Sitting of 8 December 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
The Secretary of State was asked—
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sports (Young People)
  Mr. Skinner: What assistance is to be given to young people to widen the activity base of (a) athletics, (b) tennis and (c) other sports. [17976]
  The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): Before I answer the question, I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me and the House in paying tribute to the memory of Billy Bremner, who died on Saturday. Billy was one of the great characters of post-war football and an inspiring captain of both Scotland and Leeds United. He will be sorely missed.
  The main initiative to promote young people's participation in sporting activities is the English Sports Council's national junior sport programme. It provides a framework within which schools, local authorities, governing bodies of sport, sports clubs and youth organisations can work together to provide quality sporting opportunities for four to 18-year-olds in a planned and co-ordinated way.
  Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems about the past 18 years, among other things, is the fact that many school playing fields have been sold off? That has to stop. Secondly, when they closed the pits, they closed many of those centres of culture and sporting activities, the miners' welfares. That has to be stopped as well. Thirdly, there is the gap where youngsters leaving school find that there are no opportunities to carry on with athletics, unless they live in cities with athletics clubs.
  We need a fresh start. My hon. Friend has got the job, and if he can deal with some of the things that I mentioned, plug the gap and get rid of the culture of the blazer, the bag and the twinset brigade, especially in tennis, he will be doing a decent job.
  Mr. Banks: I thank my hon. Friend for his supplementary question, and for noting that I am here doing the job—and still doing the job, which is sometimes as great a surprise to me as it is to others.
  My hon. Friend is right to say that we must have a coherent plan to stop the further sale of playing fields as their sale means losing a prime asset essential to the encouragement of grass roots sports. The facilities in former mining communities are worth looking at it would be a shame to waste those facilities It my be that we can join together in a plan that I have for discussing with
  650
  companies, for example, the use of their sports facilities, which are grossly underused. We do not want to lose any sports facilities.
  On my hon. Friend's last point, we want to provide opportunities for everyone to get involved in sport from the earliest age, at primary school. Sport for all means right the way through from primary school until they carry us out in a wooden box. We want to eliminate the chance factor. Facilities are distributed unevenly, which means that some youngsters do not get opportunities. By the time we have finished our period of office, which is so far into the future that even I cannot imagine it, we shall undoubtedly have addressed that imbalance.
  Mr. Spring: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the pursuit of excellence must be at the heart of encouraging young people into greater sports participation? Why have the Government reneged on the previous Government's commitment to extending the sportsmark scheme to primary schools?
  Mr. Banks: We are as concerned as the Opposition about the pursuit of excellence. We must recognise that it is necessary to encourage the involvement of the very youngest. That is what we shall do. If we do not encourage the youngest, we shall not get elite athletes winning medals for this country. On the previous Government's initiatives, where we feel that they were in the interests of primary schoolchildren, we shall do all that we can to encourage them.

  Tourism
  Mr. Waterson: What organisations representing English tourism he has met since 1 May. [17977]
  The Minister for Film and Tourism (Mr. Tom Clarke): Since 1 May, my right hon. Friend and I have met 42 representative organisations. Additionally, we inaugurated the new tourism forum on 26 November, which has 57 members. I shall be completing a programme of visits to each of the 10 regional tourist boards very shortly.
  Mr. Waterson: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that tourism makes a massive contribution to the United Kingdom economy, bringing in more than £100 million in my constituency of Eastbourne alone? Does he also agree that it is now recognised by everyone that it was an appalling blunder not to include the word "tourism" in the name of his Department?
  Mr. Clarke: The Government and the tourism industry are achieving such success that trivial points of that nature have long since ceased to be discussed. The new forum, which met on 26 November, was much more concerned about action—action for jobs, and action for a strategy. The previous Government did not achieve that in 18 years.
  I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman—he published a booklet entitled "Tories for Tourism", but there were no Tories and not much about tourism—that the Government, working with the forum, will publish a plan for tourism early in the summer. I am sure that it will be widely welcomed.
  Mr. Corbett: Did my hon. Friend hear Alistair Cooke's "Letter from America" yesterday? Will he

  651
  underwrite it with his view of the importance of the heritage to Britain's tourism? In particular, will he pay tribute to the Royal Shakespeare Company—both here and in Stratford-upon-Avon—as a vibrant and extremely admission important part of our tourism facilities?
  Mr. Clarke: I did, indeed, hear yesterday's broadcast, and was delighted by the international focus given to the success of British tourism under the present Government. I pay tribute to the organisation that my hon. Friend mentioned.
  Alistair Cooke made the point that British heritage was extremely important, and of course he was right. That is why my Department contributes about £1 billion to the arts, historical sites, museums, and so forth. Such things have appeal, but consistent with that is the adventurism that Alistair Cooke has demonstrated. Young people and others in Britain who are presenting new designs, new fashions, modern music and up-to-date architecture also present something that attracts tourism abroad and at home. I am sure that Alistair Cooke, with his broad vision, will welcome the commitment to our policies and the support that we enjoy.
  Mr. Fearn: The Minister visited my constituency not too long ago when he visited the north-west, and from what I hear he did a good job. When he met the various tourist boards, did he talk about the minimum wage and whether it would apply on a regional basis? Many small hoteliers and people running boarding houses are very worried about the minimum wage. Many others are in favour of it, but the forum needs to discuss regionalism and how the minimum wage will work out. I am sure that the Minister has an answer.
  Mr. Clarke: I very much enjoyed my visit to the hon. Gentleman's region, and in particular my visit to his constituency. The subject of the minimum wage was raised, and I was not surprised when once again it was given massive support. I was able to repeat the Government's position: we are committed to a national minimum wage. We appointed the independent Low Pay Commission, to which we were committed, and which includes Stephanie Monk from the tourism industry and Granada. We shall consider the report when it is presented, and my hon. Friend—if I may reciprocate his good nature—can be assured that not only the fears but the hopes of his constituents are safe in the hands of this Government.
  Mrs. Betty Williams: What action are the Government taking to ensure full access for disabled people to every aspect of tourism?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I pay tribute to everyone involved in "Tourism for All" for the marvellous work that they have done, not least at the breakfast meeting a few weeks ago. I also pay tribute to Mandy Todd of the consortium, who is very much involved in the Quarry Bank project in north-west England. She spoke at the forum on the need to involve disabled people in every aspect of tourism, and in the discussion on the new deal. Her efforts and those of her organisation at Quarry Bank are a wonderful example of best practice for access for disabled people and carers, which many people could emulate to their benefit.

  Museums (Admission Charges)
  Mr. Loughton: If he will make a statement on charges to the nation's museums. [17978]
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): This morning I placed in the Library details of the progress of the review of admission charges, together with a consultation paper on the development of a code of good practice for museums and galleries. I am delighted to announce that the heritage lottery fund is to create a museums and galleries access fund, which will assist initiatives to extend access to our great collections. I shall make a further announcement when my Department's spending review is completed next summer.
  Mr. Loughton: That is all very well, but as my grandmother would say, what has that to do with the price of fish? Does the Secretary of State agree with me and with the directors of our major museums, who believe in the principle that free admission to our museums is the cornerstone of democratic access to our cultural inheritance? If he does not agree, does that represent yet another people's U-turn by this Government of one principle in the interests of budgetary expediency? Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the recent announcement by the British museum was made in the light of preferential treatment negotiated between his Department and the museum?
  Mr. Smith: I look forward to discovering in detail the representations that the hon. Gentleman made on this subject to the Conservative Government over the past 18 years. We said before the election in our document, "Create the Future":
  "We would like to see institutions do all they can to balance the books while maximising access."
  That has been our policy throughout, and remains so. It is up to each institution and its trustees to make decisions about how best to carry forward the process of maximising access. The Government's job is to make it as easy as possible for them to choose and pursue their own course. We intend to carry on doing that.
  Mr. Sheldon: I welcome the British museum's decision not to introduce admission charges for the time being. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that what he has said today will provide the means for other museums to remain free of admission charges in the years to come?
  Mr. Smith: I have said two things today. First, we are consulting the national galleries and museums on the development of a code of good practice, with a view to making that code a condition for the receipt of grant in aid in due course. Secondly, a heritage lottery access fund is being developed, and all museums will be able to apply to it, whether they are chargers or non-chargers, so as to broaden access for the citizen.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Accepting what the Secretary of State has just said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), and notwithstanding his consultation paper, may I—as someone who felt impelled to vote against the Museum and Galleries Admission Charges Bill in the early 1970s—ask the Secretary of State to give a

