all airlines flying to the United Kingdom.
  I have explained that such inspections and visits can be undertaken only where there is reason to doubt that safety standards are being met. Doubts may arise from passenger complaints, for example, assessments by other countries, or the United States Federal Aviation Authority's safety assessment programme. We cannot check a whole class of flights, such as holiday charters; nor can we simply ban all aircraft from a country on the basis of unchecked reports or assessments.
  I should add that the CAA does not have to wait for the Department to request an inspection if it has received information directly that leads the authority to suspect that an aircraft may be unsafe to fly—whether it is a United Kingdom aircraft or a foreign aircraft. In such cases, it can and does inspect the aircraft as quickly as possible, and grounds it if it is found to be dangerous.
  Finally, I should say a word about my noble Friend's announcement about fifth freedom. We recognise concerns about safety of aircraft that have been based here, away from safety oversight in their state of registry.
  As a result of a review of policy on fifth freedom charter flights from the United Kingdom, we announced on 19 June that, from 1 August this year, the relevant number of fifth freedom passenger charter flights that any one carrier can operate in any one season will be limited to 10 return flights. One effect of that new rule will be to make it less attractive for non-EU airlines—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Time is up.

  Beef Ban
  1 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: I welcome the opportunity to initiate a debate on the European Union ban on beef exports. When I spoke in the two-day debate on 16 May, I said that the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis was a disaster for the farming industry. That disaster continues for many farmers who are struggling to keep going and plan for the future. There is, however, rather more clarity than there was seven weeks ago. The cull of cattle over 30 months is now fully under way, and there is some light at the end of the tunnel in respect of the European Union ban on beef exports.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture knows that, on five separate occasions, I have voiced my deep objections to the European Union worldwide ban on British beef exports. The Government have made it clear that they consider the ban illegal. I have made the point that, if we regard the worldwide ban as illegal, we should behave accordingly. The most appropriate response would be actively to promote the sale of British beef to third countries. Although we have made progress as a result of the Florence summit, we should not entirely dismiss that option, in case the EU proves rather less co-operative post-Florence than we expect it to be.
  I was encouraged by the fact that, last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was able to set out a fairly specific timetable for the lifting of the export ban. Clearly, progress has been made with our European partners, and I have no doubt that the Government's policy of non-co-operation contributed to that, as it helped to concentrate minds. Without it, I have little doubt that our European partners would have maintained a complete ban on the export of British beef, with no prospect of it being lifted, if only because it helps their home farming industries.
  It is somewhat ironic that the beef industries in some countries on the continent have suffered even more than our own. The EU's hasty and ill-judged ban on British beef exports contributed to the sense of crisis that has so reduced consumer confidence on the continent. However, French and Irish exporters—and no doubt others, too—are now supplying beef to many of the lucrative markets that British beef exporters have had to forgo.
  Of course, we in Britain have been deeply upset by the EU ban on the export of British beef, but what has truly outraged so many people is not so much that British beef has been banned from sale to other EU member states, as that the EU has banned the sale of British beef to every other country in the rest of the world. I find that totally unacceptable.
  Sir Donald Thompson: It is obnoxious.
  Mr. Riddick: As my hon. Friend says, it is obnoxious, and I am pleased that the Government are challenging that aspect of the ban in the European courts. I also welcome the declaration in the presidency conclusions that the European Commission will consider any third country request for the supply of British beef.
  Perhaps it would be helpful if I put on record exactly what the Florence European Council said in its presidency conclusions:

  935
  "The presidency declared that if, in the meantime, a third country requests a supply of British beef exclusively for its domestic market, the request will be examined by the Commission within the overall framework after consulting the appropriate scientific and veterinary committees."
  Mr. David Nicholson: Does that not suggest that we should swiftly seek evidence of progress? Do we not expect a determination in our favour by the European Court in a matter of days, or possibly a few weeks? However, my hon. Friend will know that President Mandela of South Africa is coming here next week. His visit will provide us with an opportunity to make an agreement to export beef to South Africa, and we would not expect the European Community to obstruct such an agreement.
  Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has prepared the ground for what I shall say later in my speech.
  I remind the House exactly what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his statement on 24 June after the Florence summit:
  "the Commission will consider individual requests from third countries to buy British beef exclusively for their domestic markets. If such requests come forward soon, I hope that, either through Commission procedures or the European Court case, exports from Britain to third countries will begin to flow".—[Official Report, 24 June 1996; Vol. 280, c. 22]
  When I have suggested that the British Government should simply ignore the worldwide ban, the response has been that there is no demand from overseas for British beef, and no orders have been received. I am pleased to tell the House that I have here a copy of a very firm order that was received by a British firm called First City Trading from a South African company called Brito's in Cape Province for 360 tonnes of frozen beef flanks. We have great difficulty in finding markets for beef flanks. The order amounts to 120 tonnes a month for July, August and September. The total value of the order is almost £250,000.
  My hon. Friend might be interested to know that, at the end of the order, the buyer adds:
  "For your information there is now a lot of French flanks being offered to this market as well as the normal Irish offers".
  I know that First City Trading, which is based in London, has purchased some beef from traders in Yorkshire, so I hope that the order will be delivered by one of the Yorkshire meat traders.
  The delivery of the order depends on the ability of the South African company to get an import licence from the South African Government. When the South Africa Agriculture Minister recently visited the country, he said:
  "We would like to have British beef back on our markets—safe as prescribed by British standards and by our standards."
  South African vets have looked extremely closely at all the controls imposed on the beef industry, and found them extremely rigorous. They believe that British beef is safe. I am confident, therefore, that the South African Government will be prepared to grant an import licence, but it is essential that we allow the beef to be exported in the first place.
  Following a little prompting from me during the debate on 16 May, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
  936
  "Although it has not happened yet. if someone comes knocking at my door to say that he has an order from a third market, of course we shall consider that."—[Official Report, 16 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 1092.]
  The EU communiqué said much the same thing.
  The South Africans want our beef, and believe it to he safe to eat. It is therefore a major test of the good faith of the European Commission and our European partners. If they stand in the way of the execution of export orders, they will be acting in bad faith.
  The EU ban has been justified on the grounds of preventing deflections of trade—in other words, to stop exports to third countries from being re-exported back to the EU. In my view, that is disingenuous. Because of the enormous subsidy to exporters to bring the export prices down from the inflated CAP prices to world prices, elaborate systems must be undergone. Importing countries sign import entry certificates confirming that the beef is for home consumption. Furthermore, levies on imports into the European Union are higher than export refunds that exporters receive. In practice, therefore, to re-export to the EU would be costly and pointless, especially from a country as far away as South Africa.
  As far as I am aware, this order is the first firm and specific one received from outside the EU since the beef crisis began. I hope and believe that the European Commission will allow it to be delivered, and that it is the beginning of the resumption of export trade, at least with third countries outside the EU.
  Mr. Martin Richardson, the managing director of First City Trading Ltd., tells me that he has other customers in South Africa who would like to place orders for British beef, and that he has no doubt that he could drum up business from other countries. It is time that some semblance of normality in the export business was restored, and that Mr. Richardson and his colleagues were allowed to get on with what they know best: helping to improve Britain's balance of trade.
  There is, however, one problem. First City Trading and other companies involved in the export business have been in danger of going out of business. Since taking an interest in the export business, I have been struck by how enormously complicated it is. We cannot afford to lose the expertise of people such as Mr. Richardson. Such expertise has taken some years to develop. Beef exporters are still having to take receipt of beef which was turned back from third countries before the crisis blew up.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that beef exporters have requested that they be included in the compensation scheme, and the Government need to consider that request, for two reasons. First, we do not want expertise that has been built up and encouraged by Government policy, which has provided subsidies, to disappear, because it would take a long time to rebuild.
  Secondly, if the beef exporters find that they are unable to pay their export refunds, their guarantors, which are mainly banks and insurance companies, will be approached. That could have a serious effect on the confidence of banks and insurance companies in providing guarantees for any other goods under the common agricultural policy. Will my hon. Friend address that point? The simplest solution could be for the Government to buy the beef that has been returned to this country.
  Getting the export ban lifted is an important part of the process of restoring full consumer confidence in British beef. There has been an increase in the use of imported

  937
  beef in this country in recent months, especially in the catering trade. Some of the farmers in my constituency have asked me, "How do we know whether beef from Argentina, Australia or Botswana is as safe and as rigorously regulated as it is in this country?" The answer is that we probably do not know.
  Mr. John Sykes: Are there not vast numbers of unreported cases of BSE-infected cattle in France, Germany, Switzerland and Austria? Does that not mean, therefore, that, not only is there probably as much danger in eating European beef, but it is much safer to eat British beef, especially from Yorkshire?
  Mr. Riddick: Yes, especially from Yorkshire, as my hon. Friend, who is also from Yorkshire, says. He makes his own point. Many of us in the House have suspicions that the incidence of BSE is grossly unreported on the continent, but it is obviously difficult to make that stand up.
  Bearing in mind that we want to regenerate trade in this country, there is an argument for refusing to import beef from EU countries that do not have the same specified bovine offal controls as us. Will the Minister consider that?
  I would also have thought that there was a strong case for imposing a ban on the importation of any beef from cattle over 30 months old. I think that I am right in saying that, at the moment, some countries are exempt from the 30-month ban, and can export to this country. Most important, we want to stimulate sales of British beef in the home market, and in particular increase the throughput of below 30-month-old cattle. Such trade is still fairly sluggish, and farmers, as my hon. Friend the Minister will know only too well, are receiving much lower prices at auction than they were before the crisis began.
  When I met an auctioneer from Cornwall a few weeks ago, he impressed on me the need to introduce deficiency payments to encourage farmers to take their beasts to market and help to reduce prices—thereby stimulating sales of British beef. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) has been arguing for something similar. Such a system would encourage people to eat more beef, and would lead to fewer beasts being kept until they were 30 months old, then needlessly destroyed and wasted. I do not know whether the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has considered that, but if it has not, along with the European Commission, it should do so in detail.
  When I spoke in the debate in May, I urged the Government to take swift action to get exemptions for the slower maturing breeds, and I am dismayed that there appears to have been no progress on that front.
  I am glad of this opportunity to raise some of the issues concerned with the EU's worldwide ban on British beef exports. I hope that the European Commission will respond positively to the order that I have announced. If it does not, the Government will have to consider what action they can take to resume exports. Unilateral action may be necessary, but hopefully, it will not come to that.
  Members of Parliament, and all those who have the interests of British farming at heart, should take every opportunity to reiterate that British beef is safe to eat. The link between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease is not
  938
  proven. The incidence of CJD is no higher in this country than in any EU country. Indeed, it is lower than in many other countries.
  The measures that the Government have progressively taken, especially the ban on specified bovine offal, mean that all offal that could harbour BSE is removed from cattle at slaughter. The latest move to ban the sale of meat from animals over 30 months old is a further precaution that should reassure consumers that British beef really is safe to eat. I know that many Opposition Members do not like to send that positive message to their constituents, but Conservative Members do, and I hope that this short debate will be seen as having made a positive contribution to the future fortunes of the British beef industry.
  1.16 pm
  Sir Donald Thompson: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friends the Minister and the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), for allowing me to speak. I shall make four points as briefly as I can, without being discourteous to those on whose behalf I make the points.
  A farmer of mine, like many farmers in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, is a rearer of stock, and is finding it very difficult to place stock for slaughter easily and quickly. His name is Andrew Naylor, and I shall write to my hon. Friend the Minister about his difficulties, because they are very complicated. We might be talking about a farmer having problems with only two, three, four or five animals, but the problem is widespread, and concerns many millions of animals across the country. It is very difficult for such farmers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley mentioned the South African veterinarians who have monitored BSE in this country, and found that everything we have done is satisfactory. I was distressed to see on the front page of yesterday's edition of The Times that, far from monitoring what we have done and disseminating information on the action taken on BSE in this country, the European Union seems to have deliberately—
  Mr. Sykes: Ignored.
  Sir Donald Thompson: It has not ignored that information, as my hon. Friend says, but has suppressed its dissemination not only to the Commission but to the European Parliament. It is therefore no wonder that, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made his announcement, the European Parliament and the Commission considered it a bombshell. In fact, the introduction to the statement was careful and gentle, and full information had been given, which should have instilled confidence in the European Parliament and the Commission over the years.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley mentioned exports. When we think of exports, we always think of prime steak and the roast beef of old England, but there are two very important exports on which thousands of jobs in Britain depend. One is pet food. I say "jobs in Britain", because pet food is manufactured all over the United Kingdom, and takes 60 to 80 per cent. of the European market. British pet food in cans—beef—is now prohibited, as are hamburgers and beefburgers.

  939
  For a number of technical reasons with which I shall not bore the House, it transpires that, partly because meat from young bulls is not used, British beef is the best for making hamburgers and beefburgers. As the Minister knows, hamburgers and beefburgers from reputable companies are made of top-quality meat—first-class forequarters from young animals.
  That market has been strangled by the ban on exports to Europe and to the rest of the world. Like the markets that my hon. Friend mentioned, the hamburger and beefburger market is most important to all our farmers. The more quickly the illogical ban is lifted, the better.
  1.19 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on securing a debate on this important subject, and I have listened with great interest to the information that he has brought before the House.
  The European Union ban introduced on 27 March on exports of all British beef and beef products, not only to other member states but to all third countries, was most unwelcome. More than that, it was completely unjustified—and in our view illegal, too. The ban affects a great many people in the United Kingdom. Beef farmers and many others in the industry, such as abattoir operators, transporters and meat exporters, have all found their trading opportunities greatly reduced. In many cases, that has had significant detrimental effects on their livelihoods.
  In the United Kingdom, our highest priority with regard to BSE has always been the protection of public health, as my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley and for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) have both carefully explained. That is why we have had in place in the public domain for many years stringent controls, especially controls on specified bovine offals, to protect the public from any possible risk of BSE.
  Only now have other member states with significant amounts of BSE in their herds started to introduce similar measures to protect their own public, and most other member states still have no similar measures in place. I do not take that situation lightly, and I am vigorously pursuing with the Commission the reality of the situation in all member states.
  Of course, the rules that apply to the production of meat for the domestic market apply equally to the production of meat for export. We have in place measures to protect British consumers, which also protect consumers in our export markets. I remind the House what the chairman of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee has said as a result of the stringent controls that we have put in place:
  "In any common usage of the word, British beef is safe."
  I hope that that fulfils the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley that we should continue to say that, and to explain the situation at every opportunity.
  The chairman's view has been echoed by independent international bodies, including the World Health Organisation, the International Animal Health Organisation and the OIE—and, indeed, the Commission's own Standing Veterinary Committee.
  940
  Thus, the export ban imposed on Britain by the EU cannot be justified on public health grounds. We already have in place the measures thought by all the experts to be necessary to protect public health from the risk of BSE, both here and in our export markets.
  The Government have taken vigorous action to get the export ban lifted. First, we have challenged the ban before the European Court of Justice. Our application for interim relief, for immediate suspension of the ban or elements of it, has already been heard, and our case was presented most forcefully by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. We expect to hear the results of the hearing shortly.
  We have also taken a parallel approach, applying political and diplomatic pressure to have the ban lifted. In that complex technical area, it is most important that policy should go forward on an objective and scientifically justified basis. That is the basis for our domestic policy on BSE, and that is what we look for from the rest of Europe.
  It was therefore most regrettable that, when the Commission put forward proposals to relax the ban on beef derivatives—proposals based clearly on advice from the Standing Veterinary Committee—they were rejected by some member states. That led to our reluctantly operating a policy of non co-operation until two specific objectives had been met—first, the lifting of the ban on beef derivatives, and secondly, the agreeing of a clear framework for the lifting of the wider ban.
  I was grateful to note that the policy of non-co-operation was welcomed by my hon. Friends, and that policy has proved successful. Within a month, having seen no movement whatever in the preceding two months, we have achieved our twin objectives,
  Our first objective was achieved on 10 June, when the ban on beef derivatives was lifted. On 19 June, the Standing Veterinary Committee gave unanimous approval to our plan to hasten the eradication of BSE. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 24 June, the European summit at Florence, also unanimously, accepted the framework and procedures put forward by the Commission for lifting the ban, which in turn were based closely on our own proposals.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Browning: I am sorry, but no.
  One important element of the Florence agreement is that all parties agreed that, in future, steps towards lifting the ban would be taken
  "only and exclusively on the basis of the public health and objective scientific criteria"
  and of the judgment of the Commission. So we now have—
  Mr. Tyler rose—
  Mrs. Browning: No, I am sorry, but I shall not give way.
  So we now have a clear framework for lifting the ban. That is most welcome, and shows the way ahead to achieving the objective of lifting the ban, which I am sure is supported by everyone in the House. There are various

  941
  steps that we must achieve before the ban is removed, and we are working flat out to deliver them. Their successful operation will then be demonstrated to the Commission, which in turn will produce proposals to relax successive elements of the ban. We look to other member states then to fulfil their Florence commitments. I hope that that will meet with the approval of the House. It is important that other states keep their side of the bargain.
  There are five main elements in the move towards lifting the ban. The first two constitute the removal of the ban on the export first of beef from certain certified herds, and secondly of calves born after a certain date. We regret that there has been a delay in introducing the certified herds and mature beef scheme, but I hope that we shall not have to wait much longer. SEAC has asked to consider certain aspects of the scheme, and we hope to hear the results before the week is out. When we get the green light from the committee, we shall be ready to go with the scheme as quickly as possible.
  We hope to be in a position to tell the Commission that we have met the necessary conditions on those elements by October. We have completed public consultation on the beef assurance scheme, and we shall introduce it as soon as possible. We also need to clear the backlog of animals awaiting slaughter in the 30-months-plus scheme, and to start the accelerated slaughter of cattle especially at risk of developing BSE. We are well advanced with both. By the end of this week, more than 200,000 animals will have come through the 30-months-plus scheme, and we shall issue a paper today beginning a seven-day consultation on the accelerated slaughter scheme.
  Removal of the ban in those first two areas would reopen an export market worth initially about £100 million a year, and the value should increase rapidly thereafter as the certified herd scheme gains momentum. Also by October, we look to the Commission to come forward with proposals for relaxing the ban on the export of embryos, subject to the advice of the Standing Veterinary Committee.
  The fourth and most significant element is the removal of the ban on the export of meat from all animals under the age of 30 months. That is, of course, the beef that we
  942
  most readily and enjoyably eat here in Britain. We should be in a position to meet the necessary conditions to lift that element of the ban by November.
  It is evident that there are many countries, not only in Europe but all over the world—my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley mentioned South Africa—with which we have enjoyed good trading relationships and to which we have exported our excellent beef, sometimes in large amounts, in the past. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has brought to the House tangible evidence of other countries' determination to reinstate their imports of British beef.
  As my hon. Friend will know, the Prime Minister secured the agreement of the other Heads of Government that the Commission should be required to consider individual requests from third countries to buy British beef exclusively for their domestic markets. We know that not only South Africa but other countries want to do that. In particular, we have been discussing with the South African Government the conditions that would satisfy them so that they would allow British beef to be sold there.
  I assure my hon. Friend that the order that he has brought to the attention of the House will immediately become part of the subject matter of those discussions. We shall not rest until we have given the South African Government all the further help they need to reassure them about any elements on which they require further information. I hope that this order will be one of many from countries seeking to re-establish their market with the United Kingdom.
  Restoring the beef trade is extremely important, but I cannot give the House assurances about compensation for those people who have had stocks returned from abroad. They will know that Coopers and Lybrand's second report has been published. We are helping those concerned with the disposal of such stocks but, regrettably, I cannot offer compensation in terms of reimbursement.
  It is important that we re-establish the sale of British beef, both domestically and abroad. We are doing well in the sale of hindquarters in the UK, and we are pressing on with policies to try to promote the sale of forequarters at home. Equally important is the issue of third-country exports, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley for bringing this important information and order to the Floor of the House.

  Energy Conservation
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the subject of the Government's energy conservation programme—the second time I have raised this topic on the Adjournment. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), replied to a similar debate in February 1995.
  I am raising the matter again to review the various Government schemes, to point out apparent shortfalls and to seek assurances from the Minister that the Government are still committed to those policies and will continue to work towards achieving their objectives. Last February, the Under-Secretary's reply did not address the figures that I presented, showing shortfalls in most of the Government's targets. Indeed, Peter Smith—the chairman of the Royal Institute of British Architects energy and environment committee—wrote to me to say that he wished that the quality of the questions had been matched by the quality of answers. I am pleased to see the Minister of State in his place, and that gives me more confidence that the issue will be addressed properly this year.
  I am also pleased at the timing that I have achieved. For once, I have got it right. The debate is being held on the day the United Kingdom report comes out, and the comments of the Secretary of State have been widely reported in the press. I have provided the Minister with a summary of the points that I intend to make and the questions that I intend to raise, and I look forward to his answers.
  First, I wish to examine the progress that has been made in each of the schemes in the climate change programme. No discussion of this programme could proceed without mentioning the Energy Saving Trust. Last year, I pointed out that only 10 per cent. of the trust's originally projected funding was likely to be available, and it expected to make only 10 per cent. of the energy savings—and hence carbon dioxide reductions—that it originally intended to deliver. I tabled parliamentary questions on the matter earlier this year and, sadly, the story has not changed. The trust is underfunded, and is expected to save only 0.3 million tonnes of carbon—a reduction from the original target of 2.5 million tonnes.
  This year's figures show that no progress has been made on last year's figures, despite an assurance given in last year's debate that the Government's new powers to contribute to the trust's running costs represented
  "an important first step in establishing funding for the trust and the schemes that it brings forward."—[Official Report,17 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 1314.]
  I hope that the Minister can tell us more about some of the schemes.
  Last year, I stated that I was pleased that VAT was not raised to 17.5 per cent., as the Government had intended. Apart from breaking their election promises, I felt that the increased fuel poverty that that would bring was totally unacceptable. However, as I said last year, the Government must address the hole that their defeat on VAT has left in the carbon dioxide programme. In addition, how are the promised reductions in prices that the Government are using to sweeten the planned nuclear sell-off expected to affect carbon dioxide emissions? The DTI's annual report on energy states specifically that a
  944
  10 per cent. drop in fuel prices tends to lead to an increase in consumption of between 2 and 3 per cent. Do the Government have any programmes to address that?
  These two policies were originally intended to provide 40 per cent. of the climate change programme, yet they have not been implemented in full. Consequently, the Government's commitment to energy saving has to be questioned. Energy Paper 65 may claim that we will reach our carbon dioxide targets despite this—something that I still doubt and will address later—but the Government's two main policies to reduce energy usage have not worked. I would like the Minister to admit that, and accept that, if both policies have failed, new ones must be implemented in their place.
  It is not just those two policies that have failed. The Government have long said that the public sector should lead the way with energy savings and should demonstrate what can be achieved. Government Departments and health authorities were set a target of reducing energy usage by 15 per cent. in the five years up to 1995–96. Last year, I pointed out that—after four years of the project—things were not looking good.
  At that stage, health authorities had delivered only 7.9 per cent. of the savings, and some Departments were not even producing figures. One year on, my prediction that the NHS would fail to meet its target has been borne out. According to a parliamentary answer on 9 January, the 7.9 per cent. savings figure that I quoted last year has been revised to 6.5 per cent. The Minister for Health himself has said that, by 1996, savings are expected to be 8.3 per cent.
  Other Departments are not doing much better. By 1993–94—three years into the programme—Departments had achieved only 6 per cent. savings on average. Again, that falls far short of the target. Some Departments have not shown a serious commitment to the targets and, if they are supposed to be setting an example, they are leaving a lot to be desired. It is simply not good enough, and it is not just a case of the public sector setting an example. Energy efficiency measures save money. Why should we be cutting services to reduce Government spending when we could be cutting energy use in the public sector? I hope that the Minister will tell us how he plans to improve performance, and will give an assurance that Departments will take the new targets of 20 per cent. savings between 1990 and 2000 a little more seriously than they took the previous ones.
  Last year, I used figures from parliamentary questions to show that progress towards the target of 1,500 MW of new renewable generating capacity was falling behind. The figures showed that 74 MW of new capacity was coming on line each year, against a target of 150 MW. Updated information has shown that this trend has continued. Between the end of 1993 and the end of 1995—the most recent figures available—the rate slowed further, to only 45 MW of new capacity each year. I have been assured that contracts are in place to enable the targets to be reached, and that the rate of new renewable capacity coming on line is increasing. I hope that the Minister can confirm that, and I hope that he will reconfirm the Government's commitment to those targets.
  For combined heat and power plant, the target required an average of 300 MW of new capacity each year. Last year, I calculated that the rate so far had been 200 MW. I am pleased to say that, one year on, the situation is

  945
  improving. Last year, 400 MW of combined heat and power came on line, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that the rate of growth of CHP will continue and that the Government are still committed to the target of 5,000 MW by 2000. The rate will need to increase further if the shortfall from earlier years is to be overcome. I will be delighted if the Minister will confirm that that will happen.
  Another policy set out in the climate change programme was the improvement in the building regulations, which came in a year late but is now in force. The regulations do not yet apply in Scotland. I know that this is beyond the remit of the Minister, but if he is aware of any plans to extend the regulations across the whole of the United Kingdom, I hope that he will tell us in his reply.
  The original climate change programme also claimed that new standards would be introduced for improving the efficiency of domestic appliances by 10 per cent. by 1997 and 40 per cent. by 2000. I have tabled several parliamentary questions on that statement, but have never received an assurance that the 40 per cent. target still exists. I understand that the standards being adopted for fridges and freezers will give a 15 per cent. saving. Further measures are under discussion. Reading between the lines, it appears that the 40 per cent. target has been abandoned. I hope that the Minister can tell us the Government's present thinking on that. If the target is now considered impossible, what energy saving does he expect to be delivered? I look forward to his reply.
  I am fully aware that, according to Energy Paper 65, the United Kingdom will manage to achieve the carbon dioxide targets. Last year's debate took place before publication of that paper, and I commented then on the likelihood of it making that claim. The Government increased the prediction of how many gas-fired and nuclear power stations would be on stream by 2000. Those predictions are very optimistic, with a great reliance on elderly Magnox stations and gas-fired stations that have only recently passed the first stage of planning permission.
  I am not the only one who sees problems ahead. DRI McGraw-Hill calculated that the United Kingdom's carbon dioxide emissions would increase up to 2000. More recently, stories in the press have shown discrepancies between European Union predictions of emissions in 2000 and those of the International Energy Agency. Interestingly, none of the independent studies casts the United Kingdom's emissions in quite the same light as Energy Paper 65. Predictably, EP65 is far more optimistic than any of the independent reports.
  Such discrepancies lead me to believe that our carbon dioxide emissions should be monitored independently, with reports presented in the House. Although I am happy to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate every year, scrutiny should be more rigorous and Ministers should be more accountable for the programme. I hope that the Minister will deal with that in his reply.
  I also hope that the Minister will accept that the climate change programme set out to meet the Rio targets should still be carried out. The energy-saving measures that it set out are an important step towards improving energy efficiency. They should be not abandoned, but expanded.
  946
  I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government remain committed to the targets set out in the climate change programme.
  Having run through a review of the Government's policies, I will suggest how energy efficiency could be promoted. I am firmly of the opinion that our carbon dioxide targets will not be met, so I hope the Minister will take these suggestions seriously. I hope that he will ensure that the Government reduce the rate of value added tax on energy-saving materials. The Paymaster General promised to consider ways to do so on Third Reading of the Finance Bill. The Government narrowly won the vote, but in a recent answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), they seemed to be backing away from that promise. That one measure would kick-start sales of energy-saving products, giving the market a much-needed boost. It would also remove the anomaly that was pointed out by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), that energy saving was taxed at a far higher rate than energy use.
  I also welcome the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which is now in force. The Minister can do two things to strengthen that Act. First, I hope that he will ensure the speedy passage of the Energy Conservation Bill, which sensibly extends the Act. Secondly, I hope that he will consider local authorities' concerns that the £3 million given to them this year under the new burdens procedure has not been confirmed for future years. That money was to assist local authorities with the preparation of reports under the Act, and its withdrawal will make life difficult for councils. I hope that the Minister can confirm that that extra money will be forthcoming, as I have heard rumblings that the Department of the Environment is trying to withdraw it—rumblings that I hope the Minister will squash in his reply.
  The Minister should also reinstate the £31 million removed from the home energy efficiency scheme budget. That was taken despite promises from Ministers that the level of funding was fixed for three years. The removal of that money has restricted the number of houses that can be insulated and will have pretty dismal effects on businesses that had expanded to do the installation work. They had planned to carry out £100 million-worth of spending under the scheme. By reneging on that promise, the Government have left some of them having to lay off staff and sell equipment that is no longer required as demand for work dries up.
  The Minister is both knowledgeable and committed to energy efficiency. I was disappointed with the reply to the debate last year and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will shed a little more light on the Government's position and direction than his colleague did last year. In the light of the reports in the press today, I am compelled to say that, if the Secretary of State is going to Geneva to wave the flag on energy conservation in the wider world—I sincerely hope that he will do that—he will not be credible unless he can show a genuine commitment to the domestic policies that are supposed to be in place to honour the commitments that we have already given. Rhetoric is not enough, and it simply will not do.
  1.44 pm
  The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East

  947
  (Mr. Ainsworth) on once again selecting this subject for discussion. We go back a long way in our interest in it and I certainly welcome the opportunity to exchange views on the subject in this domain as opposed to our previous one. The hon. Gentleman had a long list of questions, a number of demands that would knock holes in the income side of the Government's accounts, and a raft of proposals that would extend expenditure commitments. My eyesight may be failing, but I do not see alongside him any bag of gold provided by his right hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). Judging by the various things the right hon. Gentleman has said, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not have much influence with those on the Labour Front Bench.
  I can reassure the House that this Government remain whole-heartedly committed to promoting energy efficiency. It is an important issue globally, as the hon. Gentleman and I recognise, and a cornerstone of the United Kingdom's climate change programme and sustainable development strategy.
  I am pleased to report that the UK is on target to meet its commitment to return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000: we expect carbon dioxide emissions to be between 4 and 8 per cent. below 1990 levels. That achievement reflects the impact of the whole package of measures set out in the UK climate change programme.
  The hon. Gentleman cited some European data to raise questions. The Commission's estimates would suggest for the EU a 3 per cent. overshoot, but those are econometric projections and take no account of implemented or planned actions to limit or reduce emissions. They are based on modelling exercises, which appear likely to overestimate emissions. Member states' projections are more likely to be accurate than those of the Commission. Moreover, the Commission's approach takes no account of one crucial fact: member states do not simply undertake modelling exercises, but are obliged to take corrective action if, on the basis of actual emission trends and future projections, they consider that they are no longer on course to meet their climate change commitments for 2000.
  I do not want to seem to be saying that we are complacent. It is clear that further commitments are needed to combat climate change—not least in the light of the report that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published yesterday, reviewing the potential effects of climate change in the UK.
  Internationally, the UK is calling on all developed countries to agree a new target to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions to between 5 and 10 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010—a challenging, but achievable, target that demonstrates the UK's continuing commitment.
  Environmental issues, however important, are not the only driver behind energy efficiency. There are real opportunities for British business and domestic customers alike to save money. That has to be a powerful incentive—indeed, it has been described as the win-win scenario. I believe that there is also an important chance for British businesses to improve their environmental image and their competitive position.
  No Government could rely entirely on legislation for improved energy efficiency. In some limited cases—for example, building regulations and energy efficiency standards for consumer products to which the hon. Gentleman referred—regulation is an appropriate way to make progress, but in general, Governments need to use a different, and wider, range of tools.
  948
  In large part, improved energy efficiency means influencing people's behaviour. We need—and have—a comprehensive package of measures to alert people to all the benefits of energy efficiency; to give them the technical information to decide what to do, and what it is worth to them; and to encourage market forces to operate, so that consumers can invest wisely in energy efficiency improvements.
  That approach is fully in line with our deregulation initiative, which is not about "tearing up regulations" but about avoiding inappropriate regulations in the first place. It may be harder work for the Government to operate information and publicity campaigns than to make regulations, but I believe that it is more effective, and cheaper for those affected.
  We provide a wide range of information for all types of consumers. In particular, we provide detailed technical information on energy efficiency technologies and their potential to generate energy and money savings. That information, which is generated by the energy efficiency best practice programme, is directly applicable to "energy professionals"—architects, process managers, building services people, and so on. It also helps us to develop our own policy.
  The best practice programme is highly effective. Our research shows that, by December 1995, it was stimulating investment by business to generate energy savings worth some £450 million a year, at a cost to the Government of less than £20 million a year. That is a pretty good gearing ratio and is well on course to meet the programme's target of generating £800 million a year in savings by the year 2000.
  For business, we believe it is important that senior management should take the lead by taking responsibility for energy efficiency. All the signs are that an energy-efficient business is a well-managed and therefore competitive and successful business. Certainly, the energy management performance of signatories to our Making a Corporate Commitment campaign is significantly better than that of non-participants. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East might like to know that I am persuading those who are committed to running seminars for their supply chain to get the message back down the line. That is an effective way of doing it, because, if one's biggest customer says that that is something one should do, one takes more notice.
  It is not enough for us to badger consumers. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Government also need to take a lead on energy efficiency. We have set specific targets for the Government estate—a 15 per cent. improvement by March 1996. The latest figures we have published, for 1993–94, show a 6 per cent. improvement over 1990–91. That is good progress, because one faces other problems in terms of increasing demands for energy—for example, through increasing reliance on office machinery. That, in turn, is a challenge for the manufacturers of computers and other equipment. They must try to improve energy efficiency. There is also the need for the right ambience, which is a problem in energy consumption.
  I hope to publish the figures for 1994–95 shortly. We are currently discussing what further targets should be set for the period up to 2000. Progress continues to be reviewed at regular meetings of Departments' Green Ministers.

  949
  The Government are also taking the lead in new and more energy-efficient ways of supplying consumer needs. We are widely promoting combined heat and power, in the public and private sectors, and setting an example by installing it in Government property: for example—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of this—in the Whitehall district heating scheme, and in my Department's new headquarters.
  We set a target, in the climate change programme, of 5,000 MW of installed CHP capacity by the year 2000. We have already achieved a total installed capacity of about 3,500 MW—5 per cent. of United Kingdom electricity generation—on around 1,300 sites.
  To take that further, our UK strategy for combined heat and power was launched a few days ago. That is intended for a broad audience, including both the wider public sector as well as industry. It records what we are doing to achieve our target, sets out our plans, and makes clear the wider context in which our policy is operating.
  In general, we believe that, since investment in energy efficiency is highly cost-effective for consumers, with short payback periods, Government money should not be used directly to fund energy efficiency improvements. However, there are some areas where we are satisfied that Government funding is justified to overcome barriers to energy efficiency.
  The home energy efficiency scheme is an important way of helping the fuel poor—those who cannot readily afford to make home improvements—by providing advice and grants for insulation and draught-proofing. It improves living conditions, and helps to save energy.
  We are continuing to refine the scheme, to ensure that it is targeted to where it can do most good. That is why, although we were not able to maintain the budget for HEES last autumn, we ensured that grants would continue to be available, in full, to those in the greatest need.
  We recently issued a consultation paper on ways of developing HEES. Our intention is to increase choice for eligible householders, by making the scheme less prescriptive and more flexible. We can do that by linking the grant-aided measures available more closely to the energy standards of people's homes. HEES is already good value for money, and we want to continue to secure the maximum benefit for every pound spent, whether the benefit is expressed in economic, social or environmental terms.
  The Government are not the only player in relation to energy efficiency. We are also working to encourage others. The hon. Gentleman cited the Energy Saving Trust, which, in particular, represents an important partnership between energy suppliers, the energy efficiency industry and the Government, in promoting energy efficiency, recognising that all those parties have a role to play. The trust is a catalyst for the promotion of energy efficiency, with the aim of bringing about self-sustaining markets for energy-efficient goods and services, particularly in the developing competitive energy markets.
  The role of the trust has continued to evolve. The Government are now providing funding of up to £50 million from 1996 to 1999 to enable the trust to develop a programme of work, to assist the market to
  950
  work in the interests of customers. A key feature is the development of partnerships which will bring in funding from third parties: Government money being used to maximum advantage, to kick-start initiatives which should become self-financing. I am pleased to say that the work programme, launched in April, is developing well, and will continue to contribute to further savings in carbon dioxide emissions.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) to amend the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, in particular to add houses in multiple occupation to the definition of residential accommodation, and thus require local authorities to identify and report on energy conservation measures for such houses too. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government support that Bill, and I am glad that it is making good progress.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to VAT. He will know that that subject has been raised on a number of occasions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. The Government's long-standing policy is one of a simple taxation system, with just the standard rate of VAT operating in conjunction with the zero rate. The 8 per cent. reduced rate for domestic fuel and power is the exception. Long-term retention of that, as the hon. Gentleman will know, was not of the Government's choosing. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend has no intention of extending that unique reduced rate to other areas of spending.
  My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has set out the Government's view that, notwithstanding all the arguments made by the energy efficiency industry, it would be difficult to set a special rate for energy-saving products. To try to do so might well achieve little and would certainly complicate the operation and administration of the tax. There seems little doubt that it would give rise to disputes about the energy-efficient qualities of various products—about the boundaries between those goods and services that should and should not be included.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the costs to local authorities of implementing the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. The specific new duty on local authorities is to prepare one energy conservation report covering relevant properties in their area, and £3 million has been made available for that purpose under the new burdens procedure.
  Future work under the Act will take the form of updates to energy conservation reports. That will form part of the existing housing investment programme process, which is, of course, an exercise that local authorities already have to go through and are well geared up to carry out. The alignment of the process with HIP was specifically designed to minimise the extra work for them.
  The new burdens procedure is designed to meet the cost of new activities, but it does not involve new money. Specifically, it means that, within the Department of the Environment's budgets, if we were to agree to providing further resources to local authorities in relation to the Act, it could come about only by our finding savings elsewhere within the energy efficiency budget. We can only switch resources from one programme to another.
  I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has not sought to challenge the actions we are taking to improve energy efficiency. He has suggested a number of ways in which

  951
  he believes that we should do more and said that more resources should be committed to it. I have to say that, however much I might agree with him in principle, budgets are not unlimited. One of the hard jobs of being in government is to make difficult decisions about conflicting priorities.
  We remain fully committed to tight control of public expenditure, and spending on energy efficiency has to compete with a wide range of other priorities. We have to make judgments about what is affordable. We have some scope for redeploying uncommitted resources among different parts of my Department's programme, but new resources can only be sought via the annual public expenditure survey discussions.
  I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern about the reduction in the HEES budget, but I can only say that future levels of funding have to be determined annually, via the public expenditure survey.
  952
  The hon. Gentleman has raised many issues and has expected me to compress my answers into a short time. This is an important subject and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment to it. He should rest assured that the Government in general, and I in particular, remain as committed as ever.
  It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the level of inward investment into Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [34170]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): In the year to March 1996, Locate in Scotland and the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department helped to attract 84 inward investment projects to Scotland involving planned investment of nearly £1 billion and the expected creation or safeguarding of a record 12,560 jobs.
    Mr. Stewart: Is not the Government's outstanding record on inward investment, about which we have just heard, due in large measure to consistency of policy and the ability of my hon. Friend and his colleagues to make decisions about Scotland in Scotland? What does he think would happen if the present Scottish Office team were replaced by a bunch of puppets who would do every U-turn at the behest and whim of Islington spin doctors?
    Mr. Kynoch: There is no doubt that my hon. Friend is correct in saying that speedy decision-making is critical in the process of attracting inward investment. Equally, it is critical to ensure that we have the right business environment in which inward and indigenous investors can thrive. The one thing that is absolutely certain is that the Opposition's proposal for a tartan tax in Scotland, whether by referendum or otherwise, whereby Scotland will be taxed at a higher rate than the rest of the United Kingdom, is bound to influence inward and indigenous investors.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Although the Minister has little experience of success in business, would he care to comment on Professor Hood's statement that a Scottish Parliament would have no impact at all on inward investment to Scotland?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is an expert in acrobatics, supporting something which in the past he was against. Tax is bound to be an important element in any equation for a potential inward investor, and if the taxation rate in Scotland were higher than that in the rest of the United Kingdom, and if other Opposition policies were brought into being, such as the social chapter or the minimum wage, that would all contribute towards a reduction in inward investment and in investment in Scotland, and that would be bad news for Scotland.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when overseas companies consider inward investment into Scotland, one of the factors they have to consider is political stability—the fact that Scots can be Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries and Home Secretaries and can occupy any Front-Bench post—and the fact that the
    954
    Government have no plans to put all that at risk with madcap policies that are unworkable, unsaleable in England and dangerous for the United Kingdom's unity?
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that he will have read in The Sunday Times an article concerning an Edinburgh fund management company, Stewart Ivory, which has already said that the uncertainty caused by the fear of a tartan tax in Scotland has been sufficient to persuade investors from south of the border not to invest in Scotland. I am sure that that view is alive in business, but it is one on which the Opposition seem slow to pick up.
    Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister accept that perhaps the most important attraction for inward investment is the access that locating in Scotland gives to markets in the European Union, and that incalculable harm may be done to that if the Conservative party continues its anti-European rhetoric and if his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes petty points about flying European flags and sits on the Treasury Bench giving tacit encouragement to Conservative Back Benchers introducing Bills to dissociate us from the European Court of Justice?
    Mr. Kynoch: I understand that the hon. Gentleman supports the introduction of a social chapter. That would be incredibly damaging for United Kingdom business, and particularly for Scottish business. The minimum wage would also be counter-productive. The hon. Gentleman's party is rather more honest and straightforward than the official Opposition, as it apparently does not need a referendum to tell the people of Scotland that it believes that taxation in Scotland should be increased beyond that of the rest of the United Kingdom, which would definitely be counter-productive for business in Scotland and for inward investment into Scotland.
    Mr. Sykes: My company used to have a factory in Glasgow and a depot in Edinburgh, and they were successful enterprises up there, but if we had had a minimum wage, the social chapter, the 48-hour week, the tartan tax and a Scottish Parliament, we would have had to close both down and withdraw back to England.
    Mr. Kynoch: I am pleased to hear that; it is confirmation of the message that I have been getting from the many businesses around the country that I visit. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman had read The Scotsman, he would have seen an article about Scottish and Newcastle plc, whose chief executive, Brian Stewart, has indicated that devolution for Scotland would be "bad and disruptive commercially." That is a view with which I am sure my hon. Friend agrees.
    Mr. McFall: I challenge the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) outwith the Chamber to call me a puppet. The puppets are there, on the Government Front Bench, who are allowing their colleagues in England to try to absorb Locate in Scotland into Invest in Britain. Will the Minister fight on that? Does he not realise that companies such as Quintiles and Chunghwa have said that devolution and the tartan tax threat played no part in their decision to locate in Scotland, but that what did play a

    955
    part was a good, educated and trained work force, the product of good local Labour authorities, a tradition that we shall continue with a Scottish Parliament?
    Mr. Kynoch: It is interesting to see how touchy the hon. Gentleman is, but I am not surprised: if I were on the Opposition Front Bench and had to undertake the U-turn that they have had to undertake in the past week at the instigation of their master south of the border, I, too, would be rather touchy about such a comment.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to two inward investors—Chungwa and Quintiles. He is probably referring to an answer given by Quintiles in an interview with the BBC, in which it announced its inward investment. I was there, whereas the hon. Gentleman was not. It clearly said that devolution was not the main issue and that tax was only an element. For a company such as Quintiles, and the business that it is in, it is rather more appropriate for it to be near higher education of a high standard. That is the important element for it.
    For others, taxation is a very important element, as is competitiveness. The hon. Gentleman and his party do not understand what competitiveness is all about. He advocates policies—the tartan tax, the social chapter or any of the other taxation measures that have been talked about—that would be bad for business in Scotland.

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on levels of public expenditure in Scotland. [34171]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Public expenditure in areas for which I am responsible in Scotland is more than 35 per cent. higher per head of population than on the equivalent services in England.
    Mr. Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend tell me what would be the impact of a Scottish Parliament on public expenditure? Would current public expenditure in Scotland be sustainable without a tartan tax, or is a tartan tax inevitable if there is a Scottish Parliament?
    Mr. Forsyth: The present arrangements ensure that Scotland has about 35 per cent. more per head of population than England. Local government, for example, gets 45 per cent. more per head of population in grant than England. If a Scottish Parliament were to be established, as the constitutional unit has pointed out, there would have to be some assessment of a formula to determine the expenditure of the Scottish Parliament, which would still be decided in Westminster, where the office of Secretary of State would no longer have any meaning—if, indeed, it was in existence—and where the number of Scottish Members of Parliament would be reduced. That seems to me to be putting at risk the health service, the education service and the caring services in Scotland, but the Labour party is prepared to do that because it puts its politics and its party before the interests of its country.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State point out to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) that if we take
    956
    into account public expenditure on, for instance, the civil service, Ministry of Defence contracts and London Transport, public expenditure per capita in London and the rest of the south-east is greater than it is in Scotland? Public expenditure should be distributed throughout the United Kingdom on the basis of need rather than the mythology propagated by the hon. Member for Dover.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not agree that it should be distributed solely on the basis of need. A recent "Social Trends" survey showed that Scotland enjoys a standard of living unequalled in any other part of the United Kingdom except the south-east of England. As for his point about London, the public expenditure figures for Glasgow are even higher than those in England, but that is not a fair test. The hon. Gentleman must get his mind around the fact that public expenditure in Scotland greatly exceeds the revenue raised there. If he favours a separate parliament raising its own revenues, he must accept that we would either have to pay high tartan taxes or allow our services to be decimated. In fact, we would have to do both.
    Sir Hector Monro: In a year involving an exceptionally difficult financial settlement, my right hon. Friend did a magnificent job in maintaining a high level of block grant from the Treasury. What does he think would happen if there were no Secretary of State to fight for Scotland, which is what Labour proposes?
    Mr. Forsyth: I can hardly disagree with my right hon. Friend's flattering comments, but in any event he has made an important point which transcends party interests and is important to Scotland. The office of Secretary of State for Scotland is powerful in relation to Scotland and its interests. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) does not think that that is the case. He should cast his mind back to Willie Ross and other Secretaries of State for Scotland who have done a tremendous job in fighting for Scotland's interests. The hon. Gentleman would toss that aside for a pigmy parliament in Edinburgh.
    Mr. Chisholm: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the principle of the Barnett formula, which determined the level of public expenditure in Scotland in relation Ito expenditure in the rest of the United Kingdom, has never been called into question in any of the last 17 years by Lady Thatcher, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) or any other Conservative politician hellbent on slashing public expenditure? Is the Conservative party now saying that Scotland gets more than its fair share, or is it simply punishing Scotland because it wants a greater say in its own affairs?
    Mr. Forsyth: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his Front-Bench responsibilities. I understand that he has been put in charge of the referendum campaign in the unfortunate event of a Labour Government; I hope that he will show the same enthusiasm for a "no" vote as he did on the last occasion.
    I do not wish to embarrass the hon. Gentleman further on his first day out, but when he has an opportunity to examine his brief he will discover that the Barnett formula—which gives us our share, relative to population, of any increase in English expenditure—brings Scottish

    957
    and English expenditure into line. He is advocating bringing Scottish expenditure into line with English expenditure, which must mean a tartan tax.
    The point is that the existing level of expenditure has been agreed, and is historically there. If we had a parliament whose funding was determined down here, there would have to be some kind of assessment of need. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that many people in the Treasury will be delighted to hear his words, but they are not words that will ever come from the Conservative party, because we stand for Scotland's interests.
    Mr. Dunn: Given that there is a link between Government income and public expenditure, will the Secretary of State confirm that we have no plans to tax 16 to 18-year-old students, to impose an employment tax or a tartan tax and, more significant for rural dwellers in Scotland, to tax the motorist?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I am proud of our record in Scotland in sending youngsters from school to higher and further education. Far more youngsters are doing that. That is one of the reasons why we commit far more resources in the settlement that we were able to achieve last year and in previous years. I can think of nothing more disastrous than a tartan tax and a teenage tax, which would remove child benefit from children over the age of 16 still in higher education, as Labour Members wish to do. That would hit Scotland harder than any other part of the United Kingdom because more of our youngsters seek the opportunity of higher and further education.

    Council Housing
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about expenditure on local authority housing in Fife. [34172]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): Fife's capital allocation for 1996–97 for investment in local authority housing totals £15.5 million. It is for the council to determine its expenditure priorities.
    Mr. Campbell: Does the Minister accept that that is a deeply disappointing answer to the many needy and anxious people who come to me and to other Fife Members of Parliament seeking council housing? Is he aware that the result of Government policy will be a 70 per cent. reduction in council house expenditure in real terms between 1988 and 1998? How can Fife council provide housing for people who need it and for people in north-east Fife who desperately need it?
    Mr. Robertson: Fife council can provide housing if it examines imaginatively, realistically and positively the proposals for stock transfers. In that way, it will be able to access significant new sums for investment throughout Fife, particularly in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. If he is so concerned, I ask him to get in touch with Fife council as a matter of priority. I offer him
    958
    the support of my officials to discuss the issue with the council to enable it to put together a package that will achieve the investment levels that he wants.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the change in council house expenditure and planned expenditure in real terms between 1989–90 and 1998–99. [34173]
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Planned net provision in 1998–99 for capital expenditure by local authorities on their own stock is £167 million at 1995–96 prices, compared with £208 million in 1989–90 on the same basis.
    Mr. Ross: Given that council house investment declined by 32 per cent. throughout Scotland and by 43 per cent. in Dundee in 1989–1995, and that homelessness is at near record levels, will the Minister follow the recommendation of the Environment Select Committee and set up a comprehensive review of housing need in Scotland?
    Mr. Robertson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that provision in Scotland for local authority housing is 25 per cent. higher than in England. All that would be put at risk with a tax-raising Scottish Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that this House would continue to vote for such substantial sums of money to go to Scottish housing with a tax-raising parliament sitting in Edinburgh?
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that he is telling councils, including Aberdeenshire council, that they must transfer council tenants to private landlords or suffer a drop in capital allocation? In Aberdeenshire, where there is no evidence of anyone willing to take over and where no tenant wishes to be transferred, is that not an unfair penalty which will simply increase the problems of homelessness which have been growing in the north-east in the past 10 years?
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Capital allocations do not depend on stock transfers. I am saying to the hon. Gentleman, his council and every other council that, if they want to increase substantially investment in social housing in their regions, there is a means to do it and we will do all that we can to help them to do it, but if he is so blinkered by ideology that he will not recognise that, he must answer to his constituents.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What is the position on vacancies in local authority housing in Scotland? Is it similar to that revealed in the written answer that I received yesterday from the Department of the Environment, which said that a high number of private houses are vacant and that, with low inflation and low interest rates, there has never been a better chance for young people to buy a house? Surely the Government are giving such encouragement and we do not want to trap people in local authority houses for the rest of their lives.
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and draws a pertinent comparison with England. I have encouraged local authorities to make use of their vacant

    959
    properties and will continue to do so, because while properties remain empty they are of no value to anyone—especially families who are desperate for housing.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: There were vacancies in the multi-storey block of flats that the Minister visited in Sighthill in my constituency, but when the concierge system was introduced there was great demand for those flats. Will the Minister co-operate with local authorities to introduce concierge systems for multi-storey dwellings as quickly as possible? People are entitled to peace and quiet in their homes and to be free from vandalism.
    Mr. Robertson: I was most impressed by the housing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and by the positive response of tenants to the concierge arrangements and to the closed circuit television systems in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). There is no doubt that that is the way forward, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is making substantial sums available for similar systems throughout Scotland. I look forward to visiting many more estates so equipped throughout Scotland during my next two or three years in this job.

    Business Rate
    Mr. Gallie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on returning the setting of business rate poundage to local authorities; and if he will he make a statement. [34174]
    Mr. Kynoch: The Labour party is committed to returning responsibility for the setting of business rates to local authorities.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the drive to a uniform business rate has been at the behest of commerce and industry in Scotland—the job creators? Does my hon. Friend further agree that the abandonment of the uniform business rate would mean job losses and company bankruptcies? That would be the Labour loss for Scotland.
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is right. Anything that affects the competitiveness of Scottish business would be bad for it and bad for employment in Scotland. Under the uniform business rate, companies have saved £1.4 billion in the five years since 1990. Returning the rate to local authority control would cost Scottish business. Coupled with the tartan tax proposed by Labour, it is no wonder that the new chairman of the Scottish chambers of commerce has stated that such a proposal is utter folly.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Why should a Scottish parliament have less control over financial affairs than the smallest district council in Scotland?
    Mr. Kynoch: As I understand Labour's proposals, a Scottish parliament would be responsible for raising tax. A Scottish parliament would be funded from south of the border and it is likely, according to the constitution unit, that such a parliament would have to raise taxes or make a significant reduction in services. Tax increases, coupled with any uniform business rate increase, would make Scottish business less competitive. The hon. Lady does
    960
    not understand the competitive situation of Scottish business. The sooner she does, the better for Scottish business and the Scottish economy.
    Mrs. Ewing: I realise that the Minister is trying desperately to embarrass the Opposition parties, but does he agree that the uniform business rate, because of the valuation arrangements, means that small and medium-sized Scottish enterprises have been paying £1,200 million per annum more than their English counterparts? Should not that difference be immediately eradicated? It is very much a London levy.
    Mr. Kynoch: As the hon. Lady knows, the valuation system is now harmonised north and south of the border.
    Mrs. Ewing indicated dissent.
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Lady shakes her head. I have said on more than one occasion that if anyone can find positive evidence that the system is not harmonised, I shall be happy for the assessors to examine the situation. One problem is that local authorities in Scotland spend 30 per cent. more per head of population than their counterparts south of the border and must therefore be funded to that extent. We have achieved the level playing field north and south of the border that Scottish business wants, and it has welcomed that development. Even the Federation of Small Businesses has said that it does not want the departure from the uniform business rate that the Opposition parties are proposing.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that getting rid of the uniform business rate would be very unfair on business, which would have no say over expenditure by the local council? Is not the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) to be congratulated on admitting that a Labour-controlled council and a Labour Scottish Parliament would like to spend more and tax more?
    Mr. Kynoch: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The Opposition, and particularly the Labour party, are intent on trying to find back-door ways of raising taxation so that they can spend even more. At this year's local authority budget setting, one member of the Labour party—the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who seems to be able to stick to his guns—called for an extra £395 million to be spent by local authorities. That money must come from somewhere. I suspect that the Opposition are considering all types of routes to find it, including returning control of the uniform business rate to local authorities and, of course, implementing the proposal for a tartan tax.
    Mr. Kirkwood: May I focus the Minister's attention on the problems faced by small retail businesses in market towns across the length and breadth of Scotland? Irrespective of whatever changes there have been and whoever is levying the tax, there are real problems for small family businesses in market town high streets. Will the Minister examine the factors involved in levying rates to determine whether some element of the social and economic context faced by small businesses can be taken into account when setting the assessments on which they pay rates?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are currently consulting on village shops to try to help local post offices and shops in rural areas. As a part of harmonising the situation north and south of the border, rating authorities may now remit any rate in cases in which ratepayers would otherwise suffer hardship or in which it is in the interest of council taxpayers to do so. So there is some flexibility in the hands of the councils.

    University Funding
    Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals on the funding of Scottish universities. [34176]
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed funding with Scottish higher education principals when he addressed their annual forum dinner late last month.
    Mr. Ingram: Has not the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals warned the Government that there is a funding crisis in Scottish universities? Does the Minister agree that a strong science and research base in our universities is essential for a strong manufacturing economy? If so, why have the Government continued to underfund and undermine our university base to the extent that we now face a funding crisis, and 1,000 university staff are threatened with the sack?
    Mr. Robertson: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a sound scientific base is essential for a strong manufacturing bases. That is why Scotland's work force has been transformed in recent years and why the proportion of 25 to 29-year-olds with higher education qualifications living in Scotland has nearly doubled in the past 10 years—from 12.6 per cent to 23 per cent.
    Mr. Tracey: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there are record numbers of students in higher education in Scotland? Can he tell the House what effect a tax-raising Scottish parliament would have on education expenditure, which is currently subsidised by taxes raised in London and in the rest of England?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: more young Scots are in higher education than ever before in our nation's history. Spending on higher education per student in Scotland is 31 per cent. higher than it is in England. Those sums would not be available for our universities with a tax-raising Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware of rising student drop-out rates—currently 17 per cent.—while student debt, on average, is 50 per cent. up on last year? Why are the Government encouraging more people to go to universities while penalising them with spiralling debt and underfunded universities and now with talk of a £500 entrance fee?
    Mr. Robertson: The Scotland that the hon. Gentleman lives in is not the Scotland that I or Scottish students live in. We have more young people at university than ever before, and a higher proportion of those are from less well-off backgrounds than ever before. That is a record to
    962
    be proud of, and the hon. Gentleman does his party and his country no good in trying to talk down what is happening.
    Mr. Macdonald: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Lews Castle college in my constituency on developing a new university-status degree course, the first such course to be developed in the highlands and islands network? Will he welcome this important step towards achieving the goal of a highlands and islands university?
    Mr. Robertson: Yes, absolutely. I commend the college and congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has doggedly pursued the issue. We have lifted the capping on further education students in the highlands and islands as, we hope, a precursor to the establishment of a full university in the highlands and islands, which is being vigorously backed by my right hon. Friend.
    Mrs. Liddell: Why is the Minister ignoring representations from Scotland's university principals, who have already made it clear that they envisage the possibility of top-up entry fees to universities? Is he not ashamed of the fact that Government policy could lead to a return to the situation in which only the children of the rich get the benefit of a university degree?
    Mr. Robertson: As I said in reply to a previous question, more people from less well-off backgrounds are attending university than ever before. We will take no lectures from the hon. Lady. Since the Labour party was last in government, student numbers have doubled, spending has increased by 30 per cent. in real terms and, above all, spending is 31 per cent. higher in Scotland than in England. Does the hon. Lady really believe that that would be sustained if her party had its way?
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister accept that the excellent reputation of Scottish universities attracts many students from Northern Ireland, which is why my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Northern Ireland constituencies are concerned about any crisis in funding for Scottish universities? Will he consider meeting his counterparts who represent English, Welsh and Northern Irish universities and making a joint representation for additional funding, bearing in mind that all universities are crying out for additional funds?
    Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend has considerable freedom with the block given to him by the Treasury. Last time around, local government—unfortunately, in my opinion—took a bigger share of it than higher education. However, my right hon. Friend has met principals in Scotland, and their representations will be fed in when we discuss the allocation of next year's block.

    Temazepam
    Mrs. Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the measures that he has introduced to control the use of temazepam. [34178]
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The measures introduced earlier this year have had the beneficial effect of reducing the illicit supply of temazepam.
    Mrs. Adams: I am extremely grateful for the measures that were taken earlier this year and I have noticed a significant reduction in the use of temazepam in my constituency, but there has been no significant reduction in the overall use of drugs. When will the Government recognise that only by tackling bad housing, high unemployment and the lack of hope among young people will we be able to tackle the drugs problem?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady raises a general issue that we have been tackling through our urban regeneration and urban aid programme, which will provide more than £86 million this year. Her constituency benefits substantially from that assistance. We want not only an integrated approach for the various services in areas of deprivation but to take every reasonable measure possible against the scourge of drug abuse.
    Mr. Connarty: I share the concern about the use of class A drugs, but is the Minister aware that the retail industry, whose representatives gathered at a conference two weeks ago to be addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), is worried about drunkenness in the streets, which leads to massive retail crime, the abuse of shop assistants and trouble in neighbourhoods? When will the Minister make a proposal to ban drinking in the street before the summer turns once again into a wild west show as people wander around Scotland's communities and high streets, drinking spirits and causing mayhem among the general public?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are encouraging local authorities to propose byelaws but, in addition, the White Paper specifies that we favour the proposal to confiscate drink in public places from those who are under age.

    East of Scotland Water Authority
    Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money from the Government has been allocated for capital projects to the East of Scotland water authority. [34179]
    Mr. Kynoch: No specific allocation is made for capital expenditure. The external financing limit for 1996–97 has been set at £87 million.
    Mr. Clarke: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he aware that the delay in upgrading the Esk valley sewer is delaying developments in Midlothian? Will he, with others, provide cash to the East of Scotland water authority to allow it to upgrade that sewer?
    Mr. Kynoch: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about delays on the Esk valley sewer. He should, of course, have addressed his comments to the former Labour-controlled Lothian regional council. The new East of Scotland water authority, within weeks of taking over responsibility, has initiated a private finance initiative scheme for the sewer. It is hoped that tender documents
    964
    will be issued this month, and I hope very much that work will commence by July 1998. The project is going ahead, utilising the private finance initiative, very much more quickly than it would have done under the former Lothian regional council.
    Mr. George Robertson: May I remind the Minister that the East of Scotland water authority, the super-quango that has taken water functions in the east of Scotland from locally elected local government, was created in the face of a referendum in Strathclyde that showed that 97 per cent. of people opposed handing water over to the new super-quango? Will the Government recognise that they cannot demand that referendums are held on major issues and then, with the cavalier, arrogant attitude for which they have become famous, dismiss out of hand the views of the people who have had the chance to express their view through that vote?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman, I know, is a recent convert to referendums-at the instigation, I understand, of those in his party from further south. What he has not yet fully understood is that he is talking about a referendum in Strathclyde on privatisation of the water authority. We now have three manageable water authorities, which are tackling the difficult problems of providing adequate facilities for water treatment and sewage.
    The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) asked about the Esk valley sewage scheme. Without the private finance initiative, that scheme would not go forward as quickly as it is doing. I commend the new water authorities and I believe that the consumers of Scotland welcome the fact that they are getting these facilities under this Government, whereas if Labour was in power they might have to wait for a long, long time or pay even higher tartan taxes.

    Scottish Grand Committee
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee he has attended as Secretary of State for Scotland. [34180]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I shall attend my 14th sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee this Friday in Dumfries, when we shall discuss the constitution; my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will attend. This sitting replaces the one that was postponed following the Dunblane tragedy. I am sure that the whole House welcomes the fact that the Snowdrop petition, which has attracted 750,000 signatures, will be presented by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) to the House later today. I have no doubt that the House and future sittings of the Grand Committee will want to consider the issues raised.
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend has spoken of the importance of the Scottish Grand Committee. In view of the weakening of Labour's commitment to a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers, what would be the difference between the Scottish Grand Committee and a Scottish parliament with no powers to raise tax?
    Mr. Forsyth: If we were ever unfortunate enough to have a Labour Government, a Scottish Grand Committee with a Labour majority on it, using the new powers to pass legislation, would be able to do everything that a Scottish parliament could do and more, including holding to account the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, who would determine Scotland's funding, and other Ministers from both Houses of Parliament. The one thing that a Scottish Grand Committee could never do is lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom or impose a tartan tax on the Scottish people. Such a tax would mean that people earning the same wage in Scotland had smaller pay packets than those in England. That is wrong in principle and will be recognised as such throughout Scotland.
    Mr. Wray: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland willing to put the subject of nuclear waste dumping in Scotland on the agenda at the next sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee? I know that he is an environmentalist—I have seen him protecting the environment by cuddling a lamb in the local rag of Milton Buchanan—so I hope that he recalls what happened when an explosion involving 2 kg of sodium and potassium in 1977 was not reported until 1995. Will he hold an emergency debate?
    Mr. Forsyth: The whole point of the Scottish Grand Committee is that it provides an opportunity for hon. Members to call the Executive to account on matters affecting Scotland. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should discuss the possibility of a debate with his Front Benchers. I see no reason why the Scottish Grand Committee should not debate it, and I agree that is it a very important subject. If that happens, it may prove to be one sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee at which the hon. Gentleman does not complain afterwards that it turned out to be a press conference for the Government.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any party with a majority of Members from Scotland on the Scottish Grand Committee can enact the most controversial legislation dealing with all aspects of Scottish life and that there is no need whatever to spend any additional funds on the creation of a new Scottish parliament? Therefore, it makes no sense for the Opposition to propose additional public expenditure when the Scottish Grand Committee can do everything that they require.
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, there are costs involved in establishing a Scottish parliament, which would cost about £45 million a year to run thereafter. That would have to be paid by the Scottish people and the money could be better spent on other matters. The real danger is not just the cost, but the conflict with Westminster and the break-up of the United Kingdom. There is also a constitutional danger, which I hope will be discussed in another place this afternoon, arising from the way in which the Labour party wishes to remove the House of Lords or any second Chamber from revision of Scottish legislation. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh and cheer at that prospect, but I was taught at school that the first step towards tyranny is the establishment of unicameral government, and that the second step is the use of plebiscites in an attempt to sideline the Parliament elected by the people.
    Mr. Salmond: I associate myself with what the Secretary of State said about the Snowdrop petition. Why will he not allow the Scottish Grand Committee to make any decisions? Why does everything have to be decided here? Is it because at meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee he does not have the gallery of Conservative Members representing English constituencies who come to Scottish Question Time to ask patsy questions? In so far as the Grand Committee signifies interest in Scottish affairs, will the Secretary of State explain why, between 1992 and 1995, he attended only one of its 28 sittings? Why did he attend that one and miss the other 27?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question: I did not have ministerial responsibility in Scotland. He is entitled to ask why decisions affecting Scotland cannot be made in the Scottish Grand Committee or a Scottish forum because he is a nationalist, not a Unionist. No Unionist could ever argue that case—although Opposition Members have tried to do so, which is why they have got themselves into such a shambles. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the Snowdrop petition and for the consistency that he has shown on the matter. He argues that a referendum is of no worth whatsoever unless it is on a specific proposal and unless it offers the Scottish people all the options. The difference between him and Labour Members is that he wants the break-up of the United Kingdom but they would bring about the break-up of the United Kingdom through political opportunism.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Scottish Grand Committee is an important, practical and sensible part of the Union? Therefore, will he congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his good sense in forcing the resignation of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who believes in all this devolution nonsense, and replacing him with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), who is a good, sound chap with a good, sound Unionist record?
    Mr. Forsyth: I will not congratulate the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland on having asked the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) to resign so as not to ruin his party leader's press conference. The hon. Member for Dundee, East has always taken a principled stand on the matters in which he believes. I respect that, although I disagree with it. I agree with what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) said in an article in the Daily Express the other day. No hon. Members would condemn anyone who stood up for what they believe, which is what the hon. Member for Dundee, East has done.
    Mr. McAllion: Will the Scottish Grand Committee get the opportunity to debate the rumoured return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland? Is the Minister aware that the real Stone of Destiny is already in Scotland? It has been hidden in a church in Dundee for a number of years, but security forces should realise that it has since been moved to an alternative safe place. Is he aware that the Stone of Destiny that he is intending to return to Scotland is a sham and a fake, just like his trumped-up Scottish Grand Committee, which fools no one in Scotland? When will the Government understand that the demand for

    967
    self-government in Scotland will never be satisfied until the Scottish people have a directly elected, tax-raising parliament that meets in Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues did not like the latter part of his question. The authenticity of the Stone of Destiny was investigated very carefully. The stone was subjected to a number of tests. Although files on the matter have never been released, they show that the authentic stone rests in Westminster abbey. I shall ensure that the files are released so that the hon. Gentleman may look at them. I am sure that he will have plenty of time on his hands in which to do so.
    Mr. Richards: When my right hon. Friend next attends the Scottish Grand Committee, will he warn it that a parliament for Scotland and the integration of the United Kingdom into Europe, as proposed by the Labour party, would create a new danger to this country's integrity, the like of which we have not seen since the second world war?
    Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is quite difficult to keep up with the changing face of the Labour party's policy on these constitutional matters, but I agree that its policies are a new danger. The idea that it is possible to have a tax-raising Parliament and maintain our present level of funding, yet lose the office of Secretary of State and our voice in Westminster through a diminution in the number of Members of Parliament, is viewed askance by most Scots and offers a new danger. In short, the position is new Labour, nae Britain.
    Mr. George Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for his hospitality at lunchtime in giving party leaders in Scotland and others the chance to meet those who were bringing the Dunblane Snowdrop petition, which has been signed by 750,000 people. Parents and organisers of the campaign expect Parliament not only to accept the petition but to listen to what it proposes and to act on it urgently. I return, however, to the fray.
    Nobody in Scotland is conned by the idea that a glorified Scottish Grand Committee is the answer. When he denigrates and deliberately insults the genuine, legitimate ambition of the Scottish people for devolution by referring to "a pigmy Parliament", he demeans the office that he holds and shows himself to be the ideologue for which so many people in Scotland have judged him. Why, in a press release issued in London last Tuesday, did he issue a challenge to Labour, saying
    "that the Scottish people should have a say in major constitutional change through a referendum",
    only for him now to tell the House that any plebiscite is the first step on the road to tyranny? I fear that such double standards, more than anything that we propose, genuinely threaten this nation's unity.
    Mr. Forsyth: I stand by what I have said about a referendum—unlike the hon. Gentleman, who cannot say as much. He rubbished my proposal that the Labour party should commit itself to a referendum after the introduction of legislation—
    Mr. Robertson: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Forsyth: That is indeed what I said, and it is not only me who is saying it. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is inexplicably absent from our proceedings today, says the same in The Guardian today. He argues the same constitutional case: that to ask people to vote on a matter when they cannot see the whole picture in the form of a Bill that has been considered by the House is to subvert Parliament.
    The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and his leader have been boasting about how they see a referendum as a way of getting the legislation through the House more quickly. I understand that they were advised that the referendum legislation was still on the statute book, but they were ill advised. It is not; it was repealed. A Bill would have to be taken through the House, and it would be fought every inch of the way both here and in the House of Lords. No doubt some in the House of Lords would argue that a question should be asked about removing the House of Lords from the consideration of legislation for Scotland, in which their Lordships have taken part for centuries. The hon. Gentleman should stop tinkering with our constitution for party advantage and realise that new Labour could mean nae Britain.

    Prison Officers Association
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet representatives of the Prison Officers Association to discuss working conditions and future employment prospects. [34181]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has asked to meet the Scottish Prison Officers Association, and will do so on 19 July.
    Mr. McKelvey: When the Minister meets Scottish prison officers, will he discuss the proposed private prison in Bowhouse in my constituency? I welcome that proposal, but I do not welcome the fact that the prison will be run privately. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Coopers and Lybrand report, which was commissioned by the Home Office and which clearly shows the appalling level of violence in private prisons in England? In one such private prison, there were 34 per cent. more assaults than in a comparable non-private prison. Will he have second thoughts about the prison being run privately, and put it into the hands of Scottish prison officers instead?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman can take it that we will ensure, through the specification, the highest standards of service in the new prison, which, as he will appreciate, will bring hundreds of jobs to his constituency—not only construction jobs but long-term jobs for the staff who will operate it. We expect that the private sector provider will recruit most of its staff in the local area. As for track records elsewhere in Britain, inspectors' reports have confirmed that private management of prisons can work well, with considerable savings to the taxpayer. None the less, the hon. Gentleman's point will be taken seriously, and we shall ensure that there are safeguards against any possibility of abuse.
    Mr. Batiste: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Home Office is considering introducing a medal for prison officers to recognise exceptional bravery in the course of their work, rather similar to the police medal for exceptional bravery by police officers? Will he commit the Scottish Office to supporting that initiative?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Most certainly. I am glad to say that the Secretary of State has supported the initiative. As one who has a prison in his constituency, I have the highest regard for prison officers, who are extremely courageous in the face of adversity. The proposal is altogether wise and far-sighted.
    Mr. O'Neill: I join other Members in thanking Ministers for the manner in which they handled the reception of the people from Dunblane and the Snowdrop petitioners today. They would like to see a tightening of the punishments for individuals who seek to use guns for any criminal purpose in Scotland. It should not be forgotten that, when such individuals are incarcerated, they will be in the hands of the prison officers of our country, whose morale has been dashed by the arbitrary withdrawal of parole and the like. Their job is becoming even more difficult, and there is a crisis not only of pay and conditions but of morale. The Minister must do something about that if he is to play fair by those men, who have one of the most unpleasant and difficult jobs in our country.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is correct to call for severity for offences involving firearms, and the Scottish Prison Service certainly should be strongly supported. He should not complain too much if remission for dangerous criminals is reduced in the future, as we believe that that is not an automatic right but a privilege to be earned by good behaviour. If dangerous criminals spend longer in prison as a result, there will be fewer of them in the community.