  653
  commitment that all galleries and museums, at least in part, will be kept open and have free access, and that national lottery funding will be used, if necessary, to subsidise those museums and art galleries that would have difficulty doing so?
  Mr. Smith: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by "in part". If he is referring to the fact that the science museum, which charges for entry, none the less allows 43 per cent. of its visitors to get in free, he makes a valid point. The overwhelming majority of museums are already doing that. We have made it clear both before and since the election that it is up to the trustees of each gallery to decide how best to maintain good access for the public. For some, that may be a wish to see free admission. For others, it may be free periods or free entry for certain groups but not for everyone. It is up to the museums to decide. The Government's job is to provide the framework within which they can pursue their chosen course.
  Dr. Iddon: I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that museums play a key educational role, especially for young people. Our museums in Bolton design special projects in partnership with schools. Will my right hon. Friend consider that aspect when considering the question of access, which should preferably be free for educational purposes?
  Mr. Smith: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Part of the code of practice on which we are consulting flags up the importance of education and the access for schoolchildren, in particular, to this country's great national collections.
  Mr. Maude: Is not the Secretary of State wriggling off a virtual commitment that he would ensure free access to all museums? What financial support has he offered to the trustees of the British museum that has enabled them to change their settled intention to introduce entrance charges? Can he give the House an unqualified assurance that the British museum has not been offered any support that is not available on identical terms to all other museums of national importance, irrespective of whether they charge for entrance?
  Mr. Smith: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman two things. First, our commitment was set out clearly in black and white before the election. As it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear the first time, I will repeat it. We should like to see institutions do all that they can to balance the books while maximising access. What matters is maximising access in the best possible way for each institution or gallery. If the right hon. Gentleman talks to the directors and chairmen of galleries and museums, he will find that that is what they are anxious to do. Secondly, public expenditure survey allocations to individual museums and galleries will be announced within the next few days.

  Athletics Training
  Mr. Bill Michie: What plans he has to provide assistance for British athletes in respect of their training programmes. [17979]
  Mr. Banks: We are committed to improving the quality of training for our athletes. In particular,
  654
  the United Kingdom Sports Institute will provide our athletes with the finest training facilities possible and the English Sports Council's world class performance programme provides lottery support to our best athletes.
  Mr. Michie: I welcome the statement and thank my hon. Friend. It is spreading the opportunities for athletes throughout the UK. The United Kingdom Sports Institute is a good idea. I am sure that it will be successful, and the icing on the cake to make sure that everyone knows that it will be successful is for its headquarters to finish up in Sheffield.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is always keen to push the welfare of his constituency and his city. It is, indeed, a fine city of sport. However, we shall have to wait just a little longer. There will be presentations on 16 December from the three short-listed bidders—Sheffield, Upper Heyford and the Central Consortium. Now that we have put some flesh on the bones of the old British Academy of Sport, I think that we shall be able to make progress with some speed. However, we must get the decision right—I have made that point before. We do not want to rush into it and make mistakes. We shall make the announcement fairly shortly after 16 December, and I can tell my hon. Friend that, as ever, Sheffield is in there with a very good chance.
  Mrs. May: Is the Minister aware of the difficulties in recent months in getting funding for disabled athletes to train for the Paralympics in Sydney 2000? Those difficulties have occurred because of long delays in getting promised lottery funds distributed to the various disabled sports associations. For example, difficulties were suffered by the Windsor and Maidenhead sports association for the disabled, which is in my constituency and of which I am a member. Is the Minister aware of those difficulties? What is he doing to investigate them and to ensure that promised funds are distributed so that our disabled athletes can train properly in preparation for the Sydney 2000 Paralympics?
  Mr. Banks: I am acutely aware of the problems. On several occasions in the House, I have paid tribute to our Paralympic team. We have some of the finest disabled athletes in the world and I want this country to glory in their achievements because they do wonders for this country and for their sports.
  I have been talking to the English Sports Council. There have been some problems. I am satisfied that we have eliminated most of them, but I assure the hon. Lady that we shall not allow our paralympians to go to the games without full and adequate support. If the hon. Lady wants any additional information, or if she encounters any problems, she should please let me know, and I will do my best to eliminate them.
  Mr. Alan Keen: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will give his full support to the two British teams in the World cup in France next year, and look out for the rights of supporters travelling from the United Kingdom to France. The taxi driver who drove me home from the BBC studios yesterday said that he and his friends were organising trips to Europe and that they were supporting Jamaica, so there will be citizens of this country traveling

  655
  from this country and supporting other sides as well. Will the Minister bear in mind that we must look after their rights, too?
  Mr. Banks: We have a great deal of interest in the world cup next year, not only with Scotland and England, but also with Jamaica. Given the United Nations aspect of the premier league, it is fascinating to see that virtually every world cup competitor will have a British league player, which again gives us an abiding interest.
  There are some problems associated with the allocation of tickets, and Ministers are considering those problems carefully. The one message that we want to send from the House today—I am sure that Conservative Members will join me in this—is that no one without a ticket should attempt to travel to the world cup finals in France next year.

  Business Sponsorship of Sport
  Mr. Fraser: What plans the Government have to change the regulations governing business sponsorship of sport. [17980]
  Mr. Chris Smith: The Government plan to end sponsorship of sport by tobacco companies and will work actively with sports, business people and others to find alternative forms of sponsorship.
  Mr. Fraser: Does the Secretary of State agree that all British citizens should be given the same treatment? If so, does he agree that other sports which rely heavily on sponsorship from tobacco companies have not been given the same treatment as formula one?
  Mr. Smith: All European citizens are being given equal treatment under the directive brilliantly negotiated by my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health last week. As the hon. Gentleman will know from having studied the detail carefully, all countries will have three years from the date of adoption in which to implement the directive in their national law. There will then be a two-year transitional period for all tobacco-sponsored events and activities, with a further three years allowed for events or activities organised at world level.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I welcome the very positive way in which my right hon. Friend has gone about this matter in his statement today—[Interruption.] Oh, yes, there is a very clear change: in 1994, when the Tories faced exactly the same decision, they ducked it under pressure from the tobacco industry.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Conservative Members have never accepted a ban even on tobacco advertising, let alone sponsorship, in this country. We had three objectives from the outset. The first was a complete phasing out of tobacco sponsorship. The second was protection of the interests of sports and the arts. The third was to make special provision for those sports that were particularly badly affected. We have secured all three of those objectives.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does the Secretary of State accept that no one in this country, even on the Labour Benches,
  656
  believes what he has just said? It is apparent that the interests of other major sports, such as cricket, darts and snooker, were completely ignored. It was special favours for special friends.
  Mr. Smith: Perhaps that is why, immediately after the announcement of the outcome of the directive, Maurice Lindsay of the Rugby Football League said:
  "I am sure that the other sports will be equally satisfied with last night's announcement. We are grateful to the Prime Minister for listening to us and responding so positively".
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should listen to Maurice Lindsay rather than to his own prejudices.
  Mr. Dafis: Does the Secretary of State agree that sponsorship should be targeted at activities that are compatible with sustainable development and provide good role models, especially for young people? Does he further agree that formula one is the epitome of unsustainability and provides a thoroughly bad role model for young people, especially young men? Should not the fact that the celebration of travelling at high speed leads to deaths on the road among young people be borne in mind when thinking about sponsorship? Will not formula one and the Government's actions cause more deaths than, for example, the infinitesimal risk referred to last week in the statement on BSE?
  Mr. Smith: Although I agreed with most of what the hon. Gentleman said in his pursuit of the interests of sustainability, I am afraid that he made a bad point. Many of the improvements in road safety, and especially car safety, have come from the engineering expertise put into formula one in this country.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: What representations he has received from organisations asking for changes to the distribution arrangement for national lottery money; and if he will make a statement. [17981]
  Mr. Chris Smith: We have received almost 600 responses to the White Paper, "The People's Lottery". Of the 354 commenting on the proposed changes to distribution, 328–93 per cent.—were positive. Nine out of 10 of those who responded backed our proposals. A copy of the analysis of the responses to the White Paper will be available in the Library shortly. The National Lottery Bill, which was introduced last week, will give effect to our proposals.
  Mr. O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is a great deal of concern about the possible closure of village and community halls throughout the country? Six halls in my constituency are under threat. Will he advise us on how organisations which care for the elderly and the disabled and which arrange events for young people and other groups can obtain resources from the national lottery? If we are to save community life and provide neighbourhood schemes, it is important that some of the lottery money is used to help organisations in our communities. Will my right hon. Friend give us some advice on that matter?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill that we published last week includes a specific

  657
  provision for the development of fast-track procedures for small-scale community grants. That will help, for example, scout groups, women's institutes, village halls and sports clubs—precisely the sort of neighbourhood and scommunity activities that my hon. Friend so ably described. Those activities deserve support from the lottery, and under our proposals they will get it.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Judging by the number of times that the Government have pre-launched, launched and relaunched their initiatives for after-school clubs and homework centres using lottery money, it is clear that the Secretary of State has been very accommodating to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in allowing the lottery to become a back pocket to support any pet cause and help a Minister in difficulty.
  How will the right hon. Gentleman make up the severe shortfall for the sports, arts, heritage and charity bodies, all of which are seeing their plans to extend access and participation in ruins now that they are £1 billion short of the amount that they were expecting just six months ago?
  Mr. Smith: The right hon. Lady is wrong. Over the seven-year period of the current franchise, the existing five distributors will receive £1.8 billion—which, in each case, is precisely what they were originally expecting to receive. For existing distributors, therefore, there is no shortfall. What is clear, however, is that the hon. Lady—like the entire Conservative party—is uninterested in the welfare of kids after school. She is uninterested in tackling social exclusion and in providing healthy living advice for people throughout the United Kingdom.
  On 1 May, we put those proposals to the people and they endorsed them. In July, we offered our proposals for consultation and 93 per cent. of respondents supported what we were saying. We have the people's backing—which is sadly lacking for the points that the hon. Lady made.
  Mr. Maude: I assume that the Secretary of State agrees with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said in his pre-Budget statement:
  "A national child care strategy is …now the policy of this country's Government.—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 777.]
  Does he agree with the Chancellor that such a strategy should be funded, at least partly, by the national lottery? How does he reconcile that with the Prime Minister's solemn pledge, quoted in the lottery White Paper:
  "We don't believe it would be right to use Lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities"?
  Will the Secretary of State now apologise to the charities and communities throughout the country—to which the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) referred—that, since 14 October, have been robbed of the lottery money they were expecting for their cherished projects? Specifically, will he tell the House how he justifies that raid on lottery money when the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 specifically forbids it?
  Mr. Smith: No one has been robbed of allocated money. If the right hon. Gentleman seriously examines the facts—as he is singularly unwont to do—he will discover that that is the case. In July 1996, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South-West
  658
  Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley)—who is sitting two rows behind him—said about additionality:
  "Lottery funds are not intended to substitute for funds which would have otherwise been provided by conventional public expenditure."
  In their 18 years in office, the Conservatives proposed no conventional public expenditure on a national child care strategy. We are now providing funds for a strategy by ensuring that the lottery can be used for that purpose. That is what we told the electorate we would do, and—unlike the Conservative party—we believe in keeping our promises to the electorate.

  Tourism
  Mr. Ennis: What plans he has for encouraging the improvement of training and qualifications in the tourism industry. [17983]
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: What plans he has for encouraging the improvement of training and qualifications in the tourism industry. [17989]
  Mr. Tom Clarke: My Department recognises the importance of a skilled, world-class work force in the industry and the Government's new deal initiative has training at its very heart. I was therefore delighted by the high level of interest and support shown at the tourism, hospitality and leisure new deal conference, which was hosted by my Department and the Secretary of State on 24 November.
  Mr. Ennis: Is my hon. Friend aware that tourism is now the single biggest industry in Yorkshire and Humberside, with more than 140,000 employees? Given the industry's significance to Yorkshire and Humberside, did he have an opportunity at the recent new deal conference to assess its response to the Government's initiative?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that there was an excellent and positive response, and that almost 50 tourism organisations have already indicated their willingness in principle to participate in the new deal scheme. Last Thursday and Friday, I was delighted to visit Yorkshire; I shall visit it again at the end of this week. I assure my hon. Friend that Yorkshire—with its skills and its genius—will continue to make the contribution that it is capable of making to the growth of real jobs not only in his region but in the rest of Britain.
  Mr. Foster: In constituencies such as Hastings and Rye, tourism has often been regarded as a seasonal, low-paid employment sector. What plans does my hon. Friend have to create stability in that industry?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I have appointed a working group to report to the main forum on tourism on the very issue of the regeneration of seaside towns, including the resorts represented by my hon. Friend. We are encouraging a large number of initiatives, including the Norman Richardson house project, the London hotels training centre, the Springboard project and many others. My hon. Friend and the House can be assured that we regard youth employment, youth training and the creation of real jobs that lead to

  659
  well-motivated employees as essential to the future of tourism; without such incentive and encouragement, the industry will decline, as it would have done had the previous Administration remained in office.
  Mr. Brady: I was interested that the Minister chose to link the new deal and the tourism industry. Does he accept that one of the shortcomings of such a link is that many people who work in tourism are seasonally employed and, therefore, may never be unemployed for the six-month period necessary to be party to the new deal? What is he planning to do to address that problem?
  Mr. Clarke: I do not accept that. With proper planning, many such problems can be avoided. The hon. Gentleman referred to the industry and the prospects for the new deal. Perhaps I may remind him that 58 per cent. of those who were represented at our conference on the new deal said that they would make a contribution to it. May I also remind him that 86 per cent. of those involved in the British Hospitality Association said that they, too, would become involved?
  The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) will know that, on occasions, the Secretary of State can be diffident. To communicate to them the spirit of appreciation of the new deal and our approach to tourism, I remind them of the words of Ken Robinson, who writes for the "Tourism Society Journal", and who said of my right hon. Friend:
  "After the initial performance, audience participation was encouraged and this critic, for one, has to report that the initiatives"—
  on the new deal—
  "were greatly praised by almost all present, the response was little short of a standing ovation."