    Highlands and Islands Enterprise Area
    Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the economic prospects of the Highlands and Islands enterprise area. [34182]
    Mr. Kynoch: They remain excellent.
    Mrs. Michie: Will the Minister confirm that the Scottish Office has at last made a decision on introducing a ferry service between Campbeltown and Ballycastle? Who is to operate the service, what vessel will be used and what is the starting date? Will the Minister give as full an answer as possible? Otherwise, I may entertain the slightest suspicion that the Secretary of State will pull another rabbit out of the hat at Dumfries on Friday.
    Mr. Kynoch: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady, but she has been misinformed. My right hon. Friend has said consistently that he is keen to establish the route, but significant obstacles must be overcome. He is working as best he can and as fast as he can to overcome them, and I assure the hon. Lady that we will keep her informed on his progress. Unfortunately, we do not see an announcement on a conclusion being made in the next week.
    Mr. Wilson: Is not the main obstacle that Ministers must overcome their quite irrational prejudice against anything operating in the public sector? Does not everyone involved in the project—which has potential benefits for my constituency—agree that the sensible thing to do is to allow Caledonian MacBrayne to operate a vessel that it owns? It has the back-up of a fleet to provide flexibility, and it will provide jobs to Scottish seamen. The firm also has all the advantages of experience. It wants to do it, but the Government are obsessed with the idea that, unless a private sector operator can be involved—even one using a Caledonian MacBrayne vessel—the project cannot go ahead.
    Will the Minister play fair with the communities involved in Northern Ireland and in the highlands and islands—and, potentially, in my constituency at Ardrossan—and allow the project to go ahead? Will Ministers get rid of their ridiculous prejudice? Never mind what the Secretary of State is telling the Minister—will he answer for himself? CalMac wants to run it, and it is best placed to do so—the Government should let it do so.
    Mr. Kynoch: From the hon. Gentleman's words, it is apparent why he is no longer a transport spokesman, but perhaps that means that he can now commit his party to all sorts of expenditure proposals. The Government are adamant that we will make the right decision, and that it will be considered properly. As I said to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), the Secretary of State is trying to overcome the obstacles, and he is keen to reach as speedy a conclusion as possible.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that the McFadden commission's stated aim is the abolition of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the transfer of its responsibilities to a tartan tax-raising Parliament? Does he agree that that would have a calamitous effect on the highlands and islands?
    Mr. Kynoch: I agree with my hon. Friend. Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise have done a remarkably good job for economic development in Scotland. I hope very much that they will continue to do so, and that they will have the full support of the Government.

    Local Government Finance
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of revenue support for Scottish local government in the current year. [34183]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Local government grant support amounts to £5.4 billion in Scotland, an increase of 3.6 per cent.
    Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Government spending on local government in Scotland is 43 per cent. above expenditure for England? Could that spending be sustained if Scotland had its own tax-raising Parliament? If not, how could that Parliament possibly cut taxes? Would not taxes have to increase, with the result that people north of the border would take home less than people south of the border?
    Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Local authority expenditure in Scotland is 44 per cent. higher per head than in England. It is difficult to see how the Leader of the Opposition can go around Scotland suggesting that a tax-raising parliament could reduce taxes. That presupposes that Members of this House will continue to vote for 44 per cent. more in spending for Scottish local authorities than for authorities in their own constituencies, and then sit back and watch the parliament cut taxes. That is not the real world. Labour would endanger local authority expenditure and other public services by setting up a Scottish parliament with tax-raising powers. That parliament would lead to resentment on both sides of the border, which would destroy the Union that is the United Kingdom.
    Dr. Reid: Would not those who devote their time and effort to local government in Scotland like nothing better than to have a parliament with which they can work,
    972
    rather than a Secretary of State and Ministers who berate them at every conceivable opportunity? Does not today's new-found concern with the House of Lords show that the Secretary of State is studying his future career pattern well, because there is no chance that he will be re-elected? May we offer a deal to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister? If they send us a big lump of stone as soon as they can, we in Scotland will agree that the Secretary of State should be incarcerated beneath a chair in Westminster abbey for ever after.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is normally a sensible chap. How on earth did he get himself into a party that is prepared to give up the office of Secretary of State, to allow a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament here and to allow hard-working Scots to pay a tartan tax and take home smaller pay packets than people in England? How on earth can he call himself a Unionist and still be involved with that rabble?

Stone of Destiny
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Stone of Destiny.
The Stone of Destiny is the most ancient symbol of Scottish kingship. It was used in the coronation of Scottish Kings until the end of the 13th century. Exactly 700 years ago, in 1296, King Edward I brought it from Scotland and housed it in Westminster abbey. It remains—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and hear this statement in good order. There will be hon. Members who will want to be called after the statement. They should listen to it now.
The Prime Minister: The stone remains the property of the Crown. I wish to inform the House that, on the advice of Her Majesty's Ministers, the Queen has agreed that the stone should be returned to Scotland. The stone will, of course, be taken to Westminster abbey to play its traditional role in the coronation ceremonies of future sovereigns of the United Kingdom.
The Stone of Destiny holds a special place in the hearts of Scots. On this the 700th anniversary of its removal from Scotland, it is appropriate to return it to its historic homeland. I am sure that the House would wish to be assured that the stone will be placed in an appropriate setting in Scotland. The Government will be consulting Scottish and Church opinion about that. The stone might be displayed in Edinburgh castle alongside the Honours of Scotland, Europe's oldest crown jewels. Alternatively, it might be appropriate to place it in St. Margaret's chapel inside the castle or in St. Giles's cathedral. There may be other options.
Once those consultations have been completed, the necessary arrangements will be made and the stone will be installed with due dignity in Scotland.
Mr. Tony Blair: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement. I am sure that it will be warmly received by people in Scotland. We know that the Stone of Destiny holds a special place in Scottish hearts after 700 years. Obviously, it is part of Scottish nationhood and, by coming back here for the coronation of our Kings and Queens, as it will, it will no doubt also be a symbol of Scotland's place within the United Kingdom. The return of the stone, therefore, is a welcome recognition of how we can celebrate the unity of the United Kingdom while being distinct and proud nations with differing traditions, histories and cultures. It is a sentiment on which we wish to build in the future—and I hope that we shall not have to wait another 700 years to do so.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the decision. I am glad that he treated the matter with the seriousness that it deserves rather than with the levity displayed by so many of his hon. Friends over a matter that will be regarded as one of great importance in Scotland.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Scone is in my constituency. The ancient capital of Scotland would be proud to have the stone back and I hope that, when consideration is given to its location, its roots will be remembered.
The Prime Minister: I have mentioned the areas to which the stone might most obviously be returned, but, in consultation, other propositions might be put forward.
Sir David Steel: May I warmly welcome the Prime Minister's decision to secure the return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland? I hope that he is under no illusion and that he recognises that it is the settled view of the majority of people in Scotland that they want not just the symbol, but the substance—the substance of the return of democratic control over our internal affairs in Scotland. May I tell the Prime Minister, before he comes north on Friday, that I hope that he will not continue to insult us by suggesting that, although other countries can organise decentralised government—most recently in Spain since the death of Franco—we are somehow incapable of doing the same in the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister: First, I am grateful for the welcome that the right hon. Gentleman has given to the decision. On his second point, the right hon. Gentleman's proposal for a parliament within the United Kingdom, as the leader of the Labour party says, would mean that Her Majesty's Ministers who are not Scottish would not be able to appear in that assembly. On Friday, I shall be appearing in the Scottish Grand Committee as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, open to debate and able to be questioned by Scottish Members in Scotland. That would not be appropriate under the plans supported by the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement is of supreme importance to the Scots? The return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland will be unanimously and warmly welcomed by Scots and will highlight the close unity, tradition and good will between our two nations. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there will be an imaginative and effective ceremony for the return of the stone to Scotland, which I hope will be placed in Edinburgh castle?
The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend said, the Stone of Destiny is an important part of Scotland's national identity. After 700 years, it is right to recognise the importance of the stone to the Scottish nation and let it return to Scotland and remain there. Of course, we plan to hold a suitable ceremony at the time of its return and we shall be consulting Scottish opinion as to what might be appropriate.
Mr. John Maxton: Does the Prime Minister understand that those of us who believe in the establishment of a Scottish Parliament in order to ensure a modern democratic state within the United Kingdom and Scotland, do not believe that the return of a feudal, mediaeval symbol of tyranny is any more than a total irrelevance?
The Prime Minister: I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman was speaking for many Scots. They will regard what he said as churlish, not least because he is referring to an ancient symbol of Scotland that is well regarded by Scots of all political parties and none. They will be astonished to hear what a Scottish Member of Parliament had to say about one of their most ancient symbols.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people who care about the history of the United Kingdom also care about its symbols, as we care about the symbols in this place? Does he accept that most people will expect the stone to go to St. Margaret's chapel in Edinburgh castle, so that it remains within a consecrated building?
The Prime Minister: St. Margaret's chapel is one of the possible prime sites for the stone. It is a matter that will need to be the subject of consultation within Scotland. I have mentioned some of the areas that will be considered as the most obvious sites for the stone when it returns to Scotland.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept a criticism and a comment? Is he not wrong in stating that the Crown jewels of Scotland are the oldest in Europe? Is it not a fact that the oldest Crown jewels in Europe that I can recall are the St. Stephen's crown in Hungary? If I could only remember, there is actually an older Byzantine crown. I think that I am correct in saying that. I am usually correct in most of my utterances. Will he accept my comment that what the ex-leader of the Liberal party said is most important? What we want is not the symbol but the substance of independence in Scotland.
The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that it is the Labour party's policy to have independence in Scotland. Perhaps that was just a slip of the tongue. I will accept that as the case if it was. [Interruption.] No, the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) confirms that it is the policy that he and members of his party follow to have independence in Scotland. That point will have been well noted on the Conservative Benches and in many areas of Scotland.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, I recognise his expertise in these matters. I am certainly advised, as I advised the House, that these are the oldest Crown jewels in Europe. The hon. Gentleman thinks differently. We shall both be able to check. In any event, I look forward to him having the opportunity of going to Scotland to see them in situ.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend ensure the return of the touchstone of the sovereignty and independence of this distinct and proud nation through the return of the primacy and supremacy of British law over that emanating from Brussels?
The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of the House letting go of the primacy of British law.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement today, but if he had studied his constitutional and political law of Scotland, he would understand that the Stone of Destiny is not the symbol of kingship but the symbol of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, which is enunciated through the declaration of Arbroath. Like others, I argue that, while we welcome the return of this symbol of power, we want the realities of power in Scotland. It may have taken this Parliament some 668 years since the treaty of Northampton to return stolen goods to Scotland, but in actuality the people of Scotland will return to themselves the power of having their own sovereign Parliament very soon.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady also makes no secret of the fact that she wishes to see independence in Scotland. That, of course, would have a profound effect on Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that she is wrong about that. That is one of the distinct political differences between us that will no doubt be debated for some time to come. On the earlier point, I think that, constitutionally, she is wrong.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Has my right hon. Friend noted that this important announcement was greeted seriously by the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)? It was immediately denounced by a Scottish Labour Member of Parliament and most of the rest of them laughed. Does not that show what an incoherent shambles the Scottish Labour party is in?
The Prime Minister: One of the advantages of having the House televised is that people in Scotland will have seen precisely how Opposition Back Benchers—not Front Benchers; on this occasion I am pleased to support the Leader of the Opposition's behaviour—behave on a matter of great sensitivity and interest to the people of Scotland.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Obviously, the people of Scotland will welcome back the Stone of Destiny, which has been a bone of contention for many years. However, I suggest to the Prime Minister that, for every 1,000th person unemployed in Scotland, he gets a bagpiper, and we take that stone and march from one end of the country to the other with at least 200 unemployed bagpipers who have suffered under this Government. Perhaps that will be the stepping stone to a Labour Government and then a Scottish parliament, one which represents and looks after the interests of the people, not a token artefact; real stones for building houses, that is what our people want.
The Prime Minister: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman call the Stone of Destiny a token artefact. That is his view of the Stone of Destiny, and that will be well noted in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman will know that unemployment has been falling consistently in Scotland primarily because of inward investment into Scotland that would not have taken place but for the Government's policies. I suggest that when we have that piper, all the people in Scotland who have new jobs—good jobs, permanent jobs, jobs with a proper career—follow that piper, instead of the people

977
who were in jobs that were kept there only by Government subsidy, jobs with no future, which was the position before 1979.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents will welcome the return of the stone to Scotland? They will also welcome the commitment that the stone will play a part in future coronation services. My right hon. Friend obviously recognises that it is symbolic of Scotland's part in the Union. Does he agree that there is no chance of him taking steps that will damage the Union, unlike Opposition Members?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend implies, the stone is the property of the Crown and will be returned to the coronation chair to take its place in the ceremony of the crowning of any future sovereign, who would be King of England and, of course, Scotland. To that extent, it symbolises the unity of the United Kingdom, and it is entirely right that the property of Her Majesty the Queen should be placed wherever in Her Majesty's kingdom is deemed most appropriate.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Was this gesture prompted by political motives, or will it be seen in future years as the first in a series of generous gestures to countries in and outwith the multinational state of the United Kingdom? Are we likely to see the return of the Elgin marbles, for example?
The Prime Minister: This gesture was prompted by the 700th anniversary of the stone's removal from Scotland, and I believe it appropriate for it to return to Scotland for those particular reasons. That is not likely to be followed in totally different circumstances by the return of artefacts such as the Elgin marbles. That is not the case.
Mr. Tim Renton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on both the wisdom and the symbolism of what he has announced today. After we have listened to some of the comments of Labour Back Benchers who have ridiculed this step, is it not worth reminding the House that the stone was forcibly removed from the abbey by Scottish nationalists on Christmas morning 1950? Surely that shows the forceful power that is attached to the symbolism of the stone. Its return now should surely be seen as a sign of unity, not one of dissension and ridicule.
The Prime Minister: I believe that that is the case and that that is the way in which this will be viewed by most people, especially those who will have been somewhat shocked by the behaviour of some hon. Members this afternoon.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker:Thank you. We shall now move on.

Points of Order
3.47 pm
Mr. George Galloway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of your strictures just yesterday about the use of foul and abusive language in the Chamber, I should like to hear your views on the foul and abusive term used by the Secretary of State for Scotland—the disparaging, racist term of pigmy, which will have caused great offence to many people. Not being tall, dark and handsome himself, one would have thought that he would have taken more care in the use of the word, which was intended and was always used as a disparaging reference to a proud, independent African people who live in southern and central Africa. The use of the term pigmy in that offensive way is racist, and I hope that you will cause the Secretary of State for Scotland to withdraw it.
Madam Speaker: I heard the word used and the context in which it was used. Had I thought it unparliamentary at the time, I would have asked the Member concerned to withdraw it, as I always do. I remind the House that the English language is very rich, and I simply caution all hon. Members—whether they are Front Benchers or Back Benchers—to make full use of the wonderful language that we have been given. I also remind all hon. Members of the very wise words of "Erskine May":
"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language."
We should take that to heart.
Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. According to The Herald, the Secretary of State for Scotland has challenged my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to bring his devolution plans before the Scottish Grand Committee. He issued a personal invitation to my right hon. Friend to take the place of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) at this week's Dumfries meeting and face the questions from his own Scottish Members of Parliament. Throwing down the challenge, the Secretary of State said, "Let's hear from the organ grinder, not his monkey."
The Standing Orders relating to the Scottish Grand Committee would not, in fact, allow my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to attend a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee as a member, or to speak at such a meeting. Is it not remarkably arrogant of the Secretary of State to consider the Committee that he touts around Scotland to be his private fiefdom, in which he can invite whomever he likes to come along and speak? Will you make it clear, Madam Speaker, that he has no such power, and also that my right hon. Friend could not have attended?
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth)rose—
Madam Speaker:: Order. I think that I can deal with this.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has not simply raised a point of order; he has raised a matter of debate, because he has answered the point that he put to me. Standing Order No. 94A lays down that the Scottish Grand Committee shall be made up of
"all Members representing Scottish constituencies".

979
In addition, Ministers of the Crown who are Members of Parliament but not members of the Grand Committee may take part in its deliberations. Consequently, Members of Parliament who, like the Leader of the Opposition, neither represent Scottish constituencies nor are Ministers of the Crown may not on this occasion take their places in the body of the kirk.
Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) obviously gave you notice of his point of order. If he had raised it with me, I could have told him that what I actually said was that, if the Leader of the Opposition would like to attend the Scottish Grand Committee, I would be quite prepared to present a proposal to amend the Standing Orders in order to make that possible. Those are the words that I used, and my offer remains open. It is significant that no Opposition Members have taken it up.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I will take no more points of order on this matter. I have given a correct ruling, which the House now understands.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it an entirely different point of order?
Mr. Canavan: Yes, Madam Speaker. Do you know whether there is any truth in the report that the Secretary
980
of State for Scotland has suggested that the Stone of Destiny should be relocated in Stirling castle, in a last desperate effort to find himself a safe seat?
Madam Speaker: We have an important ten-minute Bill with which to deal, and I have a very bad cough. We must move on.
Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I will hear it.
Mr. Field: During Scottish questions, the Secretary of State for Scotland offered to make available files that prove the origin and authenticity of the Stone of Scone. You may have read in yesterday's papers, Madam Speaker, that the Liberal Democrats are calling for the Isle of Wight to be made free of the tax regime and the rule of law applying to this country. There has been an inquiry into the sale of the Isle of Wight to the Crown. Would it be possible for the files to be made available? That would enable us not only to look at the problems of the Isle of Wight, but to welcome the Liberal Democrats' move towards tax cutting and their promise to make the Isle of Wight a tax haven.
Madam Speaker: That is very interesting, but it is also very time-consuming. If the hon. Gentleman needed the answers to his questions, he should have put them to the appropriate Minister. He knows, as I do, that they are not points of order.

Intensive Animal Husbandry (Review)
3.53 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a body to investigate and report upon intensive animal husbandry and its implications for animal health and welfare, and for human health.
The Bill also wants the body to make recommendations for the establishment of humane and morally defensible systems of animal husbandry.
There is a view that the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis is a terrible but isolated disaster, which can be resolved by the introduction of a few practical measures and the shelling out of a great deal of public money to compensate an industry that has, to a large extent, brought the disaster on itself, after which business can continue as usual. I do not take that view. BSE is nature's revenge on factory farmers. Rather than continuing down the same old road, we should view the BSE scare as an opportunity for everyone concerned—producers and consumers alike—to learn lessons of a more general nature than any that have so far been suggested.
In the past 40 years, the principles of mass production have been introduced into the farmyard. Animals are treated not as sentient beings, capable of feeling pain and emotion, but as agricultural products. The treaty of Rome defines them as such. In the name of the great God efficiency, production systems have been devised that inflict unspeakable suffering on calves, pigs, chickens and turkeys throughout their short and miserable lives.
Pigs are locked in crates, where they can only stand or lie and where they suffer great stress, are bred to unnatural sizes and are forced to produce more than 20 offspring a year—many times their natural output. Broiler chickens, reared for their meat, never see daylight and are crammed together in huge windowless sheds that are littered with excrement, which is never removed in their 42-day lives. They are forced by selective breeding to grow from chicks to adults at twice their normal rate of growth, to the point where they can barely walk.
Hens are reared for their eggs and confined for their entire productive lives in battery cages so tiny that they cannot stretch their wings, let alone walk. Cows are selectively bred to produce much higher milk yields. They are milked to exhaustion, their swollen udders forcing their legs apart; they are often in great pain from mastitis; and they are separated from their calves within a few days of birth. What a terrible fate awaits their calves—or at least it did until the collapse of the beef industry—in the veal crates of France and Holland. The breeding pattern of sheep has been manipulated in response to the demands of supermarkets, so that lambs are produced in winter and not in spring, with the result that hundreds of thousands die of exposure.
How can that be morally justified? It cannot. Agribusiness can get away with it only by hoping that consumers do not find out or that, if we do, we shall avert our eyes. What are we to make of the appalling mutilations visited by factory farmers on their animals? Lambs are castrated either by cutting off their testicles with a knife, or by using a rubber ring to cut off the blood supply so that the testicles drop off. Chickens and turkeys are debeaked with red-hot blades. Piglets have their tails removed with knives or hot irons. Some even have their
982
teeth clipped. All those mediaeval tortures are allegedly made necessary by the need to stop those unfortunate animals turning on each other in the frustration caused by their close confinement.
Who knows the effect on human health of the diet of antibiotics fed to factory-farmed animals to promote faster growth and to stave off the infections brought about by the awful conditions in which they are reared? The most common types of food poisoning are campylobacter and salmonella. A report published earlier this year by the Advisory Committee on Microbiological Safety concluded that one chicken in three is contaminated with salmonella and that 44 per cent. are contaminated with campylobacter. Who knows what new crises the future holds as long as this madness is allowed to continue?
Gradually, thanks to organisations such as Compassion in World Farming, which I am proud to support and which is the inspiration for the Bill, the consumer is becoming aware of the terrible suffering inflicted in our name. It is for each of us to search his or her conscience and to decide how to respond. For my part, I gave up eating meat some years ago, not because I feared for my health or because I dislike meat, but because I do not wish to be party to the infliction of such barbarity.
I regret that none of the main political parties takes this issue sufficiently seriously. Farm animals' welfare has been scarcely mentioned in any of the many debates and statements in the House arising from the BSE crisis. My party, thanks mainly to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), has some sensible policies, but for some reason we hide our light under a bushel—presumably because farmers have votes and animals do not. That approach is short-sighted.
A growing number of people of all political persuasions—especially the young, who are otherwise disillusioned with politicians—care passionately about the treatment of farm animals. An excellent series of articles on the evils of factory farming appeared in the Daily Mail on 17, 18 and 19 June. It is not every day that I find something to praise in the Daily Mail, but that fine piece of journalism graphically described the effects of unrestrained market forces on the farming industry. A leading article in the Daily Mail on 19 June stated:
"We may reckon to have progressed beyond the rustic barbarity of cock fighting and bear baiting. Yet, in all conscience, can anything compare to the systematic cruelty of factory farming?"
Even people who are oblivious to the suffering of farm animals are beginning to notice the potential threat to their health and that of their children. My Bill confronts the issues head on. We need a wholly new approach to meat and dairy production. We need to restore morality to meat production. We must wean agribusiness off factory farming and away from the over-use of antibiotics and routine barbarity. We need a system of subsidies that encourages good practice and not merely discourages but penalises bad practice. We should not wait until the message reaches the European Union, although we must do our best to take our EU partners with us. We should act now, in the hope that we can set an example that will be followed by the rest of the world.
My Bill would establish a body that would include veterinarians, doctors, and members appointed after consultation with animal welfare organisations and farming interests. It would have a wider remit than the Farm Animal Welfare Council, whose work I

983
acknowledge. The new body would be asked to consider the implications of factory farming for not just animals but human health. It would be asked to make specific recommendations on how to bring factory farming of animals to an end. The time has come to return to a morally defensible system of animal husbandry, consistent with life in a civilised country.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Eric Martlew, Sir Andrew Bowden, Mr. Alan Meale, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Bill Etherington, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Bill Olner, Mr. Nigel Jones and Mr. Terry Lewis.

INTENSIVE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY (REVIEW)
Mr. Chris Mullin accordingly presented a Bill to establish a body to investigate and report upon intensive animal husbandry and its implications for animal health and welfare, and for human health: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 167.]
Orders of the Day

  Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have to inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.3 pm
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a short Bill, for the simple reason that its sole purpose is to correct an anomaly in existing legislation, whereby Her Majesty's Stationery Office is permitted to contract out the printing of all legislative and official material, with the single exception of statutory instruments. The Bill amends the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 to bring statute in that area into line with all other classes of material. It also confirms retrospectively the status of existing statutory instruments printed other than by HMSO, but it has no other purpose.
  I begin by outlining some of the general considerations that apply to HMSO in its role as printer to the Government. Printing plant of all types is expensive to acquire, maintain and operate, and all printers must be sure of maximum usage of the plant they own. When demand is variable or unpredictable, it is commonplace in the printing industry to own only so much capacity as is likely to be heavily used, and to sub-contract to others at times of peak demand or for jobs in which additional technical expertise is needed.
  HMSO is in precisely that position. Its work load depends on the weight of the legislative programme, the parliamentary cycle, new initiatives by Departments and similar factors that—as hon. Members will appreciate—are notoriously difficult to predict.
  If HMSO were to acquire sufficient capacity of its own to meet the peaks in demand for its services, there would necessarily be long periods of less than peak demand during which that capacity was under-used or completely idle. No reasonable person could countenance the impact that that would have on costs. For HMSO, such capacity would mean a very substantial increase in the cover prices of its publications, with obvious consequences for the affordability to the general public of official information.
  HMSO must therefore sub-contract printing work if it is to operate efficiently and if access to official documents is to be maximised. It has done so for very many years and, in the vast majority of cases, it is perfectly lawful for it to do so. In particular, the Documentary Evidence Act 1882, which is still in force, permits legislation and other legal documents to be printed by third parties under the superintendence and authority of HMSO, as well as directly by it.
  The House may be interested to know that that Act—as with many Acts since 1882—was itself printed by the private sector. There is, of course, no reason why private sector printers should not be at least as capable as HMSO

  985
  of performing what are, in many cases, technically very simple print jobs. Overall, the results of contracting out have been entirely satisfactory.
  HMSO, its customers and the users of its information have therefore benefited for a long time from a regime that allows costs and cover prices to be kept as low as possible.
  The sale prices of statutory instruments have not changed for more than three years. There is only a single, anomalous exception to this regime, which relates to the printing of statutory instruments. That is the subject of this Bill.
  The Statutory Instruments Act 1946, as it currently stands, imposes directly on HMSO or its ex officio head, the Queen's printer, the duties of printing, issuing and selling statutory instruments. It does not contain the "superintendence and authority" provisions of the 1882 Act. Instead, the 1946 Act followed the pattern of its predecessor, the Rules Publication Act 1893—but those conditions are no longer suitable for modern conditions, even if they were at the time.
  Notwithstanding the provisions of the 1946 Act, HMSO has in fact contracted out the printing of statutory instruments for some time. It is hard to determine the exact date on which it began doing so, but records show that the practice dates from at least 1965, and probably earlier.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I have listened to the Minister with mounting interest. First, no one would disagree with his reasonable statements about variations in work loads for printers. However, if the 1946 Act specifically forbade the contracting out of statutory instruments, how did the practice begin? How has the practice developed if it is illegal?
  My second point is perhaps of greater interest in the current climate. HMSO has been the subject of many reviews in Government circles in the past five or six years, particularly with the prospect of privatisation. Why has this illegality come to light only now, and not during one of those reviews?
  Mr. Freeman: We discovered what has now become the custom and practice—for many years, under Labour and Conservative Governments—of HMSO contracting out a portion of the work of printing statutory instruments because of detailed preparations for privatisation. Privatisation, however, is not contingent on this Bill, as I shall explain in a minute, because we would correct the anomaly. The purpose of the Bill—
  Mr. Marshall rose—
  Mr. Freeman: I am still trying to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point, but I shall certainly give way in a moment.
  The purpose of the Bill is to correct what is undoubtedly a technical deficiency. I do not have the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, because the practice goes back at least to 1965. My guess is that, because it was lawful to print not only Acts of Parliament but all other public sector documents through
  986
  sub-contracting, the management of HMSO assumed, not unreasonably, that they had the legislative authority not only to print SIs themselves but to sub-contract them.
  Mr. Marshall: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I realise that it is only a short Bill, and that he wants to make progress. He said that the practice goes back at least to 1965, if I remember his written answer correctly. That date is very convenient for him, because it implicates both our parties. Why are we not dealing with the period from 1946 to 1965? Why stop at 1965? If people had been obeying the law of the land from 1946 to 1965, why did the practice suddenly alter? It is not an anomaly, but an illegality.
  Mr. Freeman: The reason for citing 1965 is that 30 years is as far back as HMSO officials could go. My assumption is that, were they able to go back further—looking at the management decisions of HMSO or ministerial decisions in the record of government or in parliamentary answers—they could probably trace the practice back to 1946.
  Contracting out may well technically be a breach of the 1946 Act, but HMSO thought that it had good reason for acting in this way. First, it was merely following long-established practice for other official material. Secondly, and more important, demand for SI printing is, if anything, even more volatile than for other documents. Large volumes of important instruments may be required at very short notice. If HMSO had attempted to produce all of them itself to the tight time scales required, its costs, and therefore the cover price of SIs, would have had to increase.
  The result of HMSO's actions is, however, that there are in existence very many copies of SIs which have not been produced in strict conformity with the 1946 Act. I must stress that there is no question of the SI itself not being valid, or of past convictions for breaches of an SI being unsound. Secondary legislation becomes law from the moment it is made, or within a short period thereafter, and can be proved if necessary by production to the court of the original signed copy or a certified copy. However, individual printed copies might possibly be contested by those charged under them, and it is possible that courts would be burdened with arguments as to their validity.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall make just two brief points. First, does the Minister accept that it is ironic that the one bit of the system that appears to have been acting illegally, at least in a technical sense, for the past 30 years is the bit that has most to do with examining the small print, or secondary legislation?
  Secondly, and more important, this is the second Bill to be introduced this Session because the Government have been doing something that they should not have been doing, and have had to say that the law needs to be amended. The other was the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Act 1996, and, of course, the Minister was at one time a Health Minister.
  If the Minister's Department is meant to be co-ordinating Government action, will it undertake, before the end of this Parliament, at least to co-ordinate matters so that we no longer have legislative or procedural practice that appears to be illegal and in need of amendment with no one knowing why things have been proceeding as they have for the past 30 years?
  Mr. Freeman: As soon as the Government discovered that there was a problem, and following collective

  987
  discussion among Ministers, the decision was made—in my judgment, not only inevitably but correctly—to come straight to the House, report it and present a Bill. The shadow Chancellor, who leads for the Opposition in these matters, and I differ on many things, but one matter on which we agree is the pursuit of good governance. Where there is any hint of a defect in legislation, the Minister in question is obliged to come to the House and correct it. I cannot be held responsible for reviewing the 700 years of legislation passed by Parliament, but I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that, if I am aware of any anomalies arising in any other form of legislation, which have been drawn to my attention and that of the Department, I shall come straight back to the House, or will encourage my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. John Garrett: If the defect attaches both to a private contractor and to a public body—HMSO—why is this not a hybrid Bill?
  Mr. Freeman: Because the 1946 Act refers specifically to HMSO. The private printer has not contravened the law technically, whereas HMSO has. I am the Minister accountable to Parliament for the acts of HMSO, so the Bill is a public Bill, not a hybrid one.
  As things stand, defendants charged with contravening an SI could be acquitted solely on the technical argument that an SI not printed by HMSO had not been properly produced; case law suggests that this is unlikely, but it is not impossible. It is more likely that procedure in the courts might become obstructed, and that individual SIs would need to be specifically proved.
  In any event, it is clear that urgent action is needed to confirm the validity and evidential status of existing individual copies of SIs. That would be effected by the passage of the Bill at the earliest opportunity, and that is why the Government seek to complete the remaining stages of the Bill in the House tonight.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister clarify this point? At some stage, he must have known that the practices taking place were illegal. At the moment he learned that, did he stop all illegality? Did he stop the contracts, or did he allow further illegalities to take place?
  Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to HMSO, no, I did not, at the time I first become aware of the problem. Yes, I did and have done so—I shall report on this to the House in a moment—once the agreement of my colleagues and Government was obtained. The Bill was then presented.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: So that we have this on the record, did the Minister therefore permit an illegality to persist?
  Mr. Freeman: I have to present a Bill to Parliament to clarify and rectify the situation. I will come to the instructions I have given HMSO a little later. I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's question. The moment I became aware personally of the matter, I did not instruct HMSO to cease production. I took further advice, and then discussed the problem with my colleagues. That is a fair and full answer to the hon. Gentleman's perfectly proper question.
  988
  It is therefore essential that the Bill confirms the status of existing SIs, allows contracting out to continue in the best interests of all concerned, and closes an outdated loophole. As drafted, it does precisely that. It would allow HMSO to contract with others for the printing and distribution of SIs on exactly the same terms as those currently applying to all other material, including Acts of Parliament.
  This is a simple step, and requires only this short Bill. All that is required is to amend the wording of the 1946 Act in each place, so that, instead of specifying that SIs must be printed, issued and sold directly by HMSO, it merely requires that they may be printed, issued and sold by others working under contract to it. That is the substance of the Bill, and forms the first part of clause 1(1).
  The second part of that subsection deals only with a related document—the list showing when each statutory instrument was issued. Again, there is no reason why this should be printed and distributed directly by HMSO, and again, HMSO has in the past contracted out this work. This subsection both verifies that practice and provides that it may continue. As a consequence, the statutory instruments issue list would not bear the imprint of the Queen's printer, but would state "printed for HMSO" rather than "printed by HMSO". The House will see that this is a minor point.
  Clause 1(2) is slightly more complex. The Bill would amend retrospectively section 3(2) of the 1946 Act. This section states that proceedings for an offence consisting of a contravention of a statutory instrument may be defended on the grounds that the SI concerned had not been issued by HMSO at the time the alleged offence took place.
  Subsection (2) prevents the amendment from applying to proceedings that commenced before 21 June. Thus the Bill does not deprive an accused person of any argument that he might have had. In particular, it does not prevent a defendant from calling into question the validity of the statutory instruments issue list, and thus argue that there was no conclusive evidence of the date of issue of a statutory instrument. I am not aware of any proceedings that commenced before 21 June to which a defence under section 3(2) would be relevant.
  The Bill makes no other changes to the scope of the defence under section 3(2), or to the rights of defendants. It would simply change the criteria by which a statutory instrument might be deemed to have been properly printed, focused and issued, and the formalities for producing the statutory instrument issue list.
  The Bill is not necessary for the privatisation of HMSO. That will proceed to completion irrespective of the Bill's passage. Shortlisted bidders are all aware of the position, and each is proceeding on the basis that statutory instrument printing would be carried out in the public sector. The House should be aware that the total value of sales of statutory instruments represent less than 1 per cent. of HMSO's turnover, so the work is of no more than marginal importance to bidders.
  I have also instructed HMSO to cease putting statutory instrument printing out to third parties as soon as practicable. If I might add to my earlier remarks to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), that means as soon as the House rises. It is simply not practicable in the time available for HMSO to

  989
  make other arrangements. When the House has risen, the volume of work will reduce substantially, permitting HMSO to print all statutory instruments internally.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for that announcement. He was dealing with technical defences in the courts. Can he tell us—or take advice and let us know later—whether there is a technical defence if a statutory instrument has a starting date when it is deemed to come into effect, but Parliament has not yet debated and approved it? Sadly, that is an increasing practice, which has been the subject of complaint from hon. Members on both sides of the House in recent years.
  Mr. Freeman: If the House allows me, and it is appropriate in replying to the debate, I shall seek advice and reply to the hon. Gentleman.
  The Bill will allow the residual HMSO which will remain within Government after the sale—with the Queen's printer and an appropriate staff—to contract out the production of statutory instruments. It could do that under contract either with the privatised Stationery Office or with another printer, and in effect would be acting in the same way as HMSO does now.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: The Opposition are making a song and dance about the failure to include the contracting out of statutory instruments to private printers. They appear to be suggesting that there a sinister plot or something mischievous is going on. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it has been a practice of Labour and Conservative Administrations, and that there is nothing much in the Bill other than that a mistake has been made and the Government are putting it right. Has he any idea why it was excluded in the first place?
  Mr. Freeman: I am not quite sure that I take the drift of my hon. Friend's last comment. I give way to him again.
  Mr. Steen: I was wondering why it was excluded from the 1946 Act. Was it just a mistake?
  Mr. Freeman: I cannot speak for the 1946 Parliament, but I would venture to suggest that it was not regarded as an important matter. It may not have been discussed in Committee or on Report. No doubt the then Labour Government had more important matters to hand. Perhaps Parliament did not focus on the same degree of detail as it does now.
  It is hard, therefore, to see any difference in the service that would be provided. The Bill merely puts its legitimacy beyond doubt.
  The Bill is not required for the sale of HMSO. If it is not enacted before the sale, the residual HMSO would arrange to print all statutory instruments directly itself. Detailed arrangements for how that would be done are being drawn up. The residual HMSO would employ its own printers and rent the night-time use of equipment at HMSO's Sovereign press at Elephant and Castle.
  That would, though, be a most unattractive option. It would require Government to maintain a capacity that was rarely fully used, and which would therefore involve needless extra costs. Without a subsidy from the taxpayer,
  990
  those extra costs would need to be passed on in the form of higher cover prices for statutory instruments. Estimates suggest that, if that course were to be followed—the Government are perfectly prepared to follow it—the average cover price of statutory instruments would rise by about one third. Failure to pass the Bill would mean that privatisation would certainly not be obstructed, but the cost of statutory instruments to the public would rise, to the detriment of wider public access.
  The Bill's brevity belies its importance and urgency. Its passage is necessary, first, to confirm the status of existing statutory instruments to prevent the courts from being obstructed by specious debate as to the validity of statutory instruments and remove any chance of defendants in criminal cases being acquitted solely on the technical grounds that a statutory instrument had not been properly produced.
  Secondly, the Bill will allow HMSO to continue to secure best value for money in the production of statutory instruments, and to keep cover prices as low as possible. Failure to pass the Bill would risk burdening the courts and necessitate rises in the cover price of statutory instruments. I trust that hon. Members will realise that the measure is non-contentious and urgent, and it is in those terms that I commend it to the House.
  4.25 pm
  Mr. Derek Foster: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill which, while purporting to remedy a long-standing uncertainty, has been principally prompted by the Government's decision to privatise HMSO."
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I really ought to stop meeting like this. We keep having debates on the civil service and Her Majesty's Stationery Office. They may not have the Lobby correspondents gripping their seats, but they certainly keep me off the streets. There is no telling what mischief a former Chief Whip turned bovver boy can get up to.
  On 18 December 1995, the Chancellor said:
  "I confirm that my advice is that no primary or secondary legislation is needed".—[Official Report, 18 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1285.]
  Yet now, towards the recess, obviously to invite the House to act hurriedly, the Chancellor is introducing primary legislation.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy will argue, and indeed has argued, that the Bill has nothing to do with the privatisation of HMSO. Indeed, the House will have scrutinised his parliamentary answer on 19 June 1996, in which he said:
  "Some of the printing of statutory instruments has been contracted out by HMSO for over 30 years as the most cost-effective way of producing them."
  He admitted:
  "A careful examination has recently been made of the legislation which refers to HMSO and the Queen's Printer. This has revealed that while the Queen's Printer can contract out the printing of statutes, this may not be the case for statutory instruments."—[Official Report, 19 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 471.]
  So it appears that HMSO has been acting outside the law for more than 30 years in contracting out the printing of statutory instruments. The annual cost of such work is about £200,000, while HMSO's turnover is about £375 million.

  991
  The embarrassment for the Government is that the legal force of all statutory instruments so printed by contracting out might be subject to legal challenge on the basis that the statutory instrument was illegally printed. The Government are obviously very concerned that, once that is known, a whole range of organisations could engage in litigation against them, so the Chancellor introduced a Bill on 20 June to put right that defect. The legislation is retrospective, in order to validate those statutory instruments printed by contracting out over the previous 30-odd years.
  The written answer mentions 1965 as the date of the earliest reference in the records to the fact that HMSO was sub-contracting the printing of statutory instruments. Clearly the implication is that that happened under Labour Governments—indeed, that it may have begun under a Labour Government. The House will no doubt therefore expect the full co-operation of the official Opposition in rectifying that unfortunate anomaly, which apparently puts in question the validity of thousands of statutory instruments.
  What could be more reasonable than for the Chancellor of the Duchy to bring before the House a problem and its remedy at the earliest opportunity? At the same time, he invites the House to enable the Queen's printer, the residual HMSO, to contract out the printing of statutory instruments after privatisation. After all, we are told that that is the most cost-effective method of printing them, as HMSO discovered in 1965 or earlier. So the Minister for open government is behaving openly with the House. He is behaving most scrupulously, properly and courteously, as we have come to expect.
  Let us now return to 18 December 1995, and the right hon. Gentleman's statement that no primary or secondary legislation would be required for the privatisation of HMSO. I recall being surprised by that response, because I had asked the Library to check whether primary or secondary legislation would be required. I have here a letter from the Library—surprisingly, it is dated the very same day, 18 December 1995—and I shall make it available to the House. It says:
  "An order will be made under part I of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which will deal with the ability of HMSO to fulfil its function as Queen's Printer under the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, and will make clear that, as long as the duty to procure and print is done under HMSO's superintendence and authority, the statutory requirement will be met … HMSO will have no in-house printing capability."
  How can the Chancellor of the Duchy explain that, on the same day that he told the House that no legislation would be required, it was admitted within his Department that secondary legislation would be necessary? Where else can the Library's information have come from?
  I now return to the right hon. Gentleman's written answer of 19 June, and his statement:
  "A careful examination has recently been made of the legislation which refers to HMSO and the Queen's Printer."—[Official Report, 19 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 471.]
  The Office of Public Service's background briefing to the Bill, issued after 19 June, says:
  "The potential problem was first discovered as part of research into HMSO's statutory functions while options for its future were being evaluated before last year's announcement that it was to be privatised."
  When was that announcement made? The right hon. Gentleman made his initial announcement on 27 September 1995, and published a written answer on
  992
  17 October. So—here I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—the problem was known about as early as late September 1995, and certainly by 17 October.
  Indeed, rumours are circulating that the need for retrospection has been known in Whitehall for about two years. If that is true, it casts serious doubt on the veracity of the right hon. Gentleman's statements, and especially on the argument that the need to validate statutory instruments printed under contract is the major purpose of the Bill before us.
  Another question arises. If the right hon. Gentleman knew in September 1995 that there was a problem, why did it take him until 19 June 1996 to tell the House? He is the Minister responsible for open government. Was he not failing in his duty to the House, especially when he was pressed on whether primary or secondary legislation would be needed?
  The Chancellor of the Duchy will reply that it would have been incompetent and irresponsible to tell the House and the country that there was a problem until he could announce the solution. Such an action would have been tantamount to an invitation to a range of organisations legally to challenge the force of individual statutory instruments on the grounds that they had been printed illegally.
  The Department had been advised that it would be inappropriate to deal with the problem by means of a deregulation order, but the House deserves a fuller explanation of this inappropriateness. Was it inappropriate as a vehicle for contracting out the future printing of statutory instruments, or would a deregulation order be an inappropriate vehicle for retrospective action? If it was the latter, I think that the House would agree.
  I have done some research on this matter, and I am advised by the Clerk of the appropriate Committee that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 has not been used retrospectively hitherto, although it is not impossible that it may be so used at some time in the future. My advice is that it is more likely to have been thought inappropriate because an order under the 1994 Act must remove a burden from business.
  Mr. Steen: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that orders might fall within the issue of printing, and that orders under the contracting-out legislation should be printed in-house and included as statutory instruments?
  Mr. Foster: No, I was making the more simple point that the Government knew before December 1995 that there was a problem. Originally, they considered that the solution might be to bring in orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. I was wondering aloud why it was thought inappropriate to deal with the problem in that way.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am following the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, and I understand it. But the main question remains to be asked and answered—either something needs regulation that allows it to be contracted out or it does not. Yes, people giving advice can change their minds, but the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to hear from the Government—and we are entitled to have it on the record—whether the contracting-out legislation

  993
  will apply to this measure. I encourage him to pursue that argument, as a lot of people outside are waiting for a clear answer.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The question that I was entertaining was whether the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 was about to be used to deal with the problem of contracting out printing, or as a means of retrospectively validating those statutory instruments that have been illegally printed for the past 30 years or so. It struck me that the legislation was probably designed to deal with the former problem.
  If the Government were focusing in December 1995 on the former problem and how it was to be dealt with in the future—and if the 1994 Act was the legislative vehicle for dealing with it—retrospection was not part of the solution they were seeking. That is my argument. Was it inappropriate or inconvenient to the Chancellor? That would clearly contradict his statement on 18 December 1995, as it would have been far more difficult to mask the deregulation orders linked with the privatisation of HMSO.
  In that event, the Minister with responsibility for open government might even be required to return to the House to admit having misled it on 18 December. Moreover, as he had made his statement on 18 December, when, as I have already demonstrated, the need for legislation was already known within his Department, he might even have had to admit knowingly misleading the House. Of course, he might be able to plead, "No one told me," or, "I was not shown the papers," according to the distinguished precedent of the Prime Minister in front of the Scott inquiry.
  To return to his written answer of 19 June, the Chancellor of the Duchy also said:
  "Meanwhile, HMSO will enter into no more external printing contracts for statutory instruments."—[Official Report, 19 June 1996: Vol. 279, c. 471.]
  Yet I understand that the present contracts continue until 1998. Again, that touches on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington—why the Chancellor did not take action to deal with the illegality as soon as it was known, perhaps as early as the end of September 1995.
  Although the present contract continues until 1998, my legal advice is that existing contracts for printing statutory instruments cannot exist in law, because they have been entered into ultra vires. So legitimate questions arise: will HMSO continue with the present contractual arrangements, even though the contracts have no legal force; or, if the contracts continue, will they transfer to the residual HMSO or be expected to transfer to the privatised HMSO?
  If the contracts are to be discontinued, how will the printing of statutory instruments be arranged? Until the Bill becomes law, HMSO cannot enter into new contracts to have them printed, because the Chancellor has instructed it not to do so. HMSO will be obliged, therefore, to undertake the printing of statutory instruments in-house.
  I understand that the Parliamentary Press will be unable to cope with the extra work until the recess, so until then who can legally print statutory instruments? Perhaps the
  994
  Chancellor will deal with that when he replies. Moreover, I understand that the work force at the Parliamentary Press are on contracts that require them to close down during the recess, so it will be unable to take on the printing of statutory instruments then.
  Surely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington said, the Government were obliged to stop HMSO contravening the law as soon as the illegality was known—as early as September 1995—but certainly as soon as it was publicly admitted. The Government and Parliament cannot condone the continuation of illegality on the basis that it is soon to be rectified. That presumes that the Bill will receive Royal Assent, which is highly likely but not certain.
  It is also not certain when it will receive Royal Assent, as it has yet to go to another place. If the Bill did not receive it until after HMSO was privatised, there would certainly be complications, for the privatised Stationery Office could not legally print statutory instruments, and the Queen's printer or the residual HMSO would have no in-house printing facility.
  An extract from the edited information memorandum dated 3 April 1996 reads:
  "bids should be based on the assumption that the work currently done in house would be assigned to the stationery office"—
  that is, the privatised HMSO. However, in his letter to the Financial Times dated 21 June 1996, which has already been referred to, the Chancellor of the Duchy said:
  "bidders are proceeding on the basis that the printing of all statutory instruments would be carried out by the public sector."
  Which is it?
  Mr. Freeman: With the permission of the Chair, I will answer all the other points later, but, for the sake of clarity, it may help the debate if I answer this specific point now.
  We have made arrangements for the shortlist of bidders to proceed on the basis that residual HMSO hires, in its own name, up to 16 staff, working for residual HMSO on plant at the Sovereign Press at Elephant and Castle, not the Parliamentary Press, to print statutory instruments in full accordance with the 1946 law. As I have told the House, that would increase the cost to the public sector, but it is a procedure that I have set in hand in order to ensure that the privatisation of HMSO is separated from the merits of the Bill.
  Mr. Foster: I understand that fully. I understand that the Chancellor is making contingency arrangements against the non-passage of the Bill. I was trying to seek clarification. The background information document produced by the Office of Public Service gives the impression that bidders should proceed on the basis that the work would be done in the privatised HMSO. Yet, in his letter to the Financial Times of 21 June, he said that it will be dealt with in the public sector.
  Mr. Freeman: I am sorry that I did not answer that point. The information document was issued before the statement to the House. The action I have taken, which is the most up-to-date position, is subsequent to the issue of the information document. We have not placed an amended version in the Library, because I have reported directly to the House. I have reported the most up-to-date position, which reverses that in the information document.
  Mr. Foster: That raises the question when the Chancellor changed the information available to the

  995
  House. I do not remember it being made available in the written answer of 19 June. Yet he wrote to the Financial Times on 21 June, giving the world what I consider to be new information that has not been given to the House and which contradicts information previously given to the House. That requires some explanation. I do not want to labour this, but there is a point that should be dealt with.
  The Chancellor said that bidders should proceed on the basis that the work would be done in the public sector. When were the bidders told that, and in what form were they told? Can Parliament be shown the form in which the information was revealed? Why was Parliament not informed that the printing of all statutory instruments would be carried out by the public sector? What does the Chancellor mean when he says that the printing of statutory instruments will be carried out by the public sector? In fact, he just described in his intervention what he means by that. Presumably it will be carried out under the new arrangements at the Sovereign Press.
  An even more fundamental problem arises from scrutiny of the extract from the edited information memorandum of 3 April 1996. The House deserves to know that the information memorandum was forwarded to all prospective private sector bidders. It says that the residual body will also discharge the functions of the Queen's printer in relation to the production and issue of statutory instruments. When was that important information given to the House?
  It does not strike me as satisfactory that the document was placed in the Library, when it was being circulated to private sector bidders, especially as legislation on this matter was already under active consideration. It seems strange that the Government are prepared to reveal to private sector bidders for HMSO what is not drawn to the attention of the House.
  I want now to demonstrate the inextricable linkage of the Bill to HMSO's privatisation. We all agree that the law as it now stands requires the printing of statutory instruments by the Queen's printer—HMSO. But after privatisation, the Queen's printer, or the residual HMSO, will have no in-house printing facility. Therefore, after privatisation, the Queen's printer will be unable to fulfil the requirements of the law as it now stands.
  Therefore, is not the major purpose of the legislation to allow the Queen's printer to sub-contract the printing of statutory instruments after HMSO's privatisation, not the retrospection, as is being pretended? If HMSO was not privatised, HMSO, remaining in the public sector, could fulfil the requirements of the law as it now stands.
  The Chancellor will argue that HMSO, remaining in the public sector, could not have fulfilled the requirements of the law as it now stands, because, at the moment, £200,000 worth of work is done in the private sector under contract. That is not a huge amount compared with HMSO's total turnover of £375 million. Surely the flexibility could have been achieved to bring an additional £200,000-worth of work back into the public sector, thus allowing HMSO to fulfil the requirements of the law as it now stands.
  Of course, the retrospection would still have to be dealt with, and no one is arguing to the contrary, but the claim in the House of Commons on 18 December that the privatisation of HMSO did not require any primary or secondary legislation would have been seen to have been false.
  996
  It might have been desirable to change the law to allow HMSO in the public sector to sub-contract the printing of statutory instruments, but it would not have been necessary. The Bill, or some other primary or secondary legislative vehicle, would have been necessary to permit a residual HMSO after privatisation to continue printing statutory instruments.
  Had the Chancellor introduced a simple Bill to allow the sub-contracting of the printing of statutory instruments by the residual HMSO, it would have been clearly seen as a measure required by HMSO's privatisation. But he has conceived the ingenious device of including retrospective validation of statutory instruments printed during the past 30 years. Is it not remarkable that, although the legal force of statutory instruments has been challenged a number of times in 30 years, no one has so far sought to challenge them on the basis that they have been illegally printed?
  Is it not the truth that that has been known about for some time in Government, but it was not thought serious enough to be dealt with except when a convenient legislative vehicle cropped up? Suddenly, when some legislation was required because of HMSO's privatisation, an opportunity to deal with that anomaly has arisen.
  If the Chancellor had legislated separately, I am sure that the House, and perhaps even the other place, would have dealt with the retrospective element without fuss. The other element, required only because of HMSO's privatisation, could have been dealt with on its merits.
  I have dealt with the matter at some length, because the burden of proof is on the Opposition to demonstrate that the legislation was prompted by the privatisation of HMSO. I hope that I have demonstrated that the link is far stronger than that of being "prompted by"—rather, that there is an inextricable link between the Bill and the privatisation of HMSO.
  The Bill will have retrospective effect to validate all the statutory instruments hitherto printed by contractors. The House is always reluctant to pass legislation which has retrospective effect, and rightly so. Generally speaking, retrospective legislation is said to be undesirable as repugnant to the rule of law, but there are degrees of retrospectivity.
  Legislation that makes legal past actions, decisions or circumstances, especially by public officials or bodies that were thought to be legal by all concerned but which have turned out to be been unlawful, or probably so, may not be regarded as particularly undesirable per se. I have no hesitation in endorsing the Government's perfectly understandable wish to remove all uncertainty by retrospectively validating all statutory instruments printed by contract over the past 30 years. It would be churlish of a Government-in-waiting to withhold their approval for that part of the Bill.
  I turn briefly to the progress of privatisation, having established the link, because the House may not have another opportunity to debate the issue. The main thrust of the Chancellor's argument for privatisation was that, to safeguard jobs and expand job opportunities, HMSO should be allowed to operate in both the public and private sectors. For example, he said:
  "it is important that HMSO—the Stationery Office, as it will become in the private sector—has the ability to compete in the private sector for private sector work."

  997
  The Chancellor also said:
  "HMSO needs the freedom of the private sector to compete on equal terms for public and private sector work. Such trading opportunities will mitigate those job pressures, and, if a privatised Stationery Office is successful in marketing, will mean that more jobs will be available than would otherwise exist."—[Official Report, 18 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 84–86.]
  If hon. Members would care to re-examine the written memorandum made by the Chancellor to the Finance and Services Committee, they will see that it
  "proposed the sale by the summer of 1996 noting that HMSO was constrained by its status from competing for business outside the public sector at a time when its central Government market was shrinking. In these circumstances there is a real risk that the business will decline unless HMSO can widen the markets. Privatisation will therefore offer the best chance of a healthy and dynamic future for HMSO and its staff".
  The Chancellor argued that HMSO's public sector market was declining, yet the advice that I have received makes it clear that none of the private sector bidders has serious plans to enter the private sector in the short or the medium term. Indeed, each bidder has identified that the key to HMSO's continued success is to ensure that it progressively takes a larger share of the public sector market. They argue that that is the sector where HMSO is best known and has the greatest expertise.
  That is hardly surprising, because, if hon. Members would care to examine the extract from the edited information memorandum of 3 April 1996, which appears on page 25 of the excellent research document produced by the House of Commons Library on 28 June, they will see that HMSO's share of £271 million of the total United Kingdom public sector market of £3,155 million is only 8 per cent. The memorandum goes on to admit:
  "HMSO's market share still leaves a significant opportunity for a potential purchaser to capitalise on HMSO's existing capabilities and target the markets available even within the public sector."
  That is from the Minister's official document, published by the Office of Public Service. Why did the Chancellor not admit that when he was pressed in the debates of 18 December and 18 March? When his own document admits that there is considerable scope for increasing market share within the public sector, and when his private sector bidders admit that they see the continued success of HMSO in taking an increasing share of the public sector market, why could the Chancellor not see that?
  Why was the Chancellor not given that advice by his extensive consultants—or was he given it, and did he choose to ignore it? If the private sector bidders have reached this conclusion in the short time available to them, does that not remove the Chancellor's strongest argument for the privatisation of HMSO, and is it not clear that his madcap scheme to privatise it has been an expensive waste of time, damaging to HMSO but devastating to many staff who now find themselves redundant, while those who remain in their jobs face further swingeing job cuts?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman continues, let me say that, although I know that he has established a link between the Bill and the general privatisation issue to his own satisfaction, it is a very thin, weak link. It would be better if he related his remarks more closely to the Bill.
  Mr. Foster: Far be it from me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to argue with your statement that it is a rather
  998
  weak link, but I thought that I had established a stronger link than appears on the Order Paper, and I should have thought that the link on the Order Paper would allow me to make a few remarks about the privatisation of HMSO. But of course I accept your ruling.
  Mr. Garrett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does your ruling mean that—notwithstanding the amendment's reference to Second Reading of the Bill resulting from the privatisation of HMSO—we must assume that no reference can be made to the current state of the privatisation and its impact on my constituents?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: There must be a link with the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman looks closely at the amendment, he will find that it is cautiously worded. That, I think, reflects the understanding that, although passing reference can be made to the privatisation, it cannot become the main topic of the debate.
  Mr. Foster: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I will end my remarks in the next few minutes, but I do not think that I should do so without reminding the House that, according to his original announcement, the Chancellor's initial intention was to deal with uncertainty—uncertainty that was caused by the Government in the first place.
  The Chancellor's preferred bidders are now making it clear that the period of uncertainty that has been so damaging to HMSO, and especially to its staff, has been completely unnecessary. HMSO had had great scope to expand its business while remaining in the public sector, but under privatisation the uncertainty, far from being dealt with, will continue. Each bidder makes it clear that further job losses will ensue after privatisation, and there is a growing belief that the work force will decline from its present 2,500 to about 1,500. Consideration is already being given to the closure of plants around the country.
  The Chancellor will remember that, on 18 December 1995, when he was arguing that legislation was not required, he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) an assurance about HMSO units in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. He said:
  "I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the future of those units, and any others, will be made clear before any contract is negotiated and signed."—[Official Report, 18 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1281.]
  How does that square with the trade union side's evidence that, following discussion with the bidders, some bidders are more interested in the capital value of such sites than in running HMSO? When will the Chancellor make clear the future of the units mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow? His deadline for completion of the sale of HMSO is fast approaching.
  What possible excuse can the Chancellor now have for persisting with the privatisation of HMSO? The bidders have no plans for it to sell in wider markets, and no plans to raise capital in the private sector. The proposal has already caused huge uncertainty for HMSO and its staff over the past two years; the staff has been continually downsized, at great public expense; some £26 million has been spent on redundancies over the past 18 months, and further sums are still to be spent. The staff do not want the privatisation, and HMSO's customers certainly do not want it. There are still reservations in parts of the House.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. In his enthusiasm, the right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten my

  999
  strictures. He must relate his remarks more closely to the Bill, and not deal with the general issue of privatisation, which is separate from the Bill.
  Mr. Foster: I thought when you were addressing my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), Madam Deputy Speaker, that I had brought in a reference to the Chancellor's earlier statement about there being no need for legislation. Having dealt with that extensively, I thought that that brought me back within order—but I have reached the final paragraph of my speech.
  As I have said, I am certain that HMSO's customers do not want the privatisation, and there are still several reservations in both the House of Commons and another place. What possible excuse can the Chancellor have, except stubbornness and dogma? I plead with him, even at this late stage, to halt the proposals, and have done with his madcap scheme.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: It is very rewarding to be in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you remind hon. Members other than me that they should not depart from the limited subject of the Bill—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember that I do not exclude him.
  Mr. Steen: That is why I prefaced my remarks in such a way, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be pleased to know that, as a result of your strictures, my speech has been cut dramatically.
  I want to make a limited comment on both the Bill and the statutory instruments. We should welcome the Bill. When the Government find something that is not right and bring it to the House to try to put it right, we should support the Government and the Minister. I shall certainly do that this afternoon. An error was made, but it was not made by the present Government: successive Governments made an error in not spotting the problem. It was discovered only as a result of some digging in the archives. We should congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on giving us such a clear explanation of his actions.
  As I said in my interventions, the suggestion that something is buried in the closet, that there is some secret or that the Opposition have been given an excuse to raise any number of hares is not what this modest measure is about, but it does raise one or two issues. First, statutory instruments have clearly become a fashionable device. In 1946 there were not many of them, but in the last two years 8,097 new statutory instruments have emerged. Only 30 have been repealed, however. Whereas in 1946, or 1964, the printers were not greatly occupied with statutory instruments, in the past few years they have printed an awful lot of them. In the absence of this helpful measure, they would all have to be printed in the House, which would in fact be impossible. This simple Bill is merely intended to correct an anomaly.
  We spent 16 hours and 11 minutes on the Floor of the House, and 92 hours and 56 minutes in Standing Committee, debating the Bill that became the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which was mentioned a number of times by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). I am not saying that,
  1000
  as a result of the Act, the Government have not pursued deregulation. They set up a Deregulation Select Committee as the flagship of the whole policy, but, regrettably, only 30 deregulation orders have resulted in the 51 hours it has sat. Such orders are not statutory instruments, but is an amendment needed to the Bill to allow the deregulation orders to be lawful? Otherwise, deregulating gaming machines, greyhound racing, parking equipment and the long-pull order may be ultra vires.
  There may be a nexus between statutory instruments and deregulation orders, even though they appear to be separate. It would help to know whether the 30 deregulation orders that have come out of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act should be added to the 8,097 statutory instruments, or whether nothing further is needed to make those 30 orders lawful. It would be appalling if, in 50 years' time, we found that the Deregulation Select Committee were passing orders and having them printed in a way that we could put right today, so could my right hon. Friend the Chancellor deal with that point in his winding-up speech?
  The Bill has given us an opportunity to raise such points and the problem of the statutory instrument, which is becoming more and more a way of life in the House, creating more and more rules and regulations. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has come to correct an anomaly, but the statutory instrument has become a modus vivendi. To pass statutory instruments has become a culture. I should be upstairs considering one now. Like human lemmings, we just rush on. As you often say, Madam Deputy Speaker, "We must move on," but no one dares ask why. There is a danger that we will pass more and more statutory instruments and find a new device for getting them printed in new and more exciting places, without tackling the issue.
  Because of the constraints to which you referred, Madam Deputy Speaker, however, it would be inappropriate to talk about the problems of statutory instruments, the fact that they are secondary legislation and the enormous number that are going through the House. The issue involves simply correcting an anomaly. We should not make another mistake with the orders coming out of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I should make it clear at the outset that I am a member of the parliamentary group of the Graphical, Paper and Media Union, that I was formally sponsored by it, but that I now receive no sponsorship personally. Union members who work in Her Majesty's Stationery Office will be as disappointed as me at your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you made it clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) that you were not prepared to permit a much wider debate on the issue surrounding the privatisation of HMSO.
  My view remains that we still need a further opportunity to discuss the privatisation and, if you are not going to permit it on this occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that the Government, through the occupant of the Chair, will arrange a further debate. Clearly, problems surround the privatisation. Fears remain. All HMSO employees have the right to have those fears voiced in the House of Commons and to receive some response from the Government.

  1001
  I repeat the point that I made to the Chancellor in an intervention. I am still astounded that this illegality could have persisted for 30 years without anyone having spotted it. The Chancellor referred specifically to the 1946 legislation. It is clear from that legislation that the printing of statutory instruments by private contractors is not permitted.
  It may not have come to light for 30 years, but could the Chancellor give us a little more detail on how—not when—it came to light in the context of the discussions on privatisation? He was specific on the dates, but when I asked him my question, he did not pay specific attention to the point, so I would like to know the mechanics of how the error came to light. I am not accusing the Chancellor of behaving dishonourably. I just want a clear and specific answer, if there is one.
  In view of your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, I must tread carefully, but I can remain in order for a couple of minutes without your having to draw attention to my lack of order. I refer to two comments by the Chancellor. He said that the Bill would have no effect on the date of the HMSO sale to the private sector. If it is not going to delay the date, will he please give us the specific date the transfer is likely to take place? We were told that the sale might be in June or July. We now hear rumours that it could take place as late as September or October, so will the Chancellor clearly say when it is likely to take place?
  The Chancellor said that the printing of statutory instruments was marginal to HMSO's business. I heard the figures that he quoted, but clearly it would have some impact on HMSO jobs, although the effect would be marginal. In that context, the right hon. Gentleman said that the point of the Government's policy was to safeguard jobs—a point to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland referred before he was ruled out of order. The Chancellor said that the point of substance was
  "to safeguard jobs and expand job opportunities. HMSO should be allowed to operate in both public and private sector markets."— [Official Report, 13 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 999–1000.]
  That is the Government's basic position. They believe that the privatisation of HMSO will safeguard jobs and provide greater opportunity. Does the Chancellor believe that any of the four present bidders will be able to fulfil the Government's aspirations?
  To repeat the point that I made earlier, I am extremely disappointed that we have not been able to have a wider debate on the privatisation of HMSO. I just hope that there will be a further opportunity before the privatisation becomes a fait accompli.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise to the House for the fact that I am dealing with this issue, rather than my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Were he not at home for family reasons, he would be here in his capacity both as the person shadowing the Department from which the Bill comes and as the person who, coincidentally, replies on behalf of the House of Commons Commission on these matters, which involve the view of the House and of Madam Speaker, on behalf of the House.
  1002
  The Bill reminds me of a late and much lamented constituent of mine, Paul Eddington, who provided great amusement and happiness in his representation in "Yes Minister" of discussions behind closed doors, and sometimes not, between the Prime Minister and members of his Cabinet. That portrayal was in theory simulated, but many of us thought that it was not far from the truth. The Bill is real "Yes Minister" legislation. I am prepared to accept the Duchy's explanation that the measure arose from the discovery that the body responsible for producing parliamentary papers has been acting illegally for 30 years—an extraordinary conclusion.
  The other person who would have made a meal of this debate, if he had been on form and taken an interest, was the late and also much lamented Ian Gow, the previous but one Member of Parliament for Eastbourne. He would have enjoyed commenting on the measure, because it may be a mouse of a Bill but it raises an important constitutional principle.
  Clause 1(1) states:
  "The Statutory Instruments Act 1946 shall have effect and be taken always to have had effect".
  This is a rewrite history Bill. Whatever actually happened, if the Bill becomes law, we will have decided that it did not happen that way. How often since the present Administration came to power in 1979 have they introduced a measure to legislate retrospectively? I can think only of the War Crimes Bill of 1991. We should not take that step lightly, no matter how serious or insignificant the legislation—and such a course should put us on our guard.
  The Chancellor did not tell the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) how the people responsible for producing parliamentary papers acted illegally for 30 years. Surely somebody had written down that certain work had to be produced in-house, whereas other work could be contracted. The Bill is about the fact that, for 30 years, HMSO contracted out statutory instrument printing when it was not allowed to do so. What explanation has the Chancellor been given? It is hardly accurate to say that the circumstances have been lost in the mist of time, in the sense that the restriction was not breached from the beginning. I have not heard the Chancellor argue that the printing of statutory instruments was contracted out from 1946 to 1965—he said that it suddenly happened.
  I accept that it may have been cheaper to contract out that work, and may continue to be. However, it would be even more bizarre to revert to the legal position for the time during which the Bill passes through both Houses, then change to the new legal position that was the legal position all the time. I do not imagine that Mr. and Mrs. and Miss Public go to an HMSO sales office principally to buy statutory instruments. Nevertheless, there is a market for those documents among libraries and local government offices and, as secondary legislation, they are an important part of the constitution.
  As the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said, there are numerous statutory instruments. One such measure will come before the House later—the Landfill Tax (Qualifying Material) Order 1996, SI 1528. There are many such measures, and they are important.
  I have a direct interest and an indirect interest to declare. The Parliamentary Press is located in Mandela way in Southwark, in my constituency. I was present at

  1003
  the opening of that press, which serves both Houses, together with former Speaker Weatherill. Bills, Acts, Lords Minutes of Proceedings, Order Papers, Vote bundles, the debates in both Houses, the proceedings of Select Committees and Standing Committees, statutory instruments, the London Gazette and associated parliamentary papers
  "for the wheels of parliamentary democracy to turn"
  are produced day and night. I am informed that those publications amount to 250,000 pages a year.
  I pay tribute to the work done at the Parliamentary Press, including by some of my constituents, and to its professionalism. I share the view expressed my by hon. Friends in previous debates on HMSO—I shall not rehearse those points, for reasons that you have made clear, Madam Deputy Speaker—for we have never been persuaded not to continue the existing arrangements, by which the work is done well. It is a highly efficient and competent operation, and every employee who has contacted me wants the press to remain as it is and under its present management, not sold off.
  I have an interest also in the Sovereign Press at the Elephant and Castle, which is also in Southwark, but SE17 as opposed to SE 1. That is the small bit of Southwark that the boundary commission designated to be absorbed by my constituency in the next general election, which the House has approved. I hope also to represent that part of Southwark, the electors willing, in the next Parliament. I am grateful for the work that both presses have done, in-house or otherwise, on statutory instruments in the past.
  When I intervened on the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), I queried why a deregulation order was needed last December but not now. If there is now no need for such an order, why not? Who decided that, and when? Although I have not made an analytical survey, one matter that excites the House is that it is regularly asked to approve statutory instruments when their date of implementation has passed. My understanding is that, because of the pressure of business, hon. Members are bounced-a measure can be put into effect without being debated. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected. Otherwise, it seems that we are perpetually debating retrospectively, which is extremely bad law making.
  Although I am a lawyer, I never wanted to be a parliamentary draftsman. However, I do not understand why parliamentary draftsmen proceed in the way that they do. Why have a separate Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Act 1996 rather than amend the 1946 legislation and have a measure entitled the Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Act 1996? As someone who once practised in the courts, I know that the bane of lawyers, let alone of lay people, is to track back linked pieces of legislation. Hon. Members have a duty not only to speak in plain English but to legislate in a simple and linked manner.
  The Bill is only a small amendment to a more substantial Act, and it does not add to that Act at all. The notes on clauses say that the Bill is to amend sections 2(1), 3(1), 3(2), 4(2) and 8(1)(c) of the 1946 Act. For heaven's sake, why do we not call it the Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill, so that everyone knows the score?
  This is a mouse of a Bill. I accept the Chancellor's arguments that, having discovered the illegality, we should correct it. I only wish that the Government
  1004
  corrected their other illegalities when courts in this country or in Europe rule that they are acting illegally, and that they did not seek retrospectively to change the law to pretend that what was illegal is now legal. Generally, it is bad law to act retrospectively—but it is a very odd state of affairs when the people charged with producing the law were, for 30 years, behaving illegally.
  If that type of situation has not already been scripted by the successors of the late Paul Eddington, it would make a valid script for a future episode. I am sure that the Chancellor could get a walk-on part if, as I hope, he and his colleagues are by then in opposition. They may need walk-on parts to supplement their salary, however much we increase it next week.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Freeman: With permission, I should like to deal briefly with some of the points raised in this brief debate.
  The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) raised points of substance. First, he correctly referred to my remarks of 18 December 1995, when I informed the House that, on the advice that I had, no legislation was needed—primary or secondary—to effect the privatisation of HMSO.
  On 18 March, I informed the House that I had to qualify that statement. For the convenience of the House, I shall remind the right hon. Gentleman of what I said in that Supply day debate. I mentioned the need, in order to wind up the trading fund, to introduce an
  "order under section 6 of the Government Trading Act 1990 simultaneously with the sale."—[Official Report, 18 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 89.]
  No other legislation, primary or secondary, is needed to effect the privatisation of HMSO, because, as I have said, the Bill has nothing to do with the privatisation of HMSO. The privatisation of HMSO can proceed regardless of whether the Bill is passed. The Bill's purpose is to achieve the wider objectives of good government and to ensure the avoidance of any doubt in the minds of those who might seek to challenge the validity of statutory instruments.
  Secondly, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland asked whether the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and an order under that Act were ever relevant, and whether they could be relevant. That is news to me. The 1994 Act—despite whatever any research papers may have said—could not have been used to deal with the situation because it could not contain retrospective powers. Of course, well-intentioned comment on the situation, was and still is in perfectly good order, but at no stage was it the Government's intention to proceed, for the reasons that I have given.
  Thirdly, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland asked why there was a delay. He has extensive knowledge of government, and he aspires to an even greater experience of government. He knows very well that in these circumstances I could not come to the House with a problem without a solution. If I came to the House with a problem and said that I would go away and think about a solution, he would wisely, sensibly and quite correctly criticise me. I have long since realised that the identification of a problem is an easier stage than identifying the correct solution.