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE)
The Minister was asked—
MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE)

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Keith Simpson: How many public relations consultants are currently contracted for the millennium experience. [18005]
  The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): None.
  Mr. Simpson: On behalf of many hon. Members present, may I say what a joy it is to see the Minister here this afternoon? I know that he is opposed to "excessive accountability", to repeat the words he used before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, but perhaps he could give us some idea of how much public relations on the millennium experience is costing.
  Mr. Mandelson: I have already said that no outside public relations firms are contracted to the New Millennium Experience Company. Of course it has members of staff who are working to promote that experience—as my hon. Friend would expect.
  Mr. Timms: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that the millennium dome is already a spectacular site
  660
  from my constituency [Interruption.]—indeed it is—north of the river. Rather than listen to the consultants who are the pre-occupation of Conservative Members, will he consider asking school children in my constituency for ideas about the content of the exhibition in that dome, because they will be enthused and keen to contribute? I am sure that they would add a great deal of value to an exciting festival.
  Mr. Mandelson: That is an excellent idea. The contents of the millennium experience, the dome, will attract people of all ages, although I suspect that playing surfball, the 21st century sport, will have an especial appeal to young people. In addition to forming a new millennium council to tap into a wide range of popular opinion about the experience, I intend to form a junior board or a junior council so that young people, who will enjoy the experience so much, will have an opportunity to plug right into the planning of the experience.
  Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister think that the millennium experience's impact on the country's cultural life will last as long as did the outcome of the great exhibition and the post-war south bank developments, with which his distinguished grandfather was associated? If he takes the view that the benefits could be as long lasting, does he agree that public relations consultants are unnecessary as long as he holds his present job?
  Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The millennium experience will be a great success, because it will be an opportunity to bring together the whole country. It will also give us a chance to pause and reflect on our society and our country as we enter the new century and the new millennium. He is also right to say that there will a considerable legacy from the investment we are making. It is important that we should remember the reclamation from waste and dereliction of a big slice of our capital city, the construction of the new millennium village community on the Greenwich peninsula and the tremendous transport infrastructure, all of which will be permanent legacies of our investment.
  Mr. Dalyell: What access will be made available for Scotland and the north of England to the millennium experience?
  Mr. Mandelson: I am glad my hon. Friend asks that question. One of the important conditions that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out when we agreed to go ahead with the Conservative party's excellent idea for the millennium experience was that there should be a national programme that would reach out to all parts of the country and to all the national regions within the United Kingdom. The ticketing and transport arrangements we develop will ensure that people can afford to come and that they will have the facilities to come to the millennium dome at Greenwich from every part of the country, wherever they live.
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman started with five minutes of questions and it has now come down to four—we can look forward to its decreasing further. I am sure that everyone shares my relief that, in view of his dislike of what he calls "excessive accountability", he has come back at all. Does he not understand that his reluctance to

  661
  disclose any real information about progress at Greenwich—for example, the laughable information centre that contained no information and the information brochure that contained, at my best count, fewer than 900 words, most of which were slogans—undermines the credibility of the whole project? Does he not understand that people assume either that he has something to hide or that—more likely—he is hiding because he has nothing to say?
  Mr. Mandelson: Given that the millennium experience and the construction of the dome was the Conservative Government's idea and began when the Conservatives were in power, I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman knocking and log rolling. When I took over ministerial responsibility in June this year, there was no content to speak of whatsoever.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: What plans he has to make the appointment of QCs more open. [18010]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has already made the system more open. This year he is consulting more people than ever before about the suitability of candidates. Applications for silk are invited in a notice published in national newspapers and professional journals. The policies, procedures and criteria that he applies to those appointments are published each year in a guide for applicants. I have today placed a copy of the guide in the Library and it will be included on the Lord Chancellor's Department's website when it is next updated.
  Mr. Prentice: Does my hon. Friend understand my deep disappointment when, in October this year, the Lord Chancellor decided not to proceed with what I thought was settled Labour party policy, to bring in a judicial appointments commission? Is it not true that the Bench is a self-perpetuating oligarchy of public school and Oxbridge-educated white men and that, over the past few years, the number of applicants for silk from ethnic minorities has actually decreased? Should not there be some openness and transparency in this matter? It is not good enough for applications for silk to be decided secretly, in private, with a nod and a wink from the Lord Chancellor; we need more transparency.
  Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend may have missed the first part of my answer. I said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor had significantly extended the number of people consulted on applications for silk. He has made clear his determination that more representatives from among women and ethnic minorities attain that position. People may be appointed only once they have applied and only on the basis of merit. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for any suggestions that he may have as to how we might encourage more people, particularly from ethnic minorities, to apply for positions.

  Civil Justice Reforms
  Mr. Dismore: If he will make a statement concerning the development of the fast-track plan as part of his civil justice reforms. [18011]
  Mr. Hoon: The Lord Chancellor's Department issued a working paper on judicial case management in July. The responses of practitioners and others have been carefully considered and, in the light of the comments received, amendments are being made to the original proposals for the fast track. Those amended proposals will be put before the civil procedure rule committee in February. A research project on fast-track costs is due to be completed by the end of January and we plan to issue a consultation paper on the level of those costs after Easter.
  Mr. Dismore: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concerns expressed by trade unions—which, as a personal injury legal practitioner for 19 years, I share—that the fixed-cost regime of the fast-track system may prove so inflexible that the present very efficient legal schemes will not be able to be continued? Last year those schemes helped 150,000 accident victims recover £330 million in damages at no cost to the taxpayer.
  Bearing in mind the need for us to put forward realistic, workable, tried and tested alternatives to legal aid, will my hon. Friend consider deferring the introduction of the fixed-costs regime in the fast-track system until some time after the substantive rule changes have been in place, to allow the fast-track system to bed down, as Sir Peter Middleton recommended? That would enable us to establish the true costs of litigating under the fast-track system and thus ensure far better and wider access to justice
  Mr. Hoon: I thank my hon. Friend for all the constructive and helpful advice that he has given both to me personally and to the Department. He has brought to bear his considerable practical experience of these matters, and we are still learning from him; I can assure him that his comments are being thoroughly taken into account. Perhaps I may describe the way in which the Department is proceeding.
  We have invited the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies to undertake research to establish the work that is required in fast-track cases to begin the task of setting the level of fast-track costs for solicitors. I should emphasise that the research is overseen by a steering committee that includes representatives from the Law Society, the Legal Aid Board, the National Consumer Council, the Consumers Association and a number of academics. The steering committee is informed about all the interested parties, including the trade unions, and their concerns on how we take the matter forward.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that all hon. Members believe in the maxim that justice delayed can be justice denied, but can the Minister look again at personal injuries, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore)? Where people cannot obtain access to legal aid, they may be prevented from taking action under the civil system, so their cases will not be speeded up. We must remember that in personal injury cases the Government and the social security budget are often the first to be paid out of the settlement. The Government may be being penny wise and pound very foolish.
  Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) asked a specific question about the

  663
  fast-track procedure in civil justice; the hon. Gentleman has introduced the subject of legal aid. It is important that both matters are considered together. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that justice delayed is justice denied. When considering the totality of our proposals, it is important that we ensure that there is a speedy justice system and that as many people as possible have proper access to it.
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree with the view, expressed by many with experience in this area, that removal of the complexity, delay and expense that play such a large part in the civil justice system at the moment will go a long way to restoring public confidence in the civil justice system?
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and I agree that, too often, criticisms made of the existing system are used to attack the system that we propose. I am confident that, when we are able to bring about fundamental changes in the way in which the civil justice system works, those changes will have a very significant impact on costs and therefore the price paid by users of our legal system.

  Conditional Fee System
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: What discussions he has had with the insurance industry concerning the introduction of conditional fee arrangements. [18012]
  Mr. Hoon: Discussions with the insurance industry have taken place over a number of years on various matters, including conditional fees. Within the last month, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and officials have held six meetings with insurers to discuss conditional fees. On 2 December, my right hon. and learned Friend had discussions with a delegation from the insurance industry, comprising seven insurers, underwriters and brokers and three officials of the Association of British Insurers. It was agreed that a working group of representatives of the industry and officials would be established, to develop a co-ordinated approach to the proposed reforms.
  Mr. Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that a significant number of companies will be involved in taking on the arrangements, or are small companies especially likely to find it very difficult to get cover because of insurance companies' lack of interest in the scheme?
  Mr. Hoon: One of the great strengths of the British insurance industry is the fact that it comprises very large companies and very small underwriters. One of the benefits that they bring to the insurance industry in the United Kingdom is their ability to tailor insurance policies for specific types of consumer. I expect that, in the case of legal insurance, there will be large companies that provide large-scale insurance for the bigger firms of solicitors and small-scale operators who will be very interested in establishing insurance cover for small high street solicitors.
  Mr. Garnier: In the week that the Government are undermining disability living allowance, the independent living fund, family credit and single-parent benefits,
  664
  will the Minister do something to protect the needy from his legal aid reforms? Without affordable insurance to back conditional fee arrangements, the poor will be denied access to justice and his reforms will bring him and the Government into even further disrepute. Can he list just five insurance companies that are prepared to back his reforms—and to do so in public?
  Mr. Hoon: It is a bit rich for the hon. and learned Gentleman to protest about these matters; I do not recall ever hearing him protest about policies that were developed largely in the time when the Government he supported were in power. I am surprised that he was not protesting then, and I am still more surprised to hear him protest today. We are consulting widely with the insurance industry; I have told him the range of meetings that have taken place. Those discussions will continue, and we shall develop proposals accordingly.

  Solicitors (Supervision)
  Mr. Simon Hughes: What plans his Department has to review the supervision of solicitors; and if he will make a statement. [18013]
  Mr. Hoon: The Department has no current plans to review the arrangements for handling complaints against solicitors. The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors was established by the Law Society in September 1996 in response to public concern that the Solicitors Complaints Bureau was not sufficiently responsive to the needs of lay clients. I agree with the legal services ombudsman's last annual report, published in June 1997, which said that it will take two to three years before the office can be properly judged by results.
  Mr. Hughes: I hope that during the next two to three years the Minister will not simply wait and see what happens. He must be aware that there is huge dissatisfaction with the performance of many solicitors. A Consumers Association report revealed widespread incompetence. Many of us have constituents who complain, with justification, that either they are not dealt with properly or they get very poor remedies. Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that in this Parliament the Government will seriously consider establishing an independent inspectorate of legal services so that we can end the policing of solicitors by solicitors, headed by another solicitor?
  Mr. Hoon: I am well aware that there is huge dissatisfaction with the way in which the Solicitors Complaints Bureau operated. It was felt to be doing a poor job and, as a Back Bencher, I entirely accepted that criticism. It always seemed to me that the Solicitors Complaints Bureau was finding reasons for not investigating cases instead of investigating them, but when a completely new body has been set up in a completely new way, I think it right that it should have the chance to prove that it can deal satisfactorily with complaints against solicitors. The Department will review the body's performance; when it publishes its first annual report, as it is due to do shortly, we will investigate to ensure that it reflects reality.
  Mr. Tipping: Does my hon. Friend accept that what is proposed is merely the son of the Solicitors Complaints

  665
  Bureau and that there is widespread discontent with the way the system operates? After he examines the annual report, will he take the time to talk to the Law Society and others to ensure that a scheme that really meets the needs of consumers is put in place?
  Mr. Hoon: I am aware of the criticism; it has largely been levelled in the past against the SCB. There will be some differences, however. Under the new system, the adjudication and appeals committee will be replaced by two new standing committees. There will be a client relations committee, with a lay majority, and a professional regulation committee, with a professional majority. That should provide a different approach.
  I have stated my profound dissatisfaction with the way the Solicitors Complaints Bureau operated; we want a significant improvement in the way the office operates.

  Magistrates Courts (Lancashire)
  Mr. Pickthall: If he will make a statement about the future of magistrates courts in Lancashire. [18014]
  Mr. Hoon: The Lancashire magistrates courts committee continues to be responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates courts. The Department has no proposals in respect of magistrates courts in Lancashire.
  Mr. Pickthall: Will my hon. Friend give me his thinking on two aspects? First, in any reconfiguration of the Lancashire courts, will he expect the court areas to be co-terminous with police areas? Secondly, what is his attitude to mini private finance initiative schemes for the refurbishment of existing buildings instead of the building of brand new ones?
  Mr. Hoon: Coterminosity is a matter for the local magistrates courts committee, although I recently told the House that we would welcome any voluntary proposals to bring it about. We see real advantages in consistent
  666
  boundaries for police authorities, the Crown Prosecution Service and magistrates courts committees, and real benefits for the justice system in such consistency.
  A number of PFI schemes have already attracted tremendous interest from the private sector. They will allow us to build the new magistrates courts that are desperately needed. I have every expectation that they will be successful.

  Magistrates
  Helen Jones: What steps he intends to take to ensure that each magistrates bench is representative of the community it serves. [18016]
  Mr. Hoon: My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor directs his advisory committees to attract candidates for the lay magistracy from a broad spectrum of the community. To assist them, my right hon. and learned Friend has commissioned research into how best to undertake this task.
  Helen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In Warrington, only 36 per cent. of members of the Bench come from the Warrington, North constituency; most of the others come from Warrington, South. Many of them live as far away as Shropshire and Crosby. The central areas of Warrington are represented by only two magistrates. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will look seriously at such places to ensure that the communities—which often suffer the worst aspects of crime—are actually represented on the Bench?
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's concern about this matter. We shall continue to make considerable efforts to attract as wide a variety of applications as possible. Such efforts have already been made by the Cheshire advisory committee, from which I know my hon. Friend has received a letter asking her to make suggestions on how to improve the system and on how we can encourage her constituents to apply for these important positions. I should be delighted if she took away that letter and encouraged as many as possible of her constituents to apply.

Points of Order
3.34 pm
Mr. Francis Maude: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise the issue of the Prime Minister's refusal to answer important written questions of considerable public interest, about the discussions that he had with representatives of the British film industry before the July Budget. Those questions were asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), answered on 24 November, and myself, answered on 28 November.
It is not disputed that a number of prominent figures in the film industry were significant financial supporters of the Labour party before the election—one thinks particularly of Lord Puttnam. The Budget contained a major packet of assistance by way of tax breaks to the British film industry. In the case of formula one, the principle was clearly established by Sir Patrick Neill that, where a major contributor to the Government party's funds had benefited by way of a particular policy, that financial contribution should, in order to preserve the appearance of propriety, be returned to the donor.
I do not allege that there is necessarily any impropriety in this case, but for the House to be satisfied that that is so, it is clearly essential for the Prime Minister to come clean and answer these questions. May we have your guidance on whether it is appropriate for any Minister—let alone the Prime Minister—to refuse to answer in that way?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. When you get a chance to look at this Opposition proposal, will you also examine precedents? It is important that, in all these cases, we know exactly what has gone on in previous years. Perhaps in your research you will come across the fact that the Tories received £440,000 from Asil Nadir. Suddenly, although he was under arrest, he escaped. I am not suggesting for a minute that the Prime Minister of the day said, "I think we had better let Asil Nadir get away to Cyprus, because if he ever gets to court, he will reveal all the skeletons in the Tories' cupboard."
You might also examine some other instances, Madam Speaker. For instance, the Tories received £10 million from Bernie Ecclestone, who, in my opinion, was acting on behalf of the tobacco companies; I do not think that it came out of his pocket. Somehow, the Tories—including the then Prime Minister and every member of his Cabinet—refused to support any ban on tobacco advertising. It just might be that there is a whole series of connections. Otherwise, it is just plain, downright hypocrisy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: No, I have had enough, thank you. I know exactly what I am doing on this question.
As the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who raised the point of order, knows—I am grateful to him for giving me an indication of what he wished to say—as Speaker, I cannot force any Minister to answer any question in any particular way. Perhaps he might wish to make a submission to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is studying this matter. It might be
668
helpful to the committee if he did that. Likewise, if the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is so keen to be helpful, he might wish to do the same.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I attempted to table an oral question to the Secretary of State for Defence, asking him on what date he expected to publish the strategic defence review. I was advised by the Clerk that there was a convention that, as my question gave no particular guide to my supplementary, I could not table it as an oral question. When I repeated my experience to very senior colleagues, I was told that they were unaware of any such convention. I should be grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps I could be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and more senior Members who are not aware of some of our guidelines, Standing Orders and procedures. I refer him to page 301 of the latest issue of "Erskine May"—it must be the latest edition, which was published at the end of last month. Paragraph 12 makes it clear that oral questions to departmental Ministers should
"indicate, within reasonably broad limits, a particular subject matter."
In other words, questions should not in effect be open questions. That follows the House's approval of reports from the Procedure Committee in 1991 and 1993. The Committee did not wish to see oral questions to departmental Ministers becoming as general as those to the Prime Minister. If the hon. Gentleman looks at "Erskine May", he will see it clearly laid out there.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the crisis in the agricultural industry, which has been greatly exacerbated by the Government's announcement about meat on the bone. Given that the only way in which that crisis can be dealt with is by funds being secured from Europe, and in view of the concern that has been expressed to me over the weekend by farmers in my constituency, have you had any indication from the Government that they intend to make a statement to the House—first, about the crisis itself, and secondly, about when the application for European funds might be made?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by any Minister that the Government are seeking to make a statement on that issue.
Mr. Tim Boswell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that today you have received no request from the Paymaster General to make a statement on the interaction of his personal finances, including his interest in the £12 million offshore Orion trust, with his duties as a Treasury Minister preparing to remove the comparatively modest tax privileges of many of those with TESSAs and PEPs.
Is it not extraordinary and a gross discourtesy to the House that the hon. Gentleman is reported to have been consulting his expensive lawyers all morning, and that he is to issue a statement later, not through the House, but through the Treasury press office? As his own Back Benchers, including the hon. Member for Newport,