  1005
  Fourthly, the right hon. Member referred to the disparity between what was said in the information document, which was issued at a much earlier stage—in April—and what was said in the House. I do not have the information memorandum in front of me, but I recall—if I am wrong, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman—that it referred in very general terms to the fact that arrangements for the production and issue of statutory instruments were under review and that arrangements might change. That was true at the time.
  We informed the bidders of that fact. The bidders were first advised of the change at the same time as I answered a parliamentary question, on 19 June, specifying the problem and identifying the solution. That was at exactly the same time as the House was informed. I shall certainly re-examine the point to ensure that the information I am now providing on the basis of my recollection and brief notes is correct.
  Fifthly, the right hon. Member asked whether the residual HMSO can comply with the 1946 Act, unamended. The Government legal advice that I have is that, by ensuring that the Queen's printer has an additional 16 staff and by leasing assets owned by others—a possible privatised stationery office—the Queen's printer could be acting in accordance with the 1946 Act by using the printing presses of Sovereign Press at night. That is why I argued that a residual HMSO could meet the requirements of the 1946 Act, unamended.
  Finally on the questions of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, perhaps I can be positive and constructive and announce—although you asked me not to talk about privatisation, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall not—that, in response to his perfectly fair point about the timing of privatisation, I should like to meet the trade unions before a preferred bidder is selected. I should like to listen to their concerns, as raised by the right hon. Gentleman—which I shall not seek to answer now—about location and the continuation of certain printing plants, and their views about the vires, standing stability and future plans of the shortlist. I give the right hon. Gentleman, and through him the trade unions, that assurance. I look forward to that meeting.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) asked whether an amendment was needed to make all deregulation orders valid. Of course the answer to that question is that deregulation orders are statutory instruments. Therefore, I am happy to confirm to him that they would be covered, even those issued—there are no more than a couple of dozen, but the rate is improving—since the 1994 Act came into force. But, of course, that was before the Bill was published.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) asked why the practice remained undiscovered for 30 years. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) also asked that question, among others—which I shall try to answer in a moment. I do not have a convincing answer. I suspect that the increase in the volume of secondary legislation after the war sensibly caused HMSO to concentrate on contracting out to save money for the taxpayer.
  Management must have believed, as most reasonable people would have done, that—as the law permitted contracting-out work for Acts of Parliament and other
  1006
  public sector work—it was perfectly in order and sensible for them to assume that statutory instruments could also be contracted out. Clearly no one went back to check the fine print of the law; that has finally occurred—at a very late stage—only because of the continual rechecking required by Government counsel before the privatisation of HMSO.
  Mr. Steen: The Chancellor has explained very well the reasons why the Bill is necessary. Will he tell the House what would happen if there were a Division on the Bill, the Government were defeated and the Bill did not make progress?
  Mr. Freeman: The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland made it clear that the Opposition also believe in good government. The Bill itself is not the issue, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance on that score.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey asked three questions. The first related to the procedure for statutory instruments subject to the negative resolution—they come into operation, whether or not there is a debate. If there is a successful prayer against a statutory instrument, it is revoked, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done in the interim. That is provided for in section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. We have been operating according to these principles for 50 years. It is always open to any political party to suggest a change, but they are the rules. If an instrument has to be approved in draft—under the affirmative resolution—it cannot be made without the necessary affirmative resolution.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am not trying to trap the right hon. Gentleman, but does he agree that, to the outside world, it must seem nonsense that legislation comes into force, we then debate whether we want it and, if we throw it out it, it disappears although it was law for the period between its coming into force and our debating it? That must be bad practice and should be improved, if only to give the public the certainty that something becomes law once the House agrees it and not before.
  Mr. Freeman: Labour and Conservative Governments since the war have resisted amendments moved in Committee to strike out the negative and insert the affirmative when it comes to order-making powers under primary legislation. There is always a battle between the legislature and the Executive, and that battle will continue for a long time. It is appropriate always to focus on the merits of the argument in a particular case.
  Secondly, I cannot say how many Acts passed since 1979 have involved retrospection, other than the War Crimes Act 1991. However, I shall write to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey on that matter.
  Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked why the Bill was called the Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill rather than the Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill. I suspect that it has something to do with the long title and that the hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 235.

  Division No. 169]

  [5.41 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Garrett, John

  Ainger, Nick

  George, Bruce

  Ainsworth, Robert (CoVtry NE)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Allen, Graham

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Alton, David

  Gordon, Mildred

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Graham, Thomas

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Ashton, Joe

  Grocott, Bruce

  Austin-Walker, John

  Gunnell, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hain, Peter

  Barnes, Harry

  Hall, Mike

  Barron, Kevin

  Hanson, David

  Battle, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Bayley, Hugh

  Heppell, John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Beggs, Roy

  Hodge, Margaret

  Bell, Stuart

  Hoey, Kate

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

  Berry, Roger

  Hood, Jimmy

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Bradley, Keith

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

  Hutton, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Illsley, Eric

  Caborn, Richard

  Ingram, Adam

  Callaghan, Jim

  Jamieson, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Keen, Alan

  Cann, Jamie

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

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Khabra, Piara S

  Clapham, Michael

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Clelland, David

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Loyden, Eddie

  Coffey, Ann

  McAllion, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Macdonald, Calum

  Connarty, Michael

  McFall, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  McKelvey, William

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Corbett, Robin

  McLeish, Henry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McWilliam, John

  Corston, Jean

  Madden, Max

  Cousins, Jim

  Mahon, Alice

  Cox, Tom

  Mandelson, Peter

  Cummings, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Martlew, Eric

  Davidson, Ian

  Meale, Alan

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Michael, Alun

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Denham, John

  Milbum, Alan

  Dewar, Donald

  Miller, Andrew

  Dixon, Don

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Dobson, Frank

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Dowd, Jim

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Eastham, Ken

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Etherington, Bill

  Mudie, George

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Faulds, Andrew

  Murphy, Paul

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  O'Brien, William (Notmanton)

  Flynn, Paul

  Olner, Bill

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Foulkes, George

  Pickthall, Colin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Pike, Peter L

  Galloway, George

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  1008

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Stevenson, George

  Purchase, Ken

  Stott, Roger

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Radice, Giles

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Reid, Dr John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Touhig, Don

  Rogers, Allan

  Trickett, Jon

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Dennis

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Watson, Mike

  Salmond, Alex

  Welsh, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Short, Clare

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Simpson, Alan

  Wilson, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wise, Audrey

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spellar, John

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Mr. Greg Pope.

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Day, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Dover, Den

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bates, Michael

  Elletson, Harold

  Batiste, Spencer

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evennett, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowis, John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brazier, Julian

  Forman, Nigel

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Budgen, Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  Butcher, John

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Butler, Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Butterfill, John

  Gallie, Phil

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Carttiss, Michael

  Garnier, Edward

  Cash, William

  Gill, Christopher

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Clappison, James

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Colvin, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Congdon, David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Conway, Derek

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Couchman, James

  Hannam, Sir John

  Cran, James

  Hargreaves, Andrew

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

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  1009

  Hawkins, Nick

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Hawksley, Warren

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Madel, Sir David

  Heald, Oliver

  Malone, Gerald

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Mans, Keith

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Marlow, Tony

  Hill, Sr James (Southampton Test)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Horam, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Mills, Iain

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Jack, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Jessel, Toby

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Norris, Steve

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Ottaway, Richard

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Paice, James

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

  Pawsey, James

  Knox, Sir David

  Pickles, Eric

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Leigh, Edward

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Richards, Rod

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Riddick, Graham

  Lidington, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Lord, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Luff, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sackville, Tom

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  1010

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Trotter, Neville

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Viggers, Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Walden, George

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Waller, Gary

  Sproat, Iain

  Ward, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Steen, Anthony

  Watts, John

  Stewart, Allan

  Wells, Bowen

  Streeter, Gary

  Whitney, Ray

  Sweeney, Walter

  Whittingdale, John

  Sykes, John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. Roger Knapman.

  Tracey, Richard

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Wood.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Social Security (Overpayments) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.57 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill arises because of a decision by Mr. Mesher, one of the social security commissioners, in a case numbered CIS 451/1995. The commissioner held that there was a need, where we review benefit because of a lie or concealment as to true circumstances, for the official then and there to determine the amount of overpayment. We are advised that this is correct as a matter of statutory interpretation of section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which uses wording that has been in legislation since 1989. However, the consequences of that statutory construction, in terms of sound administration, are extremely serious.
  What in practice happens is that when a fraud has been discovered, the local office dealing with the customer holds an interview and the truth comes out. The first decision that has to be made is to correct the benefit in payment for the future. That is the review. There are, of course, circumstances in which a spouse's earnings are declared and are found to be slightly less, so benefit goes on being paid. The situation must be put right at once in the interests of the customer and of the taxpayer, because we would not wish to go on paying benefit at a higher rate than should be paid.
  At present, a specialist unit—or units—investigates subsequently exactly what has gone wrong. Classically, it may come out that somebody has been working, but there is an issue as to how much has been earned over what period. When that has been properly and fully investigated, the specialist unit determines the second decision: how much should be recovered and in respect of what period. That has been the practice of the Benefits Agency and of the Department of Social Security before it.
  The effect of the decision is that that practice cannot continue. The two decisions—to review and correct the benefit and to determine the amount of overpayment to be recovered—must be determined by the same official at the same time. We have carefully considered whether it could be done if, for example, we were to throw means, resources and people at it. In practice, it cannot sensibly be done. We would have to take those cases off the main income support computer system and deal with them clerically. That would involve training staff. The House will appreciate that the main computer system deals automatically with matters such as direct payments, so accuracy would be bound to suffer. At the same time, we would have to upgrade the computer system to deal with everything at once.
  All that would incur expenses—without the Bill, we would have to meet them—of about £30 million this year and £25 million thereafter. Even if we decided on that course of action, a new system could not be put in place immediately. It would take about nine months to set up. What would happen in the meantime until a new system consistent with the commissioner's decision had come into general operation? Adjudicating officers would have to continue reviewing benefit and deciding what benefits should be paid in future, but because they would no longer
  1012
  be in a position to make an immediate decision about the recovery of overpayment, that decision could not be made immediately and the amount lost would accordingly be irrecoverable at any stage by any means. In the process of implementing that administrative change, some £100 million in benefit would be irrecoverably lost.
  It is not just an issue of whether we can operate according to the decision of the commissioner as a matter of practical common sense; we have decided that it would be wrong in principle and as a matter of sound administration. In cases of fraud, it is right and proper that the Benefits Agency should have the opportunity to investigate exactly how long that fraud has been going on and how much money is involved. That cannot be done immediately, as it may take a considerable time to establish all the facts.
  We have concluded that two separate decisions are necessary—a review of the benefits to be paid in future and a later decision on the extent of the recovery of overpayment. Both decisions are taken by adjudicating officers whose determinations are appealable.
  I should stress that we are discussing benefit repayment when people have lied to the Benefits Agency about their circumstances or concealed the truth. In its paperwork—order books, giro cheques and leaflets—the Benefits Agency takes great pains to explain to people that they have a duty to inform the agency of changes of circumstances as they occur.
  As a matter of statutory construction I am advised that the commissioner is correct, but in practical terms it is not a satisfactory state in which to leave the law. How 1 aw and common sense became separated is, I regret to say, a matter of mystery.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: That is not uncommon.
  Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend says, it is not uncommon.
  I have asked for inquiries to be made into the history of the matter. It appears that the crucial wording on which the commissioner made his decision was incorporated into the 1989 legislation by way of an amendment. The amendment was not debated and the notes on clauses are silent, so precisely how that happened is unclear.
  In addition, Mr. Mesher, the learned commissioner who took the decision, has written a valuable textbook on income-related benefits, but according to the 1995 edition he clearly had not contemplated in his role of author that the problem had always been in the legislation. So it was not merely the Government and their advisers who failed to spot that point. Indeed, that is to the credit of the Department, as it appears that one of the Department's officials—an independent adjudicating officer—spotted the point and argued it for the benefit of a claimant, and the commissioner agreed with him.
  I am grateful for the informal notice from the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) that the Opposition agree that the Bill is a practical and sensible way to put matters right.
  The Bill is extremely short. Clause 1 deals with Great Britain. It simply makes it clear that the decision to review and recover may be made at separate times by different people. Of course I should stress that both the decisions are appealable.

  1013
  Clause 2 deals with Northern Ireland, where the legislation that creates the difficulty has the identical wording to that for Great Britain, so we need to make provision for Northern Ireland. Clause 3, with that style of parliamentary draftsmen, explains that clause 1 applies to Great Britain and clause 2 to Northern Ireland. I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Keith Bradley: I am grateful to the Minister for providing such a detailed explanation of a complicated judgment. I do not intend to delay the House by debating it at length or in detail. I also thank him for sending me a summary of leading counsel's opinion relating to the Mustard case, which helped us to decide how we should react to the Bill. As a result of both the Minister's explanation and leading counsel's opinion, we take the view that it would be difficult to appeal against a decision by the chief adjudication officer, and that the need for primary legislation is paramount to resolve the difficulty as quickly as possible.
  We also support the need to introduce the primary legislation. We agree that, without it, there would be a shortfall in the ability of the Department of Social Security to recover overpayments. We also accept that the potential loss would be about £100 million over the period, or about £8 million a month. Clearly, it is not in anyone's interest to deny the Department's budget such a sum, which can be used for better purposes. On all those grounds, we are facilitating the swift passage of the primary legislation tonight.
  We also understand that, as a result of the Mustard case, there would be immense difficulties in undertaking the administrative tasks associated with changing the benefit and calculating the overpayment simultaneously. We accept that further inquiries may be needed to ensure that all the evidence is available to the Department and to the overpayments section to ensure that the overpayment calculation is correct. It is in the interests of not only the Department but of claimants to ensure that all the evidence that they may want is available when the review takes place and the decision on the amount of overpayment is taken.
  The Opposition also accept the argument that staff who deal with entitlement to benefit and calculation of benefit rates are not trained in the same way as those who are involved in overpayments. Although it could be argued that more comprehensive training of all staff is desirable, we recognise that such tasks are specialised. We accept that the two decisions should be separated and that the administrative arrangements currently in place to facilitate that should be continued.
  We also accept that computer arrangements are not in place to enable both decisions to be taken simultaneously. That could crucially affect the accuracy of the changes to the benefit rate and overpayment, which also supports the argument for the Bill passing all its stages today.
  I am not so persuaded by the argument that, if the Bill were not passed, the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance could be delayed, but I shall not pursue that point. I merely ask the Minister to update the House on the introduction of the JSA. Is it on course to be introduced in October, as the Government envisage?
  1014
  I also welcome the Minister's assurance that, although the Bill will separate the two actions—the action to change the benefit rate and the subsequent action to assess the amount of overpayment—claimants will still be able to appeal against them. That is important in terms of equity for the Department and the claimant, and it ensures that there is no reduction in the rights of claimants to challenge decisions on benefit rates and the amount of overpayment.
  I shall probe a little further in Committee on a number of points in relation to appeals and the way in which overpayments are recovered, but it is not the Labour party's intention to oppose the Bill's Second Reading.
  6.12 pm
  Ms Liz Lynne: I shall not detain the House for long. The Bill is minor and technical and extremely necessary to claw back the money that has been obtained through fraudulent claims or by people misrepresenting the facts.
  Although I cannot criticise the Bill, we must find out what will happen when overpayments have resulted mainly from official error. I should like some clarification on that. I do not honestly believe that such money should be taken back because, obviously, if somebody gets a giro cheque through the door, they will spend it. Since they have not fraudulently claimed or misrepresented the facts in their opinion, they will obviously believe that they are entitled to that money. I should like the Minister to confirm that he does not expect that money to be clawed back from genuine claimants.
  While we are talking about overpayments, I should also like the Minister to address the fact that the Department of Social Security has overpaid income support by £540 million in the past year alone, mainly because of official error. I should be grateful if, when he replies, he would say what action is being taken to ensure that overpayments do not continue.
  The Benefits Agency report for 1994–95 about the accuracy of income support payments makes very depressing reading. I understand that accuracy is getting worse. In 1991–92, 95.7 per cent. of payments were accurate, but, in 1994–95, 86.6 per cent. were accurate. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that that does not continue? It is not surprising that the National Audit Office has highlighted the poor performance and the difference between different benefit offices across the country.
  However, as I said, the Bill is necessary to correct something that was wrong in the first place.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Roger Evans: By leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to thank the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) for their welcome for the Bill. I shall deal quickly with the four points that have been put to me.
  I confirm to the hon. Member for Withington that the jobseeker's allowance is on course to be delivered properly in October. I can also confirm that claimants can appeal against the decision to review and the later decision to recover overpayments.

  1015
  I should explain to the hon. Member for Rochdale that overpayment because of official error is a topic distinct from the subject of the Bill. I shall explain why in a moment. The important thing is that section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 concerns overpayments that have been caused—this is crucial—by misrepresentation, a positive act that is fraudulent or a failure to disclose when there is a duty to disclose.
  Under the section 71 mechanism, which we are putting right in the Bill, there must be some form of culpability on the part of the claimant—he must have misled us or failed to tell us something that he ought to have done. That is distinct from when, because of official error, more money is sometimes paid than ought to have been paid. There is a discretionary scheme to compensate in circumstances of official error, when it may be necessary to satisfy the Benefits Agency that an official error has been made and, as a consequence, loss has been suffered.
  Ms Lynne: I understand that the Bill is very tightly drawn, but I was hoping that the Minister would state categorically that, if overpayment was due to official error, the money would not be clawed back.
  Mr. Evans: As a general proposition, that is far too wide. I suppose that some culpability on the part of the claimant and an official error could occur at the same time. To operate the Bill's section 71 mechanism, overpayment must be caused by misrepresentation or the failure to disclose; so, we are talking about something very different. Of course, when official error occurs, it is obviously important that people could be misled by a mistake by the Benefits Agency. The scheme to compensate in such circumstances bears all circumstances in mind, including official error.
  The other point that the hon. Member for Rochdale put to me concerned errors in income support. Although that is a much wider topic than the Bill, I should stress that the change programme that we are considering is designed to address such concerns, which we accept merit serious debate. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  Question agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.

  Social Security (Overpayments) Bill
    Clause 1

      RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENTS OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT: AMENDMENTS
      6.17 pm
      Mr. Bradley: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 7, at end insert—
      '(1A) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—

      "(1A) A person shall only be taken to have failed to disclose a material fact within subsection (1) if

      (a) he knew the fact in question; and

      1016

      (b) it was reasonable in all the circumstances (including but not limited to his mental state) for disclosure of the fact to be expected of him

      whether or not the failure also constitutes a misrepresentation of a material fact within subsection (1).".'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 7, at end insert—
      '(1A) At the end of subsection (1), there shall be inserted "; so however that, in a case where the misrepresentation or failure in question was not fraudulent, or negligent, the Secretary of State shall only be entitled to recover the amount which is referable to the 12 months immediately preceding the determination".'.
      There is a slight printing error in amendment No. 4 to which I ought to draw the attention of the House. The words "or negligent" should have been deleted.
      Mr. Bradley: Thank you, Dame Janet; I am grateful for your clarification of the fact that the words "or negligent" should have been removed from amendment No. 4.
      The main purpose of amendment No. 3 is to reverse the effect of the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Jones v. Chief Adjudication Officer in 1993. The background to that decision is that there are two situations in which a claimant may have to repay an overpayment of benefit under section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
      The first arises when a claimant has misrepresented a material fact; the second when he has failed to disclose a material fact. Case law has held that the threshold for the Department is lower for the misrepresentation limb than for the failure to disclose limb. In essence, all that the Department has to prove is that there has been a misrepresentation, and that the claimant knew that the misrepresentation caused the overpayment in question. Whether the claimant knew the fact in question is immaterial, and so is the reasonableness of his behaviour. The test is one of strict, if not absolute, liability.
      However, the failure to disclose limb provides some limited protection for claimants. The case law, which largely draws on insurance case law, has held both that the claimant must know the fact in question, and that disclosure of it must have been reasonably expected in the circumstances. In other words, a claimant cannot disclose a fact that he does not know, and should not be penalised for not having disclosed a fact that a reasonable person would not think had any impact on his benefit entitlement.
      In the Jones case, the claimant had signed the standard form giro declaration to the effect that he had correctly reported all the facts that might affect his benefit entitlement. The Department of Social Security argued that the declaration constituted a representation, so that if the claimant had not reported or disclosed all material facts he was guilty of a misrepresentation.
      Consequently, whether the claimant knew the fact, and whether disclosure was reasonably to be expected in the cir-cumstances, was irrelevant. In other words, the declaration converted what would otherwise have been a failure to disclose into a misrepresentation too, so the protection associated with failure to disclose was thereby lost.
      The majority in the case accepted that argument in part. It was agreed that there was a conversion, and it was said that although there was a reasonableness in the claimant's actions, that was irrelevant. However, the claimant did have to know the fact in question.

      1017
      In a later case, Franklin v. Chief Adjudication Officer, in 1995, the Department argued that knowledge in itself was also irrelevant in conversion cases. That argument was decisively and unanimously rejected by the Court of Appeal. There are suggestions both in the Franklin case and in the minority judgment in the Jones case that the giro declaration may be unlawful, given that it has the consequence found by the majority in the Jones case.
      The reference to the claimant's mental state is designed to reverse the effect of a commissioner's decision, CA/303/92, that mental capacity is relevant to the question only when the claimant knew the fact in question, and not to the reasonableness or otherwise of disclosure. That inevitably brings about injustice for an especially vulnerable group.
      Amendment No. 3 therefore seeks to do three things. First, it seeks to confirm that knowledge is an essential ingredient in all failure to disclose cases. Secondly, it is intended to restore the law on the reasonableness of the claimant's behaviour to the pre-Jones position, even in conversion cases. Thirdly, it would stipulate that, in the consideration of whether disclosure was reasonably to be expected, account should be taken of the claimant's mental state.
      The amendments represent a modest proposal. With the possible exception of amendment No. 3, they would simply restore the law to what everyone thought it was until 1993, and reintroduce some fairness into an otherwise harsh overpayments regime.
      Amendment No. 4, too, is intended to introduce some equity into the overpayments regime. Where a claimant has acted innocently, it seems unfair that he should have to repay benefit overpaid over what may have been a very long period. Inevitably that can cause hardship, especially if the claimant remains on benefit.
      Benefits law is extremely complicated; I think that everyone in the House accepts that. So long as a claimant acts in good faith and does his best to give the Department the information that it needs, there should at least be a cap on his overpayment liability. When a claimant is wrongly denied benefit, he can usually be paid arrears dating back only 12 months. The amendment simply provides some balance between the claimant and the Department in terms of benefit decisions later found to be wrong.
      In income tax law there is a limit on the period during which the Revenue can recover underpayments of tax in non-fraud cases. Broadly, that limit is six years. We are trying to probe the Government and suggest that some consideration be given to the issues surrounding the Jones and Franklin cases. They should consider equity in connection with overpayment, and impose some cap where it is absolutely clear that the claimant was not at fault in respect of the information that was given and that subsequently led to overpayment recovery by the Department.
      I hope that the Minister will consider the amendments sympathetically and throw some light on the Government's thinking and attitude to the issues raised both by the Jones case and by amendment No. 4. I hope that we will be able to have a meeting of minds concerning the way in which overpayments should be considered in future.
      Mr. Roger Evans: The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) has raised important points on
      1018
      amendment No. 3 in respect of the Jones case and the Franklin case, both of which he mentioned. This is not an easy area. It is important that the law must not be over-complex such that it cannot be administered or understood properly, but it must be fair. One of the judges was greatly concerned to prevent the sophistications of marine insurance law policies—in that area the details are spelt out at great length both in statute and in case law—from being imported into what should be a relatively simple, fair and straightforward social security regime.
      I understand that there is a difficulty, but the fundamental distinction is between doing something positive—making a misrepresentation—and doing nothing, which is failure to disclose. The way in which the law has always worked is that, if someone does something positive, they are much more likely to be liable than if the law imposes a duty to do something yet they do nothing. In a sense, in omission cases, we are really talking about the extent of the duty at the same time as we discuss the failure to comply with it.
      The position is indeed as the hon. Gentleman described it. In failure to disclose cases, no obligation can be imposed to disclose something that a person does not know. That does not make moral, legal or practical sense. There must also be some form of moral or legal obligation that says that people must explain or tell the fact that they are obliged to disclose. Otherwise, the whole thing would be nonsense.
      As the hon. Gentleman explained, in cases of mental incapacity, illiteracy or educational or linguistic difficulties, case law is consistent on failure to disclose. In those circumstances—I suppose that this is really a doctrine of equity—there is no conscionable basis on which the duty can be imposed, and there can therefore be no breach of such a duty. That is fairly well-established law that applies not only to social security arrangements, but generally. There must be a moral or legal obligation for people to disclose before they can be blamed for not doing so, but it is traditionally different in a case where someone signs a piece of paper and states something positive.
      Someone can tell a lie—that is what a misrepresentation must be—that is deliberate, and that is normally termed a fraudulent misrepresentation. Sometimes there is a halfway house where they ought to have taken care, which is described as a negligent misrepresentation. There can also be a reckless misrepresentation, which is normally regarded in the same way as an intentional misrepresentation. Furthermore, they can simply make a blunder, which is generally termed an innocent misrepresentation.
      The traditional view is that, if someone does something positive, they must take the consequences upon themselves. If they are foolish enough to put their name to a piece of paper indicating something wrong, they must ordinarily be expected to take the consequences. That is the ordinary way in which contracts and other arrangements work.
      The difference with social security arrangements was rightly pointed out by the hon. Member for Withington, and comes from the nature of the wording on the various forms, which he described as a form of conversion. I would not go along with that terminology, but I see what he is saying. The hon. Gentleman is, in effect, complaining that some of the statements on the forms amplify a failure to disclose into a positive statement and therefore that it is unfair to deal so

      1019
      severely with the particular claimant. That is the rub of the complaint. I can see the force of that argument, and I undertake that we will have a look at the forms to see whether that aspect needs further thought and consideration.
      I am not attracted to the proposition of reversing the case law, which the hon. Member suggested. Unless the case has arisen out of a particular complication in the forms, there is a well-established and clear-cut difference between doing something positive—a misrepresentation—and doing something negative, or failing to do something, where there are considerable protections.
      I should stress that we should be careful in looking at section 71 and considering misrepresentations. These have to be proved, and the burden of proof is on the Department and on the adjudicating officer. There must be material fact, not just any fact. A mistake of law, for example, is not a misrepresentation for this purpose—the classic one being, "I am entitled to the above sum." That is not a statement of fact—it is a statement of opinion as to the law. If somebody signs up to that, the Department cannot recover.
      6.30 pm
      There must be a causal link between what has been said that is wrong and the payment of benefit, as it cannot just have happened that the Department has paid out in any event. There are considerable difficulties of proof in the Department's way—as there are normally in contractual cases of misrepresentation—and these can operate as safeguards.
      I shall, perhaps, conclude my remarks, Dame Janet—
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
      Mr. Evans: My apologies. I had not looked in the direction of the Chair.
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not have heard Madam Speaker earlier in the week ask all Ministers and hon. Members to address the Chair.
      Mr. Evans: I apologise, Mr. Morris. I was addressing the Chair, but I had not, perchance, looked upon it for a moment in error. That is my fault, for which I apologise.
      We will look at the forms again, but I am not attracted to altering what appears to be a well-established and clear-cut distinction that is probably well-founded in practice. It may have been confused by the so-called conversion. If so, I am happy to look at the matter again. I invite the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment to a Division
      Before I conclude, I should deal also with amendment No. 4. The hon. Gentleman is again trying to separate different kinds of class of misrepresentation. He is saying that there should be no limit if fraudulent behaviour is proved, but that the treatment should be different if the behaviour is less than fraudulent. The word "negligent" has been added to the amendment, and that is a difficulty for the hon. Gentleman.
      There is an element of culpability when someone puts their name to a form and signs something that is wrong, and it is asking too much of the Department to examine
      1020
      minutely the conscience and mind of the person who has done it to discover whether the act is wholly innocent, in some intermediate category or culpable fraud. If someone puts their signature to something or says something, they ought to take the consequences—the consequences of such an act being that the taxpayer is paying benefit that should not be paid. I am not attracted to amendment No. 4.
      Ms Lynne: The Minister has answered many of my queries, particularly those that related to amendment No. 3. I am grateful that he will look at the forms, because—as he no doubt realises—some of them are a minefield. A person should not be penalised for signing a form when he or she does not realise that the information asked for was relevant. In addition, I hope that the Minister will look again at someone who has signed a form with regard to his or her mental state.
      Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed response to amendment No. 3. These are complicated matters, and it is helpful when the Government put on record their interpretation of the judgments so that advocates can look carefully at the words and see how they are being followed in practice by the Department. I am also grateful that the Minister said that he was prepared to look again at the forms, as that is the point at which claimants provide the information. Enabling the forms to be as simple and as certain as possible is important, as is the way in which information is presented to the Department. That may overcome some of the problems that some claimants have experienced when they have found that the information has led subsequently to a request for overpayment.
      On amendment No. 4, I accept the Minister's arguments about fraudulent behaviour on which, as he rightly said, I wanted to concentrate. However, the area of negligence needs further debate, but it was not my intention to have that debate tonight. Rather, I wanted to concentrate on the more simple arguments about fraud. While I understand the Government's argument on that, I was not clear on the Minister's response on the point of equity regarding recovery of overpayments within a limited period., as against the entitlement to benefit on arrears.
      Mr. Evans: The difference with amendment No. 4 is that one can have—to use words rather loosely—a fraudulent non-disclosure of the most blatant variety, but the amendment bites only on fraud that is positive. One would have thought that, in moral terms, a deliberate concealment fraud ought to be treated in the same way. The difficulty for the Department is where it draws the line in these cases. Surely the money has been wrongly paid as a result of something that has been done or undone by the claimant, and the Department should have it back.
      Mr. Bradley: I am grateful for the Minister's further comments. I do not want to labour the points about the moral entitlement to benefit against the moral requirement on the Department to recover overpayments. Clearly we support the recovery of overpayments, but we want to ensure that all claimants are treated fairly regarding their entitlement to benefit. I do not wish to labour the point further, and I am grateful for the concession that the Minister has give to look at the forms. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Bradley: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 22, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 26, at end insert—
      '(5B) For the avoidance of doubt, on a review of, or appeal against, a determination that an amount is recoverable made later than the appeal or review referred to in subsection (5A), an adjudication officer or, as the case may be, a social security appeal tribunal shall consider whether there existed grounds for the reversal or variation referred to in that subsection.'.
      Mr. Bradley: This, too, is a short amendment and I shall not delay the House with too long an explanation. The purpose of the amendment is to meet the concerns expressed by Commissioner Mesher at the end of paragraph 10 of the Mustard case, where he said:
      "Requiring the decision on recoverability to be made in the course of the review decision relating to the period of the alleged overpayment…means that an appeal against the recoverability decision encompasses an examination of the propriety of the review decision".
      The amendment would ensure that the propriety of the review decision would fall for consideration on a challenge to a recoverability decision. I hope that that is clear. I also hope that the Minister's previous commitments on appeals against decisions are already encompassed in the Bill. Through this brief amendment, we seek further clarification and certainty on that matter.
      Mr. Roger Evans: The argument has moved on since Commissioner Mesher's decision because of the terms in which the Bill is drafted. Commissioner Mesher was understandably worried—the force of the argument is clear—that, if everything is not done at the same time, one might be prejudiced by a later decision.
      The way that it works is this: we have separated the two decisions and there is a right of appeal against each. If the half-truth comes out at the beginning of the process—if there is a review, but it is not accurate because for one reason or another either side does not know—the claimant has a right of appeal against the first decision. Let us suppose, however, that it is not right—perhaps there has been an argument, or facts have emerged during the following month or so. There will be a second review of the original review decision, and that also will be appealable.
      In effect, if someone is shocked by a thumping great bill some months later, when the overpayment decision is made, there may well be grounds for review if there is a basis of fact that has developed or moved on, and there can, of course, be a further appeal on the second review.
      The matter is dealt with in that fashion in the Bill, and I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.
      Mr. Bradley: I thank the Minister for that explanation. As he rightly says, the Bill has been framed to ensure that
      1022
      there can be appeals at each of the stages. The purpose of the amendment was to obtain the assurance from the Minister that that is the case, so that the claimant is protected at each stage if information can subsequently be produced to enable an appeal. With that further assurance from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With the leave of the House, 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),

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (SCOTLAND)
      That the Special Grant Report on Community Care Special Grant and Supplementary Mismatch Scheme Grant for 1996–97, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.
      LANDFILL TAX
      That the Landfill Tax (Qualifying Material) Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1528), dated 12th June 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

      OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION
      That the draft European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox]
      Question agreed to.

      DEREGULATION
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the motions relating to deregulation.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
      That the draft Deregulation (Building) (Initial Notices and Final Certificates) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.
      That the draft Deregulation (Wireless Telegraphy) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 4th June, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
      Question agreed to.

  PETITION

    Dunblane Snowdrop Petition
    6.44 pm
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: I am pleased to present what has become known as the snowdrop petition—they were the only flowers in bloom on 13 March when 16 children and their teacher were gunned down in central Scotland. The extent to which that tragedy has touched the heart of the nation and of our people can be measured by the fact that some 705,000 people had signed up to the petition by yesterday. It reads:
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House introduce or amend the law relating to the ownership and usage of firearms such that:—

    1. All firearms held for recreational purposes for use in authorised sporting clubs to be held securely at such clubs with firing mechanisms removed.

    2. The private ownership of handguns be made illegal.

    3. Certification of all firearms be subject to stricter control.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

    To lie upon the Table.

    Child Labour
    Motion made, and question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
    6.45 pm
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The subject that I want to raise is child labour and the employment of children in the United Kingdom. I am sure that you will recognise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is an extremely important and sensitive issue, and one that concerns large numbers of people, not just in this country but throughout the world. There is also concern about purchasing products produced by child labour in other countries.
    First, I must put it on record that I am the chair of the British committee of the International Campaign Against Child Labour. It is a totally unremunerated position—indeed, it probably costs money, but that is not the point. I should also place on record the thanks of many people for the work done by Anti-Slavery International to expose the problems of child labour in many parts of the world, but also in Britain.
    Most members of the public assume that child labour is a problem of the past. They think of children going up chimneys in Oliver Twist, or of Dickensian England. Possibly, they think of those tragic children in southern India, who are weaving carpets for 10 hours a day, or of the bonded labour in Pakistan and so many other places.
    It is true that child labour was an enormous problem in Victorian Britain. Indeed, many of the great struggles to develop free state education were conducted in the teeth of opposition from farmers in many parts of the country, who wanted children to work on their farms because they were cheap or virtually free. One of the motivations behind the Burston school strike in Norfolk in the 1920s was that it was in opposition to farmers who wanted children to pick stones off fields rather than attend lessons.
    While the problem has changed a great deal, it has not disappeared. There is a secret illegal work force in Britain that deserves to be highlighted. One does not have to go to the third world to find out what is happening. Here in London, children are working illegally. They are doing so obviously, by washing car windscreens and so forth at junctions, but they are also doing so illegally in clothing factories, bakeries and many other places, where they are dreadfully exploited and exposed to extremely dangerous conditions. They are also working as waiters and shop assistants and delivering milk, papers and the like. Those issues have to be brought to the attention of the House, and I will come to some of the things that the Government can and should do about the problem.
    In a recent report, a group of psychologists at the university of Paisley, who have done much work on the subject, estimated that from 1.1 million to 1.7 million pupils in the 11 to 15-year-old age group are engaged in employment. That report demonstrates—it is the widest study undertaken to date—that that is not a minority experience for pre-16-year-olds. The group questioned 2,000 pupils in 22 schools in Scotland and the north of England, and found that between 35 and 50 per cent. of the pupils had jobs, and as many as 70 per cent. had had jobs at some time.

    1025
    Despite the fact that almost all jobs require a child to have a work permit issued by the local education authority, the Paisley study finds that nine out of 10 of the children are employed illegally, and that their average pay is £1.50 an hour. Some earn as little as 50p an hour.
    In Britain, particularly in areas of high unemployment, we seem almost to be mirroring what is happening in the third world, where adults cannot gain employment but children can, because their wage rates are so low and they are easier to exploit as a result.
    The Paisley study also found that some children started work at about 4 am and worked for several hours before going to school, even though it is illegal for children to work before 7 am. One third of the children interviewed in the Paisley study said that that had happened to them. A total of 20 per cent. of the pupils questioned in Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway worked more than 10 hours a week, although it is illegal for children to do that, starting at the times I have mentioned.
    I want to put these problems before the House. The accident and health risks for children are serious, and there is a double bind in this. Not only are children seriously at risk when they are working early in the morning and late at night, but they are also working illegally. Therefore, the employer is unlikely to want to report any accident. They are not covered automatically by health and safety legislation, and are exposed to the most appalling dangers as a result.
    A study by the Low Pay Unit found that one in three working children had been involved in accidents of that kind, and that 27 per cent. of children working in the service sector have reported being hurt at some time.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has produced a report on child labour. She cited cases of children aged between 12 and 15 who were killed or seriously injured at work. Where prosecutions followed, the fines were often low. Her report cites two cases in which boys of seven and eight were working on a building site, and another in which school-age children were working a fourteen-and-a-half-hour day sorting rags for £1 an hour.
    One can see the advantage to the employer of employing children at £1 an hour when he would have to pay considerably more for adults. It underlines the case both for a national minimum wage in this country and for much greater labour regulation, not less. Sadly, in the case of those children, the Health and Safety Executive did not prosecute.
    An even more shocking case is that of a Birmingham 15-year-old, Dean Allsop, who died because he wore no mask and was overcome by intoxicating fumes when he fell into a vat of water in a sheet metal finishing factory. Another case is that of the 14-year-old Watford boy who was killed when he fell under the wheels of an oncoming car just yards from the flower stall that he was running. These issues are present in factories, and on building sites, farms and other places around this country.
    When one mentions child labour, people usually say that it is all about trying to stop children doing paper rounds, and that such paper rounds do not do them any harm. I did a paper round on a Sunday as an older child. Most children are glad of the money, but when one looks back, one sees that there are serious questions about the safety and exploitation of young children.
    1026
    The physical damage that can be inflicted is quite serious. In 1988, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, which is affiliated to the Trades Union Congress, exposed the risk of spinal deformity that can be caused to paper boys and girls as a result of carrying heavy loads in poorly designed bags, which push their spines out of alignment. Children's loads are not set by law in the way they are for adult workers.
    For example, a 17-year-old postal worker should not be carrying more than 40 lb of mail. Some children delivering papers, particularly Sunday papers which tend to be bulkier than daily papers, are sometimes carrying as much as 70 lb at the start of the paper round. I would consider that heavy for many adults. It would probably be beyond the capability of many hon. Members to carry that weight, yet children are doing that, and the damage caused in the early part of their round is considerable.
    Tragically, safety in our society has diminished a great deal over the years. One must have serious regard for the safety of children, particularly in London and the big cities. As somebody who grew up in the country, I find it shocking that one can barely let one's children go out of the front door to go a hundre yards down the road to a shop without being concerned for their safety. Children undertaking paper rounds have been subjected to assault, sexual attack and violence, as well as facing the problems of traffic accidents and general safety.
    Earlier this year, a tribunal on the world problem of child labour was held in Mexico. Mike Calvert, who was representing the British committee, presented evidence in which he said:
    "It is estimated that in Britain 2 million children under school leaving age work for wages of around $1 or $1.30 an hour."
    He translated the figure for the tribunal. He went on:
    "The general demand of British workers is for £4.15 per hour. One then clearly understands that child labour stands as one of the main means to deregulate the labour market and reduce the cost".
    We should also remember that, in 1899, the founding conference of the TUC said:
    "The time has come for the British Empire to stop building itself on children's hearts".
    The hearts of children now are those to whom I have referred, who have suffered accident and injury because of excessive work early in the morning and late in the evening.
    The TUC has done a great deal of work on this. It is concerned not just for the safety of children, but for the way in which children provide employers with cheap and flexible workers. The TUC document said:
    "Children provide employers with cheap and flexible workers who often don't know their rights. Children have always worked and there are a huge variety of reasons why. In poorer families the child's wages may be very important to family income—and growing poverty in Britain makes that more likely."
    The TUC document goes on to say:
    "According to the Low Pay Unit, one in three working children have been involved in accidents."
    The document also mentions the report produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, and explains the dangers of the weight being carried by children. It goes on to call for legislation and ratification of International Labour Organisation convention 138, which is at the heart of the debate and my arguments.

    1027
    Convention 138 clearly states that the minimum age for entry into employment should be the age of completion for compulsory education. Exceptionally, a country with insufficient economic and educational development may initially specify 14 years. That could not be said to apply to the United Kingdom. The Government purport to support the work of the ILO on child labour in developing countries, but they reject criticism of their record.
    They are firmly opposed to a human rights clause in international trade agreements, which would link access to the global market to effective measures to eliminate bonded child labour. The most serious abuses of working children are generally dealt with under ILO convention 29. The TUC document states the nub of many of the problems.
    Although this is a debate about child labour in the United Kingdom, it is difficult to limit it to the United Kingdom, for a number of reasons. As I have mentioned, working children provide a cheap and relatively docile source of labour. It is an advantage to an employer in Britain to be able to employ children, and it is an even bigger advantage in many third-world countries.
    In some African countries, over 50 per cent. of children are working. In South America, 5 million children are working, and in Asia an estimated 44 million children are working. The worst offenders are Mali, Burkina Faso, Burundi, East Timor, Uganda, Ethiopia, Senegal, Bangladesh and Nigeria—many of the world's poorest nations.
    When workers in Britain legitimately complain about job losses and manufacturers moving overseas, they complain about imported goods being produced by child labour. Those companies alleged to be producing goods by child labour usually say that no children work in their factories. That may well be true of their own factories. The sports shoe manufacturing industry is keen to point out that no children work in its factories. The problem is that it sub-contracts work to outstations which do employ children.
    If we are to deal with the problem of child labour, it is not a matter of punishing the children for undertaking the work, or even, in some cases, of punishing the parents, who may be driven by terrible poverty; rather, it is a matter for international regulation and the implementation of the ILO convention.
    Last year's Trades Union Congress passed a resolution in support of the ILO convention, and asked Governments to translate into practical actions their commitment to ratify ILO convention 138, which I strongly support. I hope that the British Government are prepared to declare their support for that, and to look more seriously at the regulation of the labour market in order to control the safety of children.
    British legislation also creates some problems. When I started researching the issue, I discovered that the Employment of Children Act, a private Member's Bill, was passed by the House in 1973 during the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). That Act has never been put into operation. It sought to regulate child labour, prevent young children from working, and establish various other conditions concerning rest, maximum hours, and so on. It is shocking that such legislation could be passed more than 20 years ago, yet never be put into operation. I hope that the Minister will explain why that has been the case.
    1028
    The Department of Health issued a consultation document, which I understand attracted a number of responses, although I have no idea exactly how many, which was based on the new EC directive on child labour. Some of those who read that document found it rather disturbing. When I asked a parliamentary question on the subject, I was told that there were no plans to publish the responses to that document. I hope that the Minister will change his mind tonight, and tell us that all the responses will be published. If he does, that will be fine; if not, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the replies were unsympathetic and hostile to the EC directive and the Government's position.
    The Guardian, in an article on 22 May this year, said:
    "Britain has opted out of key provisions of the EU directive, rejecting a 12-hour weekly limit on children's term-time working in favour of a limit of 17 hours for 13 and 14-year-olds and 20 hours for 15-year-olds. Uniquely in Europe, Britain will also exclude 16 and 17-year-olds from any restrictions on the hours they can work."
    Many families in my constituency are extremely hard up. They are keen for their children to stay on at school past the age of 16 in order to obtain A-levels, go on to college and so on, but they simply cannot make ends meet. Insufficient money is available through the social security system, and in many cases children work such excessive hours that their studies are damaged. Children under the age of 16 also work more than they should because their parents cannot get work, so they too are part of the problem.
    The Government are seeking an opt-out from parts of the EC directive, but even that is limited, because it does not outlaw the employment of children in the way that the ILO convention suggests. As a result, the British position is even worse, because Britain believes that children should be working even longer hours than the EC directive states.
    Britain has the beginnings of a serious problem. Child labour is disgraceful. Children should be able to grow up in a happy atmosphere, in which they can learn without the stress of knowing that, after school or early in the morning, they have a job to go to because of their family's poverty. Those things were wrong in the 19th century, as many hon. Members would have said in this Chamber 100 years ago, and they are doubly wrong today, when we have the resources to eliminate child labour altogether.
    I conclude by quoting from the Anti-Slavery International appeal for action on child employment in the United Kingdom. It is headed:
    "The British Government is planning changes to the law affecting the employment of school-age children, which will worsen their school performance and provide cheap labour to businesses trading on a Sunday."
    It says:
    "ASI is concerned that school-age children in the UK are still not adequately protected from exploitation under UK law, and that the Government has not given serious consideration to the impact on children of working long hours while still at school. UK laws on child labour need revision, need to be applied and need to conform with the UK's international commitments. If the current proposals become law many more school-age children in Britain will be working even longer hours during term-time at the expense of their education and childhood."
    We have the power to do something about child labour. Legislation exists. We have the ILO convention 138, ratification of which in its entirety would help to eliminate child labour.

    1029
    When I recently asked the Secretary of State
    "what actions are being taken by his Department to ensure that children are not working in breach of the current employment law"—
    that was a question to the British Government, who are responsible for the enactment of legislation and the protection of British people—the answer took less than one line. It said:
    "Enforcement of the law in this area is a matter for local authorities."—[Official Report, 26 June 1996; Vol. 280, c. 146.]
    Local authorities often lack the resources and expertise to deal with the matter. In some cases, they may lack the will to deal with it. All the battles to develop free education in Britain 100 years ago in the teeth of opposition from employers who were busy exploiting children at the time might be rerun today because some local authorities might not be too keen on investigating clothing companies, newspaper deliveries and other employments in which children are working excessively and in great danger.
    Even more shocking is the fact that there is apparently no central collection of statistics showing how many children have suffered from accidents, or of the work done, or not done, by local authorities. The Government have all the appearance of wanting to have nothing to do with the problem. They hope that it will go away, and that someone else will deal with it.
    Many people feel angry about the moral situation of children around the world. They refuse to buy goods produced by child labour—not because they want to harm the children or their families, but because they want to make their own statement about the employment of children and the way in which their education suffers.
    I am concerned that the education of many children in Britain is being seriously harmed and that many are suffering physically, mentally and educationally as a result of the way in which they are forced to undertake jobs that they should not be doing. It is time that the 1973 legislation was put into operation in its entirety, and that the Government gave legislative approval to the ILO convention to protect children.
    7.7 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I thank the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for introducing the subject of child labour. He may not be wholly surprised to find that I do not agree with everything that he has said, but he raised some important and legitimate concerns for the welfare of children in Britain and abroad. I am not here to answer today for children abroad. I merely say that, if some of the countries to which he referred adopted some of Britain's protective legislation, some of the abuses about which he and I share concern might be prevented.
    The hon. Gentleman speaks from a purist and honest point of view, which is that no child should be employed. That is a perfectly fair position to take, but it is not the one that most people in Britain would adopt. He would rule out even the paper round. Children often wish to work, and society in general sees work by children as a normal part of a child's life.
    Suitable work undertaken by children in controlled circumstances can be beneficial, for instance by developing in them a sense of their own worth,
    1030
    by developing the discipline of regular attendance, and through the experience of handling money and forging working relationships, not least with people older than themselves. All that can be beneficial to general development, to the rounding of a child as an individual.
    We must be careful not to confuse the common experience of children who work, for example, delivering daily newspapers, with the occasional horror stories that we hear of children being exploited, perhaps in dangerous circumstances, by unscrupulous employers. If that occurred, the hon. Gentleman and I would stand shoulder to shoulder to find ways to prevent it and to bring to justice anyone who had perpetrated it.
    Let me make the legal position quite clear. Children are prohibited by statute from working except in strictly controlled circumstances. Apart from the general prohibition on children working in any industrial undertaking, contained in the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920, the basic rules are contained in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which stipulates that no child may work below the age of 13 years before 7 am, during school hours or after 7 pm for more than two hours on any school day or Sunday.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the 1973 private Member's Bill, which, as he rightly said, was passed during a Conservative Government. It was considered by the Labour Government of 1976, but they decided not to implement it in that form and instead decided to go for local government byelaws. Subsequent Governments have followed that route, although we are now looking to see whether they need strengthening as a result of the EU directive.
    Most important—this is the crux of the control of children's employment—any employer who wishes to employ a child must register the child with the local education authority and obtain an employment card, which will be issued only when the LEA is satisfied that the job involved is legal in terms of the nature of the task to be performed, the hours of work involved and the times when the task is to be performed. The LEA must also be satisfied that the child is fit to do the work and that his or her education and general well-being will not be put at risk.
    The measures that I have described provide a sound legal basis for allowing our children, from a suitable age, to gain valuable experience of work while at the same time protecting their well-being.
    Mr. Corbyn: Roughly how many children are registered with local education authorities? What does the Minister's Department think is the rate of non-compliance in that area?
    Mr. Bowis: I shall come to that point in a moment. We do not know the number of children who are registered with employment cards, but there is perfectly clear evidence that a large number of children do not use the cards. That is something that local authorities must look at.
    There is, however, much good practice. I have seen booklets produced by local authorities of all political persuasions, in all parts of the country—rural and urban—which set out to ensure that local employers are aware of their duties in that regard. I have seen documents produced by those in the newspaper industry to try to ensure that their people are complying. I have no doubt

    1031
    that debates such as this will also highlight the need to comply. It is not a case of people being exploited or badly treated; it is a case of children who are not being properly employed within the law. That is not acceptable. There is a £1,000 fine for non-compliance, and we must get that across. As we move towards the implementation of the EU directive, we shall have further opportunities to highlight that.
    If we hear of instances—sometimes tragic instances, which are rare—where the system has failed, we do not find that a child has come to harm as a result of a deficiency in the current law. I have heard of calls for central Government to do something about the illegal employment of children, usually from people who are a little short on what to do. As I have described, local authorities have considerable powers to control children's employment sensibly. I stress again that they have had such powers since 1933. There is nothing new in the idea of children working or of protecting them while they do so.
    We sometimes hear alarmist figures that up to 1.5 million children work illegally—alarmist because the estimate is due not to any widespread exploitation but rather to the fact that relatively few children, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, possess an employment card. Many authorities are taking positive action to tackle that by visiting schools and so on, and I hope that that will continue.
    Suggestions have been made—the hon. Gentleman referred to this—that local authorities have not felt able to allocate the necessary resources to control children's employment effectively, and in particular to enforce the employment card system. It is, as the hon. Gentleman will know, for each local authority to decide on its spending priorities and to devote resources as it sees fit to any sector of its responsibilities. It is not a new responsibility; it goes back more than 60 years, and I should have thought that any authority that thought that children were at risk would ensure that such resources as were necessary were allocated to that area.
    Some people may think that the current law is out of date. I do not accept that. Detailed controls are contained in local authority byelaws, which local authorities are responsible for keeping up to date. We propose changes, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The directive on the protection of young people at work, which was produced by the EU in June 1994, calls on member states to bring their domestic legislation into line with the terms of the directive, and we are working towards that. We believe, however, that our current system already provides suitable protection. That does not, of course, mean that we shall not comply with the terms of the directive. Of course we shall. I am concerned that, while we make the few changes to the current rules that are required by the directive, we ensure that we are fully up to date, which we need to be to protect our children.
    With regard to children under the minimum school leaving age—the cut-off point where the legislation applies—we have the option, and we shall take it, under the directive of not applying the limit of 12 hours a week during term time. We shall retain our current limits of up to a maximum of 17 hours a week for children up to the age of 15, and 20 hours a week for children of 15 or over. There is no objective evidence to support a lower limit. The current limits have been in place for many years, and I am aware of no evidence that they are in any way inappropriate. I am, of course, aware of the research, notably from the university of Paisley, which suggests that
    1032
    children working more than 10 or perhaps 12 hours a week perform less well academically, but, as the authors of that research are honest enough to acknowledge, no direct causal link has been established.
    I should point out that the directive permits children aged 13 and 14 to work up to seven hours a day and 35 hours a week in their school holidays, and children aged 15 or over to work eight hours a day and 40 hours a week. That is far in excess of our current limit of five hours a day and 25 hours a week for 13 and 14-year-olds, and eight hours a day and 35 hours a week for children over 15. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are not moving towards the directive on that. We are retaining our lower limits, which I hope will please him at least. Another important way in which we are already more protective than the directive requires is on the start and finish times. The directive prohibits children from working between 8 pm and 6 am. Current United Kingdom law prohibits work between 7 pm and 7 am. We shall retain our more protective approach.
    Mr. Corbyn: If, as the Minister says, the EU directive is rather worse than the British Government's position—I take his point about start and finish times—why on earth did the British Government not veto it when they had the opportunity to do so? They veto lots of other things—why not that?
    Mr. Bowis: The veto was not appropriate in that context.
    Mr. Bowen Wells (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): There is qualified majority voting.
    Mr. Bowis: Indeed. But, in any event, options in the directive gave us the necessary flexibility to continue our current best practice—and I think that we do have best practice, which has been seen to work.
    It has been suggested that we are proposing to increase the number of hours for which children may work. That is not so. What we propose is to bring up to date the law governing children's working hours on Sundays. The current two-hour limit is not reasonable in the 1990s: many shops now open on Sundays, and I believe that children should be able to work in those shops if they wish to.
    I am conscious, however, that merely increasing the number of hours for which children may work on Sundays could erode their leisure time with their families, or the time in which they must do their homework. That is why our proposals are carefully framed to maintain the current limit on the number of hours that may be worked over the weekend, while providing a choice of when those hours may be worked. I consider that increased flexibility a positive step, and expect it to be particularly welcomed by the various ethnic and religious groups for which Sunday is not a special day.
    I believe that experience of suitable work at a suitable age, in strictly controlled circumstances, can be positively beneficial to children.
    Mr. Corbyn rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Is the Minister giving way?
    Mr. Corbyn: I thought that the Minister was about to sit down.

    1033
    I referred to the consultation document sent out by the Department, and the lack of published responses. Are the responses to be published? If so, when?
    Mr. Bowis: We shall certainly present our conclusions on the consultation in due course, but we do not propose to publish the details of the letters that we have received. As on other occasions, it was not made clear to those who wrote to us that that might happen, and it is not normal practice, but we shall certainly take into account the views that have been expressed on both sides of the argument.
    Local authorities are responsible for ensuring that the law is adhered to. We are working on some minor changes to the current law, both to ensure that it is fully up to date and to comply with the terms of the directive. I believe
    1034
    that, when local authorities update their byelaws as part of the process, the publicity that that will engender will lead to a greater knowledge of the law, and therefore greater compliance with it.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that we have good law in this country. That law needs to be complied with, and it needs to be publicised on occasion, but sensible working practices for children can be helpful to those children as they develop and grow. It is not a question of supporting families' incomes; it is a question of helping children to grow into responsible citizens. In that spirit, I believe that the steps that we are taking will be helpful.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Seven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Civil Servants (Duties Abroad)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department spent during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96 on sending civil servants accompanying Ministers from his Department on official duties abroad. [32411]

  Mr. Howard
  The readily available records do not list the officials who accompanied Ministers on overseas visits during the period in question and this information cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs. The available information on costs of accompanying officials is as follows:

  1994–95: £23,249 (grade 2s and private secretaries)

  1995–96: £28,753 (private secretaries)

  Prisoners' Records
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken since March to ensure that the Prison Service has in place by the end of 1996 a database whereby the medical records of sentenced and remand prisoners follow the prisoner and are accessible to all those staff involved in the penal system. [34604]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Prison Service is committed to introducing a computerised system for tracking medical records of the kind recommended in the report of the independent inquiry into the case of Jason Mitchell. Since March, 44 prisons have begun to introduce systems of this kind. Completion of this work will extend beyond October 1996 and will be dependent upon the availability of resources.

  Prison Incidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates, number and types of incidents involved reported to the Prison Service since 1 January in relation to(a) the Wolds prison and (b) Doncaster prison. [35011]

  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. Martin Redmond, dated 3 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking to list the dates, number and types of incidents involved reported to the Prison Service since 1 January in relation to (a) the Wolds prison and (b) Doncaster prison.
  The information requested to 22 June 1996 is shown in the attached tables.
  436

  Table A: HMP Wolds

  Date

  Incident type

  2 January 1996

  Fire

  7 January 1996

  Assault

  7 January 1996

  Assault

  9 January 1996

  Miscellaneous

  9 January 1996

  Tool loss

  12 January 1996

  Temporary release failure

  13 January 1996

  Assault

  13 January 1996

  Suicide

  19 January 1996

  Assault

  23 January 1996

  Assault

  27 January 1996

  Miscellaneous

  20 January 1996

  Death

  31 January 1996

  Self harm

  1 February 1996

  Self harm

  1 February 1996

  Temporary release failure

  5 February 1996

  Assault

  15 February 1996

  Assault

  15 February 1996

  Assault

  18 February 1996

  Assault

  24 February 1996

  Miscellaneous

  28 February 1996

  Miscellaneous

  29 February 1996

  Miscellaneous

  29 February 1996

  Fire

  3 March 1996

  Assault

  8 March 1996

  Miscellaneous

  15 March 1996

  Assault

  16 March 1996

  Self harm

  17 March 1996

  Assault

  19 March 1996

  Assault

  21 March 1996

  Self harm

  4 April 1996

  Miscellaneous

  9 April 1996

  Assault

  9 April 1996

  Assault

  10 April 1996

  Assault

  11 April 1996

  Assault

  12 April 1996

  Assault

  14 April 1996

  Assault

  16 April 1996

  Self harm

  17 April 1996

  Assault

  20 April 1996

  Assault

  20 April 1996

  Fire

  2 May 1996

  Assault

  2 May 1996

  Temporary release failure

  6 May 1996

  Assault

  7 May 1996

  Fire

  7 May 1996

  Assault

  18 May 1996

  Assault

  27 May 1996

  Miscellaneous

  29 May 1996

  Miscellaneous

  30 May 1996

  Assault

  7 June 1996

  Miscellaneous

  Totals

  Assaults: 26

  Self harm: 5

  Death: 1

  Fire: 4

  Miscellaneous: 10

  Suicide: 1

  Tool loss: 1

  TRF:3

  In addition, there were 85 reported incidents of Drug/Drug Implement finds at HMP Wolds giving a total of 136 incidents.

  Table B: HMP Doncaster

  Date

  Incident type

  1 January 1996

  Assault

  1 January 1996

  Assault

  2 January 1996

  Assault

  4 January 1996

  Assault

  5 January 1996

  Assault

  437

  Table B: HMP Doncaster

  Date

  Incident type

  6 January 1996

  Assault

  8 January 1996

  Self harm

  8 January 1996

  Fire

  9 January 1996

  Assault

  11 January 1996

  Assault

  12 January 1996

  Assault

  14 January 1996

  Assault

  16 January 1996

  Assault

  17 January 1996

  Fire

  21 January 1996

  Self harm

  23 January 1996

  Assault

  23 January 1996

  Assault

  23 January 1996

  Assault

  24 January 1996

  Miscellaneous

  27 January 1996

  Self harm

  28 January 1996

  Assault

  28 January 1996

  Self harm

  28 January 1996

  Self harm

  29 January 1996

  Assault

  31 January 1996

  Assault

  1 February 1996

  Assault

  1 February 1996

  Assault

  1 February 1996

  Assault

  1 February 1996

  Assault

  2 February 1996

  Self harm

  7 February 1996

  Assault

  9 February 1996

  Self harm

  11 February 1996

  Assault

  12 February 1996

  Assault

  15 February 1996

  Assault

  16 February 1996

  Assault

  20 February 1996

  Assault

  23 February 1996

  Assault

  28 February 1996

  Assault

  2 March 1996

  Assault

  4 March 1996

  Assault

  8 March 1996

  Assault

  13 March 1996

  Assault

  14 March 1996

  Assault

  17 March 1996

  Assault

  21 March 1996

  Assault

  24 March 1996

  Assault

  27 March 1996

  Assault

  28 March 1996

  Assault

  30 March 1996

  Assault

  31 March 1996

  Assault

  31 March 1996

  Assault

  2 April 1996

  Assault

  4 April 1996

  Assault

  6 April 1996

  Assault

  8 April 1996

  Assault

  14 April 1996

  Assault

  14 April 1996

  Assault

  14 April 1996

  Assault

  17 April 1996

  Food refusal

  19 April 1996

  Assault

  19 April 1996

  Assault

  20 April 1996

  Assault

  20 April 1996

  Assault

  21 April 1996

  Assault

  24 April 1996

  Assault

  28 April 1996

  Assault

  29 April 1996

  Fire

  30 April 1996

  Food refusal

  30 April 1996

  Fire

  1 May 1996

  Assault

  2 May 1996

  Assault

  2 May 1996

  Assault

  3 May 1996

  Assault

  5 May 1996

  Assault

  7 May 1996

  Assault

  10 May 1996

  Assault

  10 May 1996

  Assault

  438

  Table B: HMP Doncaster

  Date

  Incident type

  12 May 1996

  Assault

  15 May 1996

  Assault

  16 May 1996

  Suicide

  16 May 1996

  Assault

  29 May 1996

  Assault

  1 June 1996

  Self harm

  9 June 1996

  Assault

  11 June 1996

  Assault

  11 June 1996

  Assault

  12 June 1996

  Assault

  12 June 1996

  Assault

  12 June 1996

  Assault

  13 June 1996

  Assault

  14 June 1996

  Assault

  14 June 1996

  Fire

  17 June 1996

  Assault

  Totals

  Assaults: 77

  Self harm: 8

  Fire: 5

  Food refusal: 2

  Miscellaneous: 1

  Suicide: 1

  In addition, there were 252 reported incidents of Drug/Drug Implement finds at HMP Doncaster giving a total of 346 incidents.

  Police Boxes
  Mr Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will re-introduce police boxes in England. [34997]

  Mr. Maclean
  This is an operational decision for chief officers of police. I have no plans to do so.

  Prisoners (Releases)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were discharged from prison without permanent accommodation in which to live during the last year for which figures are available. [35054]

  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. Jim Callaghan, dated 3 July 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners discharged from prison without permanent accommodation in which to live.

  The information is not collected and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisoners (Literacy)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what research he has(a) commissioned (b) evaluated on the level of literacy of young offenders in Prison Service establishments; [35022]

  (2) what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the level of literacy of (i) those receiving custodial sentences for the first time and (ii) the prison population as a whole. [35021]
  439
  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 Mr. Jack Straw, dated 3 July 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about research (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the level of literacy of offenders in Prison Service establishments.

  There is currently no research underway that we have commissioned on the levels of literacy of those receiving custodial sentence for the first time, on the level of literacy of young offenders, or on the prison population as a whole.

  The most recent published survey of offenders admitted to young offender establishments was conducted in 1985.

  The Prison Service has plans for a basic literacy screening test for all prisoners to be introduced as part of the planned national curriculum for prison education.

  Wolds Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prison officers have been seconded during the last 12 months to the Wolds prison; from what prison establishment they came; and if Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons was informed of the seconded prison officers working at the Wolds prison when it visited the prison; [34971]

  (2) how many times during the last 12 months prison officers were required to work a double shift at the Wolds prison; and what was the reason for the requirement; [35007]

  (3) how many prison officers have been seconded during the last 12 months from the Wolds prison; to which prison establishments they went; and if Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons was informed of the Wolds seconded prison officers when it visited the prison. [35013]

  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 Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 July 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about staffing at Wolds prison.

  There is no record of any member of staff at Wolds prison working double shifts during the last 12 months, and no prison officers have been seconded to work at the Wolds prison since it became operational in April 1992.

  Four members of staff from the Wolds prison were on detached duty at Buckley Hall prison in April. They were deployed to support their colleagues at Buckley Hall following a disturbance and to offer advice about systems and procedures. There was no visit by Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons to Buckley Hall prison at this time, and there has been no visit by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons to Wolds prison over the last 12 months.

  Council of Ministers (Financial Convention)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to ratify the convention on the protection of financial interests of the Council of Ministers; and how this convention will be enforced. [34888]
  440
  Mr. Howard
  The European Union convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests cannot be ratified by the United Kingdom until part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, which extends the courts' jurisdiction over certain fraud and dishonesty offences where a significant element of the offence is committed within the United Kingdom, is in force. We are currently considering the practicalities of bringing part I into force and it is not at present possible to specify a date for ratification. For Scotland, some changes to primary legislation may also be required. The convention comes into force only after all 15 European Union member states have ratified it; none has so far done so. Enforcement will be a matter for the Council of Ministers.

  Dogs
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to give instructions for those dogs currently held by the Metropolitan police under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and in respect of which charges have either been dropped or not brought, to be returned to their lawful owners. [35084]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Prison Costs Review
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to public funds of the review of comparative costs and performance of privately and publicly operated prisons produced by Coopers and Lybrand; and from which budget these costs were met. [35133]

  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 3 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what was the cost to public funds of the Review of Comparative Costs and Performance of Privately and Publicly Operated Prisons produced by Coopers and Lybrand: and from which budget these costs were met.
  The cost was £50,048 including VAT, which was met from the budget of the Director of Finance, which includes provision for research and consultancy.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the rates of pay awarded by grade to employees in each of the next steps agencies under his Department's control. [35132]

  Mr. Howard
  Pay rates in the Prison Service, Forensic Science Service, United Kingdom Passport Agency and the Fire Service College are negotiated by them, and full details are not held centrally. Each chief executive will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Prisons (Hepatitis)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to minimise the spread of hepatitis B and C in prisons in England and Wales. [35441]
  441
  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. Neil Gerrard, dated 3 July 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about steps being taken to minimise the spread of hepatitis B and C in prisons in England and Wales.

  Hepatitis is a notifiable disease and acute cases of hepatitis are notified to the Consultant in Communicable Disease Control who provides advice on the management of cases and of outbreaks.

  Multidisciplinary HIV teams set up in prison establishments are in the process of receiving further training to orientate them to the other communicable diseases which are important in the prison context. These teams are to be proactive in implementing communicable disease education and prevention programmes at a local level. HIV counsellors in prison are also receiving further training to orientate their skills to prevention of these other communicable diseases, including hepatitis.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in England and Wales currently have hepatitis B or C. [35440]

  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. Neil Gerrard, dated 3 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question on how many prisoners in England and Wales currently have cases of hepatitis B or C.
  Provisional figures from 126 establishments indicate that on the 31 April 1996 the following numbers of inmates were known to have hepatitis:

  Number

  Acute Heptatis B

  6

  Chronic Hepatitis B

  53

  Hepatitis B with surface antigen positive

  29

  Acute Hepatitis C

  24

  Chronic Hepatitis C

  153

  Video Evidence
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now implement the outstanding recommendations of the report of the advisory group on video evidence chaired by Judge Thomas Pigot. [35364]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have implemented the majority of the recommendations made by the advisory group on video evidence, but we are not persuaded that the proposals for pre-trial cross-examination are in the best interests of children. We will keep those recommendations and the proposal to extend the child evidence measures to vulnerable adult witnesses under review in the light of our further work to secure practical improvements in the present arrangements for children to give evidence.

  Race Relations
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in relation to funding arrangements under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966; and how many of these expressed concern at delay in announcing what future arrangements will be made. [35430]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The detailed information requested is not readily available. We have, however, received a substantial number of representations in writing and by telephone.

  We hope to be able to make an announcement about future funding very shortly.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female prisoners were held by the Prison Service on (i) 27 May 1993 and (ii) 27 May 1996. [35040]

  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. Paddy Tipping, dated 3 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of male and female prisoners being held by the Prison Service on (i) 27 May 1993 and (ii) 27 May 1996.
  On 31 May 1993, the nearest date to 27 May for which information is available, 42,091 male and 1,494 female prisoners were being held by the Prison Service: on 27 May 1996, 52,003 males and 2,203 females were being held.

HEALTH

  Mental Health
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to review the Mental Health Act 1983, with particular reference to the mental health review tribunal system. [34598]

  Mr. Bowis
  None where the Act is concerned.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken since March to inform mental health review tribunal members of the clinical outcomes for patients following discharge decisions. [34625]

  Mr. Bowis
  Mental health review tribunal regional chairmen monitor decisions made by tribunals in their regions and always review those where a serious offence has taken place shortly after discharge by a tribunal. In-depth research is shortly to commence into decision making and outcomes of tribunals.

  Alternative Therapies
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into alternative therapies as a means of reducing the cost of the NHS. [35061]

  Mr. Horam
  We are aware of one such study, on manipulation for back pain.

  Hospital Building (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will update the list of hospital building

  Completed schemes

  Project/scheme

  Completed date

  Cost1(£)

  Updated cost(£)

  Amersham—Dermatology unit

  21 January 1994

  2,581,694

  3,207,215

  Amersham operating theatres

  21 June 1983

  1,333,653

  1,880,451

  Amersham phase 1

  22 July 1991

  6,193,487

  7,338,501

  Buckingham phase 1

  16 February 1990

  1,263,502

  1,583,589

  Milton Keynes DGH—end unit

  24 September 1992

  1,202,638

  1,437,050

  Milton Keynes DGH-OPD

  13 November 1989

  3,578,463

  4,294,156

  Milton Keynes DGH—phase 1

  12 September 1983

  15,638,544

  20,045,770

  Milton Keynes DGH—phase 2

  21 August 1991

  17,810,043

  21,372,052

  St. Johns EMI

  11 March 1991

  1,816,779

  1,849,573

  Stoke Mandeville—maternity

  5 May 1991

  6,030,648

  6,139,504

  Stoke Mandeville-OPD/hospice

  18 July 1989

  1,598,049

  1,959,347

  Stoke Mandeville—pathology

  5 May 1989

  1,545,574

  1,937,119

  Stoke Mandeville—X-ray

  10 July 1987

  1,287,006

  1,695,961

  Tindal MIO Development

  7 May 1991

  3,831,237

  3,485,190

  Tweed Drive-nursing home

  2 August 1988

  1,224,958

  1,216,332

  Wycombe pathology

  5 July 1985

  1,314,300

  1,807,964

  Wycombe X-ray extensions and alterations

  16 September 1994

  2,074,436

  2,554,546

  Milton Keynes—security unit phase 2

  14 February 1995

  1,918,847

  2,236,012

  Aylesbury Manor house rehabilitation unit

  30 June 1995

  1,520,819

  1,695,142

  Totals

  76,259,941

  90,933,949

  1 Includes construction costs, fees and equipment, information is not available centrally on total for schemes, for example VAT and land purchase costs are excluded.

  DGH=district general hospital.

  EMI=elderly mentally infirm.

  OPD=out-patients department.

  MI=mental illness.