669
West (Mr. Flynn), are calling for his resignation to clear the air, would it not have been much better if he had come to the House and made a clean breast of it?
Madam Speaker: I have no indication of what is to be said in the statement, but I have no doubt that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted the comments—hardly a point of order—of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House will have noted that the questions to the Minister without Portfolio started three minutes late, and that you allowed them to continue for three minutes after they were timed to close. Given that the Minister said before the Select Committee on the subject of secrecy concerning the dome:
"I would not call it secrecy, I would call it an inhibition",
and, on the lack of information from the Millennium company, that he did not want
"excessive accountability at the expense of them getting on with their work",
do you agree that five minutes for questions is becoming farcical? Would it not be a better idea if that time were extended, or if it were combined with questions to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport?
Madam Speaker: The allocation of time to Ministers is nothing whatever to do with me. That is arranged through the usual channels. Perhaps if it were left to me, it would be quite different, but it is not my responsibility, and I have no authority in those matters—alas.
Mr. Norman Baker: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As I am a new Member of Parliament, can you give me some guidance on a matter of operation within the House? The Minister
670
without Portfolio does not come to the House to answer questions on his wider responsibilities relating to formula one, food safety and so on. Furthermore, he has introduced a blocking measure for all written questions, which effectively makes it impossible to ask questions or to obtain any information about his wider responsibilities, yet we see in the papers day after day, and today in The Times, that he is instructing Cabinet Ministers what to do, and even telling the Queen what to do.
Surely, as a matter of course, Members of Parliament have a duty to question Ministers and hold them to account, but it is proving impossible to hold the Minister without Portfolio to account for anything other than for five minutes on a very narrow aspect of his job. As a strong defender of the House, can you do something to help Members in that regard?
Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I just gave. With reference to blocking measures, surely Members of Parliament have a good deal of ingenuity. They need ingenuity to get here in the first place. I should have thought that there was some way round the Order Paper and within the procedures of the House that the hon. Member and others could find.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    WASTE MINIMISATION
    Angela Smith, supported by Ms Debra Shipley, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. David Drew, Ms Joan Walley, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. David Chaytor and Ms Julia Drown, presented a Bill to enable certain local authorities to make arrangements to minimise the generation of waste in their area; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 December, and to be printed [Bill 97].
Orders of the Day

  Government of Wales Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  Madam Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.44 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is an historic moment for Wales. In the Bill, the Government seek the agreement of the House to the principle that there should be a national assembly for Wales—a new institution that will both herald a new style of more inclusive politics that better fits the needs and the character of Wales, and open to public scrutiny and accountability the machinery of government in Wales.
  This United Kingdom Parliament is sovereign. The provisions of the Bill do not challenge that sovereignty in any way—nor could they. What the Bill does is open up a new prospect: the ever expanding powers and responsibilities with which Parliament has endowed the Secretary of State for Wales should in future be exercised by a body that is as responsible as the House is to its own democratic mandate. The Bill therefore contains the Government's detailed legislative proposals to set up the national assembly for Wales, and to take action to reform the quango state and so bring effective democratic control closer to the people of Wales.
  Since the House considered the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, the Government have issued the White Paper, "A Voice for Wales", which sets out our detailed proposals for the assembly. Those proposals were put before the voters of Wales and were endorsed. The Bill faithfully translates the White Paper pledges into legislation—therefore, nothing in the Bill should come as a surprise to any right hon. or hon. Member.
  The Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act set one test, and one test only. Although we challenged the official Opposition at the time to say in the House what other threshold they would set, they declined to do so. The majority of voters supported the proposals set out in the White Paper.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: How, in all fairness, can the Secretary of State claim that the proposals in the White Paper were endorsed by the referendum result? When given the opportunity to vote on and endorse those proposals, 75 per cent. of the Welsh electorate declined to do so. The vote in favour of the proposals was fractional, and was easily swamped by the many Welsh residents in constituencies such as mine and others throughout the west midlands and the rest of the country. The referendum provided no validation of the proposals. The only validation that the right hon. Gentleman can claim is that provided by the general election—which is a valid point.
  Mr. Davies: I trust that, like me, the hon. Gentleman recognises the sovereignty of this Parliament. Parliament
  672
  decided, through votes in this and the other place, to hold a referendum for Wales, and Parliament set down the rules for that referendum. When they voted on 18 September, the people of Wales passed the only test that was required of them: the majority of those who cast their votes in that referendum voted in favour of the proposition that there should be an assembly for Wales.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has pursued his argument at length for some months, and I commend him on his consistency. However, I hope that he will now accept—and perhaps show the way to his right hon. and hon. Friends—that the referendum has been held. It did not produce a decisive decision, but the people of Wales gave a clear decision: they voted yes in the referendum. That is the mandate we sought, and that is the mandate on the basis of which we now proceed.
  As I have said, the referendums Act set one test, and one test only. The majority of voters supported the proposals set out in the White Paper, and we shall now legislate on that basis. None the less, I recognise the closeness of the outcome—the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Since the referendum, we have striven to ensure that the detailed legislation for the assembly will provide a response to the concerns raised during the referendum campaign, as well as meet the aspirations of the majority who supported the creation of the assembly. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman seeks to intervene from a sedentary position. I did not notice him or the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) in Wales during the referendum campaign.
  I acknowledge the fact that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) made the occasional television appearance, but the Conservative party was in a state of paralysis during the referendum campaign. The Conservative party knew that it had been rejected by the people on 1 May. It knew also that it was heading for a defeat in the referendum on 18 September, so it chose to opt out of the referendum campaign. If the hon. Gentleman had played a more constructive and more full-hearted role in the campaign, perhaps his comments now would have rather more credibility than they do.
  Mr. Barry Jones: On a constructive note, may I tell my right hon. Friend that travelling from the north in my constituency to the south to Swansea or Cardiff, for example, is very difficult either by road, rail or air? If my right hon. Friend plans to make the assembly successful in its daily work, will he improve communications? Will he look particularly to the advantages of Hawarden airport being enlarged?
  Mr. Davies: At this stage, I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman that the assembly will be at Ewloe. I recognise that he has consistently advanced the argument that he set out in his question. He has always drawn attention to the difficulty of communications between the north and the south.
  The assembly will be fully empowered to discharge the transport responsibilities that I currently have. As the rail and air sectors are in private hands, it will be for the assembly, rather as the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), is currently doing, to meet the operators to ascertain how best we can develop voluntary arrangements. The Government

  673
  certainly recognise the difficulty of communications between the north and south, and it will be for the assembly to decide what priority it wishes to give to improving communications.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: Yes, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I am anxious to proceed.
  Mr. Hughes: I commend the Secretary of State for the way that he worked for the referendum result, as I did, in my modest way. One of the things that troubled me and made me think that the result that the right hon. Gentleman and I wanted might not be achieved was that people in mid and north Wales felt that the assembly might be more remote than they would wish. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State could address the ways in which to ensure that the assembly is not seen as a south or south-east Wales-based institution, and is clearly seen instead to be an assembly for the whole of Wales, accessible to all and available for all to participate in the democratic process.
  Mr. Davies: That is one of the matters that I want to take up later in my remarks. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not take up the matter now. The advisory committee that we shall be setting up will have a remit to examine the question. There will be a statutory requirement on the assembly to have a committee for the north, to ensure that the particular concerns of north Wales are taken into account.
  There are many matters of detail before us, and I want to ensure that there is an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to give full consideration to the detail in the Bill. We have two days on Second Reading, and I hope that it will be possible to take some of our consideration in Committee on the Floor of the House and some in Standing Committee.
  Mr. Michael Ancram: The Secretary of State began his speech by saying that we are dealing with a constitutional Bill. I presume he believes that it is a significant constitutional Bill. Why is he breaching the convention that the entire Committee stage is taken on the Floor of the House?
  Mr. Davies: It is for the House to decide its own procedures. The question of precedent is not one at which I baulk. A precedent is merely something that we do for the first time. As far as I am concerned, this is the first time that a Government of Wales Bill has been introduced by the Government. If it means that we must change our procedures to get the proposed legislation through the House, that suits me.
  I think that it would be convenient for the House if we were to have a reasoned debate. I am prepared to discuss with the right hon. Gentleman over the coming months how we should handle the Bill. It seems reasonable to have debates on the key clauses on the Floor of the House, with detailed debate in Standing Committee, so that right hon. and hon. Members who wish to explore the detail of the Bill can do so. With so few Conservative Members in the Chamber, however, there is scarcely any evidence of overwhelming demand on the part of the Conservative party to engage in a lengthy debate on these matters.
  674
  We have two days to discuss Second Reading. There will be plenty of time to debate the Bill both on the Floor and in Committee. I hope that the right hon. Member for Devizes will wake up to reality. The Bill is going to proceed. It is in the interests of the Opposition, of the Conservative party and of the Conservative party in Wales that he co-operates to ensure that the Bill is properly scrutinised.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Is not the reality that it might have been possible to have all proceedings on the Floor if the Conservatives had not made minor, silly points to seek to drag out the discussions, but come forward with a reasonable timetable? Their response so far has shown that they are not ready to accept the result of the referendum.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right to make that point. It was clear from day one of the debate on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill that the Conservative party was determined to delay and frustrate, and to use every tactic to wreck it. That measure sought only to ask the people of Wales what they thought about the proposition. The attachment of the Conservatives to democracy was so passing that they did not even want that measure to pass.
  Mr. Ancram: Is the right hon. Gentleman inviting the Conservative party to put forward a timetable for having all proceedings in Committee on the Floor?
  Mr. Davies: No, I am not. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not what my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) was saying. I have made it clear that I want the Bill to receive proper consideration. I want the important clauses to be taken on the Floor and an opportunity for detailed examination in Standing Committee.
  Mr. Ancram: Indicated dissent.
  Mr. Davies: It is no good the right hon. Member for Devizes pouting and shaking his head. I am making it clear that that is what I want to do. If he doubts my good intentions, I suggest that he uses the time-honoured process of going through the usual channels. He will see then that I am sincere about wanting a reasonable debate on the Floor and in Standing Committee. I hope that he will come out of his shell, join the latter part of the 20th century and help us to prepare for the new democracy that we are about to create in Wales. I know that that is an unlikely prospect, but subject to that, the Government will table a motion at the end of Second Reading to achieve it.
  The Bill fulfils the Government's manifesto commitment to introduce for Wales arrangements that respond to the needs of a modern society. Before the House are detailed proposals for a new model of an all-Wales elected government that will draw on best practices from Westminster and from local government. The proposals are integral to the Government's plans for wider constitutional change, including a Scottish Parliament, regional development agencies for England, the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into English law, and the examination of options for electoral reform.
  The assembly will be a national assembly for all the people who live in Wales, in whatever part of Wales and whichever language they speak. It will be an assembly for

  675
  those who were born in Wales and for those who have chosen to live in Wales. The Bill makes specific provision for the way in which the assembly will involve local government, the voluntary sector and business. The assembly must be open for all interests to be properly and freely expressed and to allow people as individuals, as well as organisations, to have their voices heard.
  The executive and administrative functions already exercised by the Welsh Office and the quangos spread across a range of matters that affect our everyday lives in Wales: decisions relating to how our children are taught in school, investing in new national health service facilities, protecting the environment, building factories and supporting job creation. The Welsh Office and the quangos will come under the control of a democratically elected body. Far from introducing another tier of government, the creation of the assembly will democratise an existing, powerful tier.
  As I have said before, the Bill offers no surprises. It translates the principles of the White Paper into a clear and coherent set of legislative proposals. Part I sets out the arrangements for elections to the assembly and the proportional election system to be used. It also sets out the criteria that candidates in assembly elections need to meet, and the rules relating to their pay and allowances.
  Sixty members will be elected to the assembly, 40 by the first-past-the-post system from existing parliamentary constituencies, and 20 from electoral regions under the additional member system, which, for the first time on mainland Britain, introduces a voting system based on proportional representation. Those arrangements will enable the total number of seats gained by a party more accurately to reflect the number of votes cast for it across Wales.
  The reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition criticises the Bill for not catering for minorities. If there is one recognisable minority in Wales, it is of course the Conservative party, and it is precisely the Conservative party that stands to benefit from the additional member system that we propose. The reasoned amendment also talks of not securing Wales's place in the United Kingdom. There will be no reduction in the number of Welsh Members of Parliament as a result of the creation of the assembly, because the House of Commons will continue to pass primary legislation for Wales.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will my right hon. Friend explain how we arrived at the figure 60? On what calculation was it based?
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It is the number of seats in Swansea guildhall.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) mentions a novel formula that has not been incorporated in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) will know, the figure 60 was arrived at by a policy commission of the Labour party, which examined the electoral arrangements for the assembly. There was consultation in the Labour party.
  The 60 figure results from the fact that there are 40 parliamentary constituencies. At that time, we had five European constituencies. It was believed that a
  676
  first-past-the-post system based on the existing parliamentary constituencies and an additional member system using the combination of five European constituencies, each with four members, would be the best way of achieving an assembly that was broadly proportional. That system has an additional advantage, in that it is compatible with the system that had already been arranged for the Scottish Parliament.
  I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest, and I know that he wishes to suggest some novel and principled alternatives. Subject to the views of the Opposition—if they are minded to express them—I should have thought that the question of the electoral system would best be debated on the Floor of the House, so that all hon. Members, regardless of party and regardless of their views, have an opportunity to press their case.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: The Labour party originally proposed an assembly with 80 members. Subsequently, that number has been reduced by 25 per cent., following an agreement within the party. Can the Secretary of State enlighten us as to how that occurred?
  Mr. Davies: It is a long and complicated story about internal Labour party politics.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Tell it.
  Mr. Davies: I am happy to detain the House, but I fear, Madam Speaker, that you and others would berate me if I did.
  The Labour party originally proposed an assembly with 80 members, two for each constituency: one would be a man and the other a woman. That proposition was ruled out by the Leeds industrial tribunal of a couple of years ago, which effectively prevented us from adopting the system. We then engaged in discussions, and it was decided at the same time—not necessarily in response to the urging of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and his party, but with that urging in mind—to move towards a system that embraced an element of proportionality. It was during those discussions that we came up with the figure 60.
  I ask the hon. Gentleman not to chide me. It was the leader of his party who, before the election, entered into an arrangement with the Labour party to support that electoral system, and we must accept that it is a reasonable basis on which to hold the first elections. Let me give the hon. Gentleman a reassurance; he will not welcome it particularly, but I shall give it to him anyway. I will resist any attempt to change the electoral system during the passage of the Bill, because I think that we have a system that commands broad support, and that we must now try it out.
  Part II of the Bill covers the assembly's functions, providing for ministerial functions to be transferred to the assembly by Order in Council. It gives the assembly powers to reform Welsh quangos and the Welsh health authorities.
  The Government's policy is that virtually all the functions of the Secretary of State for Wales should be transferred to the assembly. The assembly will obtain functions in one of two ways. Some functions will be conferred directly on the assembly by primary legislation,