  Planned schemes

  Project/Scheme

  Forecast completion date

  Estimated cost (£)

  Stoke Mandeville hospital redevelopment

  Being readvertised

  32,000,000

  Aylesbury Vale mental health intensive care unit

  April 1998

  1,800,000

  Amersham and High Wycombe redevelopment (South Bucks)

  April 1998

  38,000,000

  Total

  71,800,000

  Under construction

  Project/Scheme

  Forecast completion date

  Estimated cost (£)

  Stoke Mandeville hospital enabling works

  5 July 1996

  1,097,337

  Employment of Children
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the results of his consultation on laws governing the employment of children will be published; and if he will ensure that all submissions by those organisations consulted will be placed in the Library. [35252]

  Mr. Bowis
  We will announce our decisions in due course.
  444
  schemes in Buckinghamshire contained in his answer of 6 June 1995, Official Report, column 33–34; and if he will make a statement. [34944]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the tables.

  Consultant Posts (Advertising)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 25 June,Official Report, column 86, if he will collect statistics on the number of NHS trusts which (a) have advertised and (b) plan to advertise outside the United Kingdom to recruit consultants in each specialty. [35317]

  Mr. Malone
  I have no such plans.

  Child Abuse Inquiries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost to public funds of(a) the inquiry into child abuse in Cleveland in 1987 and (b) the report by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss. [35129]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: The total expenditure incurred by the Department of Health in respect of the Cleveland inquiry, including the report by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss, was about £1.25 million.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government (Building Control)
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the levels of competition in building control practices in local government; and if he will make a statement. [35074]
  445
  Mr. Clappison
  My right hon. Friend's views are reflected in the Department of the Environment circular 1/96, which was issued on 25 March 1996. As is made clear in the circular, it is recognised that it is just a small minority of local authorities whose practices warranted the issue of what is essentially a guide to good practice.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has received to his circular on local authority building control and related services, approved inspectors and uncompetitive practices; and if he intends to publish a report on the response. [35075]

  Mr. Clappison
  Since the circular was issued, a small number of letters has been received from local authorities. It is not intended to publish a report on the response.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effects of ceasing to charge VAT on building regulations on the work of local authority planning departments. [35076]

  Mr. Clappison
  It is not the case that local authorities no longer charge VAT on building regulation applications. They continue to charge VAT on the basis of whether or not the type of building work which is to be controlled under the Building Regulations 1991 is subject to competition by private approved inspectors. NHBC Building Control Services Ltd. is currently the only approved inspector. Following recent changes, it may now control developments containing dwellings of any height as well as those containing mixed uses, as prescribed in its approval. Local authorities therefore need to identify building control work which is subject to competition and to charge VAT on it if the applicant chooses to use the local authority's service. Work which is not the subject of competition by approved inspectors will continue not to be subject to VAT.

  Waste Management Planning Scheme
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement regarding the waste management planning scheme and how it affects the recycling of non-ferrous metals. [34681]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him yesterday, 2 July,Official Report, columns 398–99.

  Hospital Development, South Norfolk
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his oral statement of 20 June,Official Report, columns 1011–13, on city centre development, if he will call in the proposed hospital development at Colney in the South Norfolk district. [34964]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No. The adopted local plan makes specific provision for a new hospital at Colney. We consider that the local planning authority is best placed to decide the planning application and to impose any conditions it thinks necessary in the light of local concerns about accessibility.

  Marine Environment
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what monitoring is undertaken by his 446
  Department of the effects of cumulative discharges to the marine environment from offshore oil and gas installations on marine wildlife and habitats; [35463]

  (2) what action is undertaken by his Department to ensure that cumulative discharges to the marine environment from offshore oil and gas installations do not damage marine wildlife and habitats. [35464]

  Mr. Clappison
  Most offshore oil installations are in Scottish waters. The Scottish Office marine laboratory carries out monitoring to assess the impact on the marine environment of discharges of oily water, oil contaminated drill cuttings and process chemicals. More generally, marine laboratories of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food maintain an extensive monitoring programme to identify any harmful effects of human activities on the marine environment. Information from both programmes is utilised by the Department of the Environment to assess the need for, and formulation of, national and international guidelines. Overall regulation of the offshore industry is by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish guidance on the implementation of the global programme of action on the protection of the marine environment from land-based activities. [35465]

  Mr. Clappison
  The global programme of action for the protection of the marine environment from land-based activities reflects the approach already being adopted on this important issue throughout the United Kingdom, and by other estates in north-west Europe, in line with both North sea conference commitments and the requirements of the 1992 Paris convention—OSPAR. This provides a comprehensive framework for protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic from both sea-based and land-based activities. The UK guidance note on the fourth North sea conference was published yesterday; I believe that the publication of further guidance is unnecessary at this stage.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in the last 12 months in respect of the commitments given in the fourth North sea declaration agreed in Esbjerg, Denmark; and if he will make a statement. [35467]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber)Official Report, column 400.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the sixth annual report of the drinking water inspectorate will be published. [35610]

  Mr. Gummer
  The drinking water inspectorate published its sixth annual report today. Once again, it shows that drinking water in England and Wales is of a very high quality. In 1995, 99.5 per cent. of the 3.2 million tests carried out by water companies on drinking water met the relevant standard, compared with 99.3 per cent. in 1994.
  447
  The report provides a detailed picture of water quality in England and Wales which has been tested against the stringent criteria of the water quality regulations, which incorporate the limits in the EC drinking water directive.

  The inspectorate also published today two leaflets for consumers. "How Good is Your Drinking Water?" summarises the main points of the report. "About Your Water Company" gives brief details of the quality of drinking water supplied by individual water companies.

  Copies of the report and leaflets have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Planning Guidance (New Settlements)
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's planning guidance on the size of new settlements. [35834]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The objective of planning policy is sustainable development. The planning guidance on new settlements contained in both PPG3 and PPG13 points out that a reasonable degree of self-containment, thereby avoiding reliance on the use of private cars, can often be a feature of larger settlements. The community's daily needs, such as employment, schooling and shopping, should mostly be available locally and within easy reach. Therefore, the location of such settlements should seek to maximise existing or potential public transport links.

  However, the context of new settlements is also important, and smaller settlements may form part of a wider network that offers benefits comparable to larger settlements. New settlements should therefore be designed to reflect local circumstances, including the patterns of towns and villages in an area. Smaller new settlements may be appropriate where they address both issues of context and sustainability.

  When we come to revise PPG13, we shall be making this clear. Meanwhile, the planning system will be operated to ensure that, should new settlements be proposed, the judgment will be made on the context and the need for sustainable development. In the right circumstances, this may well mean that the establishment of a small new community of even a few hundred may be the best answer.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government intend to respond to the United Kingdom round table on sustainable development's first annual report. [35906]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have today formally published their response to the first annual report of the United Kingdom round table on sustainable development. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The Government are encouraged by the progress the round table has made in its first year in exploring its method of working and in reviewing some major sectors of development.

  The Government hope that their response to the round table's report will contribute to the continuing informed debate about reconciling economic development and environmental protection and enhancement.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proceedings before the International Court of Justice in respect of the opinions of the United Kingdom and Libya regarding the applicability of the Montreal convention, article 14, to the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. [35301]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The UK has entered preliminary objections which question the admissibility of the claims brought against it by Libya and the international court's jurisdiction to hear these claims. The court will decide on these preliminary objections in due course. Under the court's rules, the pleadings remain confidential, so it is not possible to reveal any further details.

  Nuclear Policy
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the implications for the United Kingdom's defence policy of United States co-operation in nuclear matters with(a) Russia, (b) China and (c) France. [35431]

  Mr. David Davis
  Bilateral co-operation between the United States and other countries is a matter for the Government concerned. The United Kingdom will continue to maintain very close co-operation with the United States across the range of defence matters.

  Indonesian Pilots
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visas have been granted to Indonesian pilots to visit the United Kingdom to receive training from the Royal Air Force in each year from 1990 to 1995 inclusive, and since 1 January 1996. [35421]

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of military assistance are confidential between Governments.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery Distribution Fund
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much money is currently held in the national lottery distribution fund; and if the interest on that amount is taxed. [35327]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As at 30 June 1996, the balance in the national lottery distribution fund was £1,882,300. Interest on the balance is added to the sums available for the good causes. It is not taxed.

  Buckingham Palace
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what the arrangements will be for opening Buckingham palace once the restoration of Windsor castle is completed. [35822]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The then Secretary of State announced to the House on 29 April 1993,Official Report, columns 514–15, that the Queen had decided to

  449
  open parts of Buckingham palace housing important items of the royal collection to the public and that income from admission charges would be given by the Royal Collection Trust towards the cost of restoring Windsor castle. The Government welcome the financial contribution which has been made towards the cost of the restoration of the fire damaged areas of Windsor castle. This has provided a considerable saving to the taxpayer. This arrangement will continue until the restoration is completed.

  The Royal Collection Trust announced today that the Queen has decided to extend the opening of Buckingham palace beyond 1998 and that the additional revenue will accrue to the Royal Collection Trust once the Windsor castle restoration is completed. The royal collection is held by the Queen in trust on behalf of the nation. It is one of the largest art collections in the world, yet receives no public funding.

  The Royal Collection Trust will use the income to improve the conservation, restoration, and presentation of this unique collection, while making a contribution towards the maintenance of the areas of Buckingham palace open to the public, thereby helping to offset the cost to the taxpayer.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Mental Health Review Tribunals
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he has taken to ensure since March that the Lord Chancellor's list of potential medical members of mental health review tribunals includes psychologists. [34610]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Mental Health Act 1983 requires medical members to be registered medical practitioners. The Lord Chancellor will consider applications for lay membership from psychologists who have the appropriate experience in mental health issues.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he has taken since March to emphasise the need for clarity and explicitness by authorities submitting documents to public inquiries. [34612]

  Mr. Streeter
  A press notice was issued on 26 February 1996 inviting comments on Sir Richard Scott's recommendations concerning the conduct of inquiries set up by Ministers to investigate matters of public concern. Following the consultation period, the Council on Tribunals has been asked to provide advice on all of the issues raised.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he has taken since March to ensure that non-statutory public inquiries set up by local or central government qualify for subpoena powers under Supreme Court Rules Order 38 Rule 19(1). [34613]

  Mr. Streeter
  The question of subpoena powers for such inquiries arose during our consultation on Sir Richard Scott's recommendations concerning inquiry 450
  procedures. The Council on Tribunals has been asked to provide advice on the issues raised, which the Lord Chancellor will consider once received.

TRANSPORT

  Motor Caravans
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the categorisation of motor caravans as private heavy goods vehicles by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. [33908]

  Mr. Norris
  In addition to the two questions which the hon. Member tabled recently,Official Report, 25 June columns 81–82, three hon. Members have written on behalf of caravan clubs and individuals and a further four letters have been received from these sources.

  Fissile Nuclear Materials (Transportation)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements are to be put in place to seek multilateral approval for the transport of fissile nuclear materials as specified in paragraph 18 of the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) (Great Britain) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1350). [34400]

  Mr. Norris
  The arrangements for obtaining Secretary of State approval for the UK part of international movements of fissile material have been in place for many years and were previously stated in the "Code of practice for the carriage of Radioactive materials by road" published by HMSO. These arrangements are now included in the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) (Great Britain) Regulations 1996.

  Maryport Harbour
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funds have been allocated for dredging and general silt removal works in Maryport harbour(a) by his Department or (b) with the support of his Department by other agencies in each of the last three years. [35303]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Aircraft Cabin Baggage
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if recommendation 5(c) from his Department, reference AC/14/01 of 19 December 1988, remains in force; and if he will make a statement. [35302]

  Mr. Norris
  No. All passengers and their cabin baggage entering an airport restricted zone are searched. Where an article is not a danger to a flight, it may be stored in the aircraft hold, but where any prohibited items are found, the police may be called as appropriate.

  Motorway Accidents
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the locations of all accidents that occurred on the motorways of England in the last year
  451
  for which figures are available; and if he will plot this information on a map and place a copy thereof in the Library. [35306]

  Mr. Watts
  The ordnance survey grid reference location of accidents recorded by the police as occurring on motorways has been sent to the House of Commons Library. There were 6,716 motorway accidents in England in 1994. Information for 1995 will be available in August. A map plotting this information on the motorway network in England is not available.

  Charter Aircraft
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to require foreign-registered non-United Kingdom aircraft carrying charter passengers to and from British airports to comply in full with the safety regime of the Civil Aviation Authority; and if he will make a statement. [35446]

  Mr. Norris
  No. As a signatory to the Chicago convention, the United Kingdom is obliged to accept certificates and licences issued in respect of foreign-registered aircraft provided that safety standards laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation are being met. Only aircraft on the United Kingdom register are required to comply in full with the safety regime of the Civil Aviation Authority. However, a foreign aircraft leased without crew to a United Kingdom airline must appear on that airline's air operators certificate and is then treated as a United Kingdom-registered aircraft.

  EU Bus and Coach Directive
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many United Kingdom officials were involved in the preparation of(a) the fiche d'impact and (b) the compliance cost assessment for the EC bus and coach directive. [34989]

  Mr. Norris
  The Commission has not yet made a proposal for a European bus and coach directive and UK officials have not been involved in the preparation of a fiche d'impact. A compliance cost assessment for the UK cannot be prepared until the Commission makes its proposals.

  Pollution (Milford Haven)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new measures have been introduced at Milford Haven to prevent grounding of laden oil tankers(a) within the Haven, and (b) in the Haven approaches. [35462]

  Mr. Norris
  The Milford Haven port authority has introduced the following interim precautionary measures in advance of the findings of the marine accidents investigation branch inquiry into the grounding of the Sea Empress.

  (1) Vessels over 100,000 deadweight tonnes may not enter the Haven less than three hours before low water.

  (2) All vessels with a gross tonnage of 65,000 tonnes or more, other than certain specified vessels, must carry two pilots for entry to, or exit from the Haven.

  (3) A survey is being undertaken of the currents at the entrance to the Haven.

  Train Operating Companies (Overcharging)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the rail regulator concerning the alleged overcharging of customers by train operating companies. [35664]

  Mr. Watts
  My Department has confirmed with the rail regulator that he will give careful consideration to any allegations of overcharging by train operators.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 1 April,Official Report, column 358, if he will list those member states which have invoked grandfather rights when implementing the second EC directive on driving 91/439/EEC. [35037]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 2 July 1996]: From the information we have received to date, we understand that Belgium, Sweden, Luxembourg and Spain are likely to allow some drivers to renew their licences even though they cannot meet the standards in the directive.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Burundi
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to(a) international bodies and (b) the Burundi authorities regarding the conflict in Burundi. [35482]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are in close and regular contact with the United Nations, the Organisation of African Unity and other international bodies as well as the Government of Burundi. We have made clear our grave concern at the serious political and security situation in Burundi, our condemnation of politically motivated violence from whatever quarter, and our strong support for ex-president Nyerere of Tanzania in his efforts to broker a peaceful political settlement.

  Female Genital Mutilation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions in the last 10 years he has provided financial and other assistance, in terms of health education, to countries which have implemented, or are seeking to implement, local campaigns to eliminate female genital mutilation. [34163]

  Mr. Hanley
  Detailed financial information is not held in the form requested. Many ODA-funded activities which address female genital mutilation do so in the context of wider initiatives which aim to empower women. The ODA has also supported direct research to change people's attitudes to FGM in areas where it is practised. We have funded conferences and meetings where country experiences in dealing with this issue can be shared and differing approaches to eradicate the practice can be compared. The ODA also seeks to promote innovative new approaches through it seedcorn fund for reproductive health.

TREASURY

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the gross amount of inheritance tax collected in the most recent year for which figures are available; what proportion of this sum is attributable to tax collected as a result of challenges by the Inland Revenue of the figures set out in the original grant of probate; and what estimate he has made for each of the most recent three years available of the amount of inheritance tax collected net of the expenses of collection. [35108]

  Mr. Jack
  The provisional outturn of receipts from inheritance tax in 1995–96 is £1,559 million. It is estimated that about 63 per cent. of inheritance tax is collected before the grant of representation—or probate—is obtained. The Inland Revenue cannot, however, distinguish between voluntary compliance and challenge and negotiation by the capital taxes office in the amount of tax collected after the grant of representation.

  Estimates of the amount of inheritance tax collected net of the cost of collection are given below:

  Year

  Estimated receipts from inheritance tax net of cost of collection (£ million)

  1993–94

  1,313

  1994–95

  1,387

  1995–96 (provisional)

  1,535

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new appointments he plans to the Board of Banking Supervision and the Securities and Investments Board. [35473]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Chancellor and the governor have agreed to appoint Sir Andrew Large, the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board—SIB—and Sir David Scholey, a non-executive member of the court of the Bank of England, to the Board of Banking Supervision. They have also agreed the appointment of Howard Davies, deputy governor of the bank, as a member of the SIB. We welcome these appointments, which will strengthen further the links between financial regulators.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the sale of the Government's holding of debt in Railtrack. [35518]

  Mr. Jack
  The following bonds were offered for sale:

  £134,837,000 9.125 per cent. bonds due 2006;

  £100,163,000 9.625 per cent. bonds due 2016.

  454
  I am pleased to report that the sale was successfully completed on 1 July. Payment will be made to HM Treasury on 9 July. The proceeds from the sale, net of commissions, will total £246.1 million.

  Value Added Tax
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much VAT has been repaid as a result of retrospective claims for each of the last five years; and if he will estimate how much VAT will be repaid next year. [35251]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: Figures for past refunds of VAT in respect of retrospective claims are not held separately. It is not possible to estimate future amounts to be refunded. Any figure will depend on the outcome of litigation currently before the VAT tribunal and the courts.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Physical Education and Sport
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she will be in a position to publish the results of the survey her Department carried out on physical education and sport in schools. [34403]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I have today arranged for a copy of the report on the survey's findings to be placed in the Library.

  Liverpool Community College
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received concerning the proposed closure of the Muirhead avenue east site of the Liverpool community college; if she will commission an inquiry into the proposal; and if she will make a statement. [35308]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department has received no representations about the closure of the site. I understand that it is one of 12 currently operated by Liverpool community college. While it is for the college to decide how to manage and develop its estate, the Government would encourage colleges to become more efficient in all areas of activity.

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the amount of grant for Kirklees metropolitan council for its education new build programme in each year since 1979–80; [34797]

  (2) what was the amount of grant for Kirklees metropolitan council for the improvement and repair of schools within the area for each year since 1979–80. [34796]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 27 June 1996]: The following table gives details of the credit approvals for Kirklees metropolitan council to fund its capital programme for schools.
  455

  Annual capital guidelines and supplementary credit approvals have been as follows

  ACG £000 Total

  I/R

  Additional SCA £000

  11991–92

  13,797

  11,147

  0

  11992–93

  14,071

  11,355

  750

  11993–94

  5,758

  631

  97

  11994–95

  2,572

  53

  0

  11995–96

  1,455

  110

  0

  11996–97

  1,465

  74

  90

  1These figures include allocations for sixth form colleges and FE colleges.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  European Structural Fund
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the allocation of the European structural fund's community initiative reserves. [35587]

  Other areas

  Million ecu (1996 prices)

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Gibraltar

  Total

  All areas total

  Leader

  5.660

  1.840

  1.890

  —

  9.390

  11.730

  Urban

  17.745

  2.055

  0.840

  —

  20.640

  24.750

  Pesca

  2.040

  1.920

  0.500

  —

  4.960

  5.870

  Employment

  135.390

  15.430

  11.780

  —

  42.600

  43.910

  Adapt

  119.510

  12.820

  11.080

  —

  23.410

  24.160

  Rechar

  13.060

  1.930

  4.570

  —

  19.560

  20.000

  Resider

  2.380

  1.380

  2.610

  —

  6.370

  6.370

  Retex

  2.030

  1.000

  0.510

  —

  3.540

  4.770

  Konver

  25.430

  3.000

  0.510

  0.750

  29.690

  33.700

  Total

  123.745

  21.375

  14.290

  0.750

  160.160

  175.260

  Interreg II C

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19.950

  11.950

  Grand total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  170.110

  187.210

  1Provisional.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the allocation of European structural funds money to British objective 2 areas. [35588]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government obtained for the UK and Gibraltar 2,500 million ecu of objective 2 money for 1997 to 99. I have allocated this as set out in table.

  1997 to 99 allocation (1996 prices) million ecu

  North-East England

  355

  West Cumbria

  31

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  365

  East Midlands

  99

  West Midlands

  441

  Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Cheshire

  400

  London

  99

  Thanet

  17

  Plymouth

  36

  South Wales

  213

  Eastern Scotland

  134

  Western Scotland

  304

  Gibraltar

  6

  Total

  2,500

  456
  Mr. Eggar
  The Government obtained for the United Kingdom and Gibraltar 187.21 million ecu from the Community initiatives reserve. I have allocated this between programmes and between areas as set out in the table.

  Objective 1 areas

  Million ecu (1996 prices)

  Northern Ireland

  Merseyside

  Highlands and Islands

  Total

  Leader

  1.140

  —

  1.200

  2.340

  Urban

  2.055

  2.055

  —

  4.110

  Pesca

  0.260

  —

  0.650

  0.910

  Employment

  0.640

  10.580

  10.090

  1.310

  Adapt

  0.360

  10.330

  10.060

  0.750

  Rechar

  —

  0.440

  —

  0.440

  Resider

  —

  —

  —

  0.000

  Retex

  0.800

  0.270

  0.160

  1.230

  Konver

  0.490

  2.720

  0.800

  4.010

  Total

  5.745

  6.395

  2.960

  15.100

  Interreg II C

  —

  —

  —

  12.000

  Grand total

  —

  —

  —

  17.100

  1Provisional.

  Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what are the long-term implications of the damaged fuel pins found in advanced gas-cooled reactor stations; and if he will make a statement; [35295]

  (2) what recommendations the nuclear installations inspectorate made on the operation of the AGRs with known fuel pin problems; and what implications it identified for the emergency shut-down system; [35296]

  (3) when he expects the NII inquiry into the fuel pin problem to be completed; [35297]

  (4) when factors led to the omission of reference to fuel pin problems in British Energy's prospectus. [35298]

  Mr. Eggar
  There is no omission in the British Energy prospectus. Reference to fuel pin problems is made on page 66 under the heading "fuel brace fretting".

  As the prospectus notes, British Energy is continuing to examine the significance of this issue at its AGR stations and its potential on future fuel utilisation.
  457
  The NII has carried out preliminary inquiries into wear on fuel pins resulting from fuel brace fretting and is satisfied that the AGR stations remain safe to operate and that there are no implications for the emergency shut-down system.

  The NII has asked Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear to provide further information on this phenomenon and will continue to monitor developments.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the design, build and commission cost of Sizewell B pressurised water reactor station; what is the net revenue received by the Exchequer since Sizewell B was commissioned to date; and what is the estimated profit and loss against the sale price of Sizewell B. [35299]

  Mr. Eggar
  Sizewell B commenced generation in the year ended 31 March 1995. At that date, the historic cost of Sizewell B, as recorded in the financial statements of British Energy, was £2,510 million. The net income of any individual power station is a commercial matter for the company. Sizewell B forms part of the assets of British Energy and is not being sold separately, consequently there is no "sale price of Sizewell B".

  Offshore Installations
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many inspections of offshore oil and gas installations have been undertaken by his Department in each of the past 10 years. [35460]

  Mr. Page
  Numerous inspections of offshore installations have been undertaken by the Department of Trade and Industry in each of the past 10 years, although precise figures are not available.

  Until 1991, safety inspections of offshore installations were carried out by Department of Energy inspectors exercising powers in regulations made under the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971. In 1991, this function was transferred to the Health and Safety Executive. The Department of Trade and Industry does not carry out inspections relating to safety.

  From 1986 to 1993, inspections of offshore oil and gas installations were undertaken by officers for the Department for the purpose of issuing UK oil pollution prevention—UKOPP—certificates under the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1983, SI 1983/1398. However, this has now reverted to the Department of Transport as from 1 June 1995.

  The Secretary of State has powers under each licence granted in accordance with section 2 of the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 to examine any installation erected in accordance with a licence and its equipment and any works executed. These powers are most commonly exercised by petroleum measurement inspectors to ensure that the methods of measurement used to account for petroleum won and saved from the licensed areas comply with the requirements of the licence.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish figures for the current balance in the decommissioning account for each of the nuclear companies due to be privatised; and where, in each case, this fund is held. [35578]

  Mr. Eggar
  This information is included in the audited financial statements of Nuclear Electric Ltd. and Scottish Nuclear Ltd. for the period ended 31 March 1996.

  Marine Environment
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what monitoring is undertaken by his Department to ensure that oil companies comply with the conditions placed on discharges from offshore oil and gas installations to the marine environment; [35461]

  (2) what provisions his Department has in place to ensure that (a) discharges to the marine environment from offshore oil and gas installations do not exceed permitted levels and (b) cumulative levels of discharges from offshore oil and gas installations do not damage marine wildlife and habitats. [35468]

  Mr. Page
  Both my Department and the Department of Transport's marine pollution control unit monitor discharges from offshore oil and gas installations by means of a programme of aerial surveillance. This is used to monitor whether oil spills are reported in accordance with the requirements of petroleum production licences. Aerial surveillance can also detect high levels of produced water.

  When a company has been granted an exemption in accordance with section 23 of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971, which permits the discharge of produced water, conditions attached to that exemption will require the company to take samples of produced water twice a day for analysis. The results of the analysis are submitted to my Department for inspection on a monthly basis.

  Similarly, conditions attached to an exemption which permits the company to drill with oil-based mud will require the company to take samples at least once a day for analysis of the oil on cuttings. The results of these analyses are submitted to my Department for inspection after the well is completed.

  The effects of operational discharges of chemicals in water and drilling muds from offshore oil and gas installations, including possible cumulative effects, are taken into account when agreeing limits for the discharge and use of chemicals for each installation. The Departments responsible for fisheries monitor the well being of the marine environment.

  RJB Mining plc
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement regarding sums owed to his Department by RJB Mining plc in respect of its acquisition of mining assets of the British Coal Corporation. [35746]

  Mr. Page
  It was agreed at the time of the sale to RJB Mining that my Department would receive £116.7 million of the sale price of £815.3 million in the
  459
  form of deferred payments up to December 1997. My Department received this initial deferred consideration instalment of £12.2 million, plus interest, last January.

  The company has now repaid early the entire remaining deferred consideration, which amounts to some £117 million including interest. I welcome this demonstration of the industry's success in the private sector.

DEFENCE

  Ground Proximity Warning System
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what delay has been caused to the ground proximity warning system trials by the accident on 1 June 1995; and what is the estimated service entry date for the equipment on each aircraft type. [34644]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The accident on 1 June 1995 involving a Harrier GR7 undertaking RAF assessments of ground proximity warning systems, GPWS, equipment caused no delay to the programme to fit GPWS to the GR7 or the associated trials being conducted for the procurement executive. It is expected that the first modified GR7 will be delivered to the RAF in early 1998. The Jaguar is being fitted with similar equipment, and the first modified aircraft is scheduled to enter service in October of this year. Eurofighter 2000 will have a GPWS capability from the outset of its entry into service in 2001. In addition to these mainly single-seater aircraft, the need for GPWS equipment, and its precise date of entry into service, for the two-seater Tornado GR4 is under consideration.

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many scientific papers in the Porton technical papers (radiological) series have been produced by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down since 1966; when the radiological series was closed; and how many papers in the radiological series are currently unclassified. [34465]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 3 July 1996 I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the Porton Technical Paper (Radiological) Series. The Chemical Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) for which I am responsible as Chief Executive.
  The Porton Technical Paper (Radiological) Series closed in 1964 and therefore no papers have been produced since then. There were 50 reports in this series of which 45 are currently unclassified.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been carried out since 1996 by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down to evaluate the long-term health effects of 460
  short-term exposure to the nerve agent GE; when these studies were carried out; and what were the conclusions of these studies. [34472]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 3 July 1996 I have been asked to reply to your question concerning long term health effects of exposure to the nerve agent GE. The Chemical Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) for which I am responsible as Chief Executive.
  Porton Down has not carried out any studies to evaluate long term health effects of exposure to the nerve agent GE since 1966.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of state for Defence what research has been carried out since 1996 by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down to investigate whether skin cancer can be caused by short-term exposure to mustard gas; when this research was carried out; and what were the results of this research. [34470]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 3 July 1996 I have been asked to reply to your question concerning research on skin cancer. The Chemical Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) for which I am responsible as Chief Executive.
  Porton Down has not carried out any studies to investigate whether short term exposure to mustard agent causes skin cancers.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current security classifications of each of the annual reports produced by the ethics committee overseeing the service volunteers programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down since 1966. [34466]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Prior to the establishment of the independent ethics committee in 1991, the work of the service volunteer programme was monitored by the medical sub-committee of the Defence scientific advisory committee—DSAC—which did not separately report on this aspect of its work. The reports of the DSAC were classified, as a minimum "Restricted". Since 1991 the independent ethics committee has produced annual reports which to date have all been classified as "Restricted".

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the policy of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment since 1966 on asking service personnel who are attending courses at the Defence nuclear biological and chemical centre at Winterbourne Gunner to take part in short trials at the establishment during their course. [34474]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  461
  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 3 July 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the attendance of service personnel at DNBCC in studies at Porton Down. The Chemical Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) for which I am responsible as Chief Executive.
  Volunteers are recruited to take part in studies at Porton Down by the means outlined in my letter to you published in Hansard on 11 January 1996 at Col 317. Before 1988 those who attended the Defence NBC School at Winterbourne Gunner may have been given the opportunity, if they wished, to participate in studies at CBDE whilst they were students at the centre. This informal recruiting procedure no longer occurs and all those who participate in the volunteer programme at Porton Down will have applied to attend through their unit's administrative staff.
  I hope this information is useful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what details of the participation of service personnel in experiments and trials at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down are recorded on that individual's services medical records; and when this practice was introduced. [34471]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 3 July 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the details of participation in studies at Porton Down entered on Service Medical Records. The Chemical Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) for which I am responsible as Chief Executive.
  Since 1990 no Service Volunteers have been permitted to begin a study until their service medical records have been received at Porton Down. An entry is always made on the individual's record to indicate that they have attended the establishment and participated in a study, although this does not give any details of the particular studies actually involved. For many years before 1990 it was also the practice to make an entry on an individual's service medical record although the system for forwarding records to Porton Down was not so reliable and we know that some entries were not made. Porton Down does, however, have other records against which it can cross check whether individuals were Service Volunteers.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down introduced its practice of considering the possible long-term health effects of a chemical before it is exposed to service personnel who are taking part in the service volunteers programme. [34469]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 3 July 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the introduction of the practice of considering long term health effects of chemicals used in the human volunteer programme at the former Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. The Chemical Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) for which I am responsible as Chief Executive.
  462
  Before conducting any tests, management and staff at Porton Down have always taken the most careful account of what is known about chemical substances to which Service Volunteers might be exposed during trials. This includes considering possible long term effects on health. The independent Ethics Committee also considers this issue before approving proposed studies involving Service Volunteers.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Defence Research Information Centre
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East on 9 May,Official Report, column 224–25, what are the security classifications of each of the four bulletins summarised in the table; how many approved customers are currently served by DRIC; and if he will make a statement on the range and nature of these customers. [34475]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 3 July 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your question following up my letter to you of 9 May about the Defence Research Information Centre (DRIC).
  The security markings of the DRIC Abstracts. DRIC Standard Profiles and Overseas Citation lists mentioned in my letter can be classified as Secret, Confidential, Restricted or Unclassified depending on the content. The DRIC Newsletter is an Unclassified publication.
  It is not easy to decide in some circumstances how many "end-user" customers are served by DRIC. For example if a library or information centre is the channel of communication with DRIC there will be a large number of end users. One measure which gives an idea about the level of demand is the number of transactions performed by DRIC over a year. Using this approach, we experience in the order of 8,000–10,000 customer transactions each year.
  You also asked about approved customers. We define these as individuals or organisations who justify their need for, and are qualified to receive, the information requested—the cost of which is recovered by the appropriate charging mechanism. Approved customers cover a wide range of organisations including DERA; MOD; The Procurement Executive; The Armed Forces; MOD Next Steps Agencies; Other Government Departments; Overseas Governments; NATO; UK Contractors; Universities or Colleges; Overseas Contractors; Overseas Universities or Colleges.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to store rendered meat and bonemeal from the BSE cattle cull at RAF Burntwood; and if he will make a statement. [35105]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently no plans to store rendered meat and bonemeal at RAF Burtonwood.

  Firing Range, Glamoc
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what considerations led him to lease Croatian-controlled land around Glamoc as a live firing range. [35362]
  463
  Mr. Soames
  The range is used by NATO-led implementation force troop contributors to maintain their tactical skills and operational effectiveness and to demonstrate the force's capabilities.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment was made by his Department of the humanitarian consequences of using Croatian-controlled territory around Glamoc as a live testing range. [35363]

  Mr. Soames
  The firing range at Glamoc is used by the NATO-led implementation force, IFOR, for training purposes, not for the testing of weapons, under an agreement with the local authorities. The same stringent procedures to ensure safety and to minimise the environmental and humanitarian impact of ranges are used by the British Army wherever it trains. The Glamoc range is in a remote area away from any centres of population and sited partly on heavily mined areas which are unsuitable for public access.

  Weapons Testing
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make it his policy, in territory which has recently been the scene of armed conflict, to prohibit British forces from using such territory for testing weapons or missiles without an independent assessment of the likely humanitarian consequences; and if he will make a statement; [35357]

  (2) if he will make his policy that Britain's armed forces, when considering sites for weapons or missile testing in areas of recent armed conflict, have particular regard for the views of the people who live there. [35361]

  Mr. Soames
  It is already standard practice in the selection, construction and use of live firing ranges, wherever they are, to have due regard for the views of people living nearby, and for the environmental, humanitarian and other consequences.

  Land Mines
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many anti-personnel land mines were(a) exported and (b) transferred from the United Kingdom between 1979 and 1985 inclusive. [35358]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information requested is not available.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) anti-personnel and (b) anti-tank mines owned by the United Kingdom Government are being held outside United Kingdom territory. [35359]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It is our established policy for security reasons not reveal information relating to stock levels of munitions held or planned.

  Pilots (Training)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries from which pilots have visited the United Kingdom to receive advanced flying and tactical weapons training in each year from 1990 to 1995 inclusive, and since 1 January 1996. [35420]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of military assistance are confidential between Governments.

  Bett Review
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Selby, (Mr. Alison) of 20 February,Official Report, column 96, if he will make a further statement on his Department's progress with consideration of the recommendations in Sir Michael Bett's report. [35110]

  Mr. Soames
  I have nothing to add to my answer of 25 June,Official Report, column 64.

  Airborne Warning and Communication Systems.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated value of British manufactured offset in relation to the AWACS order to date; how much it is expected the total offset will be; and how much offset was originally promised by the American suppliers. [35211]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The AWACS offset obligation was discharged in 1992. By that time, Boeing had submitted to my Department reports listing contracts placed with United Kingdom firms totalling some $2.1 billion, of which we agreed $1.57 billion to count for offset credit. This latter figure exceeded the 130 per cent. target set in the offset agreement.

  Married Quarters
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the independent advisers who have provided advice to his Department's proposed married quarters housing sell-off in the past six months. [35372]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have nothing to add to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave the hon. Gentleman on 1 November 1995,Official Report, column 328.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 4 June,Official Report, column 343, what has been the total cost to date, inclusive of VAT, of the employment of consultants for his Department's married housing quarters sell-off. [35451]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The total cost to date of the employment of consultants since we began to develop the proposal to transfer the married quarters estate to the private sector announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 30 November 1995,Official Report, columns 810–11, amounts to some £4.4 million, inclusive of VAT. VAT for these costs is refunded to my Department; the VAT-exclusive cost to date is £3.8 million.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of married quarters in each English and Welsh county which are part of his Department's proposed housing sale. [35236]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is not available in the form requested, and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost. However, figures are available divided by Defence estate organisation land agent— DLA—regions, as follows.
  465
  DLA Aldershot: 11,116

  Berkshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Oxfordshire

  Mid and North Hampshire

  Part of Surrey

  West Kent

  Part of West Sussex

  DLA Brecon: 2,080

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Powys

  South, Mid and West Glamorgan

  DLA Cambridge: 8,495

  Bedfordshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Essex

  Hertfordshire

  Norfolk

  Suffolk

  DLA Canterbury: 1,724

  East Kent

  East Sussex

  Part of West Sussex

  Part of Surrey

  DLA Catterick: 5,727

  Northumberland

  Tyne and Wear

  Durham

  Humberside

  North Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire

  South Yorkshire

  DLA Durrington: 8,791

  Wiltshire

  Dorset

  Avon

  Gloucestershire

  DLA London: 4,410

  Greater London and immediate vicinity

  DLA Nottingham: 3,748

  Derbyshire

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Northamptonshire

  DLA Plymouth: 4,490

  Cornwall

  Devon

  Isles of Scilly

  Somerset

  DLA Portsmouth: 3,758

  South Hampshire

  Part of West Sussex

  Isle of Wight

  DLA Shrewsbury: 4,032

  Cumbria

  Isle of Man

  Lancashire

  466

  Greater Manchester

  Merseyside

  Cheshire

  Clwyd

  Gwynedd

  Shropshire

  Staffordshire

  West Midlands

  Warwickshire

  Hereford and Worcester

  It should be noted that these figures relate to the estate for sale at the time when the information memorandum was published—23 February 1996. The size of the estate for sale remains subject to adjustment during the continuing management of the estate.

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency in developing a partnering arrangement; and if he will make a statement. [35833]

  Mr. Soames
  As part of the Government's competing for quality and private finance initiative, in December 1995 the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency—NRTA—selected Flagship Training, a consortium consisting of Vosper Thornycroft, GEC/Marconi and Procord, as its preferred partner in naval training.

  Following a process of detailed negotiation between the NRTA and Flagship Training, I am pleased to announce that it has been decided to proceed with the implementation of the partnering arrangement. With the formal framework now in place, the NRTA and Flagship Training can begin to develop specific proposals in respect of NRTA shore training establishments. This process is expected to take around six months to complete and the proposals that emerge will be the subject of further consultation with Departmental trades unions.

  Official Service Residences
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names and locations of his Department's official service residences which are part of his proposed housing sale. [35237]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  For security reasons, it would not be appropriate to provide this information in the form requested. When the information memorandum was issued—23 February 1996—the estate for sale included eight properties in Wiltshire, five in Middlesex, five in Buckinghamshire, two in Cambridgeshire, and one each in London, Somerset, Hampshire, Shropshire, Oxfordshire, Yorkshire, Bedfordshire, Gloucestershire and Lincolnshire, which, prior to the Cazalet review, qualified as official service residences by virtue of the posts held by their occupants. Following the Cazalet review, 14 of the properties now qualify as official service residences: four in Wiltshire, two in Middlesex, two in Buckinghamshire, and one each in Cambridgeshire, Somerset, Hampshire, Shropshire, Yorkshire, and Lincolnshire. The final size and composition of the estate for sale remains subject to possible changes during the continuing management of the estate.

  Radiation Test Experiments
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each of the facilities currently or formerly operated by his Department since 1966 where radiation test experiments have been conducted on either service men or civilian volunteers; and if he will make a statement on follow-up monitoring conducted since these experiments. [34381]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 26 June 1996]: During the 1980s, atomic weapons establishment Aldermaston participated in a number of studies involving the use of radioactive material. Some were also conducted at Porton Down in the 1950s and 1960s, and are described in an answer I gave the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 25 June 1996, Official Report, column 65. Follow-up radiological monitoring would have been irrelevant because only very short-lived radioisotopes were used in the experiments.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit Subsidy
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish for 1994ߞ95 the payments of housing benefit subsidy by his Department to each London borough and metropolitan district; and if he will list the financial penalties imposed as a result of non-compliance with regulations. [31562]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the tables.

  Metropolitan authorities

  Authority

  Subsidy paid for non-HRA rent rebate expenditure 1994–95(£)

  Subsidy paid for rent allowance expenditure 1994–95(£)

  Subsidy penalties incurred 1994–95(£)

  Barking

  0

  9,032,943

  0

  Barnet

  2,038,205

  37,753,367

  0

  Bexley

  184,080

  17,370,921

  0

  Brent

  1,870,444

  73,428,160

  0

  Bromley

  465,904

  43,145,879

  0

  Camden

  1,102,438

  57,118,469

  0

  City of London

  38,988

  927,953

  0

  Croydon

  694,814

  45,719,522

  0

  Ealing

  1,926,861

  50,487,956

  0

  Enfield

  3,305,858

  28,924,000

  0

  Greenwich

  2,344,595

  23,520,217

  0

  Hackney

  9,465,809

  58,559,103

  0

  Hammersmith

  2,473,370

  38,851,775

  0

  Haringey

  8,679,839

  75,046,559

  0

  Harrow

  235,476

  23,722,130

  0

  Havering

  0

  11,185,974

  0

  Hillingdon

  1,282,584

  19,635,033

  0

  Hounslow

  1,019,705

  27,738,610

  0

  Islington

  2,190,355

  33,740,420

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  897,085

  49,036,668

  0

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,866,704

  9,622,988

  0

  Lambeth

  2,459,649

  62,820,132

  0

  Lewisham

  532,435

  38,555,441

  0

  Merton

  69,541

  20,053,791

  0

  Newham

  4,517,984

  72,851,754

  0

  Redbridge

  168,049

  33,422,563

  0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  928,189

  14,755,024

  0

  Southwark

  1,488,887

  39,513,847

  0

  Sutton

  264,343

  12,845,855

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  2,650,913

  22,628,408

  0

  Waltham Forest

  727,329

  39,235,511

  0

  Wandsworth

  1,142,664

  51,617,175

  0

  Westminster

  1,871,308

  81,723,232

  0

  Barnsley

  336,614

  8,924,404

  0

  468

  Metropolitan authorities

  Authority

  Subsidy paid for non-HRA rent rebate expenditure I994–95(£)

  Subsidy paid for rent allowance expenditure 1994–95(£)

  Subsidy penalties incurred 1994–95(£)

  Birmingham

  0

  95,811,541

  1,639,119

  Bolton

  251,882

  15,101,121

  0

  Bradford

  58,932

  38,585,237

  0

  Bury

  1,141,702

  8,753,189

  0

  Calderdale

  735,995

  10,471,362

  0

  Coventry

  812,483

  25,353,232

  0

  Doncaster

  12,817

  12,243,300

  0

  Dudley

  103,035

  8,898,444

  0

  Gateshead

  28,368

  11,969,763

  0

  Kirklees

  1,266,961

  18,430,832

  0

  Knowsley

  13,857

  9,106,135

  0

  Leeds

  165,168

  50,917,991

  0

  Liverpool

  148,951

  71,766,629

  0

  Manchester

  2,715,548

  78,174,726

  0

  Newcastle upon tyne

  357,859

  25,291,420

  0

  North Tyneside

  151,748

  13,044,451

  0

  Oldham

  524,153

  13,384,001

  0

  Rochdale

  754,099

  13,691,094

  0

  Rotherham

  275,975

  9,327,466

  0

  Salford

  851,086

  18,245,357

  0

  Sandwell

  108,268

  13,025,643

  0

  Sefton

  297,748

  22,199,050

  0

  Sheffield

  812,883

  26,499,284

  0

  Solihull

  43,144

  5,206,823

  0

  South Tyneside

  425,841

  9,887,080

  0

  St. Helens

  43,425

  9,013,017

  0

  Stockport

  135,563

  16,061,267

  0

  Sunderland

  402,511

  17,104,442

  0

  Tameside

  1,490,378

  11,967,014

  0

  Trafford

  251,678

  12,999,886

  0

  Wakefield

  350,298

  10,424,339

  0

  Walsall

  78,272

  8,821,627

  0

  Wigan

  1,697,773

  10,548,961

  0

  Wirral

  100,615

  27,914,171

  0

  Wolverhampton

  18,054

  13,408,744

  0

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) people who have claimed incapacity benefit since April 1995, (b) former invalidity benefit claimants, (c) severe disablement allowance claimants, (d) people who have claimed income support with a disability premium since April 1995, (e) people who claimed income support with a disability premium before April 1995 and (f) people with credits only have been found capable of work following an assessment under tile all-work test in the year ended April 1996. [34322]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Found capable of work following the all-work test of incapacity

  Number

  Incapacity benefit claimants since April 19951 3

  24,620

  Incapacity benefit claimants former in receipt of invalidity benefit2 3

  25,200

  Severe disablement allowance claimants1 3

  660

  Credits only1 3

  28,540

  1 Source: 5 per cent. sample from the incapacity benefit computer system. Excludes a small number of cases paid clerically.

  2 Source: 1 per cent. sample from the incapacity benefit computer system. Excludes a small number of cases paid clerically.

  3 It is not possible to identify separately those cases which are in receipt of income support.

  4 All figures are for Great Britain.

  469
  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals against a disallowance of(a) incapacity benefit, (b)severe disablement allowance, (c)income support with a disability premium and (d) credits (i) have been lodged, (ii) have been heard and (iii) are outstanding; and what was the success rate for claimants. [34269]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Incapacity benefit—all appeals including all-work test

  Other all-work test appeals2

  Appeals received

  1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996

  36,573

  8,453

  Appeals heard

  1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996

  6,976

  1,354

  Appeals outstanding

  as at 31 March 1996

  24,525

  6,205

  Percentage decided in

  favour of appellant

  47

  38

  1 Does not include appeals withdrawn, superseded or struck out.

  2 It is not possible to provide a further breakdown of this category.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people on incapacity benefits and credits have been(a) found capable of work following an assessment under the all-work test, (b) been disallowed benefit for failing to return the IB50 questionnaire without good cause and (c) been disallowed following failure to attend an examination without good cause, during the year ending April 1996. [34657]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Number

  Found capable of work following all-work test

  89,882

  Disallowed benefit for failing to return the IB50 questionnaire without good cause

  7,710

  Disallowed benefit for failing to attend an examination without good cause

  2,416

  Note:

  All data for the year to 31 March 1996.

  Source:

  One hundred per cent. count of cases on the incapacity benefit computer system; excludes a small number of cases which are paid clerically.

  Benefit Values
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) each benefit, (b)its current value and (c) its value in 1979 or at the date of its introduction (i) in cash terms and (ii) at April 1996 prices. [34321]

  Mr. Burt
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what geographical area is covered by the(a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough field office of the Child Support Agency; [35009]
  470
  (2) if he will list by month how many cases have been dealt with by the (a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough field office of the Child Support Agency since 1 January 1995. [35010]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 July 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency field offices.
  Mexborough does not have a separate Child Support Agency field office; this area is covered by the Rotherham field office.
  The geographical area covered by the Rotherham field office takes in the following post codes: S60 to S66 inclusive, and parts of S31, S71 and S72.
  The geographical area covered by the Doncaster field office takes in the following post codes: DN1 to DN8 inclusive, and parts of DN9, DN10, DN11 and DN14.

  When the Agency was established, field offices dealt only with cases requiring local contact. The majority of work was dealt with by the Child Support Agency Centres. Since June 1995, field offices have been responsible for gathering all the information necessary for the Child Support Agency Centres to complete maintenance assessments. Figures regarding the number of cases dealt with by the Rotherham and Doncaster field offices are available from that date and are shown on the attached tables.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Number of cases dealt with by the Rotherham field office

  Number

  June 1995

  101

  July 1995

  280

  August 1995

  126

  September 1995

  196

  October 1995

  162

  November 1995

  228

  December 1995

  144

  January 1996

  301

  February 1996

  211

  March 1996

  274

  April 1996

  173

  May 1996

  258

  Number of cases dealt with by the Doncaster field office

  Number

  June 1995

  156

  July 1995

  195

  August 1995

  163

  September 1995

  207

  October 1995

  282

  November 1995

  198

  December 1995

  237

  January 1996

  250

  February 1996

  286

  March 1996

  306

  April 1996

  249

  May 1996

  309

  Funeral Expenses
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has evaluated in respect of the scale of abuse in relation to the social fund funeral payments system. [34406]
  471
  Mr. Roger Evans
  Expenditure escalated from £18.4 million in 1988–89 to £63 million in 1994–95; in some years, the increase was up to 6 per cent. above the rate of inflation. Changes were made to the funeral payments scheme in April 1994 and June 1995 to ensure that only those people with good cause for taking responsibility for the costs of a funeral are given help.

  During 1993–94, the number of awards was 72,000, but during 1994–95 and 1995–96 this reduced to 68,000 and 62,000 respectively. During the same period, the number of claims increased from 95,000 to 98,000. Expenditure was reduced to £49 million in 1995–96.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many statutory instruments his Department introduced in(a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) between 1 January 1996 and 1 May 1996 which had the effect of repealing one or more previous statutory instruments without replacing them with a new regulation. [35038]

  Mr. Burt
  This information is not available in the format requested. However, a list of regulations that have been repealed or amended was place in the House Library by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 8 May.

  Benefit Targeting
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further plans he has for better targeting of expenditure on the income-related benefits. [35823]

  Mr. Lilley
  I have today passed two proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee which are intended to ensure that resources are targeted in a more effective way.

  The first proposal is to increase the levels of deduction from benefit that people receive for housing costs where there are non-dependant adults living in the home who are in remunerative work and whose earnings are considerable. It is reasonable to expect non-dependants who are financially able to do so to contribute more towards housing costs than they are doing at present. We propose to introduce two higher levels of deduction: £36 a week for non-dependant adults with gross incomes of between £200 and £249.99 a week, and £39 a week for those with incomes of £250 or more a week.

  Similar changes will be made to the help people receive to pay their local taxes by increasing the deductions from council tax benefit to £3.50 and £4 a week for those non-dependants on the above levels of incomes.

  The changes will take effect from April 1997 in housing benefit and council tax benefit and from April 1998 in income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance. They will reduce benefit expenditure on housing costs and local taxes, and reduce the burden on the taxpayer.

  The second proposal is to change the arrangements for paying child personal allowances in the income-related benefits. At present, the amount of money we give to less well-off families with children at school is not directly linked to the educational year, but depends on the date of a child's birthday. An increase in allowance becomes due
  472
  at the time of a dependent child's 11th or 16th birthday. This means that some families receive the increase much earlier in the year than others and the increase is not properly linked to educational changes, such as a move to secondary school. We propose to move the date of the increase to the first Monday in September following the relevant birthday. This will broadly align child allowances with the start of the school year when extra costs are more likely to be incurred. Families of pupils who decide to stay on in education at 16 will get their increased help—currently an extra £4.75 a week in income support—from the September of the new academic year.

  Relatively few young people will be in non-advanced education in the academic year which begins after their 18th birthday. In the interests of simplicity and consistency, there will no longer be a change in the rate for young dependent people on reaching 18.

  In family credit and disability working allowance, the changes will come into effect from the start of the award following the new September trigger date, just as at present increases take place from the award following the child's birthday.

  The changes will take effect from April 1997 in income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit and from October 1997 for family credit and disability working allowance. No one will suffer a cash reduction. The changes will apply only to those whose 11th, 16th or 18th birthday is on or after the date the new provisions would come into force.

  There is also a beneficial change for those with child care costs which will help working families claiming family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit. The child care disregard, worth £60, will continue to be available until the award in which the increased personal allowance takes effect.

  These two proposal are expected to save £80 million rising to about £150 million over the next three years, and will ensure that resources are used more effectively.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Nitrates
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the impact of his Department's area of responsibility of European Commission directives on nitrates in water supplies. [25031]

  Mr. Boswell
  The standard for nitrate in water supplies is laid down in the EC drinking water directive (80/778). The EC nitrate directive (91/676) provides for waters to be identified as "polluted waters" in various circumstances, including when nitrate from agriculture has impaired their suitability for use in water supplies. Under the nitrate directive, farmers within designated nitrate vulnerable zones will be subject to restrictions drawn up in order to minimise the leaching of nitrate from agriculture into water sources.

  Beef (Cold Storage)
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is his assessment of the amount of beef in cold storage which has been in cold storage for more than(a) three years and (b) five years; [24945]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the amount of beef in cold storage which has been in cold storage for more than (a) three years and (b) five years. [32242]

  Mr. Baldry
  Some 4,842 tonnes of beef have been held in intervention cold storage for more than three years and 95 tonnes for over five years.

  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the amount of beef which is currently being kept in cold storage in the United Kingdom. [32243]

  Mr. Baldry
  Some 9,000 tonnes of beef have been held in intervention cold storage as at 21 June 1996.

  Organic Agriculture
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much direct and indirect financial aid from his Department has been received by farmers of organic agriculture for each year since 1985(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of that received by conventional agriculture; and if he will make a statement. [32274]

  Mr. Boswell
  The generality of farm support, such as arable area payments, livestock premiums and environmental payments, is available to organic and conventional farmers on equal terms. It is not possible to determine how much of this support has been given specifically to organic producers.

  Slaughterings—week commencing

  Abattoir

  29 April

  6 May

  13 May

  20 May

  27 May

  3 June

  10 June

  17 June

  Anglo Dutch

  1—

  1—

  494

  375

  322

  375

  529

  682

  H G Blake

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  100

  100

  101

  103

  Cheales Meats Ltd.

  1—

  1—

  1,316

  1,481

  1,320

  1,139

  1,473

  1,353

  Carlisle Butchers

  1—

  1—

  717

  0

  475

  722

  631

  539

  Cleveland Meat Co.

  1—

  1—

  768

  367

  322

  323

  322

  362

  E J Duerden

  1—

  1—

  0

  768

  207

  131

  99

  101

  Jewitt

  1—

  1—

  0

  213

  91

  209

  213

  211

  Northern Counties

  1—

  1—

  500

  749

  298

  268

  258

  308

  J Penny and Sons

  1—

  1—

  0

  202

  203

  241

  221

  224

  Rose County Foods

  1—

  1—

  0

  336

  331

  309

  548

  546

  Woodhead Bros.

  1—

  1—

  665

  1,154

  633

  818

  465

  805

  Beesons (Bradley)

  1—

  1—

  547

  716

  330

  324

  327

  308

  Ensors Abattoir Ltd.

  1—

  1—

  94

  100

  100

  100

  102

  100

  T G Sargeant and Sons

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  107

  53

  149

  105

  F Redfern

  1—

  1—

  0

  200

  169

  214

  222

  290

  G and G B Hewitt

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  0

  181

  187

  182

  Snelsons

  1—

  1—

  369

  242

  100

  106

  105

  107

  H M Bennett

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  101

  187

  202

  205

  Bridgewater Beef

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  202

  205

  95

  203

  Cobdens

  1—

  1—

  1,919

  2,162

  1,275

  1,537

  1,110

  1,007

  Whitley Bay

  1—

  1—

  0

  80

  98

  101

  103

  103

  S J Norman and Sons

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  100

  0

  99

  103

  St. Merryn

  1—

  1—

  1,786

  1,595

  872

  0

  1,072

  1,100

  Wholesale Meat Traders

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  100

  0

  95

  95

  Dawkins International

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  250

  200

  203

  102

  J and B Fitton

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  99

  100

  100

  101

  474
  The Ministry has introduced an organic aid scheme to give additional payments to farmers who convert to organic methods. To augment this, we have just launched a new organic conversion information service, providing free technical and other advice to would-be organic producers. We are also funding the UK register of organic food standards and a substantial programme of dedicated organic research. Total planned expenditure for these various activities in this financial year is £1.612 million.

  Slaughtered Cattle
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to authorise the storage of cattle carcases arising from his policy to cull bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected cattle at(a) existing or (b) closed military bases. [32909]

  Mr. Baldry
  All cattle suspected of having BSE are incinerated and there is no need for storage facilities in such cases. With regard to cattle slaughtered under the over 30 month scheme, the Intervention Board executive agency and the MOD have agreed a lease whereby a number of MOD sites may be brought into use as and when needed for the storage of meat and bonemeal prior to final disposal. So far, only the site at Quedgley in Gloucester has been used for this purpose. Deliveries were made there between 20 May and 6 June, and have now ceased.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by collection centres the number of animals slaughtered under the Government's cattle disposal scheme for each week since the week beginning Monday 29 April. [31628]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: The number of cattle slaughtered under the over 30-month scheme by collection centre is not available. However, the number of animals slaughtered by approved abattoirs for each week since the scheme started, up to the latest week available, is:
  475

  Slaughterings—week commencing

  Abattoir

  29 April

  6 May

  13 May

  20 May

  27 May

  3 June

  10 June

  17 June

  Nidderdale Foods

  1—

  1—

  651

  712

  269

  517

  400

  300

  N W Meats

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  94

  103

  104

  105

  Nottingham Processing

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  272

  300

  298

  136

  Sims Foods

  1—

  1—

  1,111

  1,126

  1,403

  1,343

  1,454

  1,200

  Skegness and District

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  90

  99

  98

  100

  R E Williams

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  90

  91

  93

  95

  Elliot

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  90

  91

  A B P Shrewsbury

  1—

  1—

  1,834

  2,660

  2,406

  2,449

  2,572

  2,379

  D T Duggins/MMP

  1—

  1—

  436

  483

  1,665

  2,295

  2,327

  2,064

  Alec Jarrett Ltd.

  1—

  1—

  0

  181

  403

  589

  656

  603

  West Devon Meats

  1—

  1—

  2,008

  2,015

  955

  1,587

  1,095

  1,056

  Stillmans

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  98

  Abergavenny Slaughter

  0

  0

  409

  424

  299

  280

  292

  290

  Welsh Country Foods

  0

  0

  0

  254

  682

  417

  900

  822

  Messrs Dewi James

  0

  0

  0

  93

  496

  515

  546

  506

  Buitelaar Kilmarnock

  0

  1,003

  905

  905

  902

  853

  1,027

  905

  Glasgow Abattoir

  0

  624

  722

  804

  694

  680

  646

  651

  Scottish Borders Abattoir

  0

  100

  100

  102

  90

  91

  90

  91

  Scotch Premier Meat

  0

  1,150

  929

  1,084

  916

  867

  981

  899

  Mclntosh Donald

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  J Kelly's

  105

  169

  343

  306

  319

  276

  399

  416

  Top Cut Meat Co.

  0

  107

  255

  387

  453

  407

  533

  479

  Highland Meats

  0

  51

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Matheson Jess

  0

  0

  100

  303

  503

  267

  349

  0

  Sandyford Abattoir

  0

  0

  207

  204

  238

  204

  185

  227

  Dundee Abattoir

  0

  0

  1

  11

  13

  18

  0

  0

  Biggar Quality Meat

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  121

  Orkney Meats

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  93

  92

  ABP Newry

  0

  201

  255

  343

  499

  497

  510

  378

  ARDS Abattoir

  0

  207

  255

  358

  569

  596

  530

  523

  Ballymena

  0

  188

  0

  306

  292

  294

  355

  287

  Dungannon

  0

  206

  0

  362

  600

  614

  644

  504

  Foyle Meats

  0

  202

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Granville Meats

  0

  198

  256

  522

  480

  526

  512

  329

  Lurgan Chilling Ltd.

  0

  201

  252

  359

  494

  489

  497

  443

  Omagh Meats

  0

  204

  426

  371

  390

  506

  493

  536

  W D Coleraine

  0

  202

  630

  714

  389

  436

  471

  461

  Total

  120

  5,873

  21,260

  26,129

  25,170

  26,149

  28,271

  26,532

  1 Figures by abattoir for England for weeks commencing 29 April and 6 May are not available.

  Bentley Colliery
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what mineral residues were discovered by his Agricultural Development Advisory Service in respect of discharges from Bentley colliery at Dam Hill drain; what action he is taking to stop them getting into the food chain in adjoining land; what discussions he has held with British Coal Property; and if he will make a statement. [34970]

  Mr. Boswell
  I am aware of ADAS involvement in the analysis of dredgings on behalf of the Selby internal drainage board prior to application of the dredgings to land. The spreading of dredgings from inland waters to agricultural land is exempt from licensing under the DOE's Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. However, landspreading of such waste is subject to quantitative limits and must result in benefit to agriculture or ecological improvement. Landspreading must also be carried out without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which would harm the environment. It is the responsibility of the Environment Agency to ensure compliance with the regulations.

  Forest of Bowland
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those sites he proposes to designate as environmentally sensitive areas within the forest of Bowland. [34859]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government have taken no decision to increase the number of environmentally sensitive areas in England.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 2 April,Official Report, column 199, if he will undertake an immediate review of past EC directives to remove all gold plating. [35109]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 2 July 1996]: To review all past legislation implementing every EC directive would be a very substantial undertaking indeed. I do not believe that this would be beneficial or even a necessary exercise; and it would certainly involve disproportionate cost. Ministers in this Department have been fully aware for some time of the need to avoid gold plating of EC measures. Where this has taken place, it has been for clear policy reasons—for example, to provide enhanced

  477
  protection to UK consumers going beyond minimum European standards. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced to the House on 16 May the publication of a new "implementing EC law checklist". This checklist is designed to ensure that no unnecessary additional burdens are placed on business when EC directives are implemented in the UK.

  Potato Prices
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the wholesale and retail price of potatoes for each quarter period in the past two years. [34336]

  Mr. Boswell
  Data on wholesale prices are not available for potatoes. However, average prices received by potato growers in Great Britain, compiled from data collected by the Potato Marketing Board, are shown in the table.

  The average prices paid by households in Great Britain for fresh potatoes, compiled from the national food survey, are also shown.

  Pence per kg

  Average prices received by potato growers

  Average prices paid by households

  1994

  Q2

  13.9

  44.7

  Q3

  11.8

  42.2

  Q4

  13.5

  35

  1995

  Q1

  22.2

  46.7

  Q2

  23.5

  65.1

  Q3

  12.4

  45.3

  Q4

  15.7

  41.3

  1996

  Q1

  15.2

  44.7

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many non-departmental public bodies he estimates will be in place by the end of 1996; and if he will list them and their functions. [33542]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The estimated number of non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Northern Ireland Government Departments likely to be in place by the end of 1996 is 97.

  A list of each of the bodies and their function has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Lindsay Robb
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will call for a report from the Royal Ulster Constabulary on how much Mr. Lindsay Robb was paid for his evidence in the case of Mr. Colin Duffy; and if he will make a statement. [34732]
  478
  Sir John Wheeler
  Mr. Robb received no payment for giving evidence at the trial of Mr. Colin Duffy.

  Departmental Subscriptions
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all(a) periodicals, (b) magazines and (c) academic journals subscribed to by his Department in the last three months. [33756]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 20 June 1996]: The information is not available in the format requested. The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Orange Order Marches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the undertakings given by the RUC to the mediation network and residents of Garvaghy road for 1995 to the effect that there would not be a similar march on the same route in 1996. [35294]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 2 July 1996]: I understand no such undertakings were given by the RUC to mediation network or the residents of Garvaghy road.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the RUC about the re-routing of Orange order marches in Portadown away from predominantly nationalist areas. [35293]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 2 July 1996]: Whilst my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is regularly briefed on the security situation, the routing of parades is an operational matter for the RUC and he is not routinely briefed in detail in relation to the routes to be taken for individual marches.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors preclude the July Orange march to Drumcree following the 1985 route by Obins street. [35300]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 2 July 1996]: The RUC assess each parade under the terms of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 and impose conditions or re-route if they consider it appropriate.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will meet representatives of the Garvaghy road residents coalition to discuss the rerouting of the Orange order march away from Garvaghy road on 7 July. [35292]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 2 July 1996]: The routing of parades is an operational matter for the RUC and a meeting with the Secretary of State is unlikely to be of benefit at this time. I understand that the RUC both at headquarters and at local level have met representatives of the local residents and that a further meeting is planned.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Attorney-General what instruction has been given to the Crown Prosecution Service to(a) prepare a full account of a serious or

  479
  dangerous criminal event before proceedings have been finalised in cases involving mentally disordered persons and (b) transmit the account after completion of the criminal process (i) to clinicians responsible subsequently for the care of the patient and (ii) to C3 division of the Home Office. [34626]

  The Attorney-General
  The recommendations of the Jason Mitchell inquiry are under consideration. In particular, discussions are taking place between the mental health unit—formerly C3 division—of the Home Office and the Crown Prosecution Service about the way in which it may provide information in respect of restricted hospital patients, which will assist the mental health unit in carrying out its role.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Fees Office Computer
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee how many times and for what duration the Fees Office computer has been unavailable over the last three months; which company(a) supplied, (b) manufactured and (c) installed the machine; who is responsible for its maintenance; and on whose advice and when it was procured. [35371]

  Mr. Waller
  Responsibility for the procurement of computer systems and other goods and services for their departments lies with the head of each department of the House. I shall ask the Director of Finance and Administration as head of the relevant department to write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Air Travel Costs
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what further rebate agreements have been reached in respect of air travel costs since those announced on 1 November 1995,Official Report, column 253. [35494]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I am pleased to advise the hon. Member that, at its meeting on 14 May, the Administration Committee endorsed a proposed corporate option agreement between the House and British Midland whereby, subject to a certain minimum target per annum being achieved, and in return for the House dealing with British Midland as a preferred airline, BM will assist the House in reducing its air travel costs.

  The incentive discount is on a sliding scale, so that the greater the flown revenue, the greater the percentage, as well as actual, rebate. All BM flights in the executive fare, three-day executive return and Eurobudget categories undertaken on parliamentary business by hon. Members, their staff or staff of the House, and booked through the Travel Office since 1 April, qualify.

  As with the earlier agreement with British Airways, which continues, individual hon. Members or Committees who prefer to deal with other carriers or agents are still perfectly free to do so. However, I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind that for the House to benefit from this new agreement, BM flights do have to be booked through the Travel Office, as is the case with BA flights.

  Cash Dispensing Machines
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what steps he is taking to ensure the security of cash dispensing machines located within the precincts of the Palace. [35681]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I consider the current security arrangements for the cash dispensing machines entirely satisfactory. Cash dispensing machines have been available within the precincts of the Palace since 1990. In that time, there has been one incident where a machine has been damaged. The individual responsible was easily identified and action is being taken by the police and the House authorities.

SCOTLAND

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his proposals for automatic life sentences for second-time violent and sexual offenders in Scotland. [34169]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Offenders who are convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence for a second time should be sentenced to life imprisonment. We are consulting on our proposals and will bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of investment from abroad that has been attracted to Scotland over the last six months. [34184]

  Mr. George Kynoch
  In the six months to March 1996, overseas-owned companies chose Scotland as the location for 24 inward investment projects involving planned investment of more than £550 million and the expected creation or safeguarding of more than 6,000 jobs.

  Beef and Dairy Farmers
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is taking to keep the Scottish beef and dairy farming community fully informed of measures being taken by the Government. [34185]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have put in place a regular newsletter sent to all beef and dairy farmers in Scotland. The latest edition was issued this week and I am placing copies in the Library. We have also established and publicised telephone helplines.

  Curfew Orders
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his proposals to give the courts new powers to impose curfew orders, monitored by electronic tags. [34186]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We believe that electronically monitored orders could usefully add to the range of sentencing options available to the Scottish courts. We look forward to introducing legislative proposals which will offer the Scottish courts this new disposal.

  Enterprise Zones
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has held with the representatives of local authorities and enterprise companies concerning the enterprise zones in their localities. [34187]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I discussed Inverclyde enterprise zone with Renfrewshire Enterprise on 30 November last year and Lanarkshire enterprise zone with Lanarkshire Development Agency on 17 April this year.

  British Aerospace, Prestwick
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken following his visit to British Aerospace at Prestwick on Monday 10 June in respect of employment prospects at Prestwick. [34188]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall explore all appropriate means to assist British Aerospace to secure the site's long-term viability. Since 10 June, our officials have had extensive contacts with senior management of British Aerospace to seek to identify what scope may exist to help the company attract additional work to Prestwick. I am taking a close interest in the progress of these discussions.

  Council Housing
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the proposed level of central Government expenditure for the Scottish borders for public sector housing in each year to the year 2000. [34189]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Scottish Office does not incur expenditure directly on public sector housing in the Scottish borders. However, housing benefit will be paid to some public sector tenants and expenditure will be incurred by local housing authorities and by Scottish Homes. I congratulate the former Berwickshire district council on having been the first local authority to transfer its entire stock to a housing association.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the changes in council housing expenditure in Glasgow in real terms between 1989 and 1999. [34196]

  Mr. Robertson
  Decisions on the allocation of resources to individual authorities for 1998–99 will not be taken until early in 1998 following completion of the 1997 public expenditure survey. Expenditure by Glasgow district council on its own stock in 1989–90 was £129 million at 1995–96 prices.

  Football
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet representatives of the Scottish Football Association to discuss the provision of public funds for the development of football. [34190]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I meet representatives of the Scottish Football Association from time to time to discuss a range of relevant issues.

  Taxation
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from Scots on taxation matters. [34192]

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on taxation levels in Scotland. [34201]

  Mr. Kynoch
  We have received a number of representations expressing concern. This Government do not propose to introduce taxation rates in Scotland which differ from those in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent steps he has taken to tackle homelessness in Scotland. [34193]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  We are currently consulting on a revised draft code of guidance on homelessness. This year, we are providing grants of more than £400,000 to voluntary bodies for homelessness projects. Tackling homelessness is also a national priority for both local housing authorities and Scottish Homes.

  Forestry Roads
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the imposition of weight restrictions on forestry roads; and if he will make a statement. [34194]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Scottish Office Development Department received five representations about proposed weight restriction orders published by the former Highland regional council.

  Health Service
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on what measures he has taken to ensure that patient care is the first priority of NHS management practices. [34195]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The priorities and planning guidance for the NHS in Scotland each year requires all those working in the NHS to give patient care the highest priority.

  Orchard House Nursing Home
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the report of the inquiry into the management practices at Orchard House nursing home. [34197]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Decisions about the publication of this report are for Lanarkshire health board.

  Prison Construction (Kilmarnock)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his proposals to build a new privately financed prison at Bowhouse, Kilmarnock. [34199]
  483
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The proposed new 500-place prison will be designed, constructed, managed and financed by the private sector under the terms of the Government's private finance initiative.

  Mental Incapacity
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Scottish Law Commission report on mentally incapacitated adults. [34200]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 18 June,Official Report, column 409, careful consideration has been given to the Scottish Law Commission's report on incapable adults. The report raises a number of issues which are both important and sensitive, and proposes many changes in the law relating to legal procedures for looking after the property, financial affairs and personal welfare of mentally incapable adults. Whilst my right hon. Friend acknowledges the consultation which has already been carried out by the commission in coming to the conclusions it has reached, he also recognises that many people will have strong views on the proposals which the commission has made.

  Consequently, he has decided that, before legislating on the basis of the commission's proposals, there should be further consultation. It is proposed to issue a consultation paper this summer.

  Forestry
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of persons employed in the forestry service in 1989; how many acres were then in its administration; and what are the current figures. [34203]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Forestry Commission employed 5,118 people and managed 1,144,000 hectares of land in 1989. It currently employs 3,646 people and manages 1,080,000 hectares of land.

  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to devolve forestry administration to local communities. [34206]

  Mr. Kynoch
  We recently announced a series of new measures to allow local communities to become involved in the management of woodlands. When the Forestry Commission offers woodlands for sale, local communities will be able to buy them at the valuation price where this will help to promote the social and economic development of the community. Some local communities have already entered into forestry partnerships with the commission, and this is a flexible way of increasing communities' participation in forest management. The commission has recently published a practical guide, "Involving Communities in Forestry", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on extending the Crown's right to appeal against lenient sentences to Scotland. [34204]
  484
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government have announced proposals to extend to summary proceedings the Crown right of appeal against unduly lenient sentences.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much radioactive waste has been dumped in Scotland in the last 10 years; and what plans he has to ban the dumping of imported radioactive waste in Scotland. [34205]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Since 1986, some 5,500 cu m of low activity solid waste has been disposed of in Scotland by nuclear sites. The position of the UK Government in relation to the importation of radioactive waste is set out in the White Paper, "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy", Cm 2929.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he informed the members of the Sutherland committee on appeals criteria and alleged miscarriages of justice of his response to their recommendations; and if he will make a statement. [34207]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend discussed the Government's conclusions with Sir Stewart Sutherland and Lord Ross, the Lord Justice Clerk, on Friday 7 June. He subsequently made a statement to the Scottish Grand Committee in Ayr on 10 June, the day the committee's report was published. The White Paper, "Crime and Punishment", published on 17 June, details the Government's response to the committee's report.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those parliamentary constituencies he has visited in the last three months on official business and those constituencies he intends to visit in the next three months; and if he will make a statement. [33859]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since 20 March I have visited the following constituencies on official or parliamentary business:

  Constituency

  Stirling

  Livingston

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  Edinburgh, Central

  Hamilton

  Glasgow, Hillhead

  Gordon

  Perth and Kinross

  Aberdeen, East

  Dundee, East

  Kincardine and Deeside

  Glasgow, Govan

  Glasgow, Central

  Edinburgh, West

  Dunfermline, West

  Ayr

  485
  It is not my practice to give details of my future programme, but my office would normally write to the hon. Members concerned before visits to their constituencies on official business.

  Saltire
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on which dates the Saltire is flown from public buildings. [35001]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Where a Scottish Office building has two or more flagstaffs, the Saltire is flown on the following days in addition to the Union flag:

  6 February: Her Majesty's accession

  19 February: Birthday of the Duke of York

  10 March: Birthday of the Prince Edward

  March: Commonwealth day (second Monday)

  21 April: Birthday of Her Majesty the Queen

  2 June: Coronation day

  June: Official celebration of Her Majesty's birthday (date to be notified)

  10 June: Birthday of the Duke of Edinburgh

  1 July: Birthday of the Princess of Wales

  4 August: Birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother

  15 August: Birthday of the Princess Royal

  21 August: Birthday of the Princess Margaret

  November: Remembrance day (second Sunday)

  14 November: Birthday of the Prince of Wales

  20 November: Her Majesty's wedding day

  30 November St. Andrew's day.

  Bible John Case
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of the Strathclyde police inquiry into the Bible John case arising from the exhumation of the body. [34884]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Strathclyde police estimate the costs, excluding overhead costs, to be as follows:

  Police salary costs: £26,318

  Other costs: £6,204

  Professor Donald Macleod
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the costs to public funds of bringing to court the case against Professor Donald Macleod, broken down to show those relating to(a) the police, (b) the Procurator Fiscal Service and (c) the Crown Office. [34963]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate informs me that the costs of summary cases which proceed to trial can vary considerably depending on a number of factors, including the length of the trial. Procurators fiscal do not keep a record of the amount of time spent on individual cases. The information requested about the cost of the case against Professor Macleod is not therefore readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Lothian and Borders police have been able to calculate that their salary costs amounted to approximately £3,000.
  486
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action the Crown Office proposes to take following the summing up in the case against Professor Donald Macleod. [35255]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has asked the procurator fiscal to submit a report on the trial. A decision on whether any further action should be taken will be made by Crown counsel following a consideration of that report.

  Sex Offenders
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his proposals to require sex offenders to notify the police of any change of address in Scotland. [34177]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The White Paper, "Crime and Punishment" published on 17 June, set out my proposals to ensure that convicted sex offenders should be required to register their address with the police. I hope to introduce legislation for this purpose as soon as possible.

  Under-age Drinkers
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his proposals to provide the police with powers to confiscate alcoholic drink from under-age drinkers in public places in Scotland. [34175]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced proposals to allow the police to confiscate alcoholic drink from under-age drinkers in public places. This will allow the police to respond in a practical way to the problem without criminalising the behaviour of under-age drinkers.

WALES

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the definition of the A55 and M4 corridors in Wales outwith which he expects inward investment into Wales to channel at least 20 per cent. of new jobs coming into Wales; and what was the number and proportion of such jobs which went into the area outside these two corridors in each of the past three years. [34943]

  Mr. Hague
  For the purpose of Welsh Development Agency strategic guidance and targets, the eastern M4 corridor is defined as the coastal strip running from Chepstow in the east to Pyle in the west; the northern boundary is coincident with the southern boundary of the programme for the valleys area, extended east to include the southern half of Monmouthshire. In north Wales, from 1 April 1996, the eastern A55 corridor is defined as the non-rural part of the Wrexham county borough council area, the whole of Flinshire and the northern part of Denbighshire, including the towns of St. Asaph, Rhyl and Prestatyn. This is a slightly larger area than has previously been used. An illustrative map is being produced and, as soon as it is available, I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.
  487
  I will also arrange for the chief executive of the WDA to write to the hon. Member providing details of the jobs created outside these corridors in each of the past three years and for a copy of his letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Food Inspections
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the latest available information on the percentage of food health inspections carried out by each of the old district councils, indicating for each council(a) the number of inspections planned, (b) the number carried out, (c) the number of inspection staff employed and (d) the ratio of that number to (i) the population of the district and (ii) the number of food outlets requiring inspection. [34490]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information on the number of food health inspections planned and the number of inspection staff employed by the former district councils in Wales is not held centrally. The number of food outlets in each of the former districts, along with the number of inspections carried out during 1995 by each council, are detailed in the table:

  Number of premises and inspections Welsh districts 1995

  District

  Number of premises

  Inspections

  Aberconwy

  1,029

  733

  Alyn and Deeside

  937

  432

  Arfon

  822

  131

  Blaenau Gwent

  690

  178

  Brecknock

  754

  302

  Cardiff City

  2,668

  863

  Carmarthen

  895

  270

  Ceredigion

  1,096

  632

  Colwyn

  1,037

  363

  Cynon Valley

  119

  200

  Delyn

  725

  639

  Dinefwr

  491

  245

  Dwyfor

  653

  289

  Glyndwr

  849

  149

  Islwyn

  560

  162

  Llanelli

  863

  116

  Lliw Valley

  556

  272

  Meirionnydd

  855

  256

  Merthhyr Tydfil

  611

  317

  Monmouth

  730

  315

  Montgomeryshire

  932

  450

  488

  Number of premises and inspections Welsh districts 1995

  District

  Number of premises

  Inspections

  Neath

  685

  285

  Newport

  1,047

  315

  Ogwr

  1,314

  490

  Port Talbot

  511

  136

  Pembrokeshire

  1,105

  656

  Radnorshire

  331

  82

  Rhondda

  760

  320

  Rhuddlan

  956

  506

  Rhymney Valley

  1,026

  306

  South Pembrokeshire

  1,222

  456

  Swansea

  1,775

  1,067

  Taff-Ely

  800

  510

  Torfaen

  747

  499

  Vale of Glamorgan

  964

  657

  Wrexham Maelor

  1,017

  315

  Isle of Anglesey/Ynys Môn

  688

  221

  Trunk Road Maintenance (Powys)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on trunk road maintenance spending in Powys. [35256]

  Mr. Hague
  The allocation for trunk road current maintenance in Powys for 1996–97 is £2,497 million.

  Voluntary Sector (Funding)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ensure that changes in the arrangements for the funding of the voluntary sector in Wales do not interrupt programmes already in being; and if he will make a statement. [35257]

  Mr. Hague
  It is my policy to consult the voluntary sector over changes in arrangements for funding the sector.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his proposals for the allocation of funding to the voluntary sector in Wales. [35258]

  Mr. Hague
  The Government are committed to a strong and thriving voluntary sector in Wales. Funding from my Department supports the development of the voluntary sector and underpins the considerable contribution which the voluntary sector makes to the achievement of the Government's policy objectives.

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

Euro '96: Lessons on Crowd Control
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What experience has been gained in controlling crowds and countering hooliganism as a result of the Euro '96 football championship.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the extensive preparatory work by the Football Association, police and other bodies has been central in ensuring that the eight stadia used during Euro '96 were free from crowd trouble. The lessons are that tight controls on ticket sales, good liaison between police forces and intelligence targeted on troublemakers all have a part to play. We condemn the violence which occurred in Trafalgar Square and other places last Wednesday, which had nothing to do with the proper enjoyment of the game of football.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does she agree that the conduct of spectators was on the whole exemplary, for instance enabling the safety officer at the Villa Park match between Scotland and Holland to reverse his previous ban on the playing of bagpipes? Does she agree that one contributory factor was the use of special equipment such as closed circuit television, financed largely by the Football Trust, while the only deplorable feature was the rampaging of hooligans miles away from the football who burned cars and smashed windows?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the behaviour of the fans in the grounds was excellent. I attended the England v. Scotland match and was impressed by the friendly atmosphere. Unfortunately, trouble was mainly caused, not by the football fans, but by drunken hooligans away from the grounds. The new technology used by the police, including closed circuit television, plus recent improvements by football clubs, in particular all-seater stadia, contributed greatly to the success of the tournament. But I am delighted that the ban on the playing of bagpipes was lifted. I like the swirl of the pipes. They certainly added greatly to the atmosphere. The subject of bagpipes may be apposite this afternoon, when I have no doubt we will hear much about Scotland and its centrality to the Union.
Lord Howell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that those on this side of the House who have had a great deal to do with this competition endorse every word of her statement, in particular her appreciation of the wonderful skill of the Football Association in organizing
1440
this competition and the efforts of police and stewards? Is she further aware that in connection with this competition the only hooligans were to be found in the pages of the tabloid journals? Will she condemn that as we do? Does she also agree that so excellent was the behaviour of the fans in mixing together in the cities and the stadia that that may be built upon so that we can consider doing away with the segregation of fans, probably by the creation of friendship enclosures and so forth, and return to the time when supporters of rival teams could sit together and enjoy good sport, as they did in this competition?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the whole House will welcome the comments of the noble Lord about the conduct of fans. I am sure that the final remarks of the noble Lord will be looked at in the analysis which follows these matches. I absolutely agree with his comments about the tabloid press. The actions of some of the tabloid press went over the top. I agree with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that they deserve all the criticism which has been heaped upon them for that.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that in football there is still a need to keep a close eye on planned violence? One of the lessons to be learned from this competition is that intelligence and firm action against hooligans—not transporting them or admitting them to the grounds—are a way of giving football back to the family and to the ordinary fan. But planning and commitment are required, and there is no room for complacency in this matter.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, certainly there is no room for complacency; nor will there be any. I am sure that all noble Lords accept that hooliganism will probably be with us for some time yet. We will continue to isolate the hooligan. The noble Lord makes an important point. What is important is the planning, preparation and collaboration between all the parties to make sure that football is returned to the people who appreciate it—the family and the real fans of football.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the fact that 10,000 Scottish supporters descended on London? Unfortunately, they did not win their tie on the basis of a saved penalty. However, there were no riots in London and no trouble caused by these Scottish supporters. That happens wherever Scottish teams play abroad. Can the authorities learn some lessons from this example in order to improve the arrangements south of the Border?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I will not yield to the temptation to set any one country of the Union against any other, especially today. The noble Lord is absolutely right. The one match of the tournament that I saw was the Scotland v. England match. To me, the most heartening sight was a large block of Scottish fans in one part of the stadium who sang their hearts out long after the game was over. Those fans were adjacent to another block of English fans who also remained in their

1441
seats after the game. They turned to each other, applauded each other and walked out of the stadium arm in arm. I believe that that is the most marvellous example of how successful the tournament has been. I will not indulge in any splitting of the English and Scottish on this occasion.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether the police were taken by surprise by the degree of hooliganism shown in Trafalgar Square?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can say without any hesitation that they were not taken by surprise. Even before the match was played, the police knew that there were people who were not football fans descending on London, and that the likelihood was that they would arrive in Trafalgar Square. The noble Lord will know that the trouble was contained in Trafalgar Square. Those people did not rampage around the West End. The video recordings which were taken are still being analysed, but there were only 1,144 arrests throughout the whole of the three weeks, which includes that one night in Trafalgar Square, which was the worst night. That is quite a record. It is a feather in the cap of all who were involved, particularly the police.

BSE: Public Health
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they have taken to protect public health following the Secretary of State for Health's two Statements on BSE on 20th March (HC Deb., col. 375) and 25th March (HC Deb., col. 710).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, before answering the noble Baroness's Question I should like to declare an interest. My husband manages a dairy and beef producing farm.
The Government have ensured that no meat from a bovine animal over 30 months old enters the human food chain; made the head, excluding the tongue, of all bovine animals over six months old a specified bovine material; prohibited mammalian meat and bone meal from being fed to livestock, fish and horses; and prohibited the use of mammalian meat in bonemeal and in fertilizers used on agricultural land. The Government have made available £4.5 million for research into BSE and CJD in addition to the £9 million already committed.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, as far as it goes. However, like so many answers and discussions of this issue since March, it seems to be concerned primarily with agricultural rather than public health issues. There has indeed been a remarkable silence from the Department of Health about the public health issues since the Statements were made in March. I am sure that the
1442
Minister will accept that that means that many consumers are still somewhat confused about the risks and potential risks that they may run. Does the Minister recall that in the Statement on 25th March, repeating the Statement from another place, she said:
"The situation needs to be kept under careful review so that additional significant information can be taken into account as soon as it becomes available".—[Official Report, 25/3/96: col. 1485.]
Are the Government now saying that, despite the continuing work of SEAC and despite the fact that five new cases of the new type of CJD have been reported since March, there is nothing further on the public health issue that they wish to say?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in that the Government are keeping the whole issue under close review. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State when he made his two Statements in the other place said that the Government would strengthen the national CJD surveillance unit in Edinburgh. We have done that. He said also that a programme of research would be announced. Professor John Swales, the director of research and development, made that announcement on 26th June. We regard public health as of paramount importance. The noble Baroness mentioned five new cases. There are not five new cases; there are five new suspected cases. There has been only one confirmed case since the reports in March. As she will know, the Government are publishing the reports of information that they receive from SEAC and from the national CJD surveillance unit on a monthly basis, and the figures that come out on a three-monthly basis.
Lord Winston: My Lords, one of the problems to which I drew attention in the debate on 20th March was that it is difficult to assess the situation because of the lack of clinical information. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether she feels that it might be possible to publish the clinical details of the cases assessed so far, so that we in turn can assess the medical risks involved with CJD in this new outbreak.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that we have a good record of publishing research through various means, not least through some of the learned journals. Indeed the Lancet in April published detailed information on the CJD cases. We are anxious that everyone should know what is going on. That is why the variant that has come to light was made public as soon as it was known. We are working with our European colleagues to ensure that that information is made known world-wide. The WHO is also co-operating with this country to ensure that all the knowledge that is gained is spread as widely as possible.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with a theory which was produced to me only last week by an American pathologist, that the only direct clinical proof of transfer from offal to humans resulting in CJD originated in a tribe of headhunters in New Guinea?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are aware of the disease, which is called kuru. Clearly, that is one of the issues which the expert committee set up by the Government to consider BSE and CJD (SEAC) has taken into account. It is keeping a close watch on the progress of the disease because we are anxious to know all about it and that it should be contained.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it not the case that in this age of instant gratification everybody is looking for a simple cause of the disease and that it looks as though it is extremely complex? A great deal of scientific research and a lot of patience is needed and in the meantime we must take every precaution we can to prevent it spreading. Does the Minister agree that the understanding is that it is not infectious in the terms in which we know it—bacteriological or viral—and that we must simply wait and see what the scientists produce?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, I agree entirely with the noble Countess. People always want the answer and in respect of something as complicated as this it will probably take anything up to 10 years to find some definitive research results.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that since the Statements made in March no evidence of any kind has come forward which would in any way modify the views expressed that there was no real risk associated with eating beef or beef products and that that remains the position today?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. Professor Patterson, the chairman of the SEAC, has said that we believe that beef is safe in any common usage of the word and that anybody can eat beef or beef products and be safe. The situation has not changed.
The Earl of Macclesfield: My Lords, is the Minister aware of any evidence to suggest that CJD Mark II has not come from CJD Mark I in any normal way that a disease mutates?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is one aspect of the research that is being undertaken. There is a view from the national CJD surveillance unit that the two are similar, but whether there is a direct link is subject to research.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the evidence is that there is possibly—and some people say probably—a common cause? Although it would be correct to say that communication across them has not been proved, a similarity of origin seems to be generally accepted.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, both the variant and the original CJD are being studied by the surveillance unit. Therefore we look to it to see exactly where the links are, if there are any, and what the causes are once they are identified.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, on the basis of the Minister's answers, many of them encouraging, in particular her answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, would she say in retrospect that the public health alarm which was created after the Statements in March were somewhat exaggerated?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, I believe that they certainly were exaggerated. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that this is a very rare condition. One in a million people in this country get it. Indeed, other countries which do not have BSE have the same level of incidence of CJD.

Food Safety: Responsibility
2.55 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether public health would be better protected if the safety and quality of the nation's food was the responsibility of an independent agency.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government believe that food safety is of such importance that Ministers should remain directly responsible and accountable to Parliament.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply perfectly illustrates the Government's complacency as regards food safety? Is he further aware that in a recent survey 49 per cent. of those surveyed believed that government departments were the least trustworthy in giving impartial advice on food safety? There is now increasing support among consumers, farmers and those in the food industry for the Labour Party proposal first made in 1988 for an independent food standards agency. With all that has happened since 20th March, when will the Government accept the need for a radical overhaul of our food policy?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not believe that I recall seeing any details of the Labour Party's policy. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has not either and I suspect that they do not exist—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Lucas: My Lords, what would such an independent agency be except remote from government and unaccountable? In our opinion, that is entirely unacceptable in such an importance part of government and daily life.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the noble Lord's supplementary question contained an awful warning for us all as to what might happen if a Labour Government were returned to Parliament? We would then be festooned with agencies interfering in almost every human activity.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is possible to interpret the Labour Party's policy as being either

1445
extremely dangerous or extremely woolly. If it is extremely dangerous and if applied over the past few years we would have no beef industry, no poultry or egg industry and, I am sorry to tell my noble friend, we would have no blue cheese.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, irrespective of what Labour Party policies may or may not be on this matter, the public perception is that there ought to be a division of responsibility in government for safeguarding the interests of the producers of food and safeguarding the interests of the consumers of food? Will the Government give serious consideration to that aspect?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, there is always an argument about how in practice one should divide things in government. If the noble Lord will look across the pond to the United States, which has an agency which appears in some way to be that separate agency about which the noble Lord is talking, he will see that it takes a great deal of account of the interests of the industry, as it must, because that is in the interests of consumers. For instance, the FDA is taking two years and a lot of consultation before it will ban the use of mammalian protein in ruminant feeds. It may not even come to that end. In practice, there is no difference between the way the FDA operates and the way in which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food operates in this country. We both put public safety and public health first. To our mind, the Ministry does it very well in this country.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, however unreasonable the Minister may believe it to be, is it not the case that public confidence in the present system is not as good as it might be? What do the Government propose to do to restore that confidence in the interests of all the industries concerned in this country?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I believe that the best way to restore public confidence is to act in a way which deserves it. I believe that that is what we are doing. Of course, the public are reasonably sceptical about official advice and that is not something which troubles me. I cannot see that anything which might be in the proposal made by the Labour Party would in any way increase or deserve increased consumer confidence.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I was not discussing the Labour Party's proposals. I was discussing the present situation which the Government are supposed to be handling.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that each of the proposals which the Labour Party has made since 1988 were rubbished by the Government at the time and that most of them are now government policy? On 20th March we made eight proposals which were rubbished by the Prime Minister the next day, but most of them are now government policy. Will the Minister tell the House why agencies are regarded as suitable for health and safety and environmental protection, but an agency to protect consumers from unsafe food is not?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, what the noble Lord's colleague on the Back-Benches has said illustrates
1446
exactly the difference. It is an issue in which consumers and the public have a direct interest and for which Ministers should be directly accountable to Parliament.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, if the Government are so pleased with the Ministry why was it necessary to appoint a special troubleshooter, Mr. Freeman, to correct the mistakes of the Ministers concerned?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am entirely at sea as to what the noble Lord is referring. I am not aware that that has anything to do with the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is not one of the problems that the newspapers run columns by doctors and others always stressing the dangers of one particular food or another so that if we really followed that advice, we should be on a starvation diet? Has the Minister read a book—and here I declare an interest at once—written by my son-in-law, Dr. Le Fanu, who entitled his book Eat Your Heart Out?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am very sorry to say that I have not read the book by the noble Lord's son-in-law. I shall try to obtain a copy from the Library, if it is classified as non-fiction of course. The position taken by the media is rather extraordinary. If one were to believe what they said on food safety, we should all be adopting policies from which the Germans currently suffer and which the newspapers now say we should shrink from.

Disaster Relief
3 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the unexpected increase in disaster relief and food aid in the 1990s, they consider that this scale of assistance can be adequately monitored and carry public support.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we have increased our capacity to assess, co-ordinate and monitor the increased level of disaster relief, including food aid, in recent years. I am confident that this capacity meets the current need and that we have public support for an effective British response to overseas emergencies.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he not agree that the exceptional level of emergency aid over the past three or four years has distorted the image of aid giving and could diminish public support for it? On a day when 10 leading development agencies have issued a common manifesto on this subject, will the Minister at least accept that the war against poverty and attempts at long-term development are not receiving the public attention that they deserve?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we continue to provide both a substantial aid programme and timely and adequate responses to the world's emergencies, whether natural disasters or conflict. We manage to make adequate provision each year for foreseeable relief aid without detrimental effect on the sustainable aspects of the aid programme. I believe that we retain public support for both.
The UK aid programme is firmly poverty-focused. About two-thirds of the bilateral aid programme went to the poorest countries in 1994–95 and aid to those countries is on grant terms. While the amount of emergency aid has increased, it is interesting that as a percentage of the total ODA programme the amount of overseas aid for 1991–92 was £271 million. In 1994–95, it was £334 million, but that was also 14 per cent. of the total ODA programme. Therefore, while the amount is increasing, the percentage is not.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, what are the Government doing to help those countries most prone to disasters?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, in 1994–95, which is the latest year for which figures are available, the UK spent nearly £3.7 million in support of programmes aimed at preventing and mitigating the effects of disasters. Particular attention was paid to those countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean which are particularly susceptible to disasters. Many of the projects were implemented by UK NGOs working with the local authorities in the countries concerned. We also support a number of initiatives managed by international agencies such as the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the document published today by the leading aid NGOs which was mentioned by the noble Earl, A Case for Aid, under the heading "Spend Now and Save Later" it is stated:
"Aid can promote long-term development and growth, and by spending now we can save lives and resources and protect the environment"?
Does the Minister agree with that?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I totally agree with that. That has been the Government's policy for many years.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the very large amounts of money which have been spent on emergency aid programmes are necessitated frequently by the failure of the international community to act in time to prevent disaster? Does he not agree that the solution to that problem lies in the political sphere rather than in the aid sphere? As we come up to the time for the election or re-election of the Secretary General of the United Nations, will the Minister tell us what consultations the Government are having with other governments, not least in Europe, to decide the criteria by which that election or re-election should take place in terms of the role which the United Nations should be constructively playing in preventing disasters?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I do not think that it is appropriate for me to talk about the Secretary General
1448
of the United Nations at the moment. There is a Question on that matter next week, and that is when I should like to deal with it.
The noble Lord knows our attitude to aid. We are trying to encourage everyone to produce aid as effectively as we do on a bilateral basis. We shall certainly continue to do that.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, as long as there are surplus foods and foods in intervention, is it not right that they should be used for emergency relief?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we provide a substantial amount of food, and cereals in particular, for emergency relief. Our allocation through the EU this year is 110,770 tonnes of cereals. In fact, last year we provided 205,000 tonnes of cereals. One of the great difficulties with food relief is that the food which is given must be compatible with the diets of the people for whom it is intended. It is no good providing them with food which may have disastrous consequences for them if they are not used to eating those foods.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble friend comment on the monitoring element of the Question? Does he consider that, for example, the distribution of the food is carried out properly?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we have been increasing the monitoring which has been done. It would not be accurate for me to say that all distribution is carried out perfectly because we are not living in a perfect world. However, we have increased the amount of monitoring, and we are increasing the number of UK-trained, aid-educated people who are now working together with the EU in Europe.
Earl Grey: My Lords, does the Minister recognise also the other NGOs which play such an important part in disaster relief?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am delighted to pay tribute to the efforts of British NGOs in disaster relief. They are often among the first to bring life-saving relief to those affected by conflicts and natural disasters. British Government support for the excellent specialist NGOs is an important element of our response to emergencies.

Business of the House: Summer Recess
3.8 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know—and it certainly gives me great pleasure to announce—that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Summer Recess on Thursday, 25th July and will return on Tuesday, 15th October. It may be equally convenient to know that the House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday, 25th July.

1449
While I am on my feet, perhaps I may take this opportunity to draw to your Lordships' attention the very great length of the speakers' list for today's debate. While we have taken the decision that the debate should not be time limited, it would obviously be desirable if all noble Lords were to exercise some self-restraint over the length of their speeches. As indicated on the speakers' list, if all speakers were to limit themselves to a maximum of 10 minutes, the debate would still continue until about 10.20 p.m. Although I have no desire to prevent your Lordships debating this issue in full—in fact I welcome it—I have no doubt that noble Lords towards the end of the list would particularly appreciate brevity on the part of noble Lords speaking earlier.

Trading Schemes Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Noise Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

The Constitution
3.11 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) rose to move, That this House take note of the United Kingdom's existing constitutional settlement, and of the implications of proposals for change.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, which deals with a topic of fundamental importance to this country. As is well known, we are unusual in not having a written document referred to as our constitution. That does not mean that we have no constitution. We certainly do. But it is found in the body of convention, common law, case law and statute making up the law of the United Kingdom. Many provisions are statutory: the Bill of Rights and the Act of Union, among many others. Ours is a flexible constitution, in the sense that conventions and rules, evolved over long periods, adapt to a multitude of situations which a written document, reflecting attitudes and circumstances of a particular period or time, could not. That is a strength of our system, which the Prime Minister last week quite rightly described as "robust".
Historically, all power in this country ultimately derives from the Crown: the Government consisting of the Queen's ministers; the Queen in Parliament as the legislature; and Her Majesty's judges and magistrates exercising the judicial power of the state. There is separation of those powers—the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary—but they are not contained in water-tight compartments. We have Cabinet government in which members of the Executive branch are drawn from the two Houses of Parliament
1450
and are both individually and collectively responsible to Parliament. Parliament, however, delegates legislative powers to members of the Executive, and certain powers of adjudication are conferred on Ministers and other non-judicial agencies. Judicial Members of the House of Lords serve as both judges and legislators; and the office of Lord Chancellor adds to these a ministerial role.
I believe that this arrangement of functions has considerable advantages. For example, the presence of the most senior members of the judiciary in this House enables the legislative process to draw on a tremendous concentration of legal expertise and judicial experience, with benefits going far beyond consideration of what is usually called "lawyers law". I am sure that all of us are very much looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice of England in today's debate.
In the absence of a written constitution in the conventional sense, we place considerable weight on practice and convention. The judgment, discretion and good faith of those operating our constitutional arrangements are of the greatest importance. It is a strength rather than a weakness. It inculcates mutual recognition and understanding of the respective roles, and permits flexibility and adaptation to developing circumstances. As long as we have people in public life with the necessary qualities—and I believe that we are very fortunate in that respect—I think our arrangements work at least as well as, perhaps better than, many others.
While the functions of government are not compartmentalised, the basic principles and divisions are clear. The primary function of law making rests with Parliament, the supreme law-making body. The Government, the Executive branch, must act within the law and the courts must apply and give effect to it. The role of the courts in developing the common law should not be underestimated; but that role is developing principle, not creating wholly new law. Statute is the supreme source of law, and in any conflict between the common law and the clearly expressed will of the legislature in an Act of Parliament, the Act must prevail. But even here the function of the courts is by no means purely mechanical: they must construe and apply these Acts and, in doing so, they may rely on historical common law principles of interpretation and application.
What they cannot do, and show no sign of attempting to do, is refuse to give effect to an Act of Parliament or to question its validity. It is sometimes said that your Lordships' House has already, in the Factortame case, struck down an Act of Parliament by reference to a higher order which dilutes or reduces the sovereignty of Parliament; namely, the law and institutions of the European Community or the European Union. I think that that is an incorrect analysis of the Factortame decision.
It is important to be clear that Community law, including decisions of the European Court of Justice, has authority here by virtue of an Act of Parliament—namely, the European Communities Act 1972, with subsequent amendments to it. The Factortame decision rests on the basis that the Merchant

1451
Shipping Act had to be read in the context of the European Communities Act, which expressly provided that all other statutes should be construed and have effect subject to the provisions giving Community law primacy in our legal system. That was enough, in the absence of a clear provision in the 1988 Act overriding the 1972 Act, to reverse the rule that, in a conflict between two Acts of Parliament, the later takes precedence. Accordingly the English court correctly proceeded on the basis that Parliament did not intend to override Community law in passing the Merchant Shipping Act. It is open to Parliament expressly to override the 1972 Act and, if it did so, the courts would be bound to give effect to this, even though that might be a breach of obligations under the Community treatise. But that would be a problem for the Government and Parliament to deal with, rather than the courts.
Similar considerations apply to our membership of other international organisations, such as the United Nations. Resolutions of the Security Council bind us in international law but, where they need to have legal force in this country, they can be implemented under the United Nations Act 1946 by an Order in Council.
It may also be argued that Parliament's sovereignty is limited by various other legal conventions and treaties. Again, as a matter of legal theory, I believe that that is not correct. Conventions operate by agreement of the parties. The process of entering into them is not irreversible: however, it is open to a party to withdraw under conditions that may be specified. If the power of Parliament in that respect is subject to any limits, those limits are due to political considerations—and considerations of international comity—rather than purely legal considerations.
I have already referred to the process of evolution by which the constitutional principles of this country have been built up. The result is a network of arrangements ensuring good government and fairness to individuals. Essential to it is the interplay between historical common law principles and the application of statutes. I take the view that common law principles have embedded in them certain settled concepts which provide broad and flexible protection of individuals' rights. One of the principles of interpretation to which I have referred is that the courts will have regard to these basic tenets when interpreting statutes, resolving ambiguities so as to minimise the effect on essential and particularly important elements of the common law. I personally consider this approach more satisfactory and better for the individual than one based on written and therefore less flexible principles. That is one reason why the Government do not favour the elaboration of a Bill of Rights or the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law.
Your Lordships have debated the question of a Bill of Rights, whether in the form of the European Convention or in some other form, on several occasions. I will today merely state what I believe to be a few of the salient points. The question of whether the European Convention is incorporated or not is, in my view, of little relevance to the real standard of legal protection afforded by the state to individuals in this country. Nor is there any evidence, in my view, that it would reduce
1452
the number of cases going from this country to the human rights court in Strasbourg. Our record at Strasbourg has been questioned; but if account is taken of relative population sizes and the length of time the right of individual petition and jurisdiction of the court has been accepted here, we are about in the middle of the field.
Legal traditions, legislative and judicial approaches lead in practice to the same or a higher level of protection of human rights provided in a number of other ways. Unwritten principles, for example, of rationality and legality can be greatly superior to the list of rights set out in the convention. There is also a presumption applied by the courts in cases of ambiguity that Parliament does not intend to legislate inconsistently with the United Kingdom's international obligations.
Enacting a Bill of Rights in terms similar to the convention, or incorporating the convention itself would give courts wide discretion over matters which in my view are properly the preserve of Parliament. It is for Parliament to legislate so that our legal arrangements comply with convention principles, taking account, for example, of the margin of appreciation allowed to member states under Strasbourg case law. The extent to which that margin of appreciation is used is clearly, in my judgment, a matter for political balance but would have to be decided by our courts on the basis of a generally worded provision if the convention were incorporated in our law in terms such as I have mentioned. This contrasts strongly with our own legislative drafting tradition and would leave much scope for judicial interpretation and of course litigation. I think it would also have the effect of creating the impression that the Strasbourg court was in the nature of a court of appeal from the House of Lords.
Moreover, the scope for judicial interpretation would inevitably draw judges into making decisions which are essentially political rather than legal in nature. For example, the courts might be asked to decide sensitive matters such as the conditions under which abortions should be allowed. That has been put forward as a constitutional question in some other jurisdictions which will occur quite readily to your Lordships. In my view our tradition is clearly that such matters should be decided by Parliament. Against such a background a strong demand would emerge for judges to be chosen for their social or political views rather than their legal qualities and impartiality. It would be a short step to the kind of senatorial hearings on the appointment of judges which we see in the United States. In my view that would be a fundamental change in the nature of our judiciary, and an unwelcome one.
I regard the appointment of judges as a most important feature of our constitutional arrangements and among the most important of my duties as Lord Chancellor in so far as I am concerned with those matters. The judges collectively form the cornerstone of our system of justice. It is imperative that they are of the highest quality. My aim is to ensure that we have the best judges available and that selection is efficient, fair and open. I therefore very much welcome the endorsement given by the Home Affairs Select

1453
Committee of the other place in its recent report to the existing judicial appointments system and to the developments of it which I have introduced.
I now turn to another cornerstone of the United Kingdom's constitution; namely, the Union of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Government believe there is no greater priority than the preservation of that Union. Following the historic settlement that created our United Kingdom we have all benefited from centuries of united history and common endeavour. In my opinion the Union guarantees stability and enhances the status of each of its member nations. We would each be hugely diminished by the break-up of the United Kingdom.
The proposals for devolution, supported by some of your Lordships and by some of their colleagues in another place, do not appear to me adequately to meet that test. In my view these proposals contain serious flaws which I do not believe can be resolved and which would lead to a real risk of breaking up the United Kingdom. The fundamental problem to my mind is that the nations making up the United Kingdom are of such different size that no balanced devolution is possible.
One particular matter that I wish to raise at the outset is that proposals relating to your Lordships' House, for example, do not appear to take sufficiently into account the long enshrined principle of bicameral government. In Scotland a single chamber parliament has been proposed with powers over some areas of government. Some 5 million of the Queen's subjects, in substantial aspects of their lives, would fall under provisions enacted by a unicameral legislature. I believe this would be counter to the evolution of our constitution that has taken place over the past millennium.
As we are considering a referendum on this matter, why, for example, should there not be a question in the proposed referendum on the removal of Scottish legislation from scrutiny by your Lordships' House? There are certainly risks to the Scottish economy in these proposals. Devolution would threaten the livelihood of those who live and work in Scotland, and I believe would deter at least some of those contemplating investing there. At the heart of this is the proposal for tax varying powers of the new assembly. Especially against a backdrop of the gradual evolution of our constitution which I have described, this proposal highlights the central issue of the relationship between an Edinburgh parliament and the Westminster Parliament. This relationship is fundamental, surely, to any proposal for tax raising powers, or tax lowering powers. Tax varying powers is the expression which has been more commonly used recently.
If a new Scottish parliament is created, it is obvious that the major issues affecting the United Kingdom will continue to be discussed and resolved at Westminster. It is there that those who wish to have an important say in our affairs will want to be, as opposed to a parliament in Scotland. If one wants illustration of that, one has only to ask whether the three prominent Scottish politicians who were recently made Members of the Privy Council will wish to be in a Scottish parliament or the Parliament at Westminster. The Scottish parliament once created will be longing to obtain more of such power. This is the
1454
tension that will provide a powerful force tending to prize apart the United Kingdom. Further, it is difficult to see how it is fair that Scottish Members will continue to legislate on important matters for England when their English colleagues would have no say on such issues in Scotland.
It is crucial that the risks of devolution are recognised. I do not believe it is satisfactory to pledge a referendum to be held before a devolution Bill is proposed. A referendum would require legislation but a referendum before legislation about devolution would do nothing to resolve these difficulties. Surely people need to know precisely what they would be voting for. For example, what is to be the financial relationship between Scotland and Westminster? I sought to emphasise a few moments ago how crucial that must be to the question of tax-varying powers. How can you sensibly raise a question about tax-varying proposals for a Scottish Assembly until you know the legislated answer to that? Some say that you can put it all in a White Paper.
Lord Howie of Troon: Or a Green Paper.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is less certain in a Green Paper, if I pick up correctly what comes from my left. But surely White Papers are not necessarily the will of Parliament; and it is surely taking Parliament for granted to suppose that what a government appear to set out in a White Paper will necessarily be the answer that Parliament will return in legislation.
I believe that any change—and change and development are part of the genius of our constitution—must conserve the evident and hard won benefits which have accrued over time to all parties to our Union. Nothing could more clearly demonstrate our commitment to practical, pragmatic improvement than the recent strengthening of the role of the Scottish Grand Committee in another place. Issues relevant to the people of Scotland are now being debated on Scottish soil, in every part of Scotland, with members of the public present, enabling them to see their Government at work.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer went to the meeting in Aberdeen. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security took part in the meeting in Dunfermline. My right honourable friend the Prime Minster will be going to Dumfries on Friday to discuss matters connected with the Government of the United Kingdom. Other Cabinet colleagues will undoubtedly have the privilege of attending such meetings in the future. These innovations are self-evidently working, making government more effective. We will look at the scope for further changes, provided that they pass the same test.
There is one other very important change which I should like to announce to your Lordships this afternoon. I think that it is an illustration of the deeply engraved sense of belonging to a Union that I know this whole House feels. Exactly 700 years ago, in 1296, King Edward I of England brought from

1455
Scotland the Stone of Destiny and housed it in Westminster Abbey. It remains the property of Her Majesty in right of her Crown.
I am now glad to be able to let your Lordships know, as the Prime Minister is doing in another place at this time, that on the advice of Her Majesty's Government Her Majesty has agreed that the Stone should be returned to Scotland. I think that this is only justice to the Scottish people, and I am very proud to be a Member of a Government who have been able to do this. Of course, the Stone will return to Westminster Abbey to play its traditional role in the Coronation ceremonies of future sovereigns of the United Kingdom as the very base of the chair on which that great Union rests.
I am sure that the whole House would wish to be assured that the Stone will be placed in an appropriate setting in Scotland. The Government will be consulting Scottish and Church opinion about this. The Stone might be housed in Edinburgh Castle alongside the Honours of Scotland, Europe's oldest Crown Jewels. Alternatively, it might be appropriate to place it in St. Margaret's Chapel inside the Castle or in St. Giles' Cathedral. There may be other options. Once these consultations have been completed, the necessary arrangements will be made and the Stone will be installed with due dignity in its new home in Scotland; and certainly I for one will be extremely pleased to see that happen.
The approach of the Government to our constitutional arrangements is an evolutionary one: that change should be made only where it is needed. Rapid change in many areas, especially in social and economic fields, underlines the need to preserve stability where existing arrangements have stood us in good stead. In opening this debate I have touched only upon some of the areas which your Lordships will wish to consider. I do not pretend to have dealt with them in any kind of detail.
In opening I said that the question of the constitution is an issue of fundamental importance for our country, and of great interest politically, legally and indeed academically. I look forward to a fascinating debate; and I renew my Motion.
Moved, That this House takes note of the United Kingdom's existing constitutional settlement, and of the implications of proposals for change.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness White: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he tell the House whether he has considered how desirable it is that on political matters the Lord Chancellor behaves in the same way as the Speaker of the House of Commons, and not go too far into the subject that he has been discussing in this House?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it has long been the tradition of this House that when the Lord Chancellor is acting as Speaker of the House he stands in the middle. When he makes observations as a Member of the Government, for some reason which history I am sure will explain to me, he moves to the left and finds himself very near to the Liberal Benches.
1456
However, the Speaker of the House of Commons is in an entirely different position. She has powers of order which I do not possess, your Lordships not requiring to be ordered. Therefore my position is quite different from that of the Speaker of the House of Commons; and I believe that it is within the constitutional proprieties that I said all that I said this afternoon.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, on a more amiable note, with regard to the Stone, does he agree that the people of Scotland asked for bread and they were lent a Stone?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I happened to be at a debating society shortly after the Stone was moved on an earlier occasion. A debate was signalled with the subject: "That Stones are borne, but Scones are bread".
As a more serious answer to the noble Lord's question, I believe that symbolism is important in our constitution. The Stone is an important symbol and we believe that it is a symbol of justice that the Stone of Destiny, taken away in circumstances with which the noble Lord is familiar, should now be returned with dignity to a proper home in Scotland.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, we look forward shortly to the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill. He is a jurist of the highest distinction; today he must be non-controversial, but he is bound to inform.
Last Wednesday in London, the Prime Minister delivered a wide-ranging speech on the constitution. It was the first salvo in the "New Labour: New Danger Campaign", the last gasp slogan of the party opposite, after all its inconsistent predecessors failed to convince. The Prime Minister's speech was in a way a classic in the genre of negative campaigning. It scaled new heights of complacency about the present state of our constitutional arrangements. It was as if our constitution was a jewel so beyond improvement that we have reached the end of history.
The Prime Minister has said that:
"devolution to Scotland was one of the most dangerous propositions ever to be put before the British people".
Last Wednesday, he claimed that it would,
"destabilise and diminish the British Parliament".
Two days later, in Edinburgh, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Blair, was renewing the Labour Party's commitment to legislate for a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly. On every great development in our country's constitution there have been those who, like the Prime Minister, have resisted change because the time is not ripe, because the time is never now. But they have so often been swept aside by the tide of change.
In the same speech, the Prime Minister's satisfaction with our current arrangements was on fine display, with his outright dismissal of the case for the incorporation into our domestic law of the European Convention on

1457
Human Rights. Practically every other European country has incorporated it, but not us. Nor, according to the Prime Minister, should we ever. He told us that,
"we have no need of a Bill of Rights because we have freedom".
The mother and father of complacency of that order is an enervating insularity.
The contrast with Mr. Blair is sharp. He has reaffirmed Labour's commitment to incorporate the convention so that our citizens can secure their human rights guaranteed under the convention, not from a court in Strasbourg but from our own judges. Our judges should be allowed to make a distinctive British contribution to the development of human rights in Europe. Labour's position is that we should be leading in the development of human rights in Europe, not grudgingly driven to swallow the medicine prescribed for us by the court in Strasbourg, as time and again we are found in breach of the convention.
But the Prime Minister's considered position is that the British conception of freedom is quite good enough for us, although, if a law exists that affects human rights in a way that clearly breaches the convention, it will be that law, not the requirements of the convention, which our courts have to enforce. Mr. Blair said of Mr. Major:
"he advocates no change. We advocate sensible change".
Mr. Blair is right.
I return to devolution for Scotland and Wales. Labour believes that government of the United Kingdom is over-centralised, that the institutions of democracy and government should be brought closer to the people whom they represent. There is a contradiction at the core of the thinking of the party opposite: "yes" to subsidiarity in Europe; "no" to subsidiarity in the UK.
Denunciation after denunciation of devolution comes from the party opposite. Their protestations can be kept in proportion if we remind ourselves that in the 1970s they were proposing a Scottish assembly, to be elected by PR, with revenue raising and taxation powers in addition to the block grant, to be controlled by the Assembly, and with no reduction in the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster. Let me remind the House what the Scottish Tory manifesto of 1974 actually said:
"Devolution is our policy and is the direct opposite of separatism. It can free Scotland from the frustrations of centralisation".
May I tell your Lordships who it was who declared at a rally in Edinburgh in 1975:
"The establishment of a Scottish Assembly must be a top priority to ensure that more decisions are taken in Scotland by Scots"?
It was Margaret Thatcher, now the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. May I tell your Lordships who it was who wrote in that self-same year of the need for the Tory Party to prepare itself:
"for a future where a Scottish Assembly is a permanent feature of political life, as it inevitably will be";
and who it was who wrote eloquently of the Tory commitment to "diffusion of power"? It was Michael Forsyth, now the Secretary of State for Scotland.
May I tell your Lordships who it was who said at the same time that the proposed new Scottish assembly,
1458
"with complete autonomy in the formulation of policy, could be the catalyst for recharging the batteries of the Tory Party in Scotland"?
It was Mr. Forsyth's predecessor as Scottish Secretary, Mr. Ian Lang. May I tell noble Lords who it was who said in that year—1975 was the year of Conservative enlightenment towards Scotland—
"We would strongly oppose any suggestion of bargaining Scottish representation at Westminster in order to obtain parliamentary approval for the Devolution Bill—in our view the maintenance of the present number of Scottish MPs should be a prime objective in the months to come"?
It was Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, now the Foreign Secretary. How the vision of youth can fall prey to crabbed middle age!
Members of a party whose principled position once was to regard a directly elected assembly as entirely consistent with the political and economic integrity of the United Kingdom are, of course, well entitled to change their minds. But we could be forgiven for thinking that so dramatic a change of mind might inspire a certain reticence in their condemnation of what they once proposed.
The Government's opposition to devolution for Scotland and Wales does not begin to square with their advocacy of devolution for Northern Ireland as part of a settlement there. Let me remind the party opposite what its proposals for a settlement there are. They are for a legislative assembly of about 90 members, elected for four or five years by a form of PR, with legislative and executive responsibility over as wide a range of subjects as in 1973 and with no proposal to reduce the number of Northern Irish MPs in the United Kingdom Parliament.
The problems afflicting Northern Ireland are of course unique. But the point I make is that the Government's proposal for Northern Ireland is an acknowledgement that the stability of the Union does not depend on precisely symmetrical arrangements for each part of the Union.
In his Edinburgh speech last Friday, Mr. Blair made it plain that shortly after the election detailed White Papers on devolution in Scotland and Wales would be published, to be followed by referenda in which Labour would be campaigning for a massive "Yes" vote.
Labour would have been well entitled, after a general election victory on a manifesto pledging Welsh and Scottish devolution, to bring legislation before Parliament. But members of the party opposite cannot deny that if that happened their position in Parliament would be to oppose on the basis that demand for devolution was not demonstrated.
A short time ago Mr. Forsyth said that it was high time Labour,
"committed themselves to seeking endorsement for their programmes through a referendum of the Scottish people".
Well, we have done—and we are confident that when the Labour government who have won a general election bring their standing into the campaign for a powerful "Yes" vote, that is what there will be.
But is Mr. Forsyth satisfied? Does he welcome the commitment to a referendum? Not a bit of it. He resorts to quite different, negative campaigning, in the odd

1459
company of Mr. Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party. Labour's courage in committing itself to a referendum has shot those two rather odd foxes, in their unholy alliance, with a single bullet.
The question that Mr. Forsyth and the party opposite have to answer is: if the Scottish people say "Yes" in the referendum, will they accept the will of the Scottish people or will they go on opposing the principle of devolution? That is the question to which Scotland expects an answer in this debate. If the party opposite cannot say that it will accept the will in principle of the Scottish people, then the Scottish people will draw their own conclusions. The batteries of the Tory Party in Scotland will then not just be low. They will be exhausted.
And there are questions for Mr. Salmond too—not just whether he will accept a "Yes" result in the referendum, but also whether he and his party will be campaigning for a "Yes" vote.
The referendum decision is right in principle. It signals no weakening of commitment. On the contrary, the purpose of a referendum is to demonstrate demand for devolution. The achievement of our objective— devolution—will be driven forward by the huge "Yes" votes we predict. Parliament would surely not deny the will of the people. The "Yes" vote will give great impetus to the passage of the legislation through Parliament. It will be a popular endorsement of devolution—not entrenchment in law, but popular entrenchment in fact.
We support the Union. We oppose separatism—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's emphasis on the importance of the popular wish for measures of devolution, why is it that the English people should have no vote in a referendum of that kind?
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, that is perhaps as absurd a contribution to the argument as one could conceive of. The purpose of a referendum for Scotland is to test demand for devolution in Scotland. It is not a serious proposition that there is a demand in England for Scottish devolution. That is why the proposition is absurd.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may put a slightly easier question to the noble Lord. He made much of the fact that the Labour Party will be campaigning for a "Yes" vote in the referendum. But there are two questions. Will the noble Lord be campaigning for a tax-raising assembly for Scotland—a tartan tax—yes or no?
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, in the second part of the referendum we shall certainly be campaigning strongly in favour of a tax-raising power, or a tax lowering power; that is to say, a tax varying power of up to 3p in the pound.
I shall resume. We support the Union. We oppose separatism. If we believed that devolution would lead to the break-up of the Union, we would not support it. On
1460
the contrary, not only is devolution right in itself for Scotland; it is a necessary bulwark against separatism. It is to that truth that the party opposite is so blind. It is we who are on the effective side of maintaining the security of the Union.
I return to incorporation of the European Convention. In the debate in this House which I was able to open on 5th June about the judiciary and the separation of powers, I expressed my confidence in the political impartiality of the judiciary; paid tribute to the high quality of judicial review; and stated my personal hostility to any legislative attempt to restrict judicial review, which directly promotes the rule of law.
Now I take the opportunity of this debate to record my conviction, contrary to that of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that the incorporation of the European convention into English law is long overdue. The Attlee Government of the post-war years took the lead in promoting the convention. We were the first state to ratify it, on 8th March 1951. But Britain is virtually alone among the major nations of Western Europe in failing to give its citizens a direct means of asserting their convention rights through their national courts. Britain has the reputation in Europe of being one of the most consistent transgressors of human rights in the Council of Europe.
The Prime Minister tells us that,
"we have no need of a Bill of Rights because we have freedom".
But how can our rights and liberties be so well protected under our law when we have so dismal a record of failure in the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg?
The Labour Party in government will incorporate the European convention into domestic law.
I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said to the Select Committee considering Lord Wade's Bill of Rights in 1976:
"A radical overhaul of our Constitutional arrangements, a Bill of Rights entrenching the European Convention is a modest, but desirable, addition to the armament of liberty against populist of bureaucratic intrusion and oppression".
If we incorporate the convention, then its protections can be relied on in our courts by the citizen against the state. Our citizens, unlike the citizens of almost every other European country, have no such rights. Our country is bound by the convention. Our citizens are entitled to its protections. But to win them they have to go to a foreign court in Strasbourg, and that can take five years and often more. Why do we not trust our own judges to secure our convention rights for us but confine our citizens to the foreign court in Strasbourg?
We have a judiciary of high quality. Our most senior judges are as fine as any in the world. What a loss it is to the development of European jurisprudence in human rights that our judges are disabled from making a British contribution. We should be leading the development of human rights in Europe. Incorporation would repatriate from Strasbourg to Britain the day-to-day enjoyment of the rights to which our citizens are entitled under the convention.
I do not begin to accept that parliamentary sovereignty would be infringed by incorporation. Incorporation would be an exercise in sovereignty.

1461
Parliament would retain the right to repeal or amend the incorporating statute. Parliamentary sovereignty could be maintained by requiring that any statute intended to be inconsistent with the convention should say so expressly.
Another mechanism, which applies in New Zealand, obliges the courts, so far as possible, to interpret statutes and apply the common law so as to conform to the convention. It is not beyond our wit both to preserve parliamentary sovereignty and to allow our citizens access to their own courts to secure their rights under the convention.
A large part of the malaise that grips our country stems from a profound disillusion with its system of government. This Government are not trusted. Ministerial explanations are met with the deepest cynicism. A culture of secrecy flourishes. We have no freedom of information Act. Question Time in the other place is not question time; it is "No Answer Time". Citizens are denied in our courts basic rights against the state which are commonplace in the rest of Europe. Our institutions of government are not truly representative of those they are intended to serve. Quangos are a travesty of democracy.
Under the party opposite central government has become as autocratic as it is remote. There is urgent need for devolution of power from the centre to Scotland, to Wales, to the regions and to local communities. A major shift in the balance of power from the state in favour of the citizen is a high priority. "New Labour, New Danger" is a slogan that will convince no one—because the country has given up on this Government.
There are many powerful reasons why the country will return a Labour Government at the next Election. Not the least of these is that a Labour Government will fashion a new constitutional settlement which will return power to the people.
4 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I cannot refrain from initially congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, on one of the most powerful debating speeches I have heard in this House. I join with him in saying how much we look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham.
As the Leader of the House knows, the choice of these two days for the debate presents me with very great difficulty. Indeed, he was kind enough to try, although unsuccessfully, to avoid these dates. As a result, I have an apology to make to the House in that, quite contrary to my usual habit, I shall not be able to stay for the rest of the debate. I hope that on this occasion I may be forgiven for my exceptional lapse from what is a very good custom of your Lordships' House.
The genesis of this long two-day debate, suddenly spatchcocked into our timetable at a very busy time of the Session, I find interesting. The Prime Minister suddenly announced that he was to make a great
1462
constitutional speech. There was heavy briefing that this would set the tone for an onslaught on the Opposition proposals, which he saw as one of the most promising ploys for the General Election. To this end, your Lordships' House is told to play a supporting role, so we are here with this interesting but unasked for debate. It is not a very dignified role. If there is one thing worse than being Lord Balfour's poodle, it is to be Mr. Major's poodle.
Therefore, the genesis of this debate is essentially political and polemic. That is a pity, for my instinctive feeling is to seek consensus on constitutional matters. Apart from anything else, once changes are made they are practically never reversible. That makes it desirable that they should not leave too many jagged edges. Such consensus is sometimes unobtainable, as was most notably the case in the first Parliament Act, even though that was only eventually carried with the help of a considerable number of Conservative Peers. The absence of consensus should not be an excuse for avoiding necessary and overdue action. Consensus sometimes cannot be reached, but it often is, as in many of the franchise extensions of the 19th century on Life Peers. However, it will not be reached without being sought, and it cannot be effectively sought on the basis of a blank resistance to all constitutional change which now seems to be untypically and unhistorically the position of the Conservative Party.
I come to devolution, with which the Lord Chancellor dealt this afternoon with his usual lucid authority, although not, I thought, quite with his usual constructiveness. In the 1970s I was a rather slow convert to devolution. I then thought that the scheme which ultimately emerged was flawed in several respects, mainly because it was too much directed to saving Labour seats in Scotland and not enough to working out a proper theoretical basis for limited self-government for Scotland. These views were reinforced by the five years which I surprisingly spent as a Member of Parliament for the Hillhead division of Glasgow, one of the most notable and also one of the most outward-looking constituencies in Scotland.
The flaws have been quite considerably corrected in what is now proposed, but they included the absence of any proposal for proportional representation which led, I have no doubt, to a very lively fear in the east of Scotland of domination by the Strathclyde caucus. Next, there was a dislike of judicial review which led to the Secretary of State being given a dangerous role, not as a midwife, but as an arbiter for the future. The lack of adequate powers, particularly in the economic field for the assembly, was also a flaw. I believe that tax-raising powers are right and necessary.
The point where I would draw the line is a different one. It would be against the assembly being empowered to run a budget deficit, because I believe that if it is allowed to do that, then one is on a road which may lead to a separate currency. I do not wish to create a new currency union at the price of building up an existing and longstanding currency union. I am certainly dedicated, as is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, to the

1463
preservation of the essence of the Union between England and Scotland. I am strongly opposed to reservation.
However, my Scottish experience strengthens my view that there is in Scotland a settled desire for greater control over its own affairs. This desire has perhaps been heightened by the fact that for 17 years, moving towards 18 years, what is in Scotland a small minority party has controlled the government of the United Kingdom. It has not been assuaged by the fact that, in my experience, successive Secretaries of State for Scotland have set a pattern of partisan patronage which would not have disgraced Dundas in the late eighteenth century. I believe that this feeling has exacerbated but not created the desire for greater Scottish control over their own affairs.
That is not to pretend that devolution is an easy question. Indeed, it bristles with difficulties.
The West Lothian question is one to which there is no wholly satisfactory answer. That is vividly illustrated by the treatment of roughly the same issue in the two failed Home Rule Bills for Ireland of 1886 and 1893. In the first Bill, the 1886 Bill, Irish Members were originally excluded from the Westminster Parliament but after several months of argument the Government shifted their position back to their inclusion for imperial purposes only. That was also in the first draft of the 1893 Bill. But the line between what was and what was not an imperial question proved so difficult to define that at the Committee stage the Government changed their mind again and went back to a position in which Irish members would be able to vote on anything.
Lurking behind the West Lothian question there is also what might be called the Kilbrandon question relating to the nearly 25 per cent. over-representation of Scotland at Westminster. The maintenance of that would, I think, be difficult to justify with effective devolution to Scotland.
So there are plenty of complications. But I do not believe that they begin to rival the dangers which would be involved in defying a settled wish of the majority of the Scottish people and once again disappointing hopes which have been legitimately raised.
I do not believe that Scottish and Irish parallels should be pushed too far. The degree of integration of Scotland with England is far greater than was ever the case with Ireland. To take the political level alone, nearly half of the British Prime Ministers of this century have had strong Scottish connections. It looks as though the next Labour Cabinet—if and when it is elected—will find it quite convenient to emulate the example of the Lloyd George Cabinet in 1921 and meet in the Inverness Town Hall.
Nevertheless, it is relevant to remember that there were few more tragically misplaced votes in your Lordships' House than that which produced the unprecedented majority of 419 to 41 to throw out on Second Reading the second Home Rule Bill. With that vote perished the hope of reconciling Ireland to the British connection. It was another 28 fatal years before this House reversed, in 1921, its disastrous 1893 decision. Whether wisdom or unwisdom
1464
prevailed, I do not see a repetition of that in Scotland—a repetition of the tragedy of Ireland's past 50 years under British rule. But it is an experience which we would be foolish not to have at the back of our minds.
Recalling the 1893 vote moves me for a very few minutes to the second main subject in these two days of debate, the reform of your Lordships' House. That has long been a difficult and elusive matter. I do not underestimate the disadvantages and dangers of turning this House into nothing but the biggest quango of the lot, with membership almost wholly at the disposal of the Prime Minister of the day with a few sops for other party leaders.
However, what I cannot begin to accept is the current Conservative doctrine that any attempt to restrain the right to sit and vote of hereditary Peers is an unheard of innovation, a constitutional monstrosity, a sign of barbarians at the gate and an undermining of the defences of the monarchy. It has been widely recognised for a hundred years that the composition of your Lordships' House is theoretically indefensible. That could hardly be more vividly illustrated than by the fact that the survival of this House has only been made possible by absenteeism. If the cohorts of hereditary Conservative Peers were to turn up every afternoon and troop into the Tory Lobby, as they did on that unfortunate September day in 1893 and as they have occasionally done since, the problems of the Chief Whip might be fewer but the House would never survive. They also serve who only stay away.
But one cannot found a defence of principle upon absenteeism. That has been recognised throughout this century. Lord Newton in 1907 wanted to eliminate three-quarters of the hereditary Peers. He was supported by the Dukes of Devonshire and Northumberland who, presumably, thought that they would be in the quarter and not the three-quarters, and by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Lord Rosebery in 1910 wanted it accepted that the position of an hereditary peerage no longer gave the right to sit and vote. Lord Lansdowne, as Conservative Leader, in 1911 wanted the number of hereditaries brought down to 150. In 1933, that notorious revolutionary, the fourth Marquess of Salisbury, the great-grandfather of the Leader of the House, had another go at the same restriction to 150. In 1967–68 the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, together with Mr. kin MacLeod, agreed to an all-party scheme by which existing hereditaries would lose the right to vote and their successors the right to sit.
That long chronical may, on the one hand, be taken as evidence that reforming the Lords is about as difficult as grasping an eel. On the other hand, it exposes the farce of the modern Conservative Party treating the invasion of the hereditary principle as a dastardly depredation. I find it increasingly difficult to understand the perverse dichotomy by which this Government threaten so many established institutions which work well—from HMSO to the Post Office to Civil Service recruitment to the BBC World Service—and, on the other hand, recoil in mock horror from any change to

1465
our constitutional arrangements which in many ways, after a long period of near inability, have come to work badly and are widely perceived so to do.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: My Lords, I hope I may be permitted to preface my observations, brief and uncontroversial as they will be, by expressing my thanks to your Lordships for the warmth of the welcome that I have received both at my introduction a week ago and since. It is a matter of universal regret that the occasion should have arisen for the appointment of a new Lord Chief Justice to succeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth. No one is more acutely aware of that than I. But your Lordships' sense of loss has not in any way diluted or masked the friendly reception which has been accorded to me and for that I am most sincerely grateful.
The noble Lords who have already spoken have touched on matters of fundamental importance to our nation and people. These are deep and turbulent waters into which only powerful and experienced swimmers are wise to venture. Your Lordships will, I hope, understand if I myself linger in a modest and maidenly manner in the shallow end.
There is just one issue upon which, with your Lordships' leave, I wish to touch; that is, the constitutional relationship between the British courts, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the current status of the European convention in our courts. I raise that topic not to argue any case, but to record where, as I understand, we now are on the principle that it is desirable to know where one is before deciding where, if anywhere, one wishes to go.
The starting point is, of course, that we are a state that ratified the convention; we are bound in international law to honour the obligations which we have undertaken. When any breach of the convention has been established on the part of any public authority, we are bound to amend our laws and procedures to make good the breach and prevent a recurrence. That is an obligation which has, I believe, been scrupulously observed by successive governments of both political colours.
But the convention is not part of our domestic law. The courts have no powers to enforce convention rights directly. If domestic legislation plainly conflicts with the enforcement of the convention, then the courts apply the domestic legislation. That is a principle which your Lordships' House, sitting judicially, has unambiguously laid down and it is a rule which the courts have loyally observed, despite ingenious and persistent invitations by counsel to depart from it.
In some countries treaties, once ratified, have the force of law. That is not so here and it is that fact which gives continuing vitality to the debate on incorporation. It might be thought to follow from that that the convention is a matter for Parliament and the Government, with which the courts have nothing whatever to do. But that, I suggest, would not be entirely right and I hope that your Lordships will permit me to
1466
touch briefly on six respects in which I suggest the convention can, and in practice does, have an influence in our domestic proceedings.
First, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor observed, where a United Kingdom statute is capable of two interpretations, one consistent with the convention and one inconsistent, then the courts will presume that Parliament intended to legislate in conformity with the convention and not in conflict with it. In other words, the courts will presume that Parliament did not intend to legislate in violation of international law. That may be thought by your Lordships to be a modest presumption.
Secondly, if the common law is uncertain, unclear or incomplete, the courts have to make a choice; they cannot abdicate their power of decision. In declaring what the law is, they will rule, wherever possible, in a manner which conforms with the convention and does not conflict with it. Any other course would be futile since a rule laid down in defiance of the convention would be likely to prove short-lived.
There is, of course, one field—freedom of expression—in which respected Members of this House have declared that they see no inconsistency between the common law and the convention. That is reassuring; it is also wholly unsurprising since we have a long record as a pioneer in the field of freedom of expression. But it means that the courts are encouraged to look to the convention and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights when resolving problems on the common law.
Thirdly, when the courts are called upon to construe a domestic statute enacted to fulfil a convention obligation, the courts will ordinarily assume that the statute was intended to be effective to that end. That is mere common sense, but common sense is the stock-in-trade of much judicial decision-making.
Fourthly, where the courts have a discretion to exercise—that is, they can act in one way or another, one of which violates the convention and the other of which does not—they seek to act in a way which does not violate the convention. That again is usually common sense and requires no elaboration. However, it is not an invariable rule and your Lordships' House, sitting judicially, gave an important judgment only yesterday in which the convention right to privacy was held to be obliged to give way to the greater interests of justice.
Fifthly, when, as sometimes happens, the courts are called upon to decide what, in a given situation, public policy demands, it has been held to be legitimate that we shall have regard to our international obligations enshrined in the convention as a source of guidance on what British public policy requires.
Sixthly and lastly, matters covered by the law of the European Community—that is, the law administered by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and not Strasbourg—on occasion give effect to matters covered by convention law. The Court of Justice takes the view that on matters subject to Community law, the law common to the member states is part of the law which applies. All member states are parties to the convention

1467
and it so happens from time to time that laws derived from the convention are incorporated as part of the law of the Community. That of course is a law which the courts in this country must apply since we are bound by Act of Parliament to do so, and that is a means by which, indirectly, convention rights find their way into domestic law.
Your Lordships will be relieved to know that no sudden access of imagination or invention has led to multiplication of my six points. I am grateful for the courtesy with which your Lordships listened to me. My only regret is that business elsewhere prevents me from hearing all the weighty contributions which will undoubtedly be made before this two-day debate is concluded.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, it is a pleasure for me to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the Lord Chief Justice, on his maiden speech. I do so on behalf of the Whole House. Until recently he has been Master of the Rolls and before that he held with distinction other high judicial appointments. He speaks to us with authority, great experience and wit. We will look forward keenly to hearing him again on future occasions.
I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his introduction to the debate. On 4th July last year we had a debate in your Lordships' House about the government of Scotland, initiated by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. On that occasion I pointed out problems and defects in the Labour Party's proposals as they then were. I intend to go on from that and comment on them as they appear today.
I still find the intention to pass legislation in the first Session, if a Labour Government were in office, to establish a parliament in Scotland, strange and lacking in credibility. It took a Labour Government from 1975 to 1979 to produce the Scotland Act—four years to produce an Act which contained serious defects and which many thought would be unworkable. That process included a White Paper, revised three times; a Scotland and Wales Bill introduced into Parliament and then withdrawn, and the Scotland Bill, whose passage through both Houses consumed much parliamentary time. Memories seem to be short and the cast has changed. Most of the Labour Party leaders of today were not involved in that long process. How can a workable, stable, new system of parliamentary governance be produced and taken through Parliament in a single Session, preceded, according to last week's announcement, by one or perhaps two referendums? It is impossible to carry out a thorough job in that time and to produce an effective new parliament functioning alongside the United Kingdom Parliament and working compatibly with it.
During those four years, 1975 to 1979, I was dealing continuously with all the stages—White Papers, debates and Bills on this subject—in this House from the Opposition Front Bench. Although that was 20 years' ago I remember clearly the course of events; the changes and withdrawals of proposals; the twists and turns and
1468
the final eclipse of the Scotland Act in the referendum. I was always positive in examining the proposals, but I did have the duty of pointing out the flaws, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, admitted today in his speech. However, I must take up the assertion in his speech in strong terms that all Conservative Secretaries of State have indulged in blatant patronage in their appointments. With modesty, I speak as the longest-living former Secretary of State. I certainly appointed many with other political views. I repudiate that assertion where I am concerned and I challenge any evidence to be produced to the contrary concerning the four years when I was Secretary of State.
The Scotland Act 1978, which would have established an assembly with defined, limited powers, had two major defects. It had not solved the West Lothian problem. I remind your Lordships that Scottish MPs at Westminster would have discussed and voted on English and UK subjects, but English MPs could not have dealt with the equivalent Scottish subjects. Further—and this is sometimes overlooked although it was disagreeable for Scottish MPs at Westminster—Scottish MPs could not deal with a wide range of Scottish subjects at Westminster affecting their Scottish constituencies. They were subjects such as housing, health and education, which their constituents felt strongly about and wanted them to act upon. The only attempt to solve the problem in the Scotland Act was a clumsy arrangement in Section 66 for a 14-day moratorium after Second Reading at Westminster, to enable consultation, second thoughts and a further division to take place, if needed. To any parliamentarian who has spent several years in the Commons, that was a ludicrous, cosmetic way of addressing a crucial constitutional issue.
The Royal Commission on the Constitution, chaired first by Lord Crowther and then, after he died, by Lord Kilbrandon, after four-and-a-half years of inquiry, suggested that, if a Scottish assembly were to be established, the number of Scottish seats at Westminster should be reduced. That seems a possible fruitful area in which to look if a solution is to be found to the West Lothian anomaly. It has to be acceptable, however, both north and south of the Border.
A precedent was set in the 1920 Settlement in Northern Ireland establishing the mini-Parliament there in the arrangements for the partition of Ireland. Fewer Ulster MPs at Westminster were prescribed deliberately than would have been the entitlement on the basis of population. Instead of 17 Members of Parliament (the entitlement) there were 12, not counting the university seat which was later abolished.
Looking at Scotland now, there are 72 Scottish seats: on a population basis compared with England, there would be about 56. If the ratio used in 1920 in Northern Ireland of 12 to 17 were applied, the number of MPs for Scotland at Westminster would be 39 instead of today's 72. This reduction in the number of MPs representing Scotland would no doubt be opposed for several good reasons. However, it is most unlikely in any case that a Labour Government would initiate it because at present Labour holds a large number of Scottish seats.

1469
The second major defect in the Scotland Act 1978 was the division of executive powers. The Secretary of State was to retain more than half of his existing functions while the assembly was to create an executive of its own to exercise the other functions. That was a formula for ambiguity and strife. It would have created an arena for conflict and mismanagement, with two executives trying to administer Scotland. That seems to have been accepted now. The present proposals may remove part of this defect, because the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland is apparently to be abolished altogether. Presumably, the present functions of the Scottish Office would be the business of the proposed parliament. There is not to be a division of those executive powers this time. Does that mean that a chief Minister and other Ministers in the parliament, would be elected or appointed to replace the Secretary of State? Would the Scottish Office, with its 7,000 civil servants, be taken over in its present state or would a new executive, working for the new parliament, be formed? The elected members of a new parliament in Scotland could not by themselves perform the administration of Scotland.
What would happen to the special personal duties of the Secretary of State, which he cannot delegate to his junior Ministers or civil servants; for example, deciding on warrants for telephone tapping by the police or on the release of patients from Carstairs, the Scottish equivalent of Broadmoor, and similar functions performed personally by him and by the Home Secretary for England and Wales? There are a host of queries and problems of this kind which will arise.
I turn to taxation. The Scotland Act assembly did not have the power to raise taxes. That led to criticism that it had little scope to decide on priorities; also that it would continuously be blaming Westminster and the Treasury for not providing enough in block grants, even if the present ratio in favour of Scotland were maintained. The arguments in that controversy demonstrated the extreme difficulty in setting up an acceptable assembly. It also reversed a slogan of two centuries' ago: in this case it was, "No representation without taxation". The present proposals include power to increase or lower taxation by 3p in the basic rate of income tax. Again, that has become highly controversial, demonstrating the difficulties. Three pence is relatively insignificant on the overall financial scene, as the Constitution Unit's report pointed out last week. It applies only to basic-rate taxpayers, so that Parliament would not be able to reduce taxation for the needy and would be entirely dependent on the tax thresholds decided on for the UK as a whole by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
There are those who blithely state that taxpayers would gladly pay more in Scotland for improved services. I doubt if many basic-rate taxpayers would, in the secrecy of the ballot box, vote for a policy of paying more income tax than their counterparts in England and Wales. It would not be popular with that part of the electorate which might be termed "middle Scotland".
A second referendum is now proposed on whether there should be tax-raising powers. This underlines the controversial nature of the proposal. The main
1470
referendum will apparently be held before any set of proposals has been prepared. It would be based on the wide, vague and general concept of devolution. What would be the question? Would the question be, "Are you in favour of devolution for Scotland"? To my knowledge, there are at least 100 variations of devolution—more varieties than even Mr. Heinz thought of.
Massive administrative devolution already exists. The subject of the 1979 referendum was the 1978 Act. The question was straightforward. The electorate simply had to state whether or not they wanted the Act to be put into effect. It was a short, simple question on an unambiguous subject. The Act contained the system then proposed and a large amount of detail for those who wished to examine it closely. To hold a referendum before producing a proposed system is to put the cart before the horse.
In 1978–79 opinion polls regularly reported that about 70 per cent. of the public in Scotland favoured an assembly. It was not very different from polling the public in northern England on whether or not they were in favour of decentralisation. The result was much the same percentage. However, when a particular scheme—the proposals in the Scotland Act—was under scrutiny its defects and drawbacks were clear to many and a very different percentage supported it. Only 33 per cent. supported it and, ignoring the decimal points, those against amounted to 31 per cent. of the Scots population. Because of the 40 per cent. threshold requirement, under the provisions of the Act itself it had to be repealed. Will there be a similar threshold of 40 per cent. or another figure in any new Scotland Bill?
In the last referendum in 1979 there were grievances among Scots who could not take part because they were not resident in Scotland at the time. Some of them were only temporarily absent. Because the United Kingdom is a successful economic and social entity, Scots move to employment south of the Border and English move north. In addition, the Border is not a barrier to marriages across it, taking husband or wife to the other side of it. The referendum in 1979 was designed for residents in Scotland at the time who were on the electoral roll. In this context, it is misleading to use the over-simplified description "the Scottish people" for contemporary residents in Scotland. A referendum of that kind may well be useful in providing information, but it leaves out many Scots and includes a miscellaneous minority of non-Scots. This is the kind of difficulty which arises from a referendum.
A referendum based on a vague idea of devolution before the structure and functions of the new body have been formulated and discussed in this Parliament would obscure from the public's attention major constitutional changes. For example, one such change is to deprive a Scottish parliament of a second chamber or access to the House of Lords. Another is to adopt a system of elections under which about one-third of members would not be elected but appointed by political parties, which is a strange and alien concept in Scotland.
The question remains: why is the Labour Party attempting an immensely complicated operation at break-neck speed, given that it took four years to get

1471
nowhere last time? The Leader of the Opposition, the right honourable gentleman Mr. Tony Blair, is reported in the press as saying that he wants to be the first Prime Minister to do it. I hope that for Scotland's sake he will not stake his reputation on achieving it in one Session of Parliament. I predict that, should Labour come to office, a reason will be found—some convenient new development—for postponing action on this part of its manifesto.
I can tell your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, that I have been consistent in this matter. I have never stood simply for the status quo. Changes and improvements can and are being made. I applaud the changes that have been made in recent years to the role of Scottish committees and their meetings in Scotland, which has been further developed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Forsyth. Previously, the Scottish sector of Parliament and its procedures were virtually unknown and invisible north of the Border. The Public Galleries at Westminster were little used by visiting Scots. I was able to give a push to the process of change during the years when I was Secretary of State.
In any move to create an assembly in Scotland, two factors require careful thought. First, it must be part of a stable and workable system. If it is not, it will play into the hands of separatists. The SNP is opposed to devolution but would take advantage of instability. It would try to use a new devolved institution as a half-way house to independence and the break-up of the United Kingdom. Secondly, I believe that every speaker taking part in this debate supports retention of the Union. The argument is about the nature and degree of proposed changes and the speed with which any of them is carried out. It would be contrary to the wishes of all Members of your Lordships' House if the Union were broken up, not deliberately but by mischance, during a devolutionary process. As far as concerns Scotland, the parliamentary system in the United Kingdom has been evolving for well over a century, and it is still evolving. Surely, it is better to build carefully on those foundations rather than run the serious risk of damaging a stable structure to produce a brittle house of straw.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, in speaking in favour of devolution I have no wish to break up the United Kingdom, with its flexible Constitution. I take pride in the fact that I was once a Minister of the Crown in the Government of the United Kingdom. I learned the importance of the Crown as a cement of the Union. I value my membership of your Lordships' House which has enabled me to listen to the maiden speech this afternoon of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill. It was a privilege.
I speak only on English regional government, which has not been mentioned so far. If I were to speak on Wales and Scotland I would support the views of my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench. I support a detailed White Paper before a referendum. After many years, I now live in Wales again. It has set me thinking
1472
about whether I would have the vote in such a referendum if it was based upon a parliamentary register. If so, I would vote for it on that occasion.
I shall he brief, not least because I have no excuse for not staying here for the rest of the day. In the past two or three years I have been impressed by the tide of events which has led to more regional government in England in particular. There are 10 government integrated regional offices, which were established in 1993. They employ nearly 3,000 staff. Their annual running costs amount to £90 million. They are responsible for administering, directing or advising upon £6 billion of public expenditure in England. There is no control over them, except that they work upwards and not downwards. But the work that they do is of very great importance.
I have discovered in practical terms since leaving the other place—I am involved in charitable work in Yorkshire—that the advantage of having a regional office is not as great as having a Welsh Office or Scottish Office. But the position is developing. The 10 directors of the IROs have had such great influence that the then director of the Confederation of British Industry dubbed them "prefects". They were senior officials first established by Napoleon to enforce the will of the French central government.
There is a form of regional government in this country which has developed considerably in recent years. The weakness of the system is that it does not work to people who are involved in the regions or elected in the regions. They do not have the benefit of any formal regional level of advice. But in that respect the tide is flowing towards regional government. We should take steps to harness it.
There is another reason in England. It is the case also in Wales. It is the great development of quangos that has taken place under all governments, but particularly under the present government. Somehow regional government, in whatever form it takes, should take account of that. My advice would be to take English regional government slowly. What form of regional government? Steps are being taken towards regional government. I have no panacea for regional government. But given the local government reform that has taken place, English regional government is something about which we should think and talk after we have dealt with Scotland and Wales.
There is often a tide in the affairs of government, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. In the last century—I picked this point up when reading his book recently—there was a great drive—the tide often went in different directions—to extend the franchise. It took 20, 30 or 40 years to develop, but the tide existed. There is a similar tide at the moment in favour of regional government.
Local authorities are constructing their own forms of representative regional groupings. In Yorkshire, there is Yorkshire and Humberside, and so on. It is taking place. There should be room for experimentation. For many years at the end of the war I sat at the feet of Karl Popper. From him I learnt the importance of

1473
decentralisation; that centralisation can bring evils with it—necessary in wartime—but decentralisation is important.
The task is to use the trend towards regional government which is taking place in England to the benefit of the nation. It is not enough to be a latter-day King Canute with regard to regional government. It is happening. We should use it and harness it for democracy. In finishing at that point after a steady five minutes, perhaps I shall be able to slip out and have a cup of tea before the debate finishes.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks and appreciation to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, for instructing us so clearly on where we stand today in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights. Your Lordships have heard today that the issue of constitutional change is an important one. It is an inevitable one. It has been pushed to the forefront of the political arena at this stage both in your Lordships' House and another place for a purely political reason. It is thought that there is great scope for frightening the electorate that there is a danger of the break-up of the UK in the Labour Party's proposal for devolution, when there is no such danger.
I should like to begin by quoting what for me was the start of the national debate on our constitution. It began in 1976 when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham—I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment—delivered the Dimbleby Lecture on "The Elective Dictatorship". Let me quote him in what I believe was an enlightened Conservative view at that time—very different from some of the views that we shall hear today. He came towards his conclusion of that interesting lecture with the words:
"I have reached the conclusion that our constitution is wearing out. Its central defects are gradually coming to outweigh its merits, and its central defects consist in the absolute powers we confer on our sovereign body, and the concentration of those powers in an executive government formed out of one party which may not fairly represent the popular will".
He continued:
"I envisage nothing less than a written constitution for the United Kingdom".
He went on to develop his theme with which I did not greatly disagree.
Before I leave that interesting lecture, I should like to quote another part where the noble and learned Lord dealt with the issue of nationalism with which he said he had considerable sympathy. He said:
"If they only wished to achieve their purpose within the ambit of a new federal constitution, I can see nothing unreasonable about their aim. After all, nations as diverse as the Swiss, the Americans, the Canadians, the Australians and the Germans have all managed to achieve stability, efficiency, and prosperity on these very lines. So far as we are concerned it is at least arguable that it was our failure to come to terms with federalism in any form which led to the severance of our connexion with Ireland and therefore to the partition of the British Isles, with all the misery that that has entailed".
1474
The noble and learned Lord followed the lecture two years later with a book entitled The Dilemma of Democracy. It behoves noble Lords opposite to refresh their memories of the views that he put forward in those days on the changes to the British constitution that he thought were inevitable as we faced the pressures of modern times.
We in Europe are moving inexorably to a form of a united Europe which will almost certainly eventually result in some kind of federalism, probably a different form from what has been experienced in the world so far, although on federal principles. The real debate is not whether it will happen but when and how it will happen. For example, at the moment in Wales alone 30 per cent. of the employment is provided by inward investment by companies which invest not particularly because it is Wales, and they find it a congenial place, but because it is part of the European Community where power lies.
I was involved with the building of the Severn Bridge. Nearly half the investment for that came from the European Investment Bank. A good deal of the other investment—it is all by way of loans, as a matter of fact—came from other European and international banks.
The founding fathers of Europe envisaged that the development of Europe would push us gradually in the direction of a politically united Europe. We are seeing it happen. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, in his short but effective contribution, said that administrative regional centres in England were already developing. That is important. It started like that in Wales before we got as far as having a Secretary of State. It started much earlier in Scotland. It will inevitably evolve over the next decade. We must remember that the speed of development in communication, science, weaponry for defence, and so on, has made it imperative that we change our modes of thought on this matter equally speedily.
We face pressures from outside, from Europe. We face pressures inside, because we have the most centralised government in Europe. Already in Europe, Germany has a federal constitution, put in place largely with our help after the war; in France, there has been considerable devolution in that highly centralised country; in Spain, we are seeing the development of regional governments. That will lead to some form of federalism. That is happening throughout Europe.
We are in a state of flux at the present time. The Labour Party's proposals are an essential step on the way. If Labour's plans for Scotland are put in place, it will not be the end of evolution for Scottish government. If the assembly for Wales is put in place, that might well be the model for future developments in the regions of England, because there are great advantages in decentralisation. The whole ethos of the development of Europe is that it will move eventually towards a federal Europe. In time, whether it be 20, 30 or 100 years—I do not know—a constitution will eventually be formalised there. However, on the way we have to look at our own history and our own background and think what is the natural next step for us.

1475
Surely, the natural next step for us is to have an experimental Parliament in Scotland and an experimental Assembly in Wales. In so far as those are desirable ends, and I believe that they are wholly so, they will be a pattern from which we can learn for the future development of the United Kingdom.
There is no danger of a break-up of the United Kingdom. Britain was evolved partly through conquest, as happened with Wales, partly through marriage, as was the case with the Orkneys and Shetland, and partly through a non-democratically approved union with Scotland. In fact, we have lived together for so long that within Europe we will be natural allies in any event, however much devolution we have. There is no danger whatever of a break-up of the United Kingdom.
I believe that the debate on constitutional change is a step on the way to an effective devolution of power with the knowledge that in this country one of our worst handicaps is the excessive concentration of power in London. It is time that the whole process was reversed.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, notwithstanding the constraints of time I must join in the universal welcome which has been accorded to my noble and learned friend Lord Bingham of Cornhill. His speech was as elegant as those of his erstwhile colleagues would have expected. It was also as informative as we would have expected and, if it was perforce uncontroversial, I have no doubt that future editions would be of a different character for, above all, he is his own man.
I had intended to talk exclusively about the European Court of Human Rights. However, I hope that I shall be forgiven if I have been tempted into a minor deviation by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He informed the House, quite correctly as one would expect, that the Treaty of Rome and all the associated European legislation took effect in this country only by virtue of the will of Parliament. He went on to say that, of course, it would be open to Parliament at any time to provide that the Treaty of Rome did not have any bearing on particular provisions. I wonder whether some Euro-sceptics may not pick that up and we may not have a spate of small amendments to statutes. It is easily done. In fact, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might be interested to know that the Government did it on Monday. It was in the course of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. A clause was introduced with the somewhat novel words:
"Notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law",
the Minister shall have a regulation-making power. The Minister was asked what on earth that meant. Was it intended to exclude the right of judicial review? He stoutly denied that it was. He said, "Oh, no. It is certainly open to the courts to review the regulations". We all went home wondering what the purpose of it was. Now we know. It circumvents the whole of the Treaty of Rome and all the associated legislation which goes with it. But that is a deviation.
1476
I return to the Strasbourg court, which is wholly different from the Luxembourg court. That is an essential court; if you have a supra-national legislature you must have a supra-national court to interpret its legislation. The Strasbourg court is different. It depends for its raison d'être entirely upon a single treaty. It is a very special treaty. It was produced in the 1950s as a follow-up to the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, in order to try to differentiate between those countries very much in people's minds at that time which were plainly dictatorial and undemocratic and the older democracies which had common values that we describe as democratic.
I very much doubt whether it was ever intended to give rise to detailed justiciable rights in individuals. I believe rather that it was intended to set a general benchmark by which it was possible to judge which countries were and which countries were not properly described as democracies.
I know of nothing in the text of the treaty with which any Member of this House or the other place would disagree for one moment. But it is in very broad, general terms. It is subject to a number of expressed exceptions. Above all, it is subject in a large number of places to an exception which reads:
"Except as may be prescribed by law and is necessary in a democratic society".
The crucial question is: who is going to decide that? Of course, prescription by law is a matter for national parliaments and, as far as we are concerned, for this Parliament. But who is going to decide whether that law is necessary in a democratic society?
As I understand it, the Opposition would take the view that in the last resort that must be decided by the court in Strasbourg. However, I query whether the judges of that court, distinguished though they are, have the necessary qualifications to do it. What is necessary in a particular democratic society depends in some measure, perhaps in large measure, on what are the traditions of that country and on what are the particular circumstances affecting that country at the time. Is there any reason to believe that the numerous judges, all drawn from other countries bar one, have any special expertise and capacity to decide that?
Even if they have, one must look at the competing possible authorities. It has been suggested that a competing possible authority would be the United Kingdom courts. The judges would, of course, be familiar with the traditions of this country. They would, of course, be familiar with the problems which were facing the country at the time. But is it really right that the judges should be asked to say that that which has perhaps only recently been prescribed by law by Parliament was not necessary in a democratic society? It would produce a most startling conflict between the judiciary and Parliament. I for my part would deplore it wholeheartedly, not least because it would be extremely difficult for Parliament to relegislate when the judges had reached such a declaration. It would be particularly difficult for the active judicial Members of this House who perhaps on the final appeal would have declared that their colleagues in a legislative capacity had produced an enactment which was not necessary in a democratic society.

1477
What other candidates are there? The obvious candidate is Parliament. With greater or lesser success down the ages, Parliament has for centuries been safeguarding the rights and freedoms of the people of this country. If the Opposition want to make good the suggestion of change they must first point to the respects in which Parliament has failed in its duty to the people. I am not talking about individual political policies; I am talking in terms of fundamental rights and freedoms. Let them show in what respect Parliament has failed. If they do I suggest that the right remedy is reform of Parliament, not referring the matter either to the judges, for reasons which I have already given, or to an outside body on which the United Kingdom is in a minority representation.
The truth of the matter is that there is a vast confusion of thought here. Over the past few years, since I gave up the trappist aspect of being in full-time judicial appointment, I have expressed the strongest possible disapproval of some of the activities of the Home Secretary and the Home Office. Only this week I was expressing some disapproval of the Government's proposals in relation to the Asylum and Immigration Bill. Of course, I could go round suggesting that those proposals in each case involved some breach of fundamental rights and freedoms. If I did that, I think that I would be abusing language and would be mistaken.
One really must go much further than saying that you profoundly disagree with a policy before you can say legitimately that it involves a breach of fundamental rights and freedoms. I believe that if a majority of this House and the other place decides that something is necessary in a democratic society and carries laws prescribing that result, I shall simply have to say that that would not be my view but that it is the view of the majority so I must reluctantly accept that I am wrong, whatever private reservations I may have.
Far from incorporating the convention and far from giving us direct rights to appeal from the English courts to the Strasbourg court, I should negotiate with a view to modifying the treaty so that citizens had no right at all to go to the Strasbourg court. That is not to say that there would be no function for the Strasbourg court. It should go back to what I believe was its original function; namely, to mark out the differences between democratic countries and dictatorships and to highlight real and unarguable breaches of fundamental rights and freedoms.
It could still do that by giving declaratory judgments. A declaratory judgment, whether against this country or any other, would focus the attention of Members of Parliament on whether the legislation was right and would enable them, if necessary, to have second thoughts. If they refused to have second thoughts, as well they might, then it would focus world opinion and they would take account of that. But any move in any other direction as has been indicated this evening, I personally would deplore.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, not only on the quality of his speech but in particular on its brevity. I shall try my best to follow his example and be brief.
I shall restrict my remarks to the devolutionary policies of the Labour Party which in my view are a direct threat to the cohesion and stability of the United Kingdom. I do not intend to say much about the proposed Scottish parliament with its legislative and tax-raising powers, except that I agree with the views expressed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy.
In particular, my noble friend Lord Campbell mentioned the West Lothian question which asks why Scottish MPs at Westminster should be able to vote on purely English matters while English MPs will have no say over matters devolved to a Scottish parliament. So far, we have not had an answer to that particular question. It is inevitable that there will be a reduction in the numbers of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster if that parliament comes into effect.
In the short time for which I intend to speak, I shall confine my remarks to Labour's devolution plan for Wales, which, as the House knows, is to establish an elected assembly in Cardiff with no legislative or tax-raising powers; in other words, it is the establishment of an expensive political and bureaucratic talking shop with no fiscal autonomy.
The reason why no parliament such as that proposed for Scotland is proposed for Wales is quite simple. It is because there is very little appetite in Wales, in particular among traditional Labour supporters there, for any change. They know that the Union with England and Westminster serves Welsh interests well. They know also that home rule in any form would sooner or later lead to constitutional conflict or deadlock which would undermine that Union.
Much has been said about Mr. Blair's announcement that before acting on those proposals, a Labour Government would hold referendums. Mr. Blair has been strongly criticised for that but I do not do so. He is a clever man and, in that respect, has acted wisely. To use his own words, he was haunted by the spectre of 1979, and that was referred to by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy.
In 1979, the then Labour Government had battled in Westminster to establish by legislation parliaments for Scotland and Wales. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, they battled for four years. The result of all that endeavour was that in March 1979, their policies were ignominiously defeated in two referendums. In Wales, the defeat was four to one—20 per cent. in favour and 80 per cent. against. Not a single part of Wales returned a verdict in favour of the proposals.
I believe—and I would not be surprised if Mr. Blair believes—that if the Labour Party wins the next election and calls a referendum, the proposal for a Welsh assembly would be soundly defeated.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I start by apologising to the House that, because of a commitment at my own university tomorrow, I shall be unable to stay for the second day of the debate.
The distinctive feature of the present system of government in Scotland is that it is lopsided. Through the Scottish Office, we undoubtedly have administrative devolution but without—and this is the important point—any matching legislative devolution. Therefore, the aim of our proposals on devolution is simply to provide legislative devolution in order to ensure that Scottish legislation is more responsive to Scottish values, principles and priorities and, as importantly, to make the Executive accountable within Scotland. Those are the objectives of the whole plan and proposal.
What we propose for Scotland should also be seen in the wider context—and that has been referred to briefly in passing—of the development of regional levels of government throughout the whole of the Western democracies, especially within Europe. The nation state is evolving but we sometimes seem to be timid, to be afraid, of moving away from anything which is not a tightly and narrowly defined model of the unitary state. We are in danger of our thinking being trapped in an increasingly irrelevant time-warp.
In reality, we are actually living in a world where it is recognised, more so day by day, that it is appropriate to look at different levels of decision making. Some decisions are taken, quite appropriately, at the European level, while others are taken at the level of the individual state. But there is increasingly a recognition that more and more of the sorts of decision which impinge directly on the day-to-day lives of our citizens ought to be taken at a level below that of the state—rather, they should be taken at the regional level to allow for variety and diversity and for local solutions to local problems.
As my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg indicated, there is widespread support for the concept of subsidiarity; indeed, it is trotted out time and again in relation to Europe. But subsidiarity does not stop at the level of the nation state: it goes a lot deeper and a lot further. With others, I am intent on preserving and strengthening the Union, but I want a Union not based on a sterile uniformity but on a rich and active diversity. That is what devolution makes possible.
Of course, our critics and opponents point to the so-called West Lothian question—indeed, they have already done so today, understandably—and somehow put forward the argument that it presents an insuperable obstacle to devolution. A Parliament for Scotland does not raise a new constitutional issue.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Sewel: No, my Lords. The British constitution has already adapted to and accommodated regional parliaments: it is already there. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 has already been quoted. That was one accommodation to regional government.
Lord Campbell of Croy: There was a reduced number of MPs from there.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, we will come to that.
Members of Parliament from Ireland sat in a British House of Commons voting on Great Britain legislation while Members from England, Wales and Scotland did not vote on Irish domestic legislation. However, let us bring the argument up to date. At present, the Government in their own proposals for the future government of Northern Ireland do not recognise a North Antrim question; indeed, they are silent on that issue. Further, the Government do not seek to disturb the basis of Northern Ireland's representation in the House of Commons.
As regards the financing of a Scottish parliament, it will be necessary to ensure that such a parliament is funded on a fair and just basis. That is not the same as saying that expenditure per head of population should be the same throughout the different parts and elements of the United Kingdom. In regional systems, an important role of the central government is to distribute revenues to the various regional bodies on the basis of some assessment of need.
One of the proposals that has attracted the greatest interest, and some controversy, is the tax varying power of the parliament. It was the late Lord Home who identified the need to give a Scottish assembly some control over taxation. Lord Home rightly recognised that a modest degree of fiscal responsibility was necessary in order to prevent the proposed assembly from blaming the allegedly inadequate level of central block grant for its own inability to provide services at the level that it might wish. Fiscal responsibility produces a matching political responsibility. That is central and important.
Noble Lords will also expect me to refer to the question of a referendum. I am not actually a great advocate of referenda. That is perhaps because I taught French politics for a little too long. But the creation of a new parliament is a major constitutional change and deserves the special and specific endorsement of the people which is possible through a referendum. Popular endorsement through a referendum makes more likely a stable and enduring settlement. Within a system of parliamentary sovereignty, that is perhaps the closest that we can come to some form of entrenchment.
The question for the party opposite—and it is the one to which my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg referred—is: after a general election and the endorsement by the electorate of a Labour manifesto containing the commitment to devolution, and after a subsequent referendum on a clear White Paper proposal; in other words, after those two specific endorsements, will the party opposite accept that as a clear and definitive expression of the settled will of the Scottish people? That is the question which must be asked. We have not as yet received an answer.
I turn now to the argument that devolution is the first step on the slippery slope to separatism. I recognise the sincerity with which that view is held by some noble Lords. But, I believe it is a view which is profoundly mistaken. Surely in this place of all places we should

1481
recognise that separation comes about not as a result of recognising the legitimate aspirations of people for domestic parliaments, but as a result of opposing them. We have the paintings to remind us.
More recently, we can look to Spain and see that the creation of strong provincial government, especially in Catalonia, has led to the collapse of what had previously been a powerful separatist movement. Far from being the first step on the slippery slope—and I agree with my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg in this respect—devolution is a bulwark against separatism.
Finally, perhaps I may briefly refer to my own history. I was born in Hackney and brought up in Bradford in the north of England, my first job was in South Wales and I have lived for most of my life in the north-east of Scotland. If I believed that devolution would lead to the break-up of the Union, I would oppose it with all my might. I do not believe that that is the case: rather, devolution to Scotland is the first stage in a process that will create a new Union, a stronger Union, one based on diversity and one in which government, because it is decentralised, will be more responsive to the people.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I must begin by apologising to the House because, as I have already explained to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, I cannot be present for much of the remainder of the debate. Therefore, exceptionally, I must seek the indulgence of the House in that respect.
I should like to begin by expressing my great personal pleasure on being present in the Chamber to hear the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, who, if I may say so, is the epitome of all that is finest in the senior English judiciary, as has already been said by several speakers. I look forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord when he is less maidenly in the future.
We are asked by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in this important debate to,
"take note of the United Kingdom's existing constitutional settlement".
That is a daunting task; for the British constitution is such a wild and tangled ancient wood of unwritten laws, conventions, great charters, together with a dense undergrowth of detailed statutory legislation.
We are rightly proud of our parliamentary system, based on representative democracy, government under law and civil liberty. It has, of course, inspired constitution-makers across the common law world. The post-war international human rights codes, including the European convention, reflect the philosophy and values of British thinkers of the past three centuries.
However, as several noble Lords have already said—and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, most powerfully—it is as ludicrous to be complacent about the existing constitutional settlement as it is to pretend that campaigners for constitutional reform are somehow endangering national unity, or even lacking in patriotism. The existing arrangements are seriously
1482
deficient, and the constitution, if I may say so, is not the property of the Conservative Party but of the citizens of this country.
For 17 years four Conservative governments have not hesitated to make radical changes in our constitutional arrangements. The inheritance they will leave for the next government is an over-centralised but unstable political system, unpopular with many of those it is meant to serve, and disruptive of the unity of the nation. They have failed to nurture a stable British constitution which protects our national identity and diverse traditions and adequately protects basic civil rights and freedoms.
It is astonishing but true that, unlike the other member states of the European Union, we have only weak constitutional and legal protection for our sense of nationhood and our sense of citizenship. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is a frail safeguard against the incoming tide of European law. It is also a frail safeguard against the dominance of the Executive over Parliament. For most of the time the Executive of course controls Parliament: the elective dictatorship, in the celebrated phrase of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. I find it a profound irony that a Government so vocally opposed to a European federal state should have failed to create a constitutional bulwark for this country; and that a Government rightly hostile to a centralised Europe should cling so obstinately to a centralised British state.
The idea of a good constitution, which we on these Benches cherish, is quite different. Our central aim is to renew the British constitution so that it can strengthen our democracy, our citizenship, our sense of common purpose, and the quality of government in the interests of the governed. That is why we want to make the Executive more accountable to Parliament, to the courts, and to the people, and to create a stable and enduring framework of elected government based, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, has said, on the principle of subsidiarity—that power is exercised at the lowest level compatible with good, efficient and accountable government. If that makes sense for the EU, it also surely makes sense for the UK.
We seek an enforceable British Bill of Rights enabling British judges to give effective British remedies for breaches of fundamental rights by the Executive and other arms of government. We do not understand why our courts are less fit than the courts of all, or almost all, the other member states to interpret and apply the European Convention in accordance with local knowledge and needs. I shall return in a few moments to the convention in the light of what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, a few moments ago.
We want to set enforceable limits on the prerogative powers of the Executive; to shift substantial power from over-centralised Whitehall departments and unelected quangos to a Scottish parliament, a Welsh assembly, and where there is sufficient regional demand—and only then—to regional assemblies and to a renewed system of local government. We seek to make Parliament more effective in calling the Executive to account and in

1483
scrutinising legislation; and to make this House more democratic and regionally representative, with an enhanced role as a constitutional watchdog. We wish to create a voting system which better reflects the wishes of the electors; to improve access to justice; and to improve and promote greater openness and accountability in government at every level by means of a freedom of information Act.
The Government are right to fear each of these aspirations, for what we seek is both popular with the people and hostile to the privileges and immunities of an over-mighty Executive. Each of the proposals for reform is closely linked with the others, just as they are in turn influenced by the shaping of the European Union and the sharing of national sovereignty. Each of them affects the others and together they amount to a practical but ambitious agenda. I believe that to bring about coherent and enduring constitutional reforms on this scale will require great political commitment, imagination and patience. It will be necessary to move beyond the traditional parliamentary diet of piecemeal, politically partisan and indigestibly detailed legislation. We have exported many constitutions to the countries of the former British Empire, but we cannot easily do the same for ourselves. If we are to achieve a system of government in which each part relates sensibly to the system as a whole, we have to do the next best thing. We should, I believe, work for a comprehensive programme of constitutional reforms rather than yet another series of disjointed legislative Acts, not on speaking terms one with the other.
Is there, then, an efficient method of constitutional law making which respects Parliament's sovereign legislative powers and yet avoids the pitfalls of past attempts? Are there ways to ease the passage of the legislation in a manner which would make constitutional sense and be likely to survive a future change of government?
These are perplexing but crucial questions which have been explored with objectivity and realism by the constitution unit to whose advisory committee I am proud to belong, although I take no credit for its work. I believe that, given the necessary political will, ways can be found which respect both parliamentary and popular sovereignty, preventing the reform programme from foundering because of archaic parliamentary procedures, and using the referendum to validate the reforms that achieve popular consent.
To secure a lasting and sensible settlement based on constitutional principles will be a lengthy process based on building a broad consensus. There are discrete measures which can be enacted meanwhile, provided that they are elements in an overall coherent plan; for example, the incorporation of the European Convention, and, I would add, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That could be done easily as a first step towards a British Bill of Rights. But those of us who advocate constitutional reform have a duty to explain what we have in mind and how we propose to go about the process. The way in which we undertake constitutional change is, I believe, as important as the overwhelmingly strong case for the reform of our constitution.
1484
Finally, I wish to say a few words about the European Convention because I am afraid I do not agree at all with what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. In the first place, the whole purpose of the European Convention was to enable individuals in states that belonged to the convention to have effective access to national, and then to European remedies. That is why the convention allowed states to accept the jurisdiction of the European Commission and Court. In the early drafting it was intended to be compulsory, but later it became optional. That is why the convention requires the states to secure rights and freedoms in their laws and to provide effective domestic remedies.
Secondly, when the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt, was contemplating signing and ratifying the convention, it is clear from the Cabinet papers that I have read that he expected there would have to be an act of incorporation of the convention into domestic law. But the Government changed. It never happened.
Thirdly—I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, is aware of this—from his point of view the pass has been sold. Last year, I am glad to say, the United Kingdom ratified the eleventh protocol to the convention which gives a permanent right of access by everyone in this country to a permanent new European Court of Human Rights. That protocol, which has been signed by many states, is of great importance to the effectiveness of the convention.
Your Lordships may be interested to know that, finally, every state which belongs to the convention, apart from Ireland—including even the Nordic states which had a tradition similar to our own—has now incorporated the convention by one means or another into domestic law. I am, therefore, most heartened and delighted that the Labour Party is firmly in favour of incorporating the convention.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, in the past we have been indebted to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for giving us the opportunity to discuss alternative forms of government in Scotland. Today we have embarked on a much wider ranging debate. Therefore, I propose to restrict my remarks purely to the controversial proposal to recreate a parliament in Scotland.
I am interested that the Leader of the Labour Party took up one of my suggestions when I spoke last year. He decided to call a referendum. Unfortunately he chose the wrong option and got himself in a fine pickle as a result. Nevertheless, by calling a referendum he conceded that he agreed with what we on this side of the House have always argued: that a general election did not give a mandate for the creation of a new Parliament anywhere in the United Kingdom. We made that claim because each party's manifesto contained a variety of promises and suggestions and, therefore, we could not expect a mandate for a parliament to be obtained on that basis.
If a referendum had been a possibility I should have preferred a multi-option referendum at the end of a full campaign in the first year of a new government during

1485
which all the minuses and pluses could have been outlined for the population so that it could make a considered judgment. It is now suggested that a referendum takes place before legislation is in place. To my mind that seems utterly pointless. By the time a Bill has been through the parliamentary system it can be totally different from the form in which it commenced life. Unfortunately that could well be the case with the proposed legislation which the Labour Party, the Liberal Party, and the convention have in mind.
As regards the Scottish Constitutional Convention, perhaps I may mention the former joint chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkwood. In his handling of the affairs of the convention he has attracted unto himself from all over Scotland the highest respect. That respect is shared not just by his own colleagues but by those who disagree vehemently, as I do, with practically everything that he sought to do. But that does not detract from the high esteem in which we all hold him.
The referendum that we shall have can have no bearing on Parliament. One cannot have a referendum which asks two questions specifically designed to achieve the answer one wishes, and then have the Bill debated and perhaps changed considerably. Who knows, my Lords? The Bill can be changed for a variety of reasons—by amendment or by the Government of the day changing their minds. It could be changed by the Leader of the Labour Party. After all, he has changed his mind on a number of issues. Noble Lords might ask the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, if they feel that that is not the case. In any event, it is not a foregone conclusion that the legislation will finish as it began.
I must also take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. It came rich from him this afternoon to talk about some of our colleagues in another place changing their minds. The noble Lord is a Front Bench spokesman of a party which has changed its mind on many issues. It has changed its election manifesto so devastatingly that anyone considering the Labour manifesto of 1970 would scarcely believe that it was written by the same party which produced the manifesto in 1987. And when it comes to the next election, we can expect even greater changes. However, I congratulate the noble Lord on a very interesting and combative speech which I appreciated very much—even if it contained a few hostages to fortune.
I am by no means the only person who suspects that reasons exist for following the referendum route other than those offered by the Leader of the Opposition. Writing in the Herald on 28th June, the well known Scottish journalist, Alf Young, himself a devolutionist, wrote:
"Michael Forsyth was clearly landing punches with his tartan tax offensive and the Labour leadership was feeling the pain".
Later in the same article, he continued:
"Asking the Scottish people to endorse both Labour's home rule plans and the issue of devolved tax-varying powers before a Bill is enacted is both a way of vaulting over Scottish Labour and its jealously protected devolved powers and a means of defusing the tax issue for good".
1486
Alf Young may well be correct, but I suggest that there is another reason which is doomed to failure from the outset.
There is a view that if Scotland were to vote "yes" with a substantial majority on a pre-legislative referendum, it would guarantee the legislation fast track treatment in Parliament. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said as much: that there would be this great mandate, and the measure would go through. Nothing could be further from reality, and I shall remind the noble Lord why.
A Bill to establish a Scottish Parliament would be one of the most important in the life of a new Government. It is the duty of an Opposition to oppose that with which it does not agree and to scrutinise every clause and line of each Bill which comes before the House, in particular one with such far-reaching effects, and—being a constitutional matter—one which would have to be taken on the Floor of the House.
It is on the Floor of the House at Committee stage that such major issues as the West Lothian question will have to be considered. No solution has been found. Noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber can make excuses and give examples. But the truth of the matter is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, pointed out, so far no solution has been found to the difficulty which arises as long as 72 MPs continue to vote on all matters at Westminster, and a large part of Scottish legislation will be dealt with in Scotland on which MPs representing seats outside Scotland cannot vote.
The West Lothian question is not new, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy pointed out. The Kilbrandon Royal Commission considered the question as far back as 1973. It found that a problem would arise over the extent and level of representation of those regions in the House of Commons compared with that of regions which did not have legislative assemblies of their own. It is unthinkable that Scottish constituencies might not be represented adequately at Westminster but Scottish representation is in real danger of being reduced. The case for devolution is certainly not made. But the case for fewer Scottish MPs at Westminster, should it come about, seems very strong indeed.
I wish to raise a particular point. I am concerned about the future of the Lord Advocate's role. The Lord Advocate is currently a member of the United Kingdom Government. He is one of four Law Officers and advisers to the United Kingdom Government, two English and two Scottish. But he is also the Public Prosecutor in Scotland and is answerable to the Westminster Parliament in that capacity. If a Scottish parliament is set up, law and order would be one of the devolved powers. As a major participator in the criminal justice system in Scotland, the Lord Advocate would require to be answerable to the Scottish parliament in respect of his role as Public Prosecutor. He could not therefore remain a member of the United Kingdom Government in the United Kingdom Parliament. To do so would place him in a position giving rise to a conflict of interest.
Paragraph 134 of the constitution unit's report refers to Law Officers of both Scottish and UK Governments. They would have responsibilities to advise their

1487
respective governments. That would mean that the Lord Advocate would cease to play a role in Whitehall and Westminster, as would the Solicitor General for Scotland. That would be a great disadvantage to Scotland and would weaken Scotland's voice in Cabinet committees and other government discussions.
Then there is the question mark which must arise over the powers of the Secretary of State and his influence in Cabinet, the question of funding, the amount of the block grant and the formula by which it is decided and, above all, the danger that we could be legislating for the first step towards the break up of the United Kingdom. All in all, this legislation will be of enormous importance and cannot possibly be rushed.
In conclusion, when one looks at the effect of the proposals in the Labour and Liberal Parties and the convention, the inevitable outcome must be that the tartan tax will not satisfy for long at three pence in the pound. Every imperfection will be blamed on Westminster. A Labour Government will certainly not be forgiven because of their great numerical strength in Scotland. When things go wrong in a Scottish assembly or Scottish parliament, if one is set up, the Labour Party will be blamed. What will that do? It will divert attention to the Scottish National Party and there will be an exodus from Labour to the Scottish National Party in a demand for independence. People will say, "Your government, the Labour Government, have taken us down this route and now we will go the whole way because you can't deliver what you said you would". There is no halfway house; union or separation are the only choices available. I hope with all my heart that the Scottish people will not be tempted down the treacherous path of devolution.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell us from all his experience of Scotland, whether it is his judgment that the Scots would oppose devolution on a referendum after legislation? If that is his judgment, does he agree that a vast amount of prime parliamentary time would have been wasted? Does he therefore agree that the path of prudence is to have a referendum, after a detailed White Paper, on the principle of devolution before legislation is embarked on?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am flattered that the noble Lord should consider that I am able to give an answer. My personal opinion is that the people of Scotland would, first, be insulted by a referendum before legislation took place. Secondly, if they waited until the legislation took place and were then asked to vote on it, the first question should be: do you approve of the Act passed by Parliament?
5.55 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Gray, who was my colleague in another place. Like so many who have spoken, I wish to congratulate the Lord Chief Justice, who on the day of his introduction was linked with the county of Powys in Wales. It appears that his judgment
1488
is very good. I am a non-lawyer congratulating the Lord Chief Justice, and I hope that the only place where I shall appear before him is here.
Constitutional issues unfailingly arouse strong passions, not only here in the high court of Parliament, but outside, among our people. The British people have a highly sensitive nerve when constitutional change is proposed. The constitution they know is a guardian and helps to be the provider of their quality of life. The opinions which I shall express in this debate are not those of a sudden convert, like Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus. The convictions which I shall express are after a long career in the public life of Wales. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, I once had the great privilege of being Secretary of State for Wales.
I wish to confine my remarks to two issues: the referendum and the assembly. After I had listened with deep interest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor introducing his speech, I thought it was a bit thick for him to be accused of being political when the speech that followed was not exactly a Sunday school lecture. But neither the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor nor the noble Lord who spoke for the Opposition seemed to know much about Wales. The information they gave us about the proposed assembly was anaemic and pitiful. It was a shot in the dark for the Welsh people. I do not wish to tread on any Scottish corns. I know that there is an immediate reaction.
However, like so many who have already spoken, I am a great believer in the unity of the United Kingdom. I have taken great pride in the fact that we have risen above racial discrimination and having one form of government for Scotland, another for Wales and another for England. Our glory and our strength have been that we are a united Parliament, a united country. When there is talk so glibly of decentralisation, I would point out that we are a major country in the world, but it is a small country. People talk as though London were Tokyo. I do not believe that there is a clamour from people at the present time for the sort of assembly at which I am guessing. I shall come to it in greater detail.
A referendum on an assembly for Wales is not new to us. Indeed, the matter arose under the administration of my noble friend—if the House will permit me to call him that—Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, who by tradition sits on that side while I sit here. My noble friend was obliged by certain pressures to consider introducing an assembly for Wales. His instinct told him that he had better find out whether the people wanted it. It was a very good instinct; and in his wisdom he followed it. We had our referendum. People like the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who tonight said that we want change, told us the same thing then. The same people pretended that they understood the innermost depths of feeling of the Welsh people in relation to wanting a break. I shall come to that in a moment.
A general election is a form of referendum. However, at a general election people are rarely chosen on one issue. They are usually chosen on broad issues. The one issue is pushed in between others in the manifesto, and

1489
they say, "We have a right". It could be that there are people who say it is time for a change, and do not read the manifesto. Indeed, in the 11 elections that I fought I do not believe I read the manifesto! It is usually a long, boring document. But I know that it would be very unfair to say that, if people vote at a general election for one party on broad issues, they therefore lose the right to decide their own destiny when major constitutional changes are proposed.
I turn to the assembly itself. What form is it to take in Wales? From whence will come its powers? Powers are not in the air. They are with local government or national government. I am told that they can look after the quangos. Incidentally, I sat in the Chair in the other place listening to Mr. Philip Holland on the Conservative Benches complaining bitterly about all the quangos that the government of the day had created. That is a complaint that belongs to both sides of the House. Some have been there longer. That is why they have created more quangos.
If an assembly were to take powers from the Secretary of State, it would mean disaster for Wales. The Welsh Office, set up 32 years ago by the late Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, has grown significantly in the life of the Principality. It has enormous influence on our everyday life. There have been 10 Secretaries of State in the 32 years. I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting Mr Hague. He has a good reputation. And he is learning the Welsh language, with which my noble friend sitting here is responsible for helping in Wales.
The strengths of the Secretary of State for Wales in the Cabinet depend upon his being able to say, "I am speaking for Wales". How can people gain access to an assembly, or to quangos? How can they challenge those, as we can challenge Ministers in the Welsh Office and bring them to account? To weaken the Welsh Office would be a disastrous loss for the people of Wales. I hope they hear my voice as I say it. They know that the Welsh Office has made an enormous difference to the quality of our life.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, who will speak later, knows, as does the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that the Welsh Office, with English subsidies, has done more for the Welsh language than has any other body. It has encouraged it. It set up a language bureau. If we remove powers from the Welsh Office and leave it anaemic, the Secretary of State's voice in the Cabinet will be a whisper, and all who serve in the Cabinet will know that that is the case.
What if the powers are to be taken? They must come from somewhere. To take them from the recently elected new statutory local authorities in Wales would be a fiendishly cruel, stupid thing to do. Parliament has already played havoc with the life and careers of those who serve in local government, given all the changes that have been inflicted. If the new single-tier authorities in Wales are now to be undermined by a loss of power, it will be difficult to say that we are helping the Welsh people. Mark well my words: there will be a storm of protest from the newly elected authorities in Wales if an assembly is to take their powers and reduce their influence within the Principality.
1490
If the assembly is as anaemic as it appears it will be, this House may be assured that it will have a voracious appetite. It will want more power and more influence—of course it will. The agitation will begin. First, people will say, "What has happened in Scotland? Are we second-rate? We must have the same: a Parliament with tax-raising powers". It is idle to say that there is not a danger to the Union, because every political assembly by its nature always seeks more power for itself. That is the history of another place. It began in a small way. Within four years it was claiming the right to control expenditure in the United Kingdom, and that is a quality of local government that has not changed.
Naturally, the assembly in Wales will want more power. Of course it will strengthen the nationalists. I am not here to argue about Labour, Liberal or Welsh Nationalists, but it would not be difficult for noble Lords to guess my feelings and opinions. I say this: rather than take the risk of a process that would lead to us having racial parliaments in Scotland, Wales and England, we should say "No" now, and that will be my advice to the people of Wales.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, it has always been my nightmare that one day I would have to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. Today, even by his own high standards, he has exceeded his usual lofty cruising altitude.
We are today debating the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom. In thinking about it, I have been very struck by the extent to which it still depends upon the common law, interpreted by the judges. Let us reflect on that for a moment. A statute is a creature of common law. It is defined by common law. The doctrine that no parliament can bind its successor is a doctrine of common law. Indeed, the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament itself is a doctrine not of Parliament but of the courts. Above all, those great principles upon which this nation's freedom has depended throughout the centuries—the principles of liberty and of equality and of fairness and reasonableness—are not principles created by statute; these are principles established by the common law through the courts of this country.
Underlying all this is the great doctrine of the separation of powers. The courts do not interfere in the proceedings of Parliament and Parliament does not interfere in the proceedings of the courts. Parliament passes law and the courts interpret it, and so each one is king in his own country.
The extraordinary thing is that these principles, which derive from medieval times, have withstood the enormous changes that have taken place in our political society in this century. In Parliament, for example, there has been the most dramatic change in the balance of power between the legislature and the executive. It is now true to say, I am afraid, that in another place it is not the legislature which controls the executive, but the executive which controls the legislature. It has been this fact, accompanied by the huge volume of legislation, much of which is extremely discretionary, which has

1491
confronted the common law and the courts with the biggest challenge that they have ever faced in their history.
The reassuring thing is that they have met that challenge. They have met the expansion of governmental power generated by modern-day legislation with their own techniques of discretionary control. I believe it is fair to say that without the existence of any written constitution or any entrenched powers, if one compares the liberties in this country today with those of other great democracies such as the United States and many of the western European democracies, we compare pretty well with them. There may be some areas in which we are slightly weaker but there are others in which we prove a great deal stronger.
I believe it would be a very ill-considered move to try to disturb this system. Any attempt to seek to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into our constitution should be looked at with deep suspicion. First, I do not believe that it is necessary because our guarantees are already underlined by the common law as interpreted by the courts. Moreover, I am not sure that it would work. For example, suppose that the convention were introduced by an Act of Parliament. What would happen when a subsequent law was passed? We have already heard from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice that, if there is some ambiguity about the relationship of an English statute to the convention, the courts would interpret that law in sympathy with the convention. In that case, what is the point of incorporating the convention into our law in the first place?
On the other hand, if a law breaching the convention is passed after the convention is entrenched, which contradicts that law then the convention would be of no help because of the doctrine that no parliament can bind its successor. The subsequent law would overturn the previous convention. Therefore, the introduction of the convention is either unnecessary or futile.
The real problem we face with discriminatory legislation is one that need not be confronted by introducing some new judicial dimension to our constitution. It ought to be confronted at its source—which is in another place. It is not the custom in normal debate in your Lordships' House to look at the operations of another place; but I understand that for the purposes of the debate during the next two days—our overview of the British constitution—it is permissible to talk about what happens in another place. The problem is fundamentally this: if one enters another place as a new Member of Parliament, one can no longer look forward to a career as a parliamentarian. The only really desirable course open to one is to seek to become a member of the executive—just as nowadays I am afraid that people no longer go into the Army to become regimental officers; they all go in to become generals. These are unhappy developments in both places.
The way ahead is to make a career in another place in controlling the executive just as attractive as being a member of the executive. My noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley introduced in another place what is probably the most dramatic constitutional innovation in
1492
the 20th century—the development of the Select Committee. I believe that this is the route ahead. We should make the job of chairman of a Select Committee as attractive as the job of being a Cabinet Minister, not only in terms of pay but in terms of status. The more senior ones should hope one day to become members of Her Majesty's most honourable Privy Council and they should have a staff, too. We should reach the stage that when a new Member enters another place there is a genuine dilemma as to whether his career path should be through a Select Committee to control the executive or to become a member of the executive. If we achieve this, we will be dealing with most of the constitutional problems we face at source in relation to the quality of legislation produced by our Parliament. If we satisfactorily deal with it in another place, I might suggest that political affairs in your Lordships' House would be a great deal more agreeable.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I want to focus my contribution on issues of decentralisation and devolution. I shall also speak in passing about the electoral system for the proposed Welsh and Scottish assemblies and about the referendums in Scotland and Wales. Most of the points have already been made by my noble friend on the Front Bench and my noble friend Lord Sewel in their contributions. However, there are still one or two other issues to which I should like to point in favour of the case for devolution and greater decentralisation.
It has always struck me that the strongest case for devolution derives from the critique of the role and competence of government, which has been the main theme of the party opposite since the 1970s. It has been argued in relation to the economy that government cannot plan, regulate or intervene because of their limited competence, limited knowledge and limited capacity. That has led to a diminution in the role of government and the decentralisation of economic decision-making from collective bodies more and more toward the market. Yet at the same time, there has been tremendous growth in centralisation of government in other areas, as the Prime Minister acknowledged in his speech at the Centre for Policy Studies the other evening.
The critique of the competence of government, which has been relied upon to justify removing government from the market, applies equally well to other aspects of government. Human knowledge, as Hayek—a great mentor of many Conservatives for the past 20 years—argued, is fragmented, dispersed, limited and, above all, localised. If government are to act competently, they need to decentralise to a greater degree the power that they hold centrally. Decentralised institutions, whether local government or assemblies in Scotland and Wales, would allow such local knowledge to be better utilised for the public good. I am rather sorry that the debate about devolution and decentralisation has yet to mention the role of local government.
Against that decentralised view, it can be argued, as Mr. Willetts, the Minister for Public Service, argued on television last night, that we can only have a dynamic

1493
and decentralised economy set in a unified and centralised state. It is entirely unclear to me why that should be so. I should like to hear some argument for that rather than just the assertion that it is true. It seems to me that the arguments which lead to economic decentralisation apply equally well to political decentralisation because they are essentially arguments about the competence of government and they mirror one another in each case.
It can also be argued that the state and its associated constitutional arrangements embody something about the ethos of what it is to be British and that is why we need the centralised and unitary state. It is a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, a few minutes ago. We need a centralised and unitary state to embody that kind of British ethos. However, I argue that in a way that British ethos itself is now somewhat differentiated. We are, of course, in many important ways a unified nation. I am sure that we all want to preserve that. But I believe very strongly that the sense of unity needs to respect difference and give a political place and political recognition to difference in a pluralistic society.
I also believe that the sense of difference, whether it is attachment to locality, community or region, as in Wales or Scotland, is likely to grow in salience largely as a result of economic changes. The globalisation of the economy and the homogenisation of life to which it leads, as well as the insecurity which a global market generates, will lead people to value more and more the familiar, the local and what is distinctive to them and supports their sense of identity and work. If that intuition is correct, it seems to me that the attachment to locality and region will grow in importance and demand political expression. We may not like pluralism and we may not like the more differentiated nature of the country which it produces, but we ignore it at our peril. Not all the growing attachments will be political but, as they grow in importance, they will, I believe, lead to the demand for political expression, whether through an enhanced role for local government or regional government or assemblies in the nations of Scotland and Wales.
Those concerns about the growing pluralism in society are reflected in the proposals for the electoral system for both the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly. It would be quite wrong to have a first-past-the-post electoral system for such bodies, since those bodies are being set up in part, as I suggested, as a response to diversity and difference. That would have been inconsistent with a first-past-the-post electoral system, which would have led to the risk, given the Labour Party's position in those two nations, of setting up one-party states. I am very pleased that the Labour Party has been able to see beyond narrow party interests and has recognised that the Scottish parliament and the process that has led to it—namely, the Constitutional Convention—should presage a new, more open, more consensus-seeking and consent-building kind of politics. I believe that the change in the electoral system will carry that process forward.
1494
I want now to turn to the referendum. I preface my remarks by saying something about the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The convention has been a remarkable process which has shown that new approaches to politics are possible and that with patience it is possible to achieve unanimity over proposals which are radical. I pay tribute to Canon Kenyon Wright, Sir David Steel and my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford for all that they have done to achieve that quite remarkable result. In my view it is a pity that the issue of the referendum announced last week was not discussed with the convention. I can fully understand how my noble friend Lord Ewing felt about that. At the same time, however, although I was surprised about the announcement and indeed initially shocked by it, on reflection I believe that it has considerable advantages both of principle and politics.
A referendum will make the issue of devolution come alive for the people of Wales and Scotland. If approved, it will be a devolution of power produced with the full-hearted consent of the people, and that surely is good to underpin constitutional change. If the proposals are approved, those devolved bodies would, it seems to me, be a long way towards entrenchment.
Tactically, too, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, said, I still think that there is a major gain. I doubt whether the party opposite, as he said, would have accepted that a manifesto commitment to a parliament and an assembly would have been enough on the not unreasonable grounds that people vote for a range of things in a manifesto. Hence, a positive result in a referendum will help to process these historic changes through Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in an intervention in the speech of my noble friend on the Front Bench at the beginning of the debate, asked why we were not proposing a referendum in England. Indeed, the Prime Minister made that point last week in his speech, at which I was pleased to be able to be present. I believe that it is a rather opportunistic argument since, as I understand it, we are quite likely as a result of the peace process in Northern Ireland, to which everyone naturally wishes the greatest success, to have a set of constitutional proposals emerging for Northern Ireland. I do not imagine that the Prime Minister will propose to hold a referendum in England on changes to the Constitution of Northern Ireland. So I cannot see that there is a case for having a referendum in England on proposals for decentralised power in Scotland.
As someone who wants to try to preserve the union of the Kingdom, it seems to me that the greatest threat to the Union is Scottish nationalism and the bid for Scottish independence. Those flames will be fanned by doing nothing. In the hope that Edmund Burke is still regarded as a kind of guru for the Conservative Party, along with Hayek, I quote two lines from his Reflections on the Revolution in France:
"A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation … Without such means, it might even risk the loss of that part of the Constitution which it wished the most religiously to preserve".
I think that that is true of the Conservative attitude to Scotland at the moment.
6.29 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, all in the House will welcome the news regarding the Stone of Destiny. I want to touch briefly on two issues: first, the composition of a new House of Lords—we have all heard the threat to the House of Lords in its present form; and, secondly, devolution. I hope to show that there is a link between the two.
Under the Act of Union, Scottish Peers elect 16 of their number, which is well over 100. I hope that in a new House of Lords that which is enshrined in the Act of Union will remain for Scottish Peers. Many noble Lords will remember that a little while ago the system for appointing Scottish Peers was changed and we all became UK Peers, whether or not we wanted that. I assume that that did not mean the abolition of Scottish Peers, but rather that they were subsumed in the greater UK peerage. I hope that I am right in that and, when it comes to any change in the composition of the House of Lords, the Act of Union will prevail in relation to Scotland.
I said that there was a link between that and other reforms in the House of Lords, and the link is this. I believe that the same sort of system should apply to the other UK Peers, the hereditary Peers who are so often attacked; that is to say, a number of UK Peers other than the Scots should be allowed to come into the House of Lords through election. One of the great advantages of such a system is that we would have the benefit of hearing the experiences and thinking of younger people in the Chamber and that is very good for us "oldies".
I touched briefly on the composition of the House of Lords, particularly in relation to the Scottish Peers. I want now to come to devolution, which has been the subject of much discussion today. I have always been in favour of a Scottish assembly—I stress the word "assembly"; I do not favour a Scottish parliament—I shall elaborate on the difference shortly. We in Scotland must have more say in what happens at Whitehall and run our own affairs to a considerable degree; that would be right and proper. However, I advocate taking one step at a time. If the assembly does not satisfy the Scottish people, we can try a parliament. But if we start with a parliament and it does not work, we cannot go backwards.
What powers do I visualise for the assembly? Above all, it should consider the cutting of the cake; that is, the apportionment of the block grant which is given to us by Parliament every year. That is by far the most important work of the Scottish Office. It says that it tries to consult on how the cake should be cut up and tries even harder when it has to take account of the Scottish Grant Committee sitting in different parts of the country. That does not bring home to the Scottish people what they want. For example, they want to be able to decide whether they would rather spend more money on health and less on education or vice versa. If they had the right to criticise or advise on—or, more than that, to dictate the form of—the cutting of the cake, that would go a long way to avoiding the worries and objections that they have at the present time in relation to the powers of Whitehall.
1496
By forming an assembly we would avoid many of the pitfalls about which we have heard this afternoon. I have in mind such matters as the West Lothian question, the number of Scottish MPs there should be in Parliament, the size of the block grant (which will shortly be challenged), the question of the North Sea oil revenues and so forth. Those questions put our very Union at stake. Let us start by forming an assembly. Many noble Lords and Scottish people will say that it is just a talking shop, particularly if it is to have no taxing powers. But taxing powers are dangerous. If we lowered our taxes in Scotland we would see immediately a reduction in the block grant; if we increased our taxes, slowly but inevitably industry and financial activities would move south. We should not consider at this stage a tartan tax.
The question of the composition of an assembly is of prime importance. I advocate indirect rather than direct representation or election. Leading bodies, such as the Church of Scotland, the unions and industry, should each elect a certain number of their members to sit in the assembly. It is a choice which avoids appointing a quango and avoids any challenge to Whitehall in that they are elected by the people.
I conclude by saying that to start as proposed, with a quickly set up new Scottish parliament and to have a referendum in that regard is full of danger. Let us try forming an assembly first. Together, over 300 years, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have done great things for the world. There is still much work for us ahead.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, quoted Burke. I should like to quote from a speech made by Disraeli in Edinburgh in 1867, when he said:
"In a progressive country change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change which is inevitable but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws, the traditions of the people, or in deference to abstract principles and arbitrary and general doctrines".
I suggest to your Lordships that that is as up-to-date today, as we approach constitutional reform, as it was when it was uttered over 100 years ago.
As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor reminded us in introducing this debate, our constitution is largely unwritten. We rely greatly on convention, precedent, custom and on the common law. This suits our national character, but it means that, because of the nature of our constitution, wherever possible change should proceed by agreement. It should be evolutionary and it should build on the past and not break with the past.
This seems to me to be the approach that Her Majesty's Government are adopting towards devolution. There have been many examples of domestic decisions made about Scotland and Wales which are now made in Scotland and Wales rather than in Whitehall and Westminster. We have had recent examples of the strengthening of the powers and the authority of the Scottish Grand Committee and the Welsh Grand Committee which have given them greater ability to question Ministers and officials than hitherto.

1497
I believe that this evolutionary step-by-step approach is the right one. I have no doubt that Her Majesty's Government will continue to respond to the natural desires of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have a growing say in their domestic affairs within the framework of the United Kingdom.
From the speeches that we have heard today and previously, it seems to me that the approach of Her Majesty's Opposition is very different. It appears to believe in upheaval rather than evolution. As we have heard again today, it is suggesting that there should be a Scottish parliament with tax-raising powers, the so-called tartan tax. What effect would that have on inward investment into the United Kingdom? I suggest that, with the possibility of the tartan tax hanging over them, it would be a natural deterrent to firms to go to Scotland. It raises, too, the whole question of the financial relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. It is the case that Scotland receives more per head in grants and subsidies than the people of England. As an Englishman I do not particularly relish that, but I believe that it can be justified in present economic circumstances. But a very different question would arise if a Scottish parliament had the power to raise a tartan tax.
There is also the West Lothian question, which has been referred to on a number of occasions. I shall not repeat the argument except to remind your Lordships that there are three aspects to it. The first is what powers Scottish MPs should have in Westminster on English domestic affairs; secondly, how many Scottish MPs should sit in Westminster and, thirdly, how many Scottish Ministers should sit in Cabinet and in government.
This matter also affects your Lordships' House. If there were to be devolution the question may well be asked: should that have some effect on the number of Scottish and Welsh Peers who sit in your Lordships' House? I believe that all these questions would be open to discussion and argument. Indeed, the whole of our constitution would be in the melting pot, including the composition of both Houses of Parliament. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, has just referred to the possible changes in the composition of your Lordships' House. I do not believe that one can isolate that from the question of devolution.
It seems to me that the proposals of the Labour Party represent the worst of all worlds; namely, a two-stage reform. It sounds to me like 1911 all over again. The preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 suggested that there should be a reform of the composition of your Lordships' House. There were a series of negotiations, but no agreement was reached. That preamble remains a dead letter. It was many years before a reform was eventually introduced; namely, the Life Peerages Act 1958. I believe that in the first stage of this proposed reform your Lordships' House would be greatly weakened by the entire loss of its hereditary element, which broadens our representation and which brings a wide range of experience, independence and youth. I believe that your Lordships' House would then become a glorified and aged quango, dependent for any
1498
reinforcements on the wishes or whims of the Prime Minister of the day. There would be no guarantee that the second stage of the reform would be introduced any more than it was after the 1911 Act. I suggest to your Lordships that this is no way to treat a key element in our parliamentary institution.
I am not against reform of your Lordships' House. I can think of many reforms which would strengthen it and make it easier for your Lordships to have an effective brake on the government of the day and to ask another place to think again. Whether another place would find these reforms acceptable is a different matter.
There is the proposal for regional assemblies in England. Who wants them? If you ask anyone in the West Country whether they prefer to be governed from London or Bristol they would say, to a man and a woman, London. It would mean another enormous upheaval in local government. I believe that that proposal would be very much the fifth wheel of the coach.
In conclusion, I believe we all recognise that the British constitution is a living but tender plant. It has developed over the centuries with few upheavals. It seems to me that the proposals of Her Majesty's Opposition would threaten the unity, integrity and stability of the United Kingdom and the checks and balances which exist within our parliamentary system. I much prefer the approach of Her Majesty's Government that change should be evolutionary and in accordance with the manners, customs, laws and traditions of the British people.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, for obvious reasons the debate has tended to focus on devolution. I am well aware of the head of steam behind that. In fact, I probably know as much about it as many noble Lords here because I was the Government Chief Whip who lost the guillotine Motion on the first Scotland and Wales Bill. I did eventually drive through, although not entirely with wholehearted consent, the Scotland Bill and Wales Bill. I do not wish to dwell on that, but to pursue other issues which have been touched on because this is supposed to be a wide-ranging constitutional debate. We are told there is a head of steam about other issues which I do not believe.
I should first declare an interest as both the vice-chairman of the BBC and deputy chairman of the LDDC, both of which are quangos, as your Lordships will know. We have had previous debates where a number of speakers have criticised this country when advocating constitutional change, pointing out all sorts of defects and claiming popular support for these constitutional reforms. I have said in the past and I say it again, that I am fed up with all this knocking of our country which goes on. This orgy of self-denigration by a small, but gifted group in our society has become totally obsessive.
It is fashionable to decry famous individuals. When I was younger for some time Albert Schweitzer was a common target for his missionary work in Lambaréné.

1499
More recently, Mother Teresa has come in for criticism. I believe that a lot of this "knocking" is designed to enhance the careers, prospects and reputations of those critics. If a miscarriage of justice is announced, often on some technicality, those who pour out condemnation do not stop to think in how many countries a miscarriage of justice would ever be announced, let alone recognised. Isolated and individual cases of corruption bring forth demands for inquiries, wholesale reform and change.
In the past few months I have been buying the weekly newspaper the European. Hardly a week passes without a report of a scandal abroad in mainland Europe involving a prominent person and large sums of public money.
Why is it that we are so obsessed with the motes in our own eyes, yet we ignore the beams in the eyes of others? Why does there appear to be a constant bubbling of unrest on constitutional issues in this country? A number of noble Lords have referred to what has been called a groundswell of change or desire for change. I do not believe that it exists. There has been a sustained campaign of articles and letters in newspapers, often written by lecturers in law and/or politics. These pedagogues appear so frequently that one wonders whether they are hoping to use the material for the next series of lectures or courses. I am tired of the sycophantic way in which they pick up each other's points and congratulate one another on their enormous insight into the problems of this country.
But there is a common thread which runs through all of this—to which I have referred in this House in the past—namely, Charter 88. When one looks at Charter 88 one has to consider several organisations. The Charter 88 Trust was registered as a charity on 8th August 1991. Its address is Exmouth House, Pine Street. The description of its objects, taken from its charity submission is:
"Firstly for the non-partisan advancement of constitutional and political education generally and in relation to the rights liberties and duties of all citizens and in particular (without affecting that generality) for research into comparative constitutional structures and mechanisms in and for democratically governed states".
They are perfectly laudable aims. There is nothing there to which one could take exception. However, in the same building sharing the same premises, even the same telephone number, are other organisations which are highly political. The Charity Commissioners have a great deal on their plate with approximately 180,000 registered charities to look after and keep an eye on. It is not possible to monitor every one. Usually, action is initiated following enquiries. I understand that at the moment there is some concern among animal welfare organisations—the RSPCA and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, of which I am a member—that their constant contact with the Charity Commission is worrying them, to the extent that one or two are thinking of giving up their charitable status and losing the financial benefits that go with it. I suggest that there is a better source of inquiry for the commissioners, and a far more interesting one.
I identify Charter 88 with the chattering classes. The intellectuals involved are far too clever to breach the charity rules blatantly, but I believe that the other groups
1500
associated with Charter 88 use the charitable trust as a respectable cover for a highly political structure. The accounts of the Charter 88 Trust include a grant from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, and one of its directors is a member of that trust. A grant is given to the Charter 88 Group which is described in the financial statement of March 1995.
The Charter 88 Trust also works with Charter 88, a company which shares its premises and carries out educational and research work in accordance with the trust's own objects and also campaigns for constitutional change. I believe that the distinction between the educational and research work and the campaigning for constitutional change is very blurred, and there could well be some infringement here. Charter 88 is a private company limited by guarantee. It has the same address and telephone number as the trust. Several trustees of Charter 88 Trust are also directors of Charter 88 private company limited. There is also Charter 88 Trust Publications Limited, a private limited company, and Charter 88 Enterprises Limited. There is some sharing of names between these different bodies in the control.
How has this veneer of desire for change been created? Charter 88 has a very large budget. Indeed, it is difficult to make sense of the profit and loss account to 31st March 1995 in which we are told that net sales amount to £803,953 and gross profit amounts to £803,953. I believe that the auditors have some explaining to do. General expenses amount to £792,495. Elsewhere, we are told that grants and donations in general amount to over half a million pounds and that the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust has coughed up £100,000.
The spending of money alone cannot generate the appearance of support, so where has this money gone? The money has gone on advertisements, mainly in the newspapers, for signatures for Charter 88. I will not weary the House by describing the terms in which the advertisements refer to this dear country of ours, although the general impression given is that we are living in a police state. Although we are told that ours is the only democracy without a written constitution, we are not reminded that the Weimar Republic in Germany before the War had a written constitution, Article 136 of which guaranteed religious freedom. That did very little to protect the six million Jews who died in the holocaust or the mentally handicapped, mentally ill and gypsies who were similarly eliminated.
In the past I have drawn the attention of the House to the Charter 88 commentary on the third periodic report on the United Kingdom, which is to go to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. At the end of that report, referring to devolution, one sees:
"A Scottish Assembly was not, however, created because the British Government had attached a proviso to the referendum that devolution would only occur if 40 per cent. of the total electorate voted in favour".
A more grotesque travesty of what actually happened and the beating that we took I cannot imagine. I pointed out that fact in the House and it became a matter of public record. Whether or not Charter 88 chose to

1501
inform the committee of the mistake that it had made I very much doubt, although I would have thought that out of common decency it should have done so.
Where has the money gone to create the alleged climate to which I have referred? I have obtained the figures for newspaper advertisements. These advertisements were designed basically to invite people to sign various demands, such as freedom of information, a bill of rights and the rest of it, which was more or less read out as an agenda by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The advertisements appeared during the period 1989 to 1994. I inform your Lordships of the number of advertisements which appeared in various periodicals and newspapers: New Statesman and Society, 33; Guardian, 49; Observer, 13; Herald, 1; Scotsman, 1; Independent, 13; Independent on Sunday, 7; Sunday Times, 4; Sunday Correspondent, 1; The Times, 1; Daily Telegraph, 1; and Today, 1. The corresponding spending is about £600,000, of which over half went to the Guardian. By the way, the offices of the Guardian are 50 yards down the road from the headquarters of Charter 88. I am sure noble Lords will agree that that is entirely coincidental. The total absence of advertisement in the Sun, Mirror, Daily Mail and Daily Express shows the contempt which the chattering classes have for the tabloid press and, by implication, for those who read the tabloids. This is a form of intellectual arrogance which is disgraceful. I suggest that the Charity Commissioners should look into these inter-connected organisations because, even if there is nothing technically wrong, the use of this charitable cloak is morally wrong. The Minister may wish to consider giving the Charity Commissioners more powers to investigate and deal with this kind of situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that he was involved with the Constitution Unit. In my researches I have come across a number of names in Charter 88. Quite by chance, on going into the Labour Whips Office today—I always report to get my instructions—I found a briefing from the Constitution Unit. The particular topic was reform of the House of Lords. When I look at the advisory committee what do I see? I see the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lester QC, Robert Maclennan MP, Professor David Marquand—the archetypal fount of all knowledge and wisdom—and Andrew Marr. I am reminded of the old song during the War "The Gang's all Here". It is the stage army again. I am afraid that if you look at other organisations you find that similar coincidence of names.
Apart from considering whether the Charity Commissioners should have a bit more power to look into this sort of thing, the country does not deserve to be bounced in that way. It would be much better if those intellectually gifted people, many of whom are lawyers, would concentrate their energies on pressing world problems, and, nearer home, on the great threat to society posed by the growing tide of litigation which, unless stemmed, will lead eventually to nobody going into the caring professions. When that happens, and
1502
there are no more doctors, nurses, social workers and the likes, the chattering classes will really have something to complain about, but it will be too late.
7 p.m.
Lord Goold: My Lords, I am Scottish and proud of it, but I am also British and proud of it, and after Scotland was knocked out of the European Cup I supported England. The very last thing that I want to see is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland threatened. And that is precisely what I believe would happen if we go down the road to an assembly or parliament in Edinburgh. Let me say why.
The proposals of the Opposition are, to put it mildly, seriously flawed. With the U-turns and histrionics of the past week, I believe that they are dangerous, unworkable, and will exacerbate divisions. We are told now that were the next government to be Labour, there would be a referendum to ask the people of Scotland whether they want a separate assembly in Edinburgh; and, secondly, whether they want it to have tax-raising powers. I do not know what the answer to the first question might be; less than one third of the electorate voted in favour at the last referendum in 1979. I am sure this time that there would not be a significant majority either way, and therefore it will be divisive. If though, as a result, an assembly were to be introduced and failed to live up to expectations, as I believe it would, there will be no going back; it cannot be experimental, and Scotland will suffer and the Union will be at great risk.
On the tax issue, can we really see the Scots voting to pay 3p in the pound more on their income tax than the English? We should realise that 3p, which perhaps does not sound too much, is 12.5 per cent. —if my arithmetic is correct—more than the present standard rate of 24p in the pound. Let us be clear what that means: a person working in Dumfries would be forced to pay 12.5 per cent. more income tax than someone doing the same job a few miles away in Carlisle. I do not believe that the Prime Minister would relish defending that when he attends the Scottish Grand Committee in Dumfries. That difference in tax would be an affront to justice and common sense. It is a recipe for conflict, yet that is what Labour says it will campaign for in a referendum.
I believe that the Scots will not vote for higher taxes. The consequence would be an assembly without tax-raising powers; that is, a talking shop which would forever be at loggerheads with Westminster. The last thing we need in Scotland is another talking shop.
Labour has spent over six years stating that a parliament without tax-raising powers would be unworkable and irrelevant. Is it prepared to implement a policy it does not believe will work and will be irrelevant? Perhaps it should be pointed out again to Labour that there is already a forum for scrutiny of Scottish issues, which does not have tax-raising powers—the Scottish Grand Committee, which is evolving at this very time. It can do everything that Labour's assembly could do, and more. And, perhaps most important of all, it is within the British parliamentary system where all legislation is

1503
considered by this second Chamber. To dictate that Scottish legislation will not qualify or be eligible for consideration by such a second Chamber is a blatant disregard of our British parliamentary democracy.
The proposal for a single chamber in Scotland is all the worse given the intention that nearly half of its members would be appointed by party leaders from party lists, rather than being elected directly by the people of Scotland. That is not the way the British parliamentary system has been for centuries, and it should not be changed in that direction now.
I also believe that an assembly would be disastrous for Scotland in that it would deter investment, particularly inward investment. Indeed, we are now beginning to see the result of all the publicity and talk of an assembly. It was reported last weekend that a big North of England pension fund had decided not to invest in the Edinburgh financial sector because of the uncertainty over the constitutional future of Scotland. That is just the tip of the iceberg. The thing that industrialists hate most of all in their plans for the future is uncertainty. The future prosperity of Scotland is at best uncertain if we go down the devolution route proposed by the Scottish convention and the Opposition. Scotland is doing exceedingly well as part of the UK; indeed, better than most other parts. To put all that at risk would be wrong.
I hesitate to draw the attention of the House to the fact that under the Barnett Goschen formula, Scots, through the block grant, receive more—significantly more—from the national Exchequer per head of population than do the English. That is one of the reasons why we have better health care, better education, better communications, lower unemployment, and altogether a better standard of living. However, let me hasten to say that I believe that the rest of the UK gets a good return from Scottish exports to England, be they liquid or people.
If Scotland were to have its own assembly or parliament—call it what you will—could we seriously expect to continue to receive a higher percentage of revenue from the national Exchequer than England? If we legislate for almost everything in Scotland, why should we continue to have more Westminster Members of Parliament than our population merits compared with England? —23 more to be exact. Would we still have the power to vote on English legislation while English MPs would not have the power to vote on Scottish? Would we still have a Secretary of State with a seat in the Cabinet? These questions cannot just be dismissed, as they were by some noble Lords opposite today, as being of no importance. The answer to all of those questions is probably no, at best doubtful, and it does not take much imagination to see the disruption and dissatisfaction which would occur between Westminster and Edinburgh.
There is another interesting point. If one party has a majority in Scotland and another in Westminster, who would be responsible for the legislative programme and from which party would the Secretary of State, if there is one, come?
The Opposition do not appear to have faced up to the issue that, if Labour loses its referendum on a tax-raising power for a parliament, that will mean 100 per cent.
1504
funding from Westminster. Will it be on the Barnett formula? How will Labour then fund that extra tier of bureaucracy and politicians? Which part of the Scottish block grant will suffer?
Devolution, in the form proposed at present, is an ill-thought out disaster waiting to happen, forged by opposition parties for short-term political gain. Now even the leaders of the Labour Party are beginning to see the folly of their proposals, hence the fudge over a referendum that we have seen in the past few days.
The United Kingdom, with Scotland as an important part of it, is best for everyone within these British Isles. The Union between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is one of the most successful and enduring partnerships in history. Change should come, as it has in the past, and very recently, through evolution. I urge noble Lords to do everything in their power to stop party meddling in this vital constitutional issue. There is a saying:
"If it ain't broke, don't mend it".
This United Kingdom is not broke, but tinkering with it in the way Labour proposes would, I believe, lead to a break that could well prove impossible to mend.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate. It is also a pleasure to listen to the contributions of colleagues from Wales and Scotland and to have a noble friend from Wales, Lord Merlyn-Rees, speaking for English regionalism. That is a voice which needs to be heard far more in these debates. Unless England is allowed to speak for itself, the debate will concentrate on forms of Scottish and Welsh apparent demands and the demands, of England for its identity and political expression may be neglected. We must look at the whole issue of the devolution of powers within the Union in a way which reflects the actual diversity of the Union today.
The reality of the diversity of the Union is that the cultural, economic and social structures of the lives of the people in the communities which make up the Union are miles away from the unreality of the so-called "representation" which they have in their structures of government. That is the issue which we must face.
I cannot get excited about the devolution debate because we have all been here before. I have heard my noble friend Lord Tonypandy for 40 years say the same thing. He will say that he has heard me and my friend Mr. Gwynfor Evans for 40 years, formerly my honourable friend in the other place, say the same thing. Of course, my noble friends Lord Hooson and Lord Geraint also say the same thing. It seems to me that we are not much further forward. However, I hope that the people of Wales and Scotland are a little further forward. They should have learnt one thing: when the Labour Party in opposition gets nearer to government, it begins to change its policy on devolution.
I do not regard that as a mortal sin. Rather I regard it as following the nature of the beast. The Labour Party, in terms of its membership, is more representative of the political balance of the Kingdom than the rest of us. Therefore, when it is faced with the prospect of actual

1505
power and of trying to deliver something as opposed to promising something, it has to make a retreat. As a result of its representativeness of forces throughout the UK, and because a preponderance of its membership is in Wales and Scotland traditionally, in order to maintain its position, it has in opposition to speak for Wales and Scotland, and in its coming to power, if it does so again, it cannot dare to legislate for them. At least it cannot legislate too much for them because the net result will be to remove its power structure in the whole of the Kingdom. I hope that at last people in Wales and Scotland will realise where supporting the Labour Party on a devolutionary ticket is bound to lead them.
Obviously your Lordships will say that that is not a problem for me because I can see increased votes for the SNP and Plaid Cymru. Yes, I can, but I am not as cynical as that, because that leads only to a further problem—the protracted negotiations about the nature of powers within the Union between the representatives of the SNP, Mr. Alex Salmond and others, and the representatives of Plaid Cymru. Therefore, there is no immediate short-term solution in that direction. Neither is there a solution in the direction of out-and-out unionism. That is where I have a difficulty with the Conservative Party, as I have a little difficulty with the Labour Party. I have no difficulty at all with the Liberal Democrats. If I were living and voting in England I should probably vote for them because clearly they are far to the left of the Labour Party.
As regards my difficulty with the Conservative Party, I have many friends on mainland Europe who are social conservatives, Christian Democrat conservatives and all kinds of conservatives. They believe in a social market, market forces and all the rest of it. However, I also know them as good Catalan nationalists, or good Basque nationalists of the non-violent kind, and so forth. On mainland Europe there are many conservatives who are also autonomists, and many are in power in regional governments and so forth.
I do not see why the fact that one is a Conservative in the UK leads to one being a unionist who believes in a unitary state and believes that the only expression of British political culture must be by way of a unitary state. That is an equation which for some historical reasons we understand Conservatives tend to make. It is not an entirely monolithic position because there was an initiative on Scottish devolution when, for instance, the Leader of the Conservative Party, Lord Home, was Prime Minister for a brief period. Therefore, there are voices of dissent on that issue even within the Conservative Party. We need to realise that our debate is not déjà vu to 20 years ago, but, as we have heard from some noble Lords, it is déjà vu to the 1890s.
This Kingdom always was made up of one big partner, one middle-sized partner, a smaller partner and a partner which became gradually more divorced but retained in part a relation to the Kingdom. That always was the case, and in my view when we come to look at the political system we need to legislate for that structure in a way which meets the legitimate demands of those regions and nationalities. That is why I wish to declare myself unexpectedly as entirely in favour of a
1506
referendum, but not the kind of referendum proposed by the Labour Party. A referendum on the White Paper—a "preferendum", as they now call it—is even worse than what we had in 1979. We need to have a multi-option referendum. I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Gray. All the potential options will be drawn up—I do not know who will form the Select Committee to do that—and they will be put to the people after the legislation which has prepared that possibility has been brought forward.
When that appears, of course Mr. Alex Salmond will campaign for a referendum which includes the option of the SNP, together with other options. I would not dare to speak for him in this House all the time, but certainly on this issue I may speak for my former friend in another place. I am sure the Scottish Liberal Party will campaign for such a referendum. However, perhaps I may say to members of the Labour Party that they cannot expect us in the SNP and Plaid Cymru to turn out in the hills and valleys of Wales to campaign for a policy which they did not campaign for, which is where we were at in 1979.
I remember a car-boot full of leaflets—red Labour leaflets in one part of the boot, blue Conservative leaflets in another showing a picture of one Mr. Edward Heath and maintaining that some Conservatives were in favour of devolution, and some green leaflets for Plaid Cymru which we were told to hide away. Although we were Plaid members and supporters canvassing for Labour Party policy, we were the ones who did so and members of the Labour Party did not bother to turn up to most of the meetings. There were some few honourable exceptions, such as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who was then constitutional adviser to the Welsh Office.
When I hear the Leader of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom tell us that he will campaign for his policy I know what that means. Its members will turn up for one stage-managed rally in LLandrindod and that will be it. We have been there before. I say to members of the Labour Party that if they are serious about this issue, then legislate for it seriously. Let us have the promise of a multi-option referendum and not just two questions, as in Scotland. If the Scots can have two questions, the Welsh should have at least five. We must have a multi-option referendum and a serious debate so that we can come nearer to resolving the present balance.
This is not a slippery slope argument because there are no slippery slopes. There is just one big morass of various levels of powers, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Plant and Lord Sewel. We do not have a slippery slope. There are no simplistic models of political powers. There are levels of regionalism, competencies and subsidiarity throughout Western Europe and all developed democracies. Everything is comparative federalism. Why should the UK be so absolutely unitary in relation to all those? That is something I do not understand.
In my confusion I return to my multi-option referendum and look forward to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, as the last Welsh

1507
spokesman in the debate. I am sorry, I mean the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. We have too many Williamses and too many Thomases. That is why I made myself an Elis-Thomas. I wait for the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to announce the multi-option, multi-lingual referendum.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I must apologise that I may not be able to remain until the end of the debate. But I welcome the opportunity of being able to speak on the question of devolution. In particular, I should like to refer to the question of devolution in England, which has not been dealt with in any great detail, certainly by the parties opposite. I well understand that it may not raise the same passions as devolution for Scotland and Wales, but I suggest that it raises similar difficulties, especially if it were to be established only in some parts of England.
Perhaps I should say what I am in favour of before I criticise what other people have put forward. Twenty eight years in local government have left me quite enthusiastic for it. I favour subsidiarity between central and local government. I favour partnership between central and local government and central government regional offices. I favour local government having the means to lead the community. I favour local authorities coming together for different purposes, perhaps in different groups for different purposes, not least for European matters. But a belief in all that does not mean that you must have a belief in what is proposed; namely, an additional tier of administration for government.
Of course I find attractive some aspects of local and regional government to be found in some of the other countries of Europe. Sometimes I think that there are things which we could learn from that but they were developed against a totally different historical and political culture. I do not believe that we can pick out elements of those systems and bring them into the United Kingdom.
I give your Lordships one example. Very often people in the United Kingdom look to the Netherlands as a good example of local and regional government. But I do not believe that any members on either side of your Lordships' House would accept the situation where the Queen's commissioner in the provinces or burgomaster was appointed by the Crown, which is the case in the Netherlands.
Therefore, I am very doubtful about the wisdom of trying to introduce regional government into England. I believe that it would be little more than yet another local government reorganisation. I do not believe that outside political circles and local government circles, where it is discussed almost endlessly, there is any popular demand for it.
Nobody has answered the question: what are the regions? I understand that it is proposed to establish those regional assemblies according to the boundaries of central government's own regional offices. It may be that there would be a referendum as regards whether there should be a move from indirectly appointed
1508
assemblies to directly elected assemblies. Are those regions to be determined arbitrarily? Will the referendum be held to deal only within those pre-established limits or will there be a discussion about which places should fall within which regions? On the basis of local government reorganisation, that would be an extremely long discussion. It is unlikely that very much agreement would be found between the various places competing to go into one region or another.
The truth of the matter is that there is not a great identity by the public at large with the regions as such in England. People want good quality services but I submit that they are not that concerned as to the particular organisation or the level by which they are delivered. Having spent a very long time in local government, I could perhaps regret that. But that is a fact that we should remember and I believe that that is indeed the case.
Equally, the question arises as to what function would be assigned to those regional assemblies. Initial responsibility for economic planning and transport, although what aspects of transport is not spelt out, is suggested. Are we to have a situation in which, perhaps in different regions, those regional assemblies will exercise different functions? Will Parliament and the public accept a situation in which different functions are exercised in some regions and for those regions perhaps without an assembly, those functions would be exercised by central government? Or is the truth of the matter, as I suggest, that it is really, as with local government reorganisation, that the bulk of the powers will go upwards from local authorities into the proposed regional level?
I believe that that is the nub of the problem and—dare I say it? —it is probably the nub of the problem in the more weighty discussion about the reform of Parliament. What functions Westminster is prepared to cede is the key question. In my submission, it is the key question also in relation to any reform of your Lordships' House because other parts of the parliamentary system may not be too content with additional powers being ceded in any particular direction.
Another anomaly arises out of the proposal for regionalisation in England which concerns London in particular. As I understand the proposal by the party opposite, it is to establish a strategic authority for London with a range of responsibilities, again, it is alleged, taking no responsibilities from local government as it exists at present but all from central government. That remains to be seen. But there is an anomaly because if you are to establish a regional authority coterminous with a government office, then there is a government office for London. Will London and that area be exercising more functions than the other regional authorities, if they were established? That question remains quite unanswered.
As regards London, I believe that all the talk about establishing yet another tier is based on a number of false assumptions. They are assumptions that all that needs remedying in and around the area of the capital will be remedied by the creation of another tier of

1509
government. In fact, what is needed is good local government and resources. There is the assumption that all the ills flow from the lack of a strategic authority when many of the matters referred to were never the responsibility of an upper tier of government in London. There is the assumption that London is the only city without a strategic authority, without any recognition of the fact, even if that proposition were true—and I am not sure that it is—that London is not typical of other large cities. It is of a size, geographical area and development which is quite different from other cities both in this country and in the rest of the world and the community of interest, other than in the widest possible sense, in matters such as transport does not exist.
I shall not take up the time of the House in discussing London in greater detail. But it is typical of a solution which suggests that a tier of government will remedy everything. I suggest that London, with its established boroughs, can govern itself very well. That is not to say that there should be no development; that the co-operation between London authorities, as with other authorities in the rest of the country, should not be encouraged; that the confidence which comes from that co-operation should not be built upon and perhaps even formalised in some particular way. But new ways of working are needed to achieve real improvements and not new tiers of government in London or the rest of England.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I trust that your Lordships will not object to me saying that there is always in my eyes a slight touch of irony when your Lordships spend so much time discussing democracy. It hardly fits well into the remit of your Lordships' House. But having said that, I welcome this opportunity to contribute to this debate.
I begin at once by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, and my noble friend Lord Plant of Highfield for their very generous tributes to me on my resignation as co-chairman of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It was typical of both noble Lords that they should be so generous in their tributes to me and I am very grateful for those comments.
I should like to say a few words on my own position. Lest anyone should think that between Thursday of last week and Wednesday of this week I suffered a blinding conversion, perhaps I may dismiss that idea out of hand. I should also like to explain that the proposals for a Scottish parliament do not belong to the Labour Party; they do not belong to the Liberal Democrat Party; they do not belong to the STUC, the Churches, the Green Party or, indeed, the "Campaign for a Scottish Assembly": they belong to the Scottish Constitutional Convention.
There is an argument in favour of a referendum, but there is also an argument against it. My complaint is that that argument never took place. As has already been said, the Scottish Constitutional Convention should have been consulted. It was not, and I took the view that it was time for someone to stand up and protest so that a voice be heard.
1510
As regards the proposals for legislation to allow a referendum to take place after the next general election, I should stress that my great hope is that it will succeed. Because I am so passionately in favour of a Scottish parliament, I shall campaign for a "yes" vote. However, in all honesty, I have to say that my great fear, to use football parlance, is that what appears to be the golden goal of 1996 may well turn out to be the missed penalty kick of 1997. I leave it at that, and pass on to the proposals for a Scottish parliament.
In the 30 years that I have campaigned for a Scottish parliament, I have always been able to respect the views of those who take an opposite view to the one that I hold. I shall continue to respect those views because there are views on all sides of the argument. However, one of the things that worries me deeply is the way in which the politics of fear continue to be used in order to try to decide a very important constitutional question. With respect, it simply is not acceptable to threaten that inward investment will dry up. Again, with respect, it simply is not acceptable to threaten that, if the people of Scotland dare vote to have their own Scottish parliament, the block grant will be cut in half. That is the politics of fear. The net effect of using that fear is to drive more and more people into the arms of the separatists.
In passing, I should tell the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, that I shall not venture across the Severn Bridge into Wales. For one thing, as a good Scot, the toll charges are far too high for me. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, mentioned the possibility of both Plaid Cymru and the SNP campaigning for a "yes" vote in the referendum. I shall appeal particularly to the SNP not to do so. I say that in all seriousness because during the last referendum in 1979 in Scotland, every time the SNP said, "Vote yes because it is the first step on the road to separation", it switched off another 10,000 votes. The people of Scotland simply would not have it.
That is where I join forces with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who opened the debate. However, I should say that it is about the only point upon which he and I are in agreement. I am just as passionately and as strongly in favour of preserving the Union as any other Member of your Lordships' House. The question is: how do we preserve and strengthen the Union? My answer is that we would strengthen and preserve the Union by devolving power in the creation of a Scottish parliament, along the lines suggested and worked out in great detail by the Scottish Constitutional Convention.
Nowhere on the point of inward investment is there an example of any company coming into Scotland and saying that, if there were a Scottish parliament, it would not have done so. Indeed, if I may say so, such a question was often asked. The Scottish Information Office would give the question to a friendly journalist and, as a new factory was being opened, its chairman would be asked: "Would you have come here had there been a Scottish parliament?" One of two answers was usually received: either an outright "yes"; or, alternatively, "It would not have made any difference", which, in a way, is an indirect yes. That answer was received so

1511
often that the SIO stopped planting the question. If anyone wants to talk about the drying up of inward investment, he should look at what British Steel did. Indeed, it closed down a plant in Scotland (which is part of the United Kingdom) and built it in Catalonia, in the devolved part of Spain! Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that inward investment would dry up.
I turn now to the question of revenue raising powers. In an earlier debate in this House, I pointed out that during the 1979 referendum campaign the Conservative Party told people not to vote for that Bill because the late Lord Home would introduce a Bill which contained fiscal powers. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Goold, who is a well-known employer in Scotland, that it always strikes me as passing strange that the Conservatives are not quite in favour of different rates of income tax in the country but—by God!—they are in favour of different wage rates. It seems to be all right to pay the people who work in Scotland lower wages and nothing is done about it. There must be a degree of consistency in the whole argument.
The political scene in Scotland has changed beyond all recognition. When I first entered the other place we had 68 parliamentary constituencies in Scotland, while the Conservatives held 22 of those seats. However, we now have 72 parliamentary constituencies and the Conservative party holds only 10 of them. Indeed, some Members of your Lordships' House came to this Chamber much earlier than they had anticipated because of decisions made by the Scottish electorate.
As I said, the scene has changed. One of the continuing problems is the imposition of unwanted legislation on an unwilling population by an unrepresentative government. The people of Scotland have the settled view that we should have a devolved Scottish parliament. Ireland has been mentioned and, indeed, the West Lothian question. Again, when I entered the other place, although Irish MPs could vote on all legislation affecting other parts of the United Kingdom, we could not even ask a Question about Northern Ireland. It was only on the imposition of direct rule in Northern Ireland that we were allowed to ask Questions and debate the whole issue of the Province.
I shall finish on the following note because I do not want to delay your Lordships for too long. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the Prime Minister will visit Dumfries on Friday. The Scottish Grand Committee—that travelling circus that goes around Scotland—is also meeting there on Friday. But there is yet another engagement in Dumfries on Friday; namely, the bicentenary of the death of Robert Burns. Indeed, it was in July 200 years ago that Robert Burns died and was subsequently buried in Dumfries.
When Burns went to Dumfries it was the most unpopular—indeed it was the only unpopular—time of his life. He was a tax collector and worked for that mad Hanoverian king, "jingling Georgie" who was on
1512
the throne. The people of Dumfries abused Burns and shouted at him. In order to persuade the people that he had not forgotten them, he penned the following words. This is what the Prime Minister should think about on Friday night when he attends the Burns' celebration. Burns penned the words,
"Who shall not say God Save the King
Shall hang from the highest steeple
But while we say God Save the King
We'll no forget the people".
Let the Prime Minister remember the people of Scotland, because the people of Scotland will remember this Government and when the next election comes their feet will not touch the ground.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am sure the whole House has been looking forward to the noble Lord's speech and he has not let us down. He has lived nearer to the question that we are debating as regards Scotland than have most people, and for a longer time. He knows a great deal about it. We all respect the work he has done on the Scottish Constitutional Convention, whether or not we agree with the conclusions.
Long ago, back in the 1960s, I was one of many Scots who felt that a directly elected Scottish assembly of some sort might be a wise way forward. The problem then, and the problem ever since, has been to find a system for such an assembly that would bring the government of Scotland nearer to Scots without in the process destroying the United Kingdom. Every attempt so far has failed. In 1978 Mr. Enoch Powell made a speech in another place to the effect that there is an incompatibility between home rule, devolved legislative power and the maintenance of the Union of the United Kingdom.
Presumably, when he became leader, Mr. Blair thought that at last he had a plan that would overcome that incompatibility and would work. He came three times to Scotland as the new leader and made his promise to the people of Scotland on each occasion. That promise has been constantly reiterated and elaborated by his Scottish spokesman, Mr. George Robertson. What Mr. Blair had perhaps failed to appreciate was that the convention of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, which produced the ideas Labour was picking up, had worked to very limited terms of reference indeed. As a result it had concentrated on a scheme for Scotland, and on selling it to Scotland, and had not taken as extensive an account as it might of likely consequences and reactions elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It was not asked to do that, and it did not do it. This, I believe, was compounded by the convention only reporting on that which it could agree. As the noble Lord, Lord Plant, said in his speech, it strove for consensus. Therefore on some of the thorniest and most basic issues of all, such as the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland, it made no recommendation at all.
In its recent report, Delivering Constitutional Reform, the constitution unit, at paragraph 39, concludes—I believe importantly—

1513
"In approaching the task of constitutional reform it is vital to understand the interplay between the political, practical and constitutional frameworks".
The Labour Party, it seems, has had a sharp reminder of that dictum in the past week or two as the electorate south of the Border, and indeed in Scotland, began to prick up its ears and the first whiff of grapeshot has wafted to Westminster. Scotland's earlier promise has turned into a promise of a referendum on a White Paper. That does not seem to me a responsible proposal, but Mr. Blair is certainly right to backtrack—if he sees it as a means of backtracking.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that without tax raising ability the parliament would not be properly answerable. Yet given the power to vary Scots tax, as the bulk of the parliament's income would come via a block grant decided at Westminster, the level of income tax in Scotland—whether we like it or not—would be seen to be a consequence of the size of that block grant.
Imagine, for example, England's Members of Parliament happily agreeing to an increase in Scotland's United Kingdom funding when the Scots parliament was reducing—or, indeed, failing to raise—Scots income tax. I hope that I am not indulging in what the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, referred to as the politics of fear when I suggest that this is bound to be an immensely divisive notion as regards the other parts of the United Kingdom. In fact whether or not the parliament were to have tax raising powers, the way the block grant was calculated would come into the limelight, as the funding of the Scottish Office has never come into the limelight before. It would become a matter of constant curiosity and probably political controversy—and not only in Scotland.
If the current formula for Scottish Office funding were followed—as the constitutional convention suggests it might be—people south of the Border might well ask questions of the kind that my noble friend Lord Goold posed. Why are the Government spending 25 per cent. more in Scotland than in England? Why is local government support 44 per cent. higher? Why do councils spend 30 per cent. more per head, and 75 per cent. more on capital? Why, over eight years, have their staff in Scotland increased by 6 per cent. when English councils' staff have fallen by 6 per cent? How does health service provision compare? I believe that the explanations are largely due to Scotland's geography, but they are not entirely due to that. Those questions will be keenly pursued.
Likewise, how fair would the system look to people south of the Border with—as might be the picture first time round—72 Scots MPs (more than Scotland's fair share) voting on United Kingdom and English legislation at Westminster; a Chancellor who is a Scots MP, a Foreign Secretary who is a Scots MP, a Government Chief Whip who is a Scots MP, a Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor born and educated in Scotland, while 129 further Scots legislate in Scotland with no one else involved at all, not even the House of Lords as a revising chamber? How fair would that look south of the Border?
1514
It may well be that the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose job would largely be given to the new parliament, would be redundant. But if so, who would fight Scotland's corner in the Cabinet, for example, as regards the block grant? I believe that Mr. Blair should backtrack further and take stock. The Westminster Parliament has in any case come much closer to Scotland of late with the massive devolution to the Scottish Office and, as noble Lords have described, Scots policies, proposals and Bills being regularly discussed in Scotland by the Scottish Grand Committee and by Select Committees of the other place and of this House. I believe we could go further. We could perhaps follow the thinking of my noble friend Lord Bowness in his speech just now and involve the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—the body comprised of all the new all-purpose local government councils in Scotland. We could perhaps involve them formally in assisting in the drafting and passage of legislation.
All those changes are being developed without putting a strain on the Union, or threatening our existing constitutional settlement. I hope that your Lordships will continue, as you have done up to this point, to support and participate in them. I hope, too, that today's debate, including many able speeches by noble Lords on the Labour and Liberal Benches, will make a small contribution towards persuading the United Kingdom that the Labour Party should not be given the chance of implementing proposals which I believe the Union might not survive.
7.50 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I welcome the debate and will focus, not surprisingly, on constitutional change for Scotland. I shall start with some remarks to establish my position in the debate and then consider some alternatives—the disadvantages and advantages of the convention's scheme.
Foremost, I believe that sovereignty lies with the people of Scotland rather than with any parliament. That is a view established in the claim of right 1989. Secondly, an unprecedented agreement has been achieved within the constitutional convention between several parties and other bodies. Thirdly, like others, I allocate some blame to this House for the loss of Ireland from the United Kingdom. Fourthly, I believe that violence is unnecessary. Constitutional change should be the result of the intellectual decision of the people of Scotland. I reject any suggestion of ethnic Scotsmen and that darker side of nationalism. I refer throughout to the residents of Scotland, both born and migrant.
Dissatisfaction with the status quo increases. As regards the democratic deficit, how do we justify a minority government to our children? The Scottish Grand Committee goes round Scotland demonstrating minority government. Why do we have to go to another country for our domestic legislation when that legislation cannot apply elsewhere due to our different legal system?
Why can Northern Ireland have an assembly? Is it a handicap to want greater autonomy within the United Kingdom but not want to join another country?

1515
The lessons of history, of Irish home rule, are being ignored. The lessons are these: act now and do not leave it too late. There has been talk today that we must not legislate for the break-up of the United Kingdom. This Parliament legislated for the break-up of the United Kingdom when it ratified the Act setting up the Irish Free State; so it has been done before. There is a popular demand for change in Scotland which is not necessarily to do with economic advantage but with freedom for its own sake.
Before recommending the scheme presented by the Scottish Constitutional Convention, I wish to mention three alternatives. The first is to continue the unacceptable status quo and that feeling of colonial rule. The second is to go for a nation state, the republic of Scotland. That is rather 19th century and, I believe, unnecessary. The loss to Scotland of the United Kingdom single market, with its existing common currency, common interest rates and business regulation, would be destabilising and disadvantageous. But it might be easier to organise if there is total opposition to a scheme of Scottish self-government within the United Kingdom; that is, opposition to such a settlement, or by the rise of completely contradictory political attitudes, say, over Europe, or arguments about nationality or defence postures.
A third and quite promising development might follow Professor A. V. Dicey's proposals in the 1880s for a Grand Committee, with the leader of the Scottish majority party as Secretary of State. I should like to quote from the Scotsman in January 1996. It states:
"A precedent does exist, however, for a Scottish Grand Committee with teeth. And sharp ones. In 1882, Professor A. V. Dicey … wrote to his friend James Bryce, the MP for Aberdeen, that Westminster should grant Parnell (who would be Chief Secretary for Ireland in the Cabinet) full autonomy in terms of Irish legislation.
This would be 'a bona fide attempt to treat Irish members as persons entitled to decide on Irish legislation', so long as they acknowledged Parliament's overall sovereignty, which would be latent, restrained by convention.
Bryce demurred, on the grounds that a basic loyalty to Westminster was necessary, and that a degree of confidence simply didn't exist in Ireland. Hence his own backing for an Irish parliament.
[Bryce] did not favour a Scottish parliament, as he thought such conventions already applied. As, indeed, did Dicey, who recognised this as early as 1867: 'Few governments would dare to legislate for Scotland or Ireland in the face of the united opposition of the Scotch or Irish Members'".
Unfortunately that has not been carried on. We have had examples of the poll tax, the VAT on heating—it is particularly crucial in our colder climate; it is one of the ultimate London taxes—and the Skye Bridge tolls which defy the Union by imposing a higher toll in Scotland than in England, when under the Act of Union tolls are supposed to be equal.
The home rule scheme, agreed following the resolute search for consensus, plans for a democratic parliament to control the functions of the Scottish Office: a parliament subsidiary to the UK Parliament. The previous parliament was undemocratic, being elected by but 2,000 electors. The proposed parliament will be elected by proportional representation using the additional members scheme similar to that devised
1516
by the UK for West Germany in 1945. Of the 129 members, 73 will be first-past-the-post constituency members and 56 from the eight Euro-constituencies, seven from each. Powerful committees of the proposed Parliament would consult widely and be able to propose legislations as would the ministers of the Scottish government. That would give a big role to back-benchers. I agree with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
The constitutional settlement will continue the policy of equalisation of UK funds, recognising the greater difficulty of administering Scotland, with one-third of the UK land mass and one-twelfth of the UK population. The parliament will have autonomy over its spending programme and the power of variation over income tax alone, if necessary, to achieve that programme. Above all, the Scottish parliament will be accountable to the people of Scotland.
I now speak to the party on my left—or perhaps on my right. British Labour has to convince the Scottish people that it will not renege on the scheme to which Scottish Labour has agreed. Scottish Liberal Democrats are most unhappy, to put it mildly, with the British Labour decision not wholeheartedly to promote a home rule parliament and to offer something less—a devolved assembly without tax-varying powers as an alternative. Scottish Liberal Democrats worry that British Labour will impose a U-turn on the commitment to proportional representation. I hope for confirmation that British Labour will not repeat last week's change of policy.
A pre-legislative referendum can ask only whether it is expedient to proceed—and expedient means that, broadly speaking, it is a good idea to do so. I liked the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, because it was positive yet cautious.
I now turn to some of the disadvantages of the home rule scheme. Such a scheme requires considerable tactful and willing co-operation. Everyone must want to make it work. Similarly, the rise of incompatible policies would put the settlement in jeopardy. That refers to those powers not transferred to the Scottish parliament, which are foreign policy, defence, macroeconomic policy, social security and nationality.
Devolution of parliament without tax-varying powers may be tempting for the faint-hearted, but it will have little effect and generate much frustration and more whingeing. Even Scottish local authorities have tax-varying powers. There is the possibility of a democratically demanded increased taxation which would be offset by better services. There will be more MPs' salaries to pay. That will be offset presumably by a reduction in MPs at Westminster and, more significantly, a reduction in unelected members of quangos, which would become more democratic, presumably using members of the Scottish parliament.
I now wish to look at some of the advantages. We have the transfer of powers from Westminster to a truly democratic parliament accountable to the Scottish people. Scots law will be decided by Scottish representatives, recognising that only activity in Scotland is subject to Scots law. The Civil Service is

1517
already in place, awaiting democratically elected Scottish masters. There is no extra tier of government proposed, as Westminster's task is merely transferred to the Scottish parliament. It is a balancing manoeuvre. Scottish local authorities have just been altered to fit in better with a future Scottish parliament.
By staying within the United Kingdom, we shall avoid a trade war, as is the "unmentionable" status as awarded to Ireland after 1922. There can be better economic management, as business leaders will be more accessible to members of the Scottish parliament and vice versa. Education, training and health can be rebuilt to Scottish standards. That way, we can invest in our people.
Unlike the 1979 scheme, this one avoids central belt domination. The three island seats and the 56 seats from the eight Euro-constituencies, five of which are rural, ensure a more than adequate representation for the Borders and Galloway, Grampians, Highlands and Islands.
The result of a Scottish general election is not a foregone conclusion either. This is a parliament in which the government must secure more than 50 per cent. of the popular vote. Based on their 45 per cent. share of the vote, Scottish Labour would need a coalition partner or even face a rainbow coalition in opposition, as does Fianna Fail at present in the Dàil.
The home rule scheme brings choice to all UK citizens—the choice of living within different regimes and societies without having to change citizenship. People already migrate to Scotland for its sense of community and values. Others will come for its education, health, social services and enterprise and that sense of communal responsibility.
To conclude, this new parliament will enable the United Kingdom to be a more democratic and less resentful place. The prize is ultimately a federal Britain with its single market, all within a fair and democratic constitutional set up. Perhaps it will ultimately be necessary for Scotland to repeat the 1918 general election in which Sinn Fein won a huge majority, despite the majority of voters wanting home rule. It certainly led to the 1920 Government of Ireland Act, but by then it was too late. Do we Scots have to vote for separation en masse in order to achieve home rule? I commend to the House these plans for Scottish democracy as wrought by consensus in the Scottish Constitutional Convention.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Nickson: My Lords, it is a great privilege to take part in this debate. I wish to approach it from the view of the Scottish businessman. Perhaps I may give my credentials in that connection: I have worked for over 40 years in various Scottish businesses, mainly in Glasgow but also in Edinburgh. I have seen Scottish business through the other end of the telescope, through my time at Centrepoint. I have also lived within sight of the Wallace Monument, in "Braveheart" country, one might say, although not for as long as the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, nor the ancestors of the noble
1518
Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. However, it is long enough to understand what I might call the Braveheart mentality and the extreme patriotic fervour that exists in terms of what is needed in Scotland. I suggest that it is at a peak which I have not known in my lifetime and that England and the English are probably less popular than they have been for a long time.
That does not mean that I am in favour of the proposals that come from the party opposite. Indeed, my concern with the referendum is that the tide of emotion might lead people to opt for something that is not fully understood. My great worry is that a referendum without a devolution Bill thoroughly spelling out the consequences might mean that what Scotland might vote for is not fully understood and has grave consequences for the United Kingdom.
I said that I would speak from the business point of view and that is what I intend to do. What does business anywhere need? It needs a sound economy and sound money. It needs an enterprise culture; it needs a competitive infrastructure; it needs access to markets and a skilled, motivated and well paid workforce, and it needs a level playing field in relation to costs. I suggest that Scotland has all those and Scottish business has prospered and thrived in that environment for many years now. The proof and test of it is how Scotland has leapt up the regional league in relation to other areas of the United Kingdom over the past few years. It is disadvantaged not at all. It is seen as a good place in which to do business.
One of my concerns is business costs. Many noble Lords referred to the percentage of public expenditure which Scotland enjoys. The figures are arguable, but roughly Scottish gross domestic product is about £50 billion. Public expenditure for the whole of Scotland is probably about £23 billion. Per capita that works out at £4,500 per head as against about £3,500 in England and rather more in Wales. There is a great fiscal benefit.
The CBI in Scotland has just issued 39 Questions to all four political parties. It seeks to establish their answers to Scottish business. It behoves every political party to answer the questions before an election because that will determine the attitude of Scottish business to the parties' election manifestos. I suggest that the figure of 39 questions has probably more to do with John Buchan and The Thirty-Nine Steps than the 39 articles of the Church of England.
I wish to speak for large Scottish companies. Small and medium-sized enterprises are hugely important in terms of employment. But Scotland has benefited from having a number of highly successful very large companies that are now centred in Scotland and wish to remain there. That was not true not so long ago. Perhaps I may list companies like the banks, the life insurance companies, the mutuals and, in composite terms, General Accident, Scottish & Newcastle and the two great private utilities, Scottish Power and Hydro-electric. Although it is not a plc, United Distillers is included. Thanks to my noble friend Lord MacFarlane, it is firmly based in Scotland.

1519
I must declare an interest. I am a pensioner of Scottish & Newcastle. I retired last year as a director, and I was chairman of that company through the 1980s. I must declare an interest so far as General Accident is concerned, as I am deputy chairman of that company. I am also a small shareholder in both.
I do not believe that Scottish & Newcastle would have survived in Scotland today if there had not been a very powerful Secretary of State for Scotland with a very strong voice in the Cabinet at that time. I do not believe that we should have survived the takeover bid from John Elliott, the chairman of Elders. That is the second bid that I have tried to resist. The other was from Rupert Murdoch in Collins. That, sadly, is no longer a strong Scottish company. It is very important that there is a strong Scottish voice in a strong Cabinet prepared to give support.
Perhaps I may quote from an article in yesterday's edition of the Scotsman, which said that devolution "would cost money". The article states:
"Scottish & Newcastle [is now] a true European player … a world away from S&N of only a few years ago … it is disappointing to find that its management appears to be in the vanguard of opposition to devolution in Scotland. It is one thing for the knights and peers of Scotland's establishment" —
that presumably excludes me—
"to frown on such developments — But when a chief executive of the authority of Brian Stewart says bluntly 'it would cost us money', he is only reflecting the concerns of a substantial part of Scotland's business community".
The article goes on to say:
"It is late, but not too late, to change the policies being cooked up in an Islington kitchen. Mr. Stewart is — worth listening to".
Why is he worth listening to? Let me go on to say. First, because of a potential tax on employees which, as noble Lords have pointed out, might be up to 10 per cent. It is a difficult matter running an international business from Scotland. People have to cross borders and travel to and fro. You have to move people about. It is not easy to attract very senior executives. That is one reason why it might be difficult. My own family, the Nicksons, came I believe entirely from the Western Marches, where Border reivers were quite independent and free to choose which side of the Border they would be on, where the pickings were best. That might happen again.
The second concern is that of cost to business. It was not very long ago that the ratio of costs to produce a barrel of beer was 1p in Burton-on-Trent to 8p in Edinburgh. Not long ago, if a tourist laid his head on a pillow in a hotel in Edinburgh, the price was £3, whereas in a similar hotel in London it was £1. Not long ago, the business rates on Jenners were very nearly as great as those for Harrods. Not long ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, will recall, the rateable value of the chemical and oil plant at Grangemouth was about 40 per cent. of that in Central Region. So, to be headquartered in Scotland depends very much on those factors.
I am not threatening. I am not talking fear. I am merely stating fact when I say that it would be just as easy for Scottish & Newcastle, with just as much justification, to be in Newcastle—with which the north
1520
east of England might be delighted—if it became a disadvantage. General Accident offers in a global market-place. Its senior executives come from all over the world, from the United States, Australia, New Zealand—and from York. The life company is in York. There are very strong reasons why it would be better for it to be situated elsewhere than in Scotland. I suggest that the same applies to a lot of other fund management. It requires very positive board decisions to say, "We are Scottish, we want to stay here, and we are convinced that there is no disadvantage to our employees or our shareholders".
Inward investment has been mentioned. I am not threatening. I am not talking fear. I have a little experience. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, made one or two somewhat disparaging remarks about quangos. I have to confess that I have been on many quangos in Scotland. I was appointed to my first quango by Eric Heffer when Mr. Wedgwood Benn was Secretary of State. I was the last chairman of the Scottish Development Agency. That had a wonderfully representative board, composed of a lot of my friends from local government and the STUC. It became Scottish Enterprise. In that capacity I had the good fortune to learn a certain amount about inward investment through the Locate in Scotland board and the Scottish Economic Council.
I am saying only that I fear lest the climate and the perception of Scotland change, lest the certainty and the business base change. It is a very fragile thing. Inward investment has been highly successful. I would not want to see it put at risk.
Those are my reasons. I am not threatening and not speaking to arouse fear. I am merely saying that that is why I am so concerned about some of these matters. There are three dangers from a business point of view. I call them the three Cs. They are: confidence, continuity and a competitive climate. I fear that devolution might produce the three Ds: doubt, disunity and disadvantage.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he saying that the people of Scotland would elect a parliament and people there would alienate valuable companies in Scotland?
Lord Nickson: No, my Lords, I am merely saying that, if it became competitively disadvantageous to be in Scotland because the costs were higher and that disadvantaged shareholders or was a disadvantage to employees, then it might be necessary to think again.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I shall focus on the need for change in the governance of Wales. There are two main reasons for reform of the constitutional position of Wales. The first I call the national reason. The second I call the democratic reason.
The national reason can be put this way. Steeped in our own history, culture and traditions, there is a resentment felt by many people in Wales that we as a nation are without a greater say in our own affairs. That

1521
resentment in some form or other goes back for centuries. It developed a radical political movement during the course of the last century. I believe that the resentment has grown very much stronger in recent years. I am conscious of a feeling that, unless the Welsh people have a far more effective involvement in Welsh issues, it will soon become increasingly difficult to safeguard the very nature and essence of the Welsh nation and to transmit our national heritage. That concern emerges very clearly in the lecture, "Wales—Yesterday and Tomorrow", which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos delivered at the National Eisteddfod of Wales last year.
The Prime Minister pronounced in last Wednesday's speech, which I attended (and I was grateful for the invitation):
"It [our constitution] embodies a set of values, a legacy of understandings that have developed year by year over the centuries—an understanding that is breathed in Parliament".
Despite the picture that the Prime Minister has painted in such moving terms, I am afraid that we do know that the understanding by Westminster of important issues in Wales has too often been inadequate, and sometimes totally lacking. We have been pretty helpless to obtain legislation to prevent the unstitching of the fabric of Welsh society in the south Wales valleys where I live, and where the miners have created a community of immense richness and depth for over 150 years, or, again, the unstitching of the fabric of our Welsh-speaking communities where I was brought up—communities that have evolved over 1,500 years.
The second reason for reform can be put this way. There is a growing determination in Wales that there should be greater direct accountability to the Welsh people of existing central government administration and nominated agencies in Wales. We have 36 Members of Parliament with their seats in Wales; but plainly, they are a very small minority in Westminster, and are unable to influence the policies of a Conservative government which are today supported by only six of the 36 elected Members from Wales. It is clear that a Conservative government in Westminster will always have its will in Wales, whatever the view of the majority of elected Members from Wales and Welsh public opinion. That is manifestly unfair. The question being asked is that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson: is that a form of elective dictatorship?
The Welsh Office is by now responsible for almost everything that happens in Wales, apart from defence, law and order and the fire brigade services. Yet it can only be questioned for 45 minutes in Parliament every four weeks on what it is doing. I have no wish to be unkind to the Welsh Office but, unfortunately, the leadership that one had rather hoped it would provide has not developed.
It has often been asked in your Lordships' House during the passage of a Bill: "Why is it that the Welsh Office has failed to modify its provisions to suit Welsh conditions?" I shall give just one example to drive home the point. The Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill currently before this House has no popular support in Wales and is
1522
potentially very damaging to the existing nursery provisions which are of high quality and of which we are particularly proud. However, up to now the Government has refused to amend it in any way whatever to suit the position in Wales. Is that the way to treat a nation?
The Welsh Local Government Association in its written evidence last May to the Select Committee on relations between central and local government informed the Committee:
"… Our perception is that the discretion afforded to the Welsh Office through its policy making and legislative role is more apparent than real".
Those are words from very wise and experienced counsellors. I believe that the people of Wales are determined to alter this state of affairs.
In his speech on the constitution, the Prime Minister reiterated repeatedly that he only favours practical change. Most of us would go along with that, so where do we go from here? Wales is an ancient nation. I was very grateful that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his opening speech referred to the Welsh nation almost every time he referred to Wales whereas, in the speech of the Prime Minister, Wales is a country. But it is a nation of distinct traditions, culture and history. It has its own administrative machinery. It seems to us that it is therefore at a natural and appropriate level for devolution of executive or legislative powers to an elected assembly. What we seek, therefore, is not a "grand plan", but a practical scheme for the devolution of central government in Wales.
I have heard it argued, and it was argued in the report of the Kilbrandon Royal Commission that devolution to Wales should only be applied as part of a uniform system of devolution for Great Britain as a whole. I do not believe that there is anything in this point. I know of no technical reason why devolution should not be allowed to Wales and Scotland to meet their demands, to be followed, perhaps, as my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees suggested earlier on, by elected assemblies in the several regions or provinces of England.
The crux of the problem seems to me to be whether the constitution of the United Kingdom can now evolve in such a way as to allow the different nations of the realm to exercise freedom of choice in expenditure and therefore differing priorities in given services for their people. I suggest that its capacity to evolve along these lines is the criterion by which to judge the vibrancy of the British constitution. Alas, in his speech, the Prime Minister makes no reference to this criterion.
I come to my final points. This is not the occasion to discuss in detail the functions which should be devolved to a Welsh elected assembly and which should remain in Westminster, but I believe that there is no secrecy about the nature of those functions. The transferred functions would be roughly congruent with those at present exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales and, to the best of my knowledge, it is not proposed that the assembly would assume powers presently exercised by the local authorities.

1523
I should now like to comment very briefly on three political issues which have emerged repeatedly in the course the debate. I recognise that the setting up of a Welsh assembly raises the question of the future of the office of the Secretary of State for Wales. Clearly, the continuation of his office with its existing functions would be incompatible with the existence of an elected assembly. However, on the other hand, I recognise that Wales would benefit enormously by having a Secretary of State to represent its interests in those major subject areas which are not devolved, such as the policies and rules of the European Union, macro economics, external trade, law and order and defence. I do not therefore accept that there is a choice to be made between an elected Welsh assembly and the office of a Secretary of State. I do not accept that the office of Secretary of State has to be sacrificed in order to set up a Welsh assembly.
Secondly, it is urged by many Peers that devolution raises the issue in relation to the 36 Welsh MPs of whether they would continue to have a say on English legislation whilst Wales has its own assembly. If the Welsh assembly is without primary legislative functions, it seems to me that the question does not arise. Even if it is to be given legislative functions over the devolved subjects, it is not to be forgotten—although it frequently is—that there will be far more MPs from English constituencies who will have a far greater say in non-devolved major matters affecting Wales than Welsh MPs would have through their vote on English matters.
Thirdly, I recognise that there are those who genuinely fear that devolution would create areas of conflict and lead to the break up of the United Kingdom. We have heard a great deal about that and there are two views upon it, but I do not accept that devolution is a prelude to dismemberment of the Union.
I conclude with a saying which is both ancient and modern: "A living constitution must change with the times".
8.29 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I shall start with a gentle but none the less heartfelt rebuke to the usual channels for planning these two vitally important debates on the constitution for the week of the Queen's annual visit to Edinburgh. It is not the first time that important Scottish business has been arranged for this week. In fact, there are times when some of the more cynical among us suspect that it is done on purpose to prevent us taking part. I am sure that the Chief Whip, who is himself a Scot, would not dream of doing such a thing; but we very much hope that he will ensure that this does not happen again.
I should like to join with other noble Lords in welcoming the return of the Stone of Scone to Scotland and suggest that to begin with it should, perhaps, repose in St. Giles's Cathedral.
It will be exactly one year ago tomorrow since I introduced a debate on the government of Scotland: independence, devolution or the status quo. I said then that a referendum should be held before any devolution legislation were enacted, but only after detailed
1524
proposals for the Scots parliament had been published and every voter in Scotland had had time to study and discuss them and any problems to which they might lead. I still stand by the necessity of holding a referendum, for I am sure that in a general election there are too many other issues to muddy the waters. However, I believe that Mr. Dalyell is right that the referendum should be held after the Bill has received Royal Assent, for, as the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, who has just come back into the Chamber, said, a Bill may emerge from its passage through Parliament bearing little resemblance to the White Paper on which it was based. It is vital that the people concerned thoroughly understand exactly what is proposed and what the consequences are likely to be, particularly to their pockets and to the services and standard of living which they enjoy, before any referendum takes place.
In last year's debate, I asked a number of questions about problems which the constitutional convention had encountered and which did not seem to have been solved. The voting system did not appear to have been finalised. The question of the number of MPs who should continue to sit at Westminster had not been resolved. No answer to the West Lothian question had been found, only vague suggestions that a federal system might be imposed on the whole of the United Kingdom, or suggestions that it would not matter because it had not mattered that the Stormont MPs voted on the domestic legislation of the rest of the United Kingdom. There was a general atmosphere of "if you don't look at the nasty bogey man he will go away".
The future of the Secretary of State for Scotland was also unresolved. The question of how the new parliament was to be paid for was unanswered, as was the question of how Scotland would manage if the equalisation grant under the Barnett formula were to be discontinued and £7 billion to £8 billion a year had either to be found elsewhere or government expenditure drastically curtailed. And why was social security not to be devolved?
Those are just some of the questions that I asked. I received no answers to them then and I still have no answers to them.
The week before last, the constitution unit published its report on the Scottish constitutional convention's proposals. It too has highlighted the problems posed by the West Lothian question, to which it sees no immediate answer—because, of course, there is not one—the federal solution, its favourite, being in the future, if not in Never-never Land. It does not consider that the equalisation grant under the Barnett formula can continue, but makes a constructive suggestion for an independent commission to conduct a periodic needs assessment. Since no such commission yet exists, it is impossible to foretell the level of need it would agree for Scotland and how it would compare with the present grant.
It goes on to say—this amused me somewhat—that the Scottish parliament will need the capacity to borrow money "for revenue smoothing purposes". I have never before heard that euphemism for having an overdraft because one is short of cash. It is dubious about the

1525
long-term future of the Secretary of State for Scotland and raises other questions, although it is of the view that the devolution proposals are not unworkable, provided that more careful thought is given to those and other areas.
The demand in Scotland for devolution is very real. I believe that this Government have constantly underestimated it. I should not be opposed to devolution, provided I thought that it had been sufficiently carefully thought out and would work, and that Scotland would not be a poorer country and at loggerheads with the rest of the United Kingdom. What worries me is that unless answers to the really important questions are found, it will not work. I wish I could agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, but I cannot. I detect an "it will be all right on the night" attitude, which terrifies me. If it does not work, the people of Scotland will not say, "We made a mistake; let us go back to being governed by the Westminster Parliament." Instead, they will say, "We made a mistake; we should have opted for independence." And that is what they will do.
I am afraid, pessimistically, that we are now in a "heads you lose and tails you don't win" situation. I am afraid that the Secretary of State's admirable efforts to bring the government of Scotland nearer to the people of Scotland come too late. They should have started in 1979. It is not true to say that the Scottish Grand Committee can do everything that a Scottish parliament could do except levy taxes. A Scottish Bill may have its Second Reading in the Grand Committee, but then it goes to a standing committee which is government weighted and it has its Report stage on the Floor of the House of Commons. I am afraid that if we do nothing, Scotland will go for independence and that if we opt for devolution, eventually Scotland will go for independence. I hope I am wrong. Certainly the devolution option is a gamble. But if you believe that the alternative will be certain disaster, you may consider a gamble to be preferable.
I see only one glimmer of hope. If the Labour Party were to win the next election and the number of Scottish MPs were to remain unchanged or increase, the fact that Scotland was no longer being governed from Westminster by a party it had not elected might reduce the demand for a separate parliament, at any rate in the short term. That would give time for other avenues to be explored, such as devolving more responsibilities to local government or possibly having only one set of Members of Parliament elected who sit at Westminster on Mondays, for example, for financial, defence and foreign affairs and in Edinburgh for the rest of the week for Scottish domestic matters, or some such arrangement. It would give time for more thought.
I turn to this House. First, under the Articles of Union, the Scots Peers had the right to elect 16 of their number to sit in the House of Lords. The other day, a noble Baroness—I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour—asked me whether there are still any Scots Peers. I have to tell her that there are still about 75 in existence, of which I am one. Under the 1963 Peerage Act (Section 4), all were given the right to sit in this House. They were not given UK peerages; they were given the right to sit in this House. The
1526
sections of the Articles of Union which provided for the election of the 16 representative Peers were repealed under Schedule 2 of the 1963 Act.
The Scots Peers cannot, therefore, fall back on the Treaty of Union to defend their right to sit in this House. The pass has been sold, unwisely, I think. Therefore, there is no built in reason why any reformed House of Lords should contain any Scottish Peers at all, except a handful of Life Barons. However, if there is not adequate representation of Scotland in any reformed House, it will be the cause of not unreasonable grievance in Scotland, devolution or no devolution. I am not sure that we should not go back to the representative Peers and Peers' elections. Indeed, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Perth, suggested, we might have them for all categories of hereditary Peers.
I was interested to read an article in The Times today by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in which he floated a similar idea for reducing the number of Conservative hereditary Peers. But there is one thing that I do want to say to your Lordships. The Scots representative Peers served Scotland and this House very well for 256 years, and at considerable cost to themselves until after the Second World War. Allowances did not start until 1946 for travelling expenses and 1957 for other expenses. But I also have to say that it is a constitutional atrocity to dictate that Scottish legislation will not qualify or be eligible for consideration by a second Chamber. That is a blatant disregard for Parliament, our parliamentary system and the wider principles of parliamentary democracy.
Finally, I find it ironic, that just at a time when the importance of heredity is again being recognised, backed by scientific knowledge and developments in the field of genetics and DNA testing, the opposition parties, always, I am afraid, apt to be a little out of date, should be determined to get rid of the hereditary Peers.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it is several hours—though some may think it is several weeks—since we were treated to a rumbustious piece of political tub-thumping by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. He was good enough to allow me to intervene at one point in his speech to ask why the proposed referenda would not include the votes of the English. As I understood it, his reply was that whether or not Scotland and Wales wished to have devolved government had nothing to do with England. That was elaborated upon by the noble Lord, Lord Plant, who said that there was no suggestion that the proposals for change in the government of Northern Ireland should be submitted to this country's electorate.
Taken together those answers reveal the depth of misunderstanding of the situation which devolution is intended to create. They suggest that these are matters which concern only the two peoples—or nations, if the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, prefers that word—involved and do not affect England. That is an extraordinary contention. If we alter the internal arrangements of what has hitherto been a unitary state,

1527
all participants in it must inevitably be affected by what is done. Various noble Lords gave instances of that in the economic field and others may be adduced.
The logic of the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, leads inevitably to the claim that what is decisive is the wish of a nation to be independent; that is, to run its own affairs. That is a good argument for Scottish or even Welsh independence. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, criticised the Secretary of State for Scotland for finding himself in cahoots—if that is the right expression—with the Leader of the SNP. But that is correct; they are two honest men. One believes in the United Kingdom and the other believes in an independent Scotland. Those are positions which can be held perfectly well and indeed are logical positions.
On the whole I find tempting, for a variety of reasons—some to do with our domestic politics and the affairs of the other House—the idea of Scottish independence and the disappearance from our television screens (except on rare occasions) of certain all-too-familiar figures. But I am restrained in my enthusiasm for Scottish independence for a different reason. I can best explain it by quoting from a speech made in 1484 by the secretary of James III of Scotland to King Richard III of England and his council meeting in Nottingham. At that time there was a danger of another Anglo-Scottish war. The purpose of the secretary—whose name, interestingly enough, was Whitelaw, which shows how porous the Border has sometimes been—was to dissuade the English from going to war again with Scotland. He said,
"It is an unnatural thing that war should be fought between us—we who are bound together within a small island in the western sea and who are linked by living in the same climate and in neighbouring lands, sharing similarity of physique, language, appearance, colouring and complexion".
Archibald Whitelaw referred to,
"a small island in the western sea".
That is a cardinal concept directly related to much of the agitation from the Charter 88 and other unmentionable sources so admirably explained to us by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. It is all part of an attempt to dissolve this country into national units and ultimately into regions. They would obviously all be weaker than the United Kingdom is as a political unit and all would therefore be subject more easily to further encroachment by the European institutions at Brussels. In other words—this is borne out by the friendly references to Catalonia, the Basque country and so forth—Europe consists either of nation states which can run their affairs and argue their cases with each other on equal grounds, or we have a series of regions, all of them weak and all looking for handouts to make up for their weaknesses. That would be the ultimate outcome if this country pursued the proposals for devolution.
There is no possible ground for saying that it could end in any other way. The purpose of creating the Union—which, after all, took some centuries to build up—was to strengthen both the Scottish and the English. By then England included Wales for political purposes. It was intended to give them greater opportunities, in those days overseas in what became the Empire and
1528
latterly in other walks of life. It makes the United Kingdom, even now in its reduced state in the post-Imperial world, still something to be counted upon.
We are constantly reminded in this House by noble Lords on all sides of the grave challenges to our economic position in the rapid globalisation of the economy. That seems to me to be an argument for retaining a unit of considerable size with great human and material capacities rather than dissolving it, gradually or rapidly, into several or many different units.
The idea that there is a demand—at any rate, in England—for creating regional government, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Plant, is almost as far-fetched as the belief of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that a British citizen is less likely to have his freedom defended against the state than the citizens of other European countries who happen to enjoy the protection of a written list of their rights. If one believes that, one will believe anything; one could even believe that there is a demand in England for regional government.
I have sat with the noble Lords, Lord Plant and Lord Prys-Davies, in our committee on central and local government. There is certainly a feeling that local government, in the strict sense—for instance, great cities—should have greater control over its affairs. But that is within the framework of a United Kingdom. It is that framework which I believe it is our duty to preserve. For that reason I hope that we may, even at this late hour, hear that the Labour Party has abandoned any proposals to change the status quo.
8.50 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, it is always a daunting prospect to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I have the greatest admiration for his oratory and respect for his intellect, but on this occasion I have to say that I disagree profoundly with the argument that he has expressed.
In this debate tonight I have been struck so far by two points. The first is how little has been said on the general question of Europe and of our future within the European Union. I would like to touch briefly on that a little later on. The second point is that this debate has for me clearly emphasised the difference of opinion and of style between architects and lawyers. It is said of architects that God is in the detail. The architect draws up a great plan and then, with relish, sits down to detail it and to bring this thing of beauty into being. Of the lawyer it is said that the devil is in the detail and having put together the great design the lawyer, with anguish, sits down to pick it apart. Tonight I am firmly on the side of the architect and I wish to speak in support of devolution.
Although I support the sentiments of devolution I hate the word. I much prefer the term "home rule" which I believe is greatly more expressive of what I would like to see in Scotland. Therefore, with your Lordships' leave, I shall use that term. It is a testament to the strength of feeling in the country shown in the number of noble Lords taking part in the debate today both on the Motion today and tomorrow.

1529
It is worth while for a moment to dwell on why there is such strength of feeling both in your Lordships' House and in the country. I believe that that strength of feeling comes from two interlinked sources: first, that our systems of government at all levels are perceived by the people to be failing. The majority of people in the country, if the discussions that I have had are anything to go by, seem to be largely apathetic towards all forms of government, both local and national, and have the feeling that they have little or no say in how they are governed. In short, the average person regards the process of government at all levels as failing to take account of their views and aspirations.
That in turn leads to the second source, which is frustration. In many ways modern life is deeply frustrating. It is frustrating at the most mundane levels. But more importantly for tonight's debate, it is frustrating in that most citizens feel less and less able to participate, which has fostered a growing feeling of them and us—them who govern and us who suffer.
Participation, whether real or perceived, is an essential ingredient in a successful democratic process. It must therefore be a primary requirement of our constitution that it permits the people to feel that they can participate. I remind your Lordships of the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf on his excellent report on Wealth Creation and Social Cohesion in a free society, which to my mind made abundantly clear the grave dangers of excluding members of our society from participation and for the need for participation by all members of the community. In that debate I said two things: first, the smaller the electorate the greater the democracy and, secondly, that local government should be based on community and not on population or land mass.
To my mind it is no accident that the rise in nationalism in Scotland and in other parts of the kingdom directly reflect the reduction in the powers of local government. The great centralising force which the Government have wielded without mercy over the past 17 years has done more than anything else to concentrate the minds of Scotsmen and Scotswomen on the dictatorship of Westminster. My first plea therefore—I join very much with the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, in this—is for local government to give power back to local people in local communities so that they may make local choices.
Before turning fully to the question of home rule I would like briefly to touch on Europe. The full participation of the United Kingdom in the European Union is a central necessity for the future prosperity of our country. I deplore the rise in English nationalism, which is being promoted by some, particularly in the press, as a result of the debate on the single currency. Personally, the single currency worries me greatly. I believe that it has considerable defects. However, I also believe that it will happen. The core countries will go ahead and form it. If we are not part of that core we shall once again be out in the cold hanging on to the coat tails of our more prosperous partners. For that reason and that reason alone, I support our participation in full from the outset. If it then fails we shall be on the
1530
inside and can take part in the decisions to remedy it. If we do not take part we shall be on the outside and not part of the process. Better by far to try and fail than to fail to try.
I now turn to the question of home rule. Perhaps I may quote two paragraphs from a speech made by a former Secretary of State for Scotland shortly after he resigned that office. First, he said,
"There is a demand growing insistently from the Scottish people that they should be given the right which they believe is theirs inalienably to control their own domestic affairs".
Shortly afterwards, in the same speech, he said,
"Scotsmen feel the need of a political and administrative centre in Scotland which will act as a counter magnet to the attraction of London, as a power house of Scottish energy directed by Scotsmen familiar with Scottish conditions to the solution of Scottish problems for the regeneration of their native land".
Those quotations came from a speech made in 1932 at a time when the Prime Minister of the day was committed to the policy of home rule. It was made by Sir Archibald Sinclair, my grandfather. He went on to describe the nationalists, as
"the Playboys of Scottish politics, as visionary, unpractical and irresponsible as they are romantic, attractive and fervent in their patriotism".
But he warned even then that if the aspirations of the Scottish people were not taken into account then the rise of extreme Scottish nationalism was inevitable. How prophetic he was!
As my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead so eloquently said, there is a precedent for this question and a number of other noble Lords have touched on it: it is Ireland. Without doubt if we had had the foresight in the 1880s and 1890s to allow home rule in Ireland we would today be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
I believe that the vast majority of Scotsmen have absolutely no wish to challenge the sovereignty of this Parliament or to seek the dissolution of the United Kingdom. But we are different. We are a different people; we have our own heritage and national identity rooted in centuries of independence. We have our own legal system, our own education system and our own sense of priorities. Scotsmen demand the right on these domestic issues to self-determination in domestic government. I firmly believe, although I pray that it will never happen, that if we at Westminster continue to frustrate those legitimate desires, then the forces of nationalism will build to such a pitch that revolution rather than evolution will become the inevitable course. I believe that the case and the momentum for home rule to be so overwhelming that it is a matter of when and not if.
The Scottish Constitutional Convention produced a remarkable report and recommendation. It is remarkable because it is consensual. In many senses it is the best of compromises in that it embraces as wide a diversity of opinion as is possible. For that reason I support it. There are elements of its proposals with which I do not agree, but those disagreements are subordinate to the requirement to achieve something and to achieve the aspirations of Scotsmen and women. If this is the vehicle that achieves it, then I support it.

1531
Without doubt, when the Scottish parliament or assembly comes into existence it will have faults. Those faults will need to be rectified. If it follows the example of this Parliament, it will evolve and refine itself. I would rather work from within to achieve what I believe to be right than to be left out in the cold over a few points of disagreement. The only real argument against a Scottish parliament is the Secretary of State's charge of the tartan tax. It is a shame, but none the less typical, that this Government cannot see the value for considerations of cost. I believe that the answer from most Scotsmen is that if domestic self-determination has a price they will pay it.
The noble Lord, Lord Nickson, raised some very valid concerns. Those who support the Scottish parliament would do well to take note of them. I believe that they will be taken into consideration. If one looks at other regions of Europe where devolution has taken place successfully, the indications are that businesses flourish and do not decline.
We should give consideration to what we require of our constitution and what we want it to do for us. Our constitution should provide an adequate vehicle for the expression of the people so that all citizens can truly feel that they are participants in the democratic process. The constitution must preserve those rights of citizens that we deem inalienable. There are those who say that our constitution is etched in tablets of stone and cannot be changed. This is untrue. History teaches us that it evolves. Sometimes that evolution is gradual, but there are times when the forces opposing constitutional change are such that great force has to build up before change occurs. It is on those occasions that we come dangerously close to revolution. I believe that one of those times is now. If we do not allow this process of evolution to take place we will have revolution.
Of all the evils that beset our world today rampant nationalism is at the top of the list. I abhor anything that promotes nationalism and support anything that promotes internationalism—hence my support for Europe. I firmly believe that home rule for Scotland will lance the nationalist boil and promote harmony and union within the United Kingdom. This great Parliament has been described as the mother of Parliaments. Mothers give birth. Let this great Parliament give birth to a child in Scotland. It will be as all children— ill-disciplined, gawky and awkward—but as it grows to adulthood it will become a worthy child, dutiful, respectful and honorary.
In the words of the English bard,
"There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune".
Or, as the Scottish bard puts it, possibly more subtly,
"Now's the day, and now's the hour".
9.3 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, the idea of home rule for Scotland and Wales is a very old friend who has been away for 20 years. That friend has returned, still lively but perhaps grey at the temples, and is just as unpredictable and capable, as in the past, of creating havoc, particularly for his sponsors.
1532
Having listened to the speeches of noble Lords opposite, and having thought a good deal about the proposals of the party opposite, I am surprised that they have not been a little more ambitious. However one views the matter, it is hard to believe that home rule in one or two parts of a nation state can work. It was because of that that Mr. Balfour, Mr. Winston Churchill and Mr. Lloyd George, seeing the consequences of Irish nationalism, as we now see Scottish nationalism, began to support—too late—the idea of "Home Rule All Round", thereby hoping to avoid the tragedy, as they rightly saw it, of Irish independence.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, I prefer the expression "home rule" to "devolution". "Home rule" conjures up particular memories, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, reminded us earlier today. There have certainly been occasions when home rule has been tried in a single part of a country. One obvious example is Stormont. Other examples are Grattan's Parliament in Ireland, Greenland, and Catalonia, at the time of the Second Spanish Republic in the 1930s. But none of those examples is very reassuring. As to Catalonia, although surprisingly it was quite successful at that time, that success has not been reproduced in contemporary Spanish politics, because since Spain became free again, following the death of Franco in 1975 "Home Rule All Round" has been introduced.
If the party opposite were more logical it would be more vigorous in trying to persuade others of the benefit of something like "Home Rule All Round" in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that this would be completely unacceptable on this side of the House. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone in his fine book The Dilemma of Democracy in 1978 gave support to the idea of a British federal state. I believe that others of us would support that idea, despite the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness.
The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, about the liveliness of English regional government were convincing. All the same, it is worth emphasising that this is a very big development. I could quite easily make a speech in favour of a British federal structure. I would tend to neglect the failure of federal states such as those in central Africa and the West Indies, and recall that this country has given its support to several federal enterprises which have been successful. Among them are Australia, Canada, the United States—that had something to do with us—and Germany since the war.
However, there is one qualification which needs to be stated, which the party opposite should perhaps have taken into account when formulating its original ideas. It is that a British federal state could hardly function without having a written constitution, to which so many of us are so bitterly opposed. A written constitution too would have certain benefits. Again, it is easy to defend that. But that would certainly be the logical consequence of a proposal for a federal state, which is the only fair conclusion one can envisage as likely to work, of the introduction of home rule in Scotland and Wales.
I shall turn briefly, in the context of the idea of revising the constitution, to the subject which will be discussed tomorrow by your Lordships; that is to say,

1533
the future of your Lordships' House. The usual way that matter is discussed is to talk about who should be Members. But given the interesting speeches made today about the desirability of a bicameral constitution, and the remarkable adjective used by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who talked of the need for an "enhanced" role for your Lordships' House, perhaps we should wonder whether the powers of the House should not be re-examined.
Are your Lordships entirely satisfied that the powers which you now possess are suitable in the long term? If we are thinking in the long term, should we not envisage a bicameral constitution in which the two Chambers are, if not equal, at least a little more equal than they currently are? Is it possible—perhaps it is out of order—for me to suggest that we could consider some ways whereby there could be some zones of political life (such as finance in another place), for example constitutional matters or scrutiny of European legislation, which should be the prime responsibility of your Lordships' House? Would it be possible to improve on the existing understanding whereby, under the Salisbury Convention, this House does not destroy a Bill which has been approved, by implication, by the country at large in a general election? Could we perhaps suggest that if a Bill which has not been approved of by the country at large in a general election is introduced into another place, this House would be free, under normal circumstances, if there were a majority to do so, to destroy it?
If we think in terms of an enhanced role—again I use the adjective of the noble Lord, Lord Lester—for your Lordships' House, we could consider anew who should be the Members of it. The party opposite is not of course the first party to speak of this, but the position of the hereditary peerage has changed a great deal since the last century when it could be said that it represented the landed interest. All the same, the proposals of the party opposite, which would leave your Lordships' House filled only with nominees of successive Prime Ministers, seem to many of us a little bleak, unimaginative, ugly. Perhaps something else could be devised.
It might be more in the spirit of British constitutional change were there to be some modification of the idea, apparently proposed by Lord Lansdowne earlier this century, whereby a limited number of hereditary peers, perhaps selected by the same method as Scottish peers used to be selected, should continue to be Members of your Lordship's House for a trial period of, perhaps, 25 years. Possibly that should be 75 peers rather than 150.
We should also consider some elected element alongside, not instead of, the existing system. An elected element played a part in the ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others 25 years ago. How those new noble Lords are to be elected is a matter for much discussion. I believe that it might be desirable to emphasise the regional basis of such elected Members of your Lordships' House. In another place we had county members and so why should we not contemplate having county peers? Some 20 years ago my noble and
1534
learned friend Lord Hailsham suggested that automatically some general secretaries of trade unions and heads of government departments should by the nature of their appointments become Members of your Lordships' House. That idea was dismissed as being "corporatist". Perhaps it could be reconsidered alongside another suggestion whereby serving heads of government departments or serving senior officers in the Armed Forces should become Members. Remembering that revival is the essence of renewal, perhaps I may point out that during the golden age of British democracy in the 18th century, most great commanders were Members of another place.
In the context of the revision of this House, the number of Protestant Lords Spiritual might be reduced and replaced by Catholics. I am sure that many Members of your Lordships' House would consider that idea with interest.
I do not believe that the ideas for change proposed by the party opposite are to be condemned absolutely. However, in relation to home rule for Scotland and Wales, perhaps it should think more profoundly about the implications of its proposals. I also believe that any scheme for change in your Lordships' House should be more imaginative. I do not believe that change itself should be opposed. Indeed, I strongly believe that Cardinal Newman was correct when he said that "to change is to grow".
9.17 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his opening remarks traced some of the developments in our constitution and referred to its largely unwritten nature. Indeed, other noble Lords have done so. Nevertheless, the most important changes which have taken place in our constitution have been brought about by changes in statute. They have been deliberate changes based on legislation. It is that kind of change that we are discussing today. However, those changes are not intended to cut across the consensus in the House as a whole that the United Kingdom should not in any way be diminished.
From the Magna Carta onwards there has been a perpetual struggle about where real power should reside. Throughout the centuries power has passed from the Monarch to Parliament, from Lords to Commons and from Parliament to the executive. Now the question is: how can it be devolved and shared more with the people? I believe that some of the most important changes began with the Reform Act 1832, culminating in the universal franchise of 1918 and 1928. During that 100 years the basis of our democracy was set. The right to vote was based on citizenship, not on wealth or privilege.
A central feature of the 1918/1928 reforms was that women were given equal political rights with men. Perhaps that process was finalised by the Life Peerages Act 1958, which introduced Life Peers and brought women into the House of Lords for the first time.
Many of those reforms were by no means easy. Indeed, when it came to giving votes to women, opponents talked of the dire consequences not just for

1535
the constitution but for the whole fabric of our society, instead of which, as we all know, women were able to introduce a more humane and perhaps more civilised element into our parliamentary democracy.
It seems to me that the changes which we are now discussing and the reaction to those changes, particularly the Prime Minister's rather contrived and exaggerated alarm at these proposals, are the modern version of the reaction to every reform which has been brought about where the interests of opponents were to retain the status quo.
If there were ghosts around the Palace of Westminster—and I do not think that there are—one could imagine them wearily saying, "Surely we have been here before".
In the second half of this century perhaps the most important change that has taken place has been our membership of the European Union, and I couple with that the 1975 referendum which confirmed our membership of the Union. That was a process of sharing power with a wider group, sharing power with Europe, our partners in Europe. It was not entirely new because through treaties and other Acts we have before shared power with those beyond our shores.
But another process has been brought about which was in a different direction. There have been changes which have affected our constitution, and those changes have been an acceleration of centralisation of power in the executive. That has come about not by open discussion on the constitution and deliberate changes but as a by-product of government policy on other matters.
Previously there had been some sharing of power and influence by the government of the day, the two Houses of Parliament, local government and other non-governmental organisations. Since 1979, much of that has been diminished. As the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, local government has lost much of its power and influence. In the great metropolis of London there is no central governmental machinery. It is the only major capital city in Europe without its own locally governed and civic institutions. That surely cannot be right.
Our Civil Service, respected for its independence, has been depleted. Much of it has been transferred to so-called unaccountable next steps agencies and parts of it are threatened with privatisation. The Church too has lost much of its influence. Some of its pronouncements have been rubbished by government and in this House. The universities are subjected to more and more bureaucratic interference and control, as is education in general. The independence of the professions is under attack. The BBC has been subjected to interference from time to time. As for trade unions, they appear to have no status at all with this Government, and the CBI appears not to have much more.
The outcome of all that has been that final policy decisions have come more and more within the control of central government, either by the power of patronage in appointments to the growing number of quangos set up to replace other machinery that had more divers
1536
accountability or through government funding councils established to oversee various bodies; or, indeed, by direct interference of individual Secretaries of State.
That development needs to be halted. We need more open, more diversified and more democratic structures than those that have developed in recent years. The proposals from my party are an attempt to do exactly that. I shall not go into the details of devolution in Scotland and Wales as that has already been adequately addressed. However, I accept the principle of devolution. I also believe that the idea of a referendum as to whether devolution should take place is a democratic and definitive way of getting a response on which legislation can finally be based. When the time comes, although I do not think that it would be in the early days of a Labour Government, I would, like my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees, support regional government for the reasons that he outlined.
We have had an important debate today. However, it is one which should be continued throughout the country because we are now discussing some of the vital democratic issues which will affect the whole of the country in the coming millennium.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, today's debate has been long and very diverse. Consequently, as I am sure noble Lords will be relieved to hear, I have managed to dispose of many of my notes. We have heard many interesting speeches and I do not wish to single out any one in particular. However, having listened to my noble friend Lord Nickson, I can only hope that Mr. Blair will read his speech. He would then have an excellent excuse to change his mind once again and drop such proposals altogether.
There was a headline in one of last Sunday's newspapers which stated, "We will not spend more, says Mr. Blair". Therefore, I wonder whether we can look now at what the cost of a Scottish parliament is likely to be. Would it be thousands or millions of pounds and where would that money come from? Would the money come from health, education, police or fire service budgets? Indeed, which budget would pay for such expensive unnecessary bureaucracy, if there is to be no increase in expenditure?
Last week I had to speak on the telephone to a West Coast crofter in order to apologise for being unable to attend a National Farmers' Union meeting which he was organising for today. I cannot tell noble Lords verbatim what he said to me when he heard that we were to debate devolution. In fact, his comments were totally unparliamentary. However, he bitterly complained that we already had far too much interference from public bodies. He cited as an example officials appointed by our new Highland Council who are called "Animal Welfare Officers". They have recently been travelling around the country, calling on crofters and farmers.
Cruelty to animals was, and is, most ably handled by the SSPCA. However, I know from my own office just how much time is wasted in filling in statistics, trying to convince various officials as to what sort of decisions

1537
they should make, and generally trying to protect the countryside from foolish proposals. Recently, our council appointed a "Bicycling Officer" to promote bicycling—and yet the council complains that it cannot afford a proper police force or fire brigade. The crofter was quite correct: we have far too much public interference without having an extra parliament thrust upon us.
Those in the central belt inevitably think that they know what is best for Scotland. To give those people the powers sought would be very dangerous for the Highlands. We want less government, not more. What would these new politicians do? At the moment there are parliamentary representatives and local government representatives. Is it intended that the members of a Scottish parliament should take over half the work of the Westminster representatives, or are they going to take over some of the tasks carried out by the local government representatives, as the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said applied to Wales—or might apply to Wales?
That would either leave the current Westminster Members of Parliament short of work, and/or interfere with the newly reorganised local government. Or possibly the new Scottish parliamentarians will be short of something to do, and will seek further ways of interfering with our lives. Our Highland Council already has jurisdiction over one-third of the land area of Scotland, and I cannot see it being at all pleased at the probable interference from Edinburgh.
There has quite rightly been much talk of a "tartan tax", and income tax, but which set of taxes will some of us have to pay? Will the income be based on the place of residence, or the place of work, or where the money has been earned, which may be partly in each country? Will England be treated as a foreign country by the Scottish inspector of taxes, as of course currently there are special arrangements for tax paid in a foreign country? A large proportion of any tax paid will still have to go to the Westminster jurisdiction, but I wonder whether there has been any decision on what proportion of British taxation will be paid to Scotland or Wales?
It is surely not surprising that the Labour Party now seeks a referendum. It looks as if someone has suddenly woken up to the chaos which will ensue. Whatever the result of a referendum, the Labour Party will not have to take the blame when things go wrong. No doubt some of those showing annoyance at the proposal to hold a referendum are clearly anxious about the result. For what it is worth, I have been told that a poll taken by the Sun newspaper last week rejected the devolution proposals. The Sun is not part of my usual reading and therefore I cannot confirm that.
One only hopes that, although there are some noisy fanatics who seem to want a "Bosnia-type" situation for Britain, there are likely to be sufficient numbers of votes to reject the disintegration of our country. I was interested to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, expressed doubts as to the result of a referendum. I think he is right. The country will be split down the middle.
1538
There is one further point of concern. For a great many years now we have had a second chamber of government, as indeed of course have many other countries such as America. That is absolutely vital for checking legislation and making sure we take a second look at it to ensure that it is correct. Under the present proposals for a parliament for Scotland, presumably there would be no one to check or revise its legislation. That should be a matter of considerable concern. With the threat of a Scottish parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, said, there is a considerable economic risk. I have seriously considered whether I should not sell my home and properties in the North which have been with my family for 500 years.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Burton: My Lords, I might spend more time here if I moved. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, referred to a document which stated that the time was not right for devolution. I believe he was quoting the Prime Minister but I am not sure of that. The time will never be right for breaking up this great country of Britain.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, we have had some notable speeches today, especially the four openers. We have also been reminded that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, enlightened us this morning from the Isle of Dogs. I warn noble Lords that my approach is that of the mechanic rather than the philosopher.
I begin with a truly crunching cliché. Even the poached eye of an aged buffer can see that there is no such thing as the status quo. You either go forward or you go back. People and events will see to that. So constitutional change of some kind is inevitable. My thesis is that it should be organic change planned at a digestible rate. It should seek, if at all possible, to carry the broad consent of the majority of our citizens and main party agreement.
Whichever party, or combination of parties, wins the next general election, there will be constitutional change of some sort—depending on the result, either the minimum or the maximum. I wish to comment on the latter, however remote it may appear to some of us, largely on the mechanics, though touching lightly on the merits.
The agenda is formidable. It demands the lifetime of at least two Parliaments. As we have been reminded, the main items are the return of powers to local government, a strategic elected authority for London, devolution to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and some English regions, reform of the powers and composition of the House of Commons, including possibly the method of election to it, reform of the powers and composition of this House, human rights legislation and freedom of information legislation; and all that in the context of an enlarging and changing European Community. It is a vast programme. If it does not frighten its supporters, by God it frightens me.

1539
As a career non-politician, I hesitate to proffer stale buns to the experienced members of that admirable profession who adorn this House. Even less would I dare to instruct my metaphorical grandmothers in the tricks of sucking eggs. But I suggest that constitutional reform is the greatest absorbent of parliamentary time known to man. So if a government were to be brave or, in my view, foolhardy enough to attempt the long agenda, they must adopt an orderly approach to the interlocking items. They should early on cost out their priority items in parliamentary time. Unlike Prufrock, they should measure out their life not with coffee spoons but in parliamentary days. They should draft out at least their first two Queen's Speeches now and count up the cost in parliamentary days.
Let us remember that the time-eating constitutional Bills will have to compete for parliamentary time with programme Bills, some bread and butter, and many others far sexier politically—health, education, law and order, transport and the environment. One lesson I have learnt over the years is that constitutional Bills tend to appeal to academic party zealots, to many Scotsmen and Irishmen, but to relatively few other voters. I say fearfully to my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and others that I am only half Welsh.
In that light I put forward three propositions. One is to set up a strong Royal Commission on the constitution. It would be designed to last for the lifetime of at least two Parliaments. It would be charged with making recommendations which would be enacted serially, as they were formulated, debated and approved. That would secure the genuine benefits of incremental and mutually informed change. It might also winnow out the chaff. There is a lot of it about. For particular items, consideration by the Royal Commission might be preceded by meetings of party leaders, as suggested by the admirable Constitution Unit, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe.
The second proposition is that some parts of constitutional Bills must be taken off the Floor of the other place. Historically, that has been their abattoir. There would also need to be organisational changes in Whitehall.
The third proposition is that everyone concerned with constitution-making should marinade themselves for some weeks, if not months, in the excellent reports of the Constitution Unit, those already published and those still to come.
I end by selecting for brief comment three items on the long agenda. I hope that I am not straying too far into tomorrow's pastures, but the dividing hedgerow is rather straggly. I strongly believe that any reforms must take as early items: first, the return of powers to local authorities; and, secondly, a strategic elected authority for London. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, on that.
My third item is the reform of the powers and composition of our own Chamber. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and others said, its composition is intellectually indefensible. Its necessary reform, politics apart, is the thinnish icing on the top of
1540
a substantial cake. There are strong arguments for dealing with powers before dealing with composition and for not proceeding, as proposed by the Labour Party, in two stages. To take the latter course would, on every shred of historical evidence, leave the second Chamber as an appointed House—some might call it a House of patronage or "jobbery"—for at least a generation, perhaps more. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, made that point.
I conclude by saying that for a lifetime I have had a detached love-hate relationship with all three parties. I think I can see how politically beguiling it is to go straight for the jugular and abolish the hereditary principle in this place. Having been the first Labour Leader in history to rewrite his own party's constitution—and having lost friends on the Left in the process—it must be tempting for Mr. Blair to follow his instincts and, coincidentally, re-establish his credibility with the Left by rewriting the country's constitution and banishing hereditary peers from this place at one go early on. But this cheerful, perhaps even engaging brutality is not the right way to achieve stable and robust constitutional reform. Consensus building and suppleness, and perhaps a degree of desirable elegance, are also needed. I genuinely hope that in the end more soundly based second-thoughts will command the field.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Our constitution is unique. It has been the foundation upon which we have prospered and grown as a nation over many hundreds of years. It has evolved with the instincts of the British people, and it has served us well. Arguably, in these times of general uncertainty and increasing global competition, we need the certainty and political stability that it provides just as much as ever. However, the very constitutional arrangements that have served us so well are threatened with great upheaval by the radical plans for constitutional change proposed by the parties opposite.
I want to follow the argument of my noble friends Lord Dean of Harptree and Lord Bowness. I want to address briefly the one aspect of the constitutional debate which I fear could have a particularly detrimental effect on the government of England; that is, the proposals to establish regional government in England.
At the heart of any regional policy or strategy there must be a respect for the diversity of communities. It is a fact that in our counties and shires, and in our towns and cities, there exists broad diversity of both an economic and a social nature. The policy of this Government is founded on a respect for that diversity. We have encouraged diversity in many areas. Take, for example, the reorganisation of local government, which involved wide-scale public consultation, to ensure that local authorities reflect the wishes of local people more effectively; and take education, where a great deal of power has been decentralised to schools and parents.
The Labour Party's plans for regional government stand in stark contrast to ours. It intends to impose a system of regional government on the 10 administrative

1541
regions of England. Each region would have to establish a regional chamber composed of nominated councillors. Those regions in which there was a popular demand would be able to elevate their regional chambers into fully elected regional assemblies. As a result, England could find itself divided up into regional units in the same way as many European countries are. It would be an England of regions in a Europe of regions—and would have, as a direct result, weaker and more fragmented government.
The move to regional government would be a costly exercise first and foremost. The initial establishment of regional chambers would involve considerable start-up costs. There would be the need for offices and administrative staff, for researchers and secretaries. Councillors would require expenses, and members of a regional assembly would require salaries.
However, Labour's expensive regional chambers and authorities are based on the desire and perceived need to build and develop regional interests and identities which just do not exist. People from Surrey, Sussex or Kent do not call themselves "South Easterners", just as people from Cumbria or Manchester do not describe themselves as "North Westerners"—and nor will they. Indeed, why should people living in Cumbria have to look to a regional chamber or assembly based in either Manchester or Liverpool to govern their affairs and hatch up grand regional economic projects for them when their needs may be completely different from those in other parts of the administrative region?
Labour' s unelected regional chambers would be given considerable powers. In each one of the 10 regions the regional chambers to be created would have the power to,
"co-ordinate economic development strategy and help to establish regional development agencies",
whether the people living in the counties, cities and towns of that region liked it or not. Business would find itself entangled by yet another layer of government and bureaucracy. Is this the way to go about regenerating deprived areas of the country? I believe it is not.
The establishment of regional chambers and possibly regional assemblies poses an even greater danger to the very cohesion of England itself. I would like the House to imagine one possible scenario. Let us imagine that the West Midlands votes in a referendum to convert its regional chamber into a full regional assembly, while the East Midlands, on the other hand, decides not to. Although Labour has not stated exactly and explicitly what powers a regional assembly might have, let us say that it takes responsibility for education, health and transport matters in its region. The new West Midlands regional assembly would therefore be responsible for all education, health and transport policy in the West Midlands. In the East Midlands, however, education, health and transport policy would still be decided at Westminster.
If such a scenario were to arise—and it is perfectly possible under Labour's proposals—would MPs from the West Midlands still be allowed to legislate on education, health and transport matters for people of the
1542
East Midlands? If they were still allowed to do so, would this be a fair settlement? Would it not generate resentment in the East Midlands? Would we find region pitted against region? Is this not an English version of the as yet still unanswered West Lothian question posed all those years ago by Tam Dalyell in another place? Perhaps we could call it the West Midlands question.
Unless these questions are answered, regional government for England would be a disaster and would be a real threat to the continuation of our living and evolving constitution.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, my capacity for amazement is unexcelled. I have been in this House for 18 years and I am always amazed by what I hear. I did not know that the Labour Party had such a policy for the regions, but I am very pleased to hear about it if that indeed is so. One of the things that struck me about what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, to whom I give my wannest greetings, is this: has she never heard of how the men of Kent and the Kentish men throw bottles at each other whenever they can? There are regional difficulties even in England. It is a fact. I do not want to pursue that because there are no proposals for regional government in England unless the English want it. If they want it, they can have it; it is none of my business to interfere with the English. If they want it they can have it; if they do not want it they need not have it. As I said, my capacity for astonishment is unexcelled.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, claim that he is not a politician. It so happens that I have sat with him on Sub-committee B of the European Communities Select Committee for the last six months or so, and it may be taken from me that he is a politician from the top of his head to the bottom of his toes, as can be seen from the comments that he made. Many of his comments I agree with entirely, with only one reservation: they are far too late. If his proposals had been followed some time ago and we had had this Royal Commission and so on in the 1980s or earlier on, everything would be hunky-dory; but we have not had it. It is far too late and things have gone too far. We cannot now say: "Let us now have another Royal Commission and wait for two or three years and all will be well." I am sorry to disagree with such a distinguished fellow member of the Select Committee, but he happens to be mistaken. He is actually wrong.
I have to apologise to the House for two reasons: first, my speech has already been made at least twice. It may have been made more than twice; I had to leave for an important meeting downstairs. I managed the first course and had most of the second course, but I had to leave the pudding, so the speech may have been made yet again in my absence. I shall pursue my speech regardless of how often it has been made, if only to show how widespread agreement is on this side of the House and, indeed, perhaps on other sides of the House as well.
I gather that reference has already been made to a notable article in today's Times by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. I do not want to deal with his

1543
arguments because they dealt mainly with tomorrow's business which is the reform of our House. I daresay that is important but it is not our business today. He gave two quotations which I thought were of great significance. He said that reform should be based on precedent. He then referred to Burke, who seems to carry a great deal of weight on the other side of the House, and to Burke's grounds of tradition, convenience and expediency. The two words "convenience" and "expediency" are extremely important in a debate of this kind because they deal with the realities of politics rather than the certainties of philosophy.
Perhaps I may now refer to the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Unusually for me, I do it with a certain element of criticism because the noble and learned Lord knows that I have great regard for him. Quite apart from being a lawyer, he is a Scotsman and therefore valuable. He seemed to speak, in his very interesting address today, as though devolution was something new, something which had not happened before. But others have drawn our attention to the Northern Ireland experience. It has not been wholly happy, we admit, but in constitutional terms the Northern Ireland experience was an example of devolution. In so far as it failed, it failed because of those who were running it; not because of the structure and not because of its devolutionary nature. The Northern Ireland experience is a model. It may not be the best model but it is the one we have, and it is a model on which we can build, reflect, criticise, examine and improve. But I say to the noble and learned Lord that it did exist and, although he left it out from his address earlier, I am quite sure that he has heard of it. That experience lasted for 50 years or so, which is quite a time. As a constitutional experience it was sound.
It has specific relevance to what is referred to as the West Lothian question. It has been said before, most eloquently by my noble friend Lord Ewing, and my noble friend Lord Sewel, who said it in almost exactly my own words. He is a university professor and is not a fool.
I remember my days in another place in the 1960s when I had a very agreeable acquaintance called Stratton Mills. Many noble Lords may remember him. He was a very agreeable young man, a Northern Ireland solicitor and Ulster Unionist. He sat for Belfast North. Stratton used to come into the other place and go on about English matters, Scottish matters and matters throughout the entire globe or indeed the universe—although I cannot remember him going so far as that. Stratton Mills was able to expand on all those things whereas I, his close acquaintance and friend, was unable to utter a squeak on Northern Ireland. Not one sound could I utter on Northern Ireland, although I was fairly interested in it.
Nobody ever said, "What about the Belfast North question?" The Belfast North question did not exist. It did not exist because Stratton Mills, a nice young man, as he was, and misguided, as I daresay he was, was on the government side at the time and a Conservative, although sitting as a Unionist. The only change is that West Lothian and West Belfast are slightly different.
1544
Tam Dalyell is my oldest political friend apart from my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees. We go back a long way, I am afraid to say. Tam's virtues leaned towards eccentricity—they did not reach eccentricity; they leaned towards it and this is one of his most eccentric activities. The West Lothian question is a figment in terms of Burke's grounds of tradition—the Northern Irish tradition—convenience, which is a Northern Irish convenience and Burke's expediency, which is the Northern Irish expediency. If it is good enough for the Northern Irish, who are excellent people, it must be good enough for the Scots—most of the Northern Irish are Scots anyway, or a good many of them are.
I do not want to go on about the tartan tax. I wonder what it was called when the Conservatives wanted it. Anyway, it is little different from the kind of tax which the third tier of government applied—for example, the GLC when it existed. I do not want to draw too much attention to the GLC; I use it as an example. I say to my Front Bench that it would be a good idea if, instead of talking about three pence on or off our income tax, they forgot all about that because that irritates people. People are funny about income tax. They want to pay taxes, but not income tax. Why do we not make it a precept upon the rates in the same way as the GLC and the county councils precepted upon the rates? People would pay that happily because they enjoy paying the rates, though they do not enjoy paying income tax.
I want to conclude by making just one more point. I could say a great deal more but I will confine myself to the referendum. I welcome it. It was a mistake to have left out the idea of a referendum. When I spoke on the Maastricht Treaty some years ago I was in favour of a referendum—not on the currency matters, which are not constitutional, but on the treaty itself. I believe in referendums as a good thing in themselves.
One point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, whom I am happy to see in his place. He was defending himself as a Secretary of State for Scotland. He was one of the best we have ever had. Apart from the fact that he belonged to the wrong party, I wish his reign had lasted longer than it did. He raised a question which I raised in this House 18 years ago when I was a new Member and we were discussing the referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, worried about the fact that Scotsmen who were not resident in Scotland would be debarred from voting. That worried me also at that time. He may remember—though I have no reason to suppose that he would—that I raised the matter in the following terms.
I pointed out that the referendum was coming up and my daughter Annabel was a student in Edinburgh. My niece, Kirsty, was a student at the same college. Annabel was born in London, though her antecedents are wholly Scottish; she is pure. My niece Kirsty was actually born in Johannesburg and her mother is English. I hesitate to say that she is impure; I do not want to say that she is tainted; but she is not the real thing. I questioned the government closely. I asked why Annabel, who was born in London and raised in Edinburgh, can vote in the referendum and Kirsty—lovely girl that she is and my brother's proudest possession, apart from his wife—can also vote in the referendum whereas I, so Scots that

1545
I can barely be seen for shortbread, have no vote in the referendum. That is not right. I am not claiming that we should have Scotsmen throughout the world voting in the referendum, but a little thought should be given to the position of we exiles. We are economic refugees.
The unicameral nature of my party's proposal is mistaken. There should be some way in which this House can deal with whatever legislation comes from the Scottish parliament which I very much hope to see. It may be that the House as a whole can deal with it. There may well be some Scottish committee. The matter should be looked at. I applaud my party, which is not something that I always do. I am sure that it has got it right, or nearly right this time. If it listens to this debate and pays careful attention to what has been said, it will get it right in the fullness of time.
10.6 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I think the word that the noble Lord was looking for is "mongrel" in the context of his niece and daughter, but that is another matter.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I shall address my remarks to Wales for two reasons. I am the 13th of 27 noble Lords who remain Members of this House, as opposed to another House, who took part in the Wales Bill of 1978. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, I am a mongrel Welshman, having English, Scots, Irish and, for all I know, lots of other blood about. The important point is that I live, work, farm and derive my living in Wales. I suspect therefore that, as a result, the Chief Whip suggested that I speak in this debate. Of course, any wish or desire of any Chief Whip is always my command. So I suspect that my few remarks will not be much welcomed.
My objections to a Welsh assembly and devolution have not changed since the 1978 Act. That dislike, as your Lordships have been reminded, was supported by 84 per cent. of the Welsh population. Many of my reasons for my horror at a Welsh assembly concern the ability to work and farm efficiently in Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, whose speech I much enjoyed although I did not agree with it, said that my Welshness has left me for being so mercenary and so pragmatic. The Welsh are not pragmatic and they are not mercenary.
Inward investment would be discouraged and the outward movement of young Welsh talent would be encouraged. Productive talent always flourishes better in large ponds and Wales has a population of only some 2.8 million, which I believe is smaller than the Birmingham conurbation. Wales is a geographic honor to travel through. It is twice as easy to get from Holyhead to London than from Holyhead to Cardiff. I asked this question of Lord Elwyn-Jones in 1978, but he could not give me an answer.
The grants of the United Kingdom Government to Wales are far larger per head than to England. In fact, we are subsidised by the English. I am delighted by that. I love subsidies: I live on them. But does anyone believe that the English will go on being so stupid as to tolerate
1546
that when Wales has devolved? All these facts will result in economic decline. Although I accept that some in Wales will believe that such decline should be accepted for the sake of an assembly, I say very seriously that it will lead to many problems, particularly social and racial and, despite what is being said, the eventual break up of the United Kingdom.
Like my noble friend Lord Nickson, I accept that there may be a similar distrust of the English in Wales. I believe that that has arisen because the Labour Party has listened to a vocal minority, and perhaps because of the historical suspicion of the English absentee landlord. My family could be accused of exploiting the Welsh, having married a very beautiful and rich Miss Owen two-and-a-half centuries ago—a century earlier than the time when the miners of Lord Elis-Thomas were having problems in the south of Wales. They then made themselves unpopular by enclosing land, but it was of long-term benefit to efficient farming. Surely, Miss Owen must bear some responsibility for being so unwise as to marry an English mongrel. All of that is history, and I thought that the Labour Party had no time for history.
Any assembly will cost money. It will be given powers. Quite what those powers will be we know not, but we can be sure that, having been given some, it will want more. These costs and powers will be a further cross to be borne by industry, farming and the people of Wales. The assembly will want planning powers, status and the ability to raise money. Heaven knows what else it will want. But, to be sure, when two or three councillors are gathered together they will want to interfere in my life and the lives of everybody else. It will cause great uncertainty.
I conclude by being a little more radical than the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. I suggest to your Lordships that the great majority of ordinary people have little time for Members of Parliament, including your Lordships and me in particular. They have even less time for councillors. Why in the name of heaven does anyone believe that there is a need for another set chattering away in Cardiff?
10.12 p.m.
Lord Sempill: My Lords, my throat, the 36 previous speakers and the midnight sleeper will keep my contribution very brief. One of the reasons why I was keen to speak in this debate was my family's link to the question. In 1707 the then tenth Lord Sempill voted against the Union and everything that it stood for.
Lord Elis-Thomas: Hear, hear!
Lord Sempill: My Lords, perhaps I should sit down now! His reason for being so vehemently against the Union was that he could see that his powers and influence over his countrymen would be seriously diminished. At that stage he retired to the country. I speak from a slightly more humble position, albeit I feel that there are certain similarities in the situation.
My contribution will add another note of caution. Like many other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, I believe that devolution will be the first step

1547
towards Scottish independence. I have no reason to believe that the welfare of the Scots would improve immeasurably outside the Union. I believe that what we all seek is greater economic prosperity, not more government. Therefore, I have serious reservations as to whether a devolved assembly with tax-raising powers can achieve this. This concern has been echoed by various business leaders in Scotland and clearly iterated by the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, whose contribution was of immense value to this debate.
I make brief mention of the nationalists, whom I believe to be the fear factor that has been mentioned in some of the speeches today. Their cause has been given a substantial boost by a film—a film that many of us have seen—called "Braveheart". Combine that raw emotion and the rhetoric of devolution and one creates a recipe for independence. It is therefore imperative that the proposal to decentralise power is debated with a full and clear understanding of the downsides of devolution. Is it not, for instance, feasible that more power could be devolved to our local government, which already has fiscal responsibility in running our towns and cities?
Surely with modern technology and speed of communication we should be evolving government to have fewer politicians and not more. Could not our current MPs and local councillors convene at different times of the year to discuss issues pertinent to the affairs of Scotland? I, like my noble friend Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, sense that we have missed the boat, and that the mood for independence is real. Is it possible, though, to reverse that trend? I am not certain.
To do so, we need to re-establish the value of the Union, and to preach the benefits of belonging to the Union. That is not, I may add, dissimilar to the efforts being made by the pro-Europeans. To date, the Union has been a tremendous commercial success. It has been responsible for forging a powerful British identity which allows us to command substantial—many would say, disproportionate—influence on world affairs. Even the language of international commerce is English.
It is my observation that we have allowed the concept of the Union to become belittled—a point underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks—and to place too much emphasis on national differences which create the more unattractive elements of nationalism. Why, for example, was the highly successful Euro '96 hosted only by England? How long before the British teams representing us in the forthcoming Olympics will be broken down into individual nation states? Is it not obvious to all that we have greater strength as a Union—a Union which I believe has the full support of the House?
10.18 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, there can be no part of our constitution that has not been the subject of a distinguished speech or two this evening, but I feel that a shadow hangs over the debate. It might be more appropriate to call it Banquo's ghost. It is my belief that we stand at a crossroads in the history of this great nation of ours. It is that we still have to decide whether our relationship with Europe will be federal or one of a union of independent states.
1548
If the decision is that we should become part of a federal Europe, many elements of our constitution will have to be looked at and perhaps changed, but until we have made that big decision, the question of constitutional change is premature.
There is only one aspect of government policy over which the Executive has total control, and that is the policy it adopts towards the currency. The First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have the sovereign duty to set the budget and the rate of interest for sterling. Although there has been a long history since the war when governments have not been very successful in carrying out that task, the people have the sovereign right to vote them out of power at elections. In a democracy, we get the governments that we deserve.
I believe that it is arguable that that is the only area where the Executive is truly sovereign, because although Parliament has a sovereign right to make laws, there is a history, going from the peasants' revolt to the poll tax, when the people have, from time to time, refused to obey the will of their rulers. I take as my prime modern example the defeat of successive attempts to impose a prices and incomes policy as an alternative means of controlling the economy through statute.
Our becoming a de facto member of a federal state could come upon us unawares. The assumption of powers by Europe creeps and should we have the misfortune to have a Labour Government after the next election the pace will dramatically increase.
What guarantee is there that, should a Government decide that the single currency is in the interest of the country and that we should join it in 1999 or after, the people will not be persuaded to vote for it in a referendum? The principal duty of government to safeguard the currency will have been transferred away at a stroke. The overriding financial powers of the Government will be transferred to the European Central Bank, along with the country's gold and foreign exchange reserves, the wealth of the British people.
The control of wage rates, social benefits, pensions, safety at work, and regulations for employment will be transferred to the Commission and the European Parliament under the social chapter. The rate of VAT and what it is charged on, the main source of government revenue, is on the way to becoming standard throughout the Union. What of significance is there left for the elected representatives of the British Parliament to do?
At the start of the debate on the Maastricht Treaty the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said that there was no constitutional issue in the treaty because when we signed the Treaty of Rome the European Court of Justice became the superior court and that anybody who had read the treaty would be aware of it. That came as a blow to me because I knew then that the debate against the Maastricht Treaty was, for the time being, lost in your Lordships' House.
I believe that we are here today to debate the consequences of that debate which have become much clearer in the intervening period. If there were no

1549
constitutional issues in the acceptance of the Maastricht Treaty there were undoubted constitutional consequences to follow.
We see opposite parties which are determined that we should accept all the federal implications of the treaty. If I had the same ambitions as they have I would agree with them. There is little point in preserving all the trappings of a nation state, with a Parliament of two Chambers, to decide the parochial issues of a country which has lost the control of its own money and the financial policies which govern it. How is it possible to have a national foreign policy if we have to ask our European bankers for the funds to finance it?
I can understand why a Scotsman or a Welshman might fancy the chances of receiving more from the cohesion and convergence funds than he does from the British Government. There is the example of Ireland to persuade him. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, on the subject of European citizenship, explained at some length how he considered himself to be a citizen of Scotland and the European Union but a subject of the United Kingdom. A citizen of the European Union has rights but no duties. In addition to the prospect of subsidy, one of the rights that he has is to look to the European Court of Justice, which is superior to the House of Lords. Is it possible to receive legal rights and money from one master and to owe allegiance to another?
The question we have to ask ourselves is: what do we want Great Britain to be? Do we want it to be a vassal state of Europe or an independent nation state? Until that question has been answered there can be no point in interfering with our present constitution, and we should resist any attempt to do so.
10.23 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, London must indeed be fortunate. It may not have an elected body but it has a Cabinet committee to look after its interests and a Minister appointed to look after it. What greater influence could a city have at the centre of power? The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, told us that all is well with London and that there is no demand for change. Yet, according to London First, an organisation set up to promote London and supported by many of the capital's leading businesses and financial institutions, London is losing out. Despite those wonderful connections at the centre of power, London First is concerned about the lack of a strong and effective voice to champion London's causes and, indeed, to make a case for London with government and abroad. In addition, London First conducted a survey which showed overwhelming support for an elected city-wide authority, so we can expect proposals for an elected French-style mayor or an American-style governor, whose task it will be to promote the interests of the city instead of having a Cabinet Minister.
Why should the city want its own elected champion? As other noble Lords have said, the reason is that people no longer trust central government to be fair and
1550
impartial. They feel alienated and the Cabinet committees operate in secret. People observe the regional inequalities and conclude that they must look after their own interests.
Central government should encourage them to do that because those regional inequalities are a drag on our national competitiveness. The wealth of the nation depends on the prosperity of its constituent parts. The Government recognise that and in last month's competitiveness White Paper it was reported that the underlying levels of manufacturing productivity vary greatly among the regions, as does participation in education and training.
In true centralised style, the Government have told the regions what they should be doing about their shortcomings not through their elected representatives but through the myriad of quangos and central government sponsored organisations such as TECs, Business Links and the DTI local offices.
In Lancashire alone there are something like 64 different economic development organisations all receiving public money. That excludes the local agencies under the umbrella of the TECs. The Regional Policy Commission, under the chairmanship of Bruce Milian, reported that it is not unusual for areas to have more than 40 bodies involved in regional development activities, many of them competing and overlapping.
Perhaps all those regional organisations are a job-creation project in themselves. But the inevitable overlap and duplication must be a terrible waste of money, time and effort. Lack of focus must make it more difficult to plan and because they compete for funding many of those organisations work against each other when in fact they should be co-operating.
For example, the TECs and the FE colleges are both competing for the same training money. Would it not be more effective and efficient for them to co-operate? But, no, the Government create obstacles to co-operation in the name of competition because that is the way that central government keeps control. The resources and effort which go into such unnecessary competition in order to maintain that kind of top-down government are enormous.
As my noble friend Lord Irvine said, that is the frustration of centralisation. It is also disheartening for those involved and I agree with my noble friend Lord Plant that it is a major cause of low morale, part of the feel-bad factor. It is demeaning, too, because it is as though people locally cannot be trusted to get together to agree on what are their priorities.
In business circles, trust is being much discussed at present. Quite simply, if business partners, managers, suppliers, customers and workers can trust each other more, the costs of doing business are lower and things get done more quickly. Such a social infrastructure can only be built up locally and that ethos facilitates investment and progress.
Conversely, the centralisation of power, with a lack of trust offered to regions and cities, weakens the country's civic structure and the economy suffers. As my noble friend Lady Lockwood told us, participation in local decision-making, whether it be in economic matters, education or running local activities has become fairly

1551
irrelevant because there has been so little scope for shaping those activities to the service of local needs and ambitions. Is it really appropriate for central government to intervene down to the level of individual companies? It seems to me that, although the Government talk of local partnerships, those partnerships are actually being driven by central government.
Noble Lords can imagine how demeaning and disheartening it is to be removed from local authority control and given operational independence but then to become completely dependent on a national quango for funding. That is exactly what has happened to the colleges of further education. I have never been on a quango, but I imagine that that is why my noble friend Lord Irvine referred to quangos as a travesty of democracy.
Let us take, for example, the Employment Service. It is a nationally administered government organisation with a strong local and regional presence, but there is no local and regional influence on its activities. The service is there to carry out the wishes of central government; the role of local government is really peripheral. What central government should be doing is providing a stable framework of regulation, standards and support. Those standards, set down by central government, are essential to avoid social exclusion. The support should be in the form of intervention which does not discriminate between specific businesses but which helps all businesses to meet those standards and objectives.
At this late hour, noble Lords will be pleased that the point I now wish to make is simple and obvious. Centralised government is a drag on the economy. Our competitiveness as a nation is the sum of its parts. The Government's own competitiveness White Paper has shown how variable the regions are: that variation is partly the result of many years of centralised government. The Government's proposed cure is to apply more of the same medicine yet more vigorously. My proposal is to change the medicine to more democratic regional government and bring government closer to the people.
10.31 p.m.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, after 17 or 18 years in opposition, noble Lords opposite may just wonder why Labour Governments have never lasted beyond the lifetime of a single Parliament; or, at any rate not beyond six years. I have no doubt that there are many reasons, but I suggest that a major one is their obsession with constitutional reform. I recollect that the Wilson Government of the late 1960s came very badly unstuck over the reform of the House of Lords, despite having a majority of over a hundred. Then the Callaghan Government was effectively brought down, not so much by the winter of discontent but by devolution. I should have thought that any future Labour Government—that is, if one comes about—would be well advised to hasten very slowly towards those two objectives, before both feet get firmly encased in concrete.
I have been privileged to be a Member of your Lordships' House for a long time. I would dearly have liked to have taken part in tomorrow's debate; but,
1552
unfortunately, I cannot be present for the whole day so I put my name down to speak today. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will allow me to make a few remarks on the subject of this House before I say a few words on devolution.
During the long time that I have been here, I have been privileged to witness how your Lordships' House has gradually, but successfully, evolved. Indeed, it has always worked very well, with very little public criticism. However, that is not to say that I would not have some changes in mind. It may surprise some noble Lords to know that I took part in the proceedings on the Life Peerages Bill introduced by Viscount Simon in 1953 and that I spoke in favour of it. Therefore, I have been supporting life peers before they were introduced in this House a few years later, so I feel that I can look any life peer in the face.
However, I also recollect that Mr. Asquith said early in the century that reform of the House of Lords brooks no delay. So why has that taken nearly a century? I would suggest that that is because it is a non-issue; so why make it one? Perhaps it is an issue at smart dinner parties in Islington but it certainly is not an issue on the Tube or in the high street. I should like to say more but I fear that already the forecast finishing time of this debate of 10.20 p.m. has been exceeded. I must say my few words on the dreaded subject of devolution.
My view is that any claims that devolution would strengthen the Union are completely bogus, as by weakening the Westminster Parliament the reverse would be true. It would encourage nationalists and anger English taxpayers, and of course encourage the European federalists who want a Europe of little regions as opposed to nation states.
What I particularly dislike is what the Labour Party has in mind, which is in effect a rewriting of the relationship between England, Scotland and Wales to the advantage of the smaller two and to the disadvantage of England. What is so misleading is the impression that is given that, particularly in the case of the Scots, they can gain a Parliament in Edinburgh to run their affairs and yet lose none of their power or influence at Westminster.
There is of course considerable dissatisfaction in Scotland with Westminster—there is no doubt about that—but this serious problem is being addressed energetically by the Secretary of State for Scotland, by means of a greatly enhanced role for the Scottish Grand Committee and by other measures.
I recall in 1979 the conventional wisdom was that there would be big majorities in favour of devolution. But in the event the voting was even in Scotland and four to one against in Wales. No doubt a vote tomorrow would ensure a substantial "yes" vote but there will not be a vote tomorrow. If and when it comes to the crunch, as it would in a referendum campaign, and one is faced with the stark reality, it is a different matter. It may well be that the people of Scotland and Wales would again have the good sense to frustrate these dangerous half-baked notions, especially if a referendum is to be held prior to the detailed legislation, which is surely rather akin to offering shares in a new company before seeing the prospectus.

1553
The massive disadvantages and risks in devolution would become apparent. Even now, as rather belatedly Conservative opposition to devolution is moving into higher gear, this has already caused a major tactical retreat by the Labour Party. There have been two U-turns, on the subject of a referendum and on whether there are to be tax-raising powers. A referendum would not make these plans any less dangerous.
It certainly should not be forgotten that a future Labour Government have pledged themselves to fight hard to ensure an affirmative vote on the tax-raising powers—the "tartan tax". No Scottish parliament will be satisfied if it does not have tax-raising powers. The threat of tax increases would inevitably frighten away investment, jobs would be lost and public enthusiasm would wane as before.
There is then the unanswered West Lothian question on which much has been said this afternoon. My prediction is the next U-turn will be a reduction in the number of Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster. That has already been conceded by the independent Constitution Unit. I think I am right in saying that the Liberal Democrat party feels the same way. Already Scotland and Wales are heavily over-represented at Westminster. It is no good hiding behind the absurd notion of unwanted, completely rootless and artificially fabricated English regions. These would be a bureaucratic nightmare. There would be another tier of professional politicians. Without tax-raising and legislative powers, it would be quite meaningless in terms of equitable democratic representation.
Nor, if I may say so, does the charge of inconsistency levelled at the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, and others carry weight regarding the proposed setting up of an assembly in Northern Ireland. This argument ignores reality. There have been years of strife in Northern Ireland. Only the Scots are after Scotland; only the Welsh are after Wales. But, regrettably, a minority of people in Northern Ireland wish to become citizens of a foreign country which has a claim in its constitution to Northern Ireland itself. A further point is that surely no Northern Ireland MP can ever realistically become a senior member, or a member at all, of any government in the UK. At present all the major local government powers for the Province are exercised by the United Kingdom Government. The position is completely different.
I hope that the Government will stand up for the Union in all parts of the UK, and that includes Northern Ireland. I have no connection with Northern Ireland, but we should not forget that there is a loyal majority community in Northern Ireland. One tends to forget about the majority community in Northern Ireland, which seems sadly sidelined at times. Any lack of conviction on the part of the Government towards one part of the United Kingdom does not bode well for the remainder of the United Kingdom.
10.41 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, it falls to me yet again to be tail-end Charlie. I never know whether the usual
1554
channels think of keeping the best to the end or whether my contribution is not worth waiting for. I hope that it may steer somewhere between the two extremes.
I wish to say a few words on tax, structures of government and democracy, and representation. It is intriguing that the only precedent of which I am aware for the Scottish Grand Committee perambulating around various parts of Scotland taking Ministers in tow with it is the practice of Queen Elizabeth I in taking her entourage and court around the various stately homes of England. That accomplished two things. First, it made the scions of those families feel very important. But, secondly, it impoverished them because they had to provide victuals for the travelling court. While I am sure that the Scottish Grand Committee does not seek to impoverish the various places it visits, I believe that part of the exercise by the Government is to make people think that they are important. I am not sure whether that is the reality of the way this Government think of people.
I read the speech delivered last week by the Prime Minister. One section interested me. He talked of strengthening the independence of individuals by reducing taxation, and encouraging home ownership and private pensions. The encouragement of home ownership in the past few years has resulted in negative equity for a large number of people. The mis-selling of private pensions has resulted in a significant number of people having worse provision for their pensions.
The real problem, however, which is fundamental to the political analysis is the Government's postulation that they have reduced taxation, that they are the party of low taxation. The Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97, introduced by Michael Jack on 28th November 1995, gives the latest figures I could find. Paragraph 4.17 shows a chart of the total taxes and social security contributions as a percentage of GDP. Most people would recognise that as a measure of the amount of taxation that the British people are required to contribute. In the period between 1974 and 1979, the average was 35.6 per cent. In the period between 1980 and 1995, the average was 37.41 per cent. My arithmetic suggests that, far from reducing taxation, the Government have levied a higher rate of taxation on the British people than the last Labour Government. In only three out of the 16 years in question was the percentage tax take less than the last Labour Government's average. In 11 out of those 16 Tory years taxes were higher than the highest of the last Labour Government. Unfortunately, we start with a big lie that the Tories are the party of low taxation.
I turn to the structures of government and democracy. I am pleased to count among my ancestors one of the first MPs for Plymouth in the Reform Parliament of 1832. In the days before 1832, whole towns and cities were unrepresented in Parliament. I shall not go through all the details of the changes over the years, it is far too late and I do not wish to detain the House. However, over those years we can see the development of democracy in government at various levels. In the mid-1970s, for example, in Manchester, where I live, there was a city council with elected representatives, levying local taxes. There was the county of

1555
Greater Manchester, a regional authority, levying a precept. At the UK national level there was the UK Parliament levying taxes with elected representatives. At the continental level there was the European Union, and at the global level the United Nations.
Unfortunately, from 1979 onwards, that representation and the equivalent levying of taxes were eroded and destroyed. The Greater Manchester county was abolished in 1985 by the Government. The ability of the citizens of that metropolitan conurbation, not only to elect representatives who could speak for the whole of Greater Manchester but also to levy taxes and spend money, was destroyed.
In addition, the development of the European Union which could be a powerful engine for progress has been stultified and halted, not just by this Government's actions but by the monetarist philosophy. The Maastricht Treaty has been mentioned this evening and it was obviously not acceptable, as a vehicle to move forward, to the vast majority of the European peoples.
If one takes the development of the United Nations, there is a need to try to democratise that institution to enable equal representation. But this Government have persistently refused to consider change because, as a result of events 50 years ago, this country has a seat at the top table. That is unwarranted.
I mentioned the problems of taxation and the way in which the Conservative Party has wrongly portrayed itself as the party of low taxation. But one thinks of other events that have taken place over the past 17 years. We have seen an erosion of our manufacturing base and a decline in our living standards compared, for example, to those of Italy. Twenty years ago our per capita income and standard of living were higher than those of Italy. Over the last period of this Government, the Italian standard of living has surpassed ours.
One thing we have done over the years is endeavour to ensure that those people who are our representatives—at whatever level, district, county, national or continental—are elected by roughly equal numbers of people. So each representative in those forums has equal weight. That is a very important element to remember: that not only do we value every one of the electorate equally, but each member of a democratically elected forum has an equal voice. I do not think that the talk of proportional representation that we have heard will help to continue that very powerful base for our concept of democracy.
It is rather late. I had intended to say a few words about the constitution of this place. But one of the difficulties in Members of this House contributing to that debate is the risk of being charged with having a vested interest.
Finally, in regard to a written constitution, I am always a little suspicious when I hear lawyers arguing for a written constitution. I am not sure what a written constitution will do for the mass of the unemployed in this country. The massed ranks on the Government Front Bench say, "Hear, hear", but they are not doing anything for the massed ranks of the unemployed either. On that note, I end my remarks.
10.54 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am astonished at my own virtue and the virtue of everyone who has sat through this marathon. The Government Chief Whip mistimed the debate by an hour. I have enjoyed many of the speeches. I must admit to feeling some slight irritation when we were already running an hour late and a certain noble Lord stood up and said that he was terribly sorry, he had an important engagement and had to leave—and then spoke for 14 minutes. But on the whole the debate has been most enjoyable. I greatly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, and I enjoyed that made by my own leader. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, was not satisfactory. He said everything that I had intended to say but a great deal better, which is always infuriating. He gave an edge to it.
I must say that the speeches from the opposite side have been very, very worrying. The Tory Party is obviously so depressed it is not true. Every single one of their speeches spelled gloom and the break up of the United Kingdom, with terrible things about to happen. Obviously, they know that there is going to be a Labour Government; otherwise they would not be so gloomy. Of course, we may all be gloomy about a Labour Government, but they cannot be worse than the Conservative Government.
I shall try to alleviate the gloom and doom felt by Members on the opposite Benches. First, we have federal systems and regional governments all over Europe. We were the main instigators of the German system. Apart from Sweden, that is now the richest nation in Europe. They are having their troubles, but the systems are still working and the people are much richer than we are, so things cannot be all that gloomy. The Catalonian experiment of regional government in Spain is working well and attracting business.
Much has already been mentioned about Ulster. I have little experience of Ulster since the troubles started but, before the troubles, I used to go there quite a lot looking at agriculture. I was astonished at how well the Ulster parliament, the Stormont parliament, worked, how closely they all worked together and how successful they were in a whole lot of fields, particularly in agriculture, which I knew about. Long before we had realised that silage and making use of grass was important, they had grasped it because of the close cooperation between Queens University and a certain Professor Morrison and the fact that they all knew each other, and they were putting out subsidies for the building of silos, to the great benefit of agriculture.
Their transport was integrated in a way that ours has never been, and it worked extremely well. One of the things they did was to attract industry. When we were practically turning away inward investment and not encouraging our own investment very much, they were working hard at it and they were most successful—far more successful than we were in Scotland or anywhere else at that time. Of course, the

1557
oppression of a minority led to the troubles, and however well it worked technically, the parliament had to go. But it has to come back.
I wish to say something at this point to the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, whose contribution to prosperity in Scotland I applaud and thank him for. But he said that he was very grateful to the Secretary of State for all that he had done, and various companies could not have done what they have done without the assistance of the Secretary of State; and he said what a valuable chap the Secretary of State is.
The Secretary of State for Scotland, so far as I can see, spends most of his time fighting with his colleagues in England in order to get concessions, trying to overcome little things like being forced to introduce the poll tax before its introduction in England as an experiment for England, and putting up with that sort of thing. Indeed, the Secretaries of State and Ministers in the recent past were a very much better breed of Conservative, in my view, than many of the present ones and they spent their time trying to alleviate the ridiculous policies of the Conservative Government—for example, in selling off the Forestry Commission's estates. I will not name any names, but they showed great skill in selling off the smallest bits and those that they thought would not interfere with the integrity of the whole thing.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Nickson—and, like my noble friend, I talk about home rule—if you have home rule parliament in Scotland, the officers and Ministers there would fall over themselves in order to help industry, because that is what they want, and it is not only they who want it. They would not only be acting to get inward investment from large firms all over the globe; they would be acting to stimulate and help local investment in Scotland, based in Scotland. They would not be fighting against anyone in order to get it, because the parliament itself would be all for development in Scotland. That, I believe, is the basis of the argument which has long convinced me that we should have home rule in Scotland inside the United Kingdom. I have spent my life in Great Britain and not only in Scotland.
There is a lesson that has not been learnt by the Government, as shown in the speeches engendered at this start of the election campaign, which centred on the fact that the SNP will gain power. All the history of the British Isles, particularly the Irish history, shows that where any form of home rule is refused, the SNP, the Irish nationalists or whoever it may be, gain power. There are a lot of very good people in the SNP; they are not all crackpots by any manner of means and a lot of them are doing good work in local government. The fact is that if we have home rule in Scotland and if they have the opportunity to work and get results, they will forget about independence and promote the good of Scotland. That is a lesson that we have to learn. By that, one will save the Union. There is no question in my mind but that that is the way to go. I recommend the party opposite to forget the gloom and start thinking ahead.
11.2 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my belief is that the context in which this debate is set is one of disenchantment and disaffection. There is a very widespread feeling of alienation in the United Kingdom. It is not limited to the understandable phrase, common in the United States, that "it's time to throw the rascals out".
The governed in our country feel—I believe they feel rightly—that those who are set in authority over them are careless of their rights, their needs and their desires, are remote from their true problems and are incapable of righting real wrongs. But one does not want to be unnecessarily gloomy. We heard earlier today that the Prime Minister has a cunning plan. He intends to send the Stone of Scone back to Scotland. What a contribution to constitutional advance! There is hardly any more to be said.
The inevitable consequence, which I described earlier, derives from the statism which has typified this country's governing methods for the past 20 years. The fact is that power has been ruthlessly sucked into the great central maw. Local discretion, real choice and individual care have virtually vanished. What we have left now is the thin, emaciated ghost of what was once thriving local government.
We need historical perspective on these occasions. I was not a Member of your Lordships' House in 1832 nor had any relative of mine a seat there; nor did such conditions obtain in 1870, just after the Secret Ballot Act had been passed. But had I had the infinite benefit of being present either in 1832 or in 1870, I should have heard exactly the same arguments deployed that I heard this evening: where will it all end? It will be the end of civilisation as we know it. It will mean the break-up of the Union.
The fact is that there were two coincident developments in the 19th century: the first was an accretion of power to Westminster, but coincident with that development there grew up flourishing, powerful local government. The two were not enemies; they were brothers who marched together. The great cities, by the end of the 19th century and the beginning of this, had the power and the ability to provide—whatever the blemishes—local services responsive to local needs. What would Joseph Chamberlain say now about the present wreck that he would see?
Is there anyone present to take up the point made by my noble friend Lord Haskel? Is there anyone present who would dispute for a single second that, were there a referendum in Greater London tomorrow, there would be a massive affirmative vote for London-wide government? It is the only city in the civilised world without local government. It is foolish, it is idle to speak of a continuing Union when the present Government have distorted the machinery of government in this country to throw true unionism out of kilter.
The deficit in effective locally-controlled power has secondary consequences. I should like to deal for a moment with at least two parts of the United Kingdom

1559
in which I have an interest. Very little has been said about Northern Ireland. I do not chide the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor; he specifically said that he had a limited time and therefore a limited field in which he could deploy his view. But Northern Ireland has hardly been mentioned. Is it any wonder that Northern Ireland and many people who live there feel resentment?
There is no locally accountable democracy of any consequence in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State sits in Hillsborough, the last pale Viceroy. Good candidates will not stand for public office when public office is a sham and a joke, having no power except whether or not street lighting should be set in a specific cul-de-sac; whether bins should be collected on Wednesday or possibly, after anguished philosophical dispute, on Thursday. The quangos there are all-powerful; they come from a closed, charmed circle. That circle is controlled by individuals, many of whom have said tonight that the Union is valid and must continue. The Union will be valid and it should continue only if it provides decent accommodation in the widest sense to all its citizens, and it fails to do so.
I have complained regularly about the quango system in Northern Ireland. The police authority is not elected even in part; the chairman is employed and dismissed at the curt conclusion of the Secretary of State. It is only responsible power which encourages people to join fully in a Union.
It was not, so far as I am aware, the leader of the Labour Party who said:
"The United Kingdom Government has no selfish economic or strategic interest in Northern Ireland".
It was Mr. Peter Brooke, and the words were repeated by the present Secretary of State and the present Prime Minister as part of the present Government's policy. Mr. Budgen, the Member for Wolverhampton in another place, when that phrase was first used, asked whether it could properly be applied also to Wolverhampton, his constituency; and answer came there none.
Perhaps I can indulge myself for a moment or two with the question of Wales. I find little to say about Scotland because it has all been endlessly said before and I want to avoid being one of those Members of your Lordships' House who say, "What I intended to say has already been said" and then spend half-an-hour repeating it. All I can say is that, self-evidently, to any reasonable and reasoning sentient being, the Labour Party's policy for Scotland is absolutely right in every conceivable way. I just wanted to put the matter reasonably.
Let us look at Wales for a moment or two. I listened with great care to the speech of my noble friend Lord Tonypandy. He and I will agree on this: the overwhelming bulk of those who live in Wales want to remain willing participants in the United Kingdom. They love and revere their own country, Wales. They respect and treasure what should be the generous diversity of the United Kingdom. I have lived in England for most of my adult life. It is a fine country. It has aspects of generosity and openness,
1560
sometimes, which make it great. It has aspects sometimes which are exclusive. I shall not fully repeat the well-known phrase and tag from the late President Lyndon Johnson about tent inclusion and exclusion because I believe that it is too well-known to require repetition.
The fact is that if you live in Wales at the moment you are offered the present circumstances. The Treasury allocates to the Welsh Office £7 billion per year. It is all controlled by the Welsh Office. For the past 17 years the Welsh Office has been in the hands of Conservative appointees. But there are only six Conservative MPs in the Palace of Westminster elected from Welsh constituencies. One-third of the £7 billion is handed over to quangos. They are packed with unelected placemen and women, with rather fewer of the latter than the former. They are subject to no scrutiny by the people nor to any censure or sanction by election. They are secretive, unrepresentative and, in many instances, actually corrupt. I hear some tutting. Read the Welsh newspapers over the past five years if my veracity is doubted, and the records of those who have been sent to prison. Almost every aspect of public administration in Wales is rigidly controlled in that way. The late Mayor Daley of Chicago and the even later Huey "Kingfish" Long of Louisiana would have taken off their hats in silent and respectful admiration.
What is to be done? The fact is that devolution exists in Wales and Scotland at the moment. The debate is not about devolution, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, rightly said, it is about control and accountability of the devolved powers. I believe that the basis of the referendum in Wales is morally right and constitutionally appropriate. The question is going to be two-fold. First, does Wales want an elected assembly and, secondly, does it wish proportional representation to be the mechanism of election? I do not despise my fellow citizens in Wales. I believe that they are able to understand questions as well as any Member of your Lordships' House.
The second point about the referendum, curiously in our political life, is unselfish. On first past the post in Wales, the Labour Party would win a crushing victory. That is not what we want. We do not want a monolithic, selfish superiority. We have had more than enough of that from the present Government. We want an assembly to reflect a pluralistic society. We want every significant strand of public thought and opinion to be fairly represented and to be honourably considered. We want women to have their full part to play. We want diversity of language, culture, religion and history to be included and welcomed. We are not afraid to welcome to the full table those who differ from us. That will be the basis of a continuing Union. There is virtually no sizeable segment of public opinion in Wales which wishes the break up of the Union. We are a small country. We despise no one. We devalue no one else's language or history, but we are proud of our own. We believe that we have a moral entitlement to decide for ourselves whether or not we want an assembly. The slave and serf will never co-operate with a master; the equal will.

1561
At the moment, there is a strange undercurrent in our lives. The tide is changing. I do not believe that the present Government—I put it as carefully as I can—have understood the deep changes that are beginning to occur. The conduct of government in the past 17 years has done serious damage and caused significant rending of our national life, by which I mean the life of the entire United Kingdom, diverse as it is.
This has been an important debate, and on occasions it has been repetitive. But I hope that some of the words that have been spoken will cause the Government to think again. If they do not accommodate that thinking, lasting damage will be done to the fabric of our Union.
11.12 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I begin by welcoming to our House, albeit in his absence, the Lord Chief Justice. His speech was one of great clarity and elegance and was highly informative. We congratulate him most warmly on his appointment to his new office.
The quality of today's debate has more than justified the Government's decision to set aside two days for discussion of our constitution. Your Lordships' contributions have covered a wide range of issues both thoughtfully and in depth, and I think that the quality of debate today has reinforced the strong arguments for preserving this House in its present form.
The constitution of the United Kingdom has evolved over hundreds of years. The strength and security it has provided are matters of which we can all be proud. It has safeguarded our individual rights and freedoms for centuries. Yet, if elected, the party opposite would dismantle that constitutional settlement in its first year of office. Their proposals would, as the Prime Minister has stressed, lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. Scotland would be set on the path to independence with its own tax-raising parliament. Wales would be cut adrift through the establishment of an assembly in Cardiff. England would be carved up into a chaotic patchwork of regional assemblies, and more powers would be taken from Westminster and handed to Brussels. Our 900 year-old Parliament would be left impotent.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, referred to an inconsistency on the part of the Government on the issue of subsidiarity. He said that it was argued for vigorously by the Government in relation to Europe but not for parts of the United Kingdom. I suggest that there is a real distinction here. Brussels needs nation states to control it but European federalists like the idea of breaking up the United Kingdom—and other member states—into regions. I suggest that it is part of the grand design of those who support a federalist solution. The dissembling of countries into regions enables Brussels to bypass national governments and thus avoid the necessary control by national governments.
Noble Lords opposite claim that their proposals would improve the way in which the United Kingdom is governed by devolving power to the regions. In reality, they would simply increase bureaucracy by creating a whole new tier of government. If there is a
1562
problem, the usual solution suggested by noble Lords opposite is more government. Real devolution means giving individuals the freedom to make their own decisions—giving the people, not the bureaucrats, the power to choose. That is what this Government have consistently done in the face of bitter opposition from noble Lords opposite. For example, the users of services now have far more information about the quality of the service they receive with performance tables, comparative waiting times and information on key indicators. They increasingly have the ultimate power of voting with their feet by switching schools or choosing another hospital. The Conservatives have never shied away from change. We took Britain into Europe. We set up the Select Committees system. We have transferred power from Whitehall both to Scotland and Wales. The new arrangements for the Scottish Grand Committee have provided opportunities for the most senior Ministers of the Crown to contribute to debates about matters within their responsibilities relating to Scotland as well as providing for Second and Third Reading debates on Scottish Bills to take place in the Grand Committee, whenever it makes sense to do so.
Changes announced by the Secretary of State for Wales will ensure that there is more discussion of Welsh business in Parliament and that it is more accessible to the people of Wales.
Those changes are evolutionary. They build on existing arrangements. They maintain the distinctive tradition of Scotland and Wales without undermining the prosperity and well being of the United Kingdom.
As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has said, the Government are unequivocally committed to the Union. We believe that the present arrangements whereby Scotland and Wales enjoy the advantages of full representation at Westminster and a Secretary of State with a seat in the Cabinet are to the best advantage, not only of the people of Scotland and Wales, but to the whole of the United Kingdom. A strong, united nation state to which all parts of the kingdom contribute and in which all are represented also provides the most effective means of advancing the interests of the whole country both within the European Union and indeed throughout the world—a partial answer to my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell. A fragmented country quickly loses its influence among other nations.
As the Economist has said
"Any constitutional changes … should pass three tests: They should be clear, should be perceived as workable, and should command widespread consent. Labour's devolution proposals fail on all three counts".
A referendum on them has now been promised. But one has to ask what result would constitute widespread consent. The Labour Party says 50 per cent. But 50 per cent. on what turn-out?
The party opposite proposes that Scotland should have its own tax-raising parliament. That would lead to the dismemberment of the United Kingdom. There would be no second Chamber to revise legislation; no checks or balances to its power. Of its 129 members, 56 of them would be placemen appointed by party

1563
leaders. There would be gender quotas for its membership, which as a woman I find extraordinarily patronising.
That parody of a parliament would have the power over many of the matters which most concern people: their housing, children's education, health. To cap it all, that parliament would have the power to raise taxes—a special tartan tax. I have heard some noble Lords say that the parliament would be free to cut tax rates as well as raise them. But looking at Labour's record in office—both nationally and locally—that is inconceivable. As the honourable Member for Dundee East said
"I certainly do not envisage in the near future any left of centre government cutting taxes in Scotland".
In addition, Labour would introduce a minimum wage and sign up to the Social Chapter. Inward investment would be lost, and jobs destroyed.
For months people have been warning against the Labour Party's plans. The Institute of Fiscal Studies has forecast that the basic rate of income tax in Scotland would rise from 24 pence to nearly 37 pence if devolution took place.
Rather than admit it is wrong and drop the proposals, the party opposite has now promised a referendum on them. But a referendum will not answer any of the fundamental questions that the proposals raise.
As the honourable Member for Linlithgow said:
"Why should Scottish MPs at Westminster be able to vote on purely English matters while English MPs will have no say over matters devolved to a Scottish Parliament?"
Does the party opposite really intend that Scottish MPs should be able to vote on and decide matters relating to England while English MPs would not be allowed to vote on matters relating to Scotland? If it proposes to prevent all Scottish MPs from voting on matters relating solely to England, how would they form a government at Westminster? My noble friend Lord Gray of Contin posed another interesting question about the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland, which also needs to be addressed under any such proposals.
And if a Scottish Parliament were established, would the Labour Party reduce the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster to ensure that Scotland no longer had higher representation at Westminster than her population justifies? Finally, there is the question of who votes in this referendum—a question posed by my noble friend Lord Beloff. A Scottish parliament will impact quite materially on the English. Will they have the chance to vote?
Those are fundamental questions. They need to be answered. But noble Lords opposite have so far failed to answer them.
I shall answer quite directly the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, about what we on this side of the House would do if, heaven forfend, noble Lords opposite were to come to power on a clear manifesto pledge for devolution, and proceeded in power in the first Session of Parliament to prepare the legislation for a referendum leading to devolution and to a Bill. We would do what our parliamentary democracy allows us to do. We would oppose such legislation and we would bow only to the will of Parliament as a whole. Indeed,
1564
it would be important on such a constitutional issue for each and every Member of this House to follow his conscience. I hope too that voice would be given in this House and in another place by MPs to those people of Scotland who did not want to support a devolved Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in posing a question to my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, appeared to advocate government by plebiscite, especially referring to wasting prime parliamentary time on the detail of a devolution Bill. Although those of us on this side of the House would not like to see the Bill at all, we would not regard the opportunity of debating and possibly opposing and/or revising such a Bill as wasting parliamentary time. If noble Lords were ever to proceed in that way we would argue that Parliament must use all of the time it has and all the time needed to give full voice to our views on such a constitutional proposal. To do otherwise would be giving way to dictatorship.
The noble Lord, Lord Plant, was disappointed that noble Lords have not mentioned the role of local government. That is another of the questions to be answered by noble Lords opposite. Devolution and regional assemblies would indeed impact on local government. What thought has been given to that in their proposals? However, that issue was put right by my noble friend Lord Bowness, and he has made good the deficit.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, on his research into comments made more than 20 years ago in support of devolution by my friends who now hold high office in government. I shall resist the temptation to talk of the right honourable Mr. Blair, who has had a road-to-Damascus conversion on nuclear weapons. However, what a pity the noble Lord did not follow through the logic of his argument. The Conservative Party did indeed look at devolution and was attracted by an idea; that was until the practicalities and contradictions inherent in such a proposal became clear. I refer to the West Lothian question, the role of the Secretary of State in Cabinet, the issue of finance and so forth.
We have sought to develop ways of giving a greater voice and influence to Scotland through the Grand Committee, linked directly with Parliament in Westminster which represents the whole of the Union. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken steps to strengthen the role of the Scottish Grand Committee which meet the concern of the noble Earl, Lord Perth: that of scrutinising the work of the Scottish Office. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lady Saltoun that those arrangements will indeed be kept under review.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, asked about the cost of a Scottish Parliament. Initial estimates are of a capital cost of £36 million for permanent buildings, offices for Members and staff, and accommodation for extra civil servants; ongoing annual costs, salaries and running costs are about £40 million.

1565
A referendum will not answer any of the fundamental questions which the Labour Party raises, as the honourable Member for Linlithgow in another place has said. I shall not repeat that argument.
I turn to proposals for a Welsh Assembly. There is no evidence that the people of Wales want such a body. The most reliable statement by the Welsh people was in the referendum of 1979 when the Labour Government's proposals for an assembly were rejected overwhelmingly. Only 20.3 per cent. of the turnout—that is 11.9 per cent. of the electorate—voted in favour. I might add that 71.7 per cent. of businessmen surveyed in the Institute of Directors' Wales Division business survey of May 1996 did not believe that Wales should have its own assembly.
In Wales, a separate assembly would create an unnecessary and costly tier of bureaucracy between Parliament and the 22 new unitary authorities and would inevitably take over the functions of local government, so increasing confusion and undermining accountability.
I was moved and deeply impressed by the speech of that eminent parliamentarian and man of the valleys, the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. He articulated better than I ever could the case against devolution to an assembly in Wales. My noble friends and I agree with him wholeheartedly.
It has been suggested also that devolved powers within Scotland and Wales should be matched by the creation of new regional assemblies where they were desired in England. Regional assemblies would simply add an unwanted and unnecessary additional tier of bureaucracy and cost to existing arrangements.
The real reason for current talk about regional assemblies lies in the difficulty which proponents of assemblies for Scotland and Wales face in making sense of their proposals. But the arbitrary carving up of England into regions would not justify devolution elsewhere. It is always open to local authorities to co-operate in areas where that would be mutually beneficial and add value to the services they can provide to the communities which they represent.
Some local authorities have established regional fora to provide joint action and a single voice for the region but they consist of existing councillors. One such assembly exists in the North East, where I am a sponsor Minister, and another will be launched in Yorkshire and Humberside on 8th July.
As for regional offices, government offices are not pieces of machinery of regional government. They are integral parts of central government. They were created in April 1984 to bring together the functions of the Departments of Employment, of the Environment, Trade and Industry and Transport, which were already being discharged through a network in the English regions.
They have no separate legal identity. The officials who staff them continue to be accountable to Ministers of the four departments. There is no constitutional novelty there. The only unusual aspect is that the
1566
regional directors are responsible to four separate Secretaries of State rather than just one and they are all accountable to Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, referred to Northern Ireland. The situation there deserves a solution tailored to the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland where, I remind the House, unlike in Scotland, there has previously been an assembly. The Government's aim is to improve democratic arrangements in Northern Ireland by returning more power to the local political representatives.
I think that this evening the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, rather blew a hole in the all-party approach to Northern Ireland issues. He will know that all-party talks are at a sensitive stage in Northern Ireland and those involved will continue to work painstakingly towards a solution for Northern Ireland. None of us can pre-empt the outcome of those talks and it would be wrong to do so at this time. However, I can say that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has shown great courage and determination in pursuit of peace in Northern Ireland.
Protecting the rights of the individual lies at the heart of the Government's policy on open government. It is clearly right that legitimate requests for information should be met. That is why the Government have introduced a package of measures, including the code of practice on open government, which meets the principal objectives of freedom of information legislation without the cost, confrontation, delay and the legal complexity experienced under some statutory freedom of information regimes overseas.
Under our system, appeals to the Parliamentary Ombudsman against non-disclosure of information can be made at no cost to the appellant which provides an individual with the right of complaint free of financial considerations. Those measures are winning considerable support as they increasingly take effect.
Some noble Lords have argued that the freedom of the individual in this country would be better protected if Britain had a written constitution and/or a new Bill of Rights, setting out a list of fundamental rights. But as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister reminded us recently, we already have a living, breathing, working constitution, which already provides very effectively for the protection of the individual's rights and freedoms and one which can also change with the spirit of the times.
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, made a point most powerfully when he asked rhetorically how many other countries would even recognise a miscarriage of justice, let alone investigate one. He was rightly indignant about those who do not value just how much protection of the individual there is in this country; and how right he is.
The noble Lord also reminded us that a written constitution is not necessarily a guarantee of protection. Indeed, he used the analogy of the Weimar Republic, which did have a written constitution and which, quite specifically, included rights for religious freedom. Tell that to the Jews!

1567
Frankly, that constitution was not worth the paper that it was written on. On the noble Lord's other point about the Charity Commission and Charter 88, I have no doubt that the commission will have noted what the noble Lord had to say about the charter.
We have no need to immobilise our constitution in statutes, and we have no need for a new Bill of Rights seeking to codify the rights and freedoms enjoyed by people in this country. Most people would agree that human rights are already very well safeguarded in the United Kingdom. Our rights and freedoms are inherent in our legal systems, and are protected by them and by Parliament, unless those protections are removed or restricted by statute.
However, what such a Bill would do is to transfer responsibility for determining matters affecting individual rights and freedoms from Parliament to the courts, eroding the principle of parliamentary sovereignty which is fundamental to our constitution.
Some have suggested that the courts are already involved in such matters, that the boundary between policy-making and judicial interpretation has already been crossed, for example, through the use of judicial review. It is clearly right that the courts should hold Ministers to the proper use of their powers and should safeguard the procedural quality of decision-making. That is merely an example of our constitution working. But by the same token, it is of course ultimately up to Parliament to decide the laws and to create the framework within which judges and courts make their judgments.
It is too easy at times to take the safeguards and the protection that we enjoy for granted. We must not fall into the trap of doing so. We should be proud of those fundamental parts of our heritage and not seek to change them where there is neither a clear need nor an advantage in doing so. Some noble Lords have argued that, instead of a Bill of Rights, or as a first step towards one, the United Kingdom should incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights, or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, into our domestic law. For the reasons I have already explained, the Government do not believe that seeking to codify individual rights and freedoms in our law, whether in the form of an incorporated treaty or a free-standing bill of rights, is either necessary or desirable.
Those who suggest that the United Kingdom's record on breaches of the ECHR is the worst in Europe are simply misinformed. The UK's record of compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights compares well with the record of any other country. Listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, I had to ask myself: what is the practical benefit of incorporation? On the contrary, incorporation would have required the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords to decide on yesterday's case in another way.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships some examples of the records of other countries as regards breaches of the ECHR: 27 allegations of violation respectively against the Portugese and Greek Governments were
1568
declared admissible by the Commission; 28 against the Austrian Government; 39 against the Government of the Netherlands; 57 against the Turkish Government; 148 against the French Government; and 453 against the Italian Government. Over the same period, only 24 allegations against the United Kingdom were declared admissible. Those figures hardly support the claim that incorporation reduces the number of cases going forward to Strasbourg. I agree with the powerful speech of my noble friend Lord Kingsland when he argued that incorporation is not necessary and, if it were suggested, it would only be futile.
I said earlier that we did not owe our constitution to political theories. It has been formed by the people of this country over the years. It is a lively, vibrant thing that embodies their values, their understandings, their respect for the individual and his freedom under the law. The changes which have taken place over the years have not been made for the sake of change or in the interests of particular institutions; they have been practical changes, driven by what people want and not what some people out there think they need. Over the centuries they have brought the government closer to the people. That is what we want. That is what we as a government have been concerned to do.
We have moved power away from central bureaucratic structures so that it is now closer to the people and to consumers. That has been done across the board in the fields of health, where hospital trusts now take decisions rather than the National Health Service; and in education where school governing bodies and not local government have the final say. It has also been done through the Citizen's Charter which has restored the individual's right to hold large, impersonal organisations to account; and, indeed, through a host of changes which have put consumers rather than providers in charge and have strengthened the independence of individuals. Contrary to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, more individual choice has been opposed root and branch by noble Lords opposite.
In the words of my noble friend Lord Nickson, who spoke so well for the business community in Scotland, the Labour Party proposals would create doubt, disadvantage and disunity. They would do nothing for competitiveness, confidence and continuity. The process of evolutionary change is our great tradition and goes right back to the Magna Carta. It has given us a constitution with firm foundations which binds the people of this country to the institutions which serve them and uphold their freedom. We must not undermine this stability and strength by experimenting and tinkering to no good purpose, or worse, for some narrow political end to enhance the "macho" image of the right honourable Member for Sedgefield.
At the end of the day any decision to change or not to change must be taken by Parliament. Parliament is the process through which the representatives of the people control the Executive. And, as I have said, it is Parliament which decides the laws on which judges and courts make their judgments. I believe passionately that the sovereignty of Parliament is

1569
fundamental to our constitution; that intricate complex of institutions and values which reflects our history as a nation and which values all the people of this country as individuals.
I am grateful to all those who have taken part in today's debate. I have news for the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and noble Lords opposite. We on these Benches are in good heart. It may come as a disappointment to noble Lords opposite that we are looking forward to a rattling good debate
1570
tomorrow, to be led and concluded by my noble friends Lord Cranborne and Lord Strathclyde respectively.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before midnight.

  EU Enlargement: Costs
  EU Enlargement: Costs
  Museums and Galleries: Admission Charges
  Museums and Galleries: Admission Charges
  Victoria and Albert Museum: Charges
  Victoria and Albert Museum: Charges
  Asylum Seekers: Home Office Country Assessments
  Asylum Seekers: Home Office Country Assessments
  Physical Education and Sport in Schools: DfEE Report
  Physical Education and Sport in Schools: DfEE Report
  RAF Menwith Hill: Telecommunications Interception
  RAF Menwith Hill: Telecommunications Interception