  677
  such as clauses 28, 29 and 33 of the Bill. I expect future Bills, from the next Session onwards, to proceed in that way. However, an enormous range of functions is in extant legislation. Those functions are currently exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales, and will be transferred to the assembly by an Order in Council under clause 22.
  The Government have already given a commitment in the House of Lords that a working draft of the transfer order will be made available in time for the Committee stage. I hope to publish such a draft in January, in good time for the debate on clause 22. It will be a working draft, and will be as comprehensive as we can make it at the time.
  An Order in Council under clause 22 may not be submitted to Her Majesty unless it has been approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The House will have the opportunity to agree the final proposals.
  Dr. John Marek: Clause 35 refers to the staff of the Welsh Assembly and provides for them to be members of the home civil service. To whom will those civil servants owe their loyalty? It will be to the Crown, but will it be to the Crown via the assembly, via the head of the home civil service, via a Minister in Westminster or via this Parliament? I can foresee problems, so the matter requires careful consideration.
  Mr. Davies: We discussed that matter in some detail when we prepared the White Paper, in which the arguments are set out. There have been discussions in the Welsh Office and with the civil service unions. Day-to-day reporting responsibilities for the civil service will remain with the permanent secretary or with whichever member of the civil service carries that responsibility in the future. The day-to-day direction of political strategy that civil servants should follow will be set in future by the assembly, and not by the Secretary of State as it is at the moment.
  It is my intention to transfer functions to the assembly under clause 22 as quickly as possible. However, the power to transfer ministerial functions will continue to be available. I was pressed on that point in previous debates by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). I draw his attention to the provision in the Bill that will allow for the subsequent transfer of ministerial functions to the assembly. Further significant functions over and above those which I now exercise could be transferred to the assembly at a future date, subject to agreement by both Houses of Parliament. As I have said before, devolution is not an event, but a process.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Secretary of State confirming, that if there is a need or a wish to transfer functions such as the police, which are now with the Home Office, to the assembly, it will be necessary first to transfer them to the Secretary of State and then from the Secretary of State to the assembly? If so, how does that fit in with the list of functions in schedule 2, which does not seem to leave room for that transfer to take place? Can schedule 2 be amended by any of the orders that he has in mind under clauses 22 and 23?
  Mr. Davies: The order under clause 22 is not intended to be comprehensive, nor is it final. The right
  678
  hon. Gentleman's understanding is correct. If, at some future date, a future Government decided to transfer law and order functions to the Secretary of State for Wales, knowing that they would then be transferred to the assembly, they could do so using the mechanism in clause 22. The initial transfer order merely transfers the functions that currently rest with the Secretary of State, but it does not mean that there is no possibility of a future transfer.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Does my right hon. Friend intend to transfer all the existing functions of his office at one and the same time to the Welsh Assembly, or is he contemplating a phased transfer?
  Mr. Davies: Some functions will be retained by the Secretary of State, but they are few and they are specified in the Bill. I am sure that that is not a matter of disagreement between my right hon. Friend and myself. However, in the transfer order, which will probably be presented in March 1999, I intend to transfer at that point the overwhelming majority of the powers that currently reside with me. There may be a need for some tidying up afterwards, but the policy is that there should be a transfer.
  I have already taken action to roll back the frontiers of the quango state in Wales. The Bill provides me with the power to take more immediate steps to amalgamate the three development agencies and to merge Tai Cymru with the Welsh Office. It further provides that the assembly will have radical powers to make changes to most public bodies in Wales, including health authorities. Those powers will provide for abolition, where appropriate. The emphasis is that, in the longer term, it must be for the assembly to decide the delivery mechanisms for the functions for which it will take responsibility, including whether to continue with current arrangements, make changes, initiate mergers or take on some or all the functions itself. That is what devolution is all about.
  For most other public bodies—with a few exceptions that were explained in the White Paper—the assembly will have the power to transfer their functions to local authorities, to other public bodies or to the assembly itself. In addition, all public bodies will be subject to democratic oversight by the assembly, and they will be accountable to it for their performance and, of course, all appointments that are made by me at the moment to such bodies, and those appointments about which I am currently consulted, will transfer to the assembly.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: What about a body such as the Curriculum Assessment Authority for Wales, the Awdurdod Cwricwlwm, Cymwysterau ac Asesu? The assembly may wish to bring together the functions of curriculum assessment and development and examinations, because those functions are closely linked. Examinations are the responsibility of the Welsh Joint Education Committee, which is a local government body. Would it be possible to bring about such useful integration, to provide a more efficient system?
  Mr. Davies: I shall need to check to give the hon. Gentleman a precise answer, because he mentions a body which, as he knows, has its origins outwith the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State. I shall write to him with a detailed answer before the Bill goes to Committee. I do not want to speculate on an answer at this stage.

  679
  Part III of the Bill deals with assembly procedures. It requires the Secretary of State to appoint a commission to draw up the assembly's standing orders, and it specifies a number of principles such as openness, accountability and regulation of members' interests, which the standing orders must reflect. It also provides for the role of the assembly's leadership and committees. Standing orders will need to provide for the equal treatment of the English and Welsh languages, for equal opportunities, openness, accountability and integrity.
  The Bill also requires the assembly to set up both standard and fast-track procedures for approving and making secondary legislation. Where appropriate, the standard procedures must include preparation of a regulatory appraisal and consultation, including with business interests, on any significant compliance costs.
  The Bill provides that the assembly must establish an executive committee and various subject committees, with memberships reflecting the balance of the parties elected to the assembly, to cover the range of matters that are set out in schedule 2. For example, they include economic development, transportation, the Welsh language, regional committees and so on as prescribed by the standing orders. The standing orders will set out the detail on the operation of committees, sub-committees and delegation powers.
  I announced last week that I am establishing a national assembly advisory group to assist me in preparing guidance for the Standing Orders Commission. I hope to be able to make an announcement later this week about the membership of that group, which will contain representatives of all political parties. I acknowledge the ready co-operation of the Conservative representative who has agreed to serve on the advisory group.
  Mr. Ancram: I am slightly puzzled by that, because, in the setting up of such advisory groups, the normal procedure, as followed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, is to write to the shadow spokesman and ask for a nomination. I still await a letter.
  Mr. Davies: The problem is that, when I write to my shadow spokesman, I never get a reply. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman must be patient. He has asked a question, and I shall give him an answer. I have consulted widely with Conservative party representatives in Wales.
  Mr. Ancram: In Wales?
  Mr. Davies: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been to Wales once, but he does not know everything about Wales. He should contain himself. I have consulted widely with the Conservative party in Wales and, later this week, when I unveil the advisory group, he will acknowledge that the Conservative member on the group has impeccable credentials. I have no doubt that, when I announce the name later this week, the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to endorse him.
  The advisory group will debate and seek views on the key principles concerning the assembly's working arrangements. It will consult widely, and I hope that a wide range of views will be expressed and that consensus
  680
  will be developed on the best working arrangements for the assembly. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Devizes is still chuntering away. Perhaps I could clarify the point. Is he now saying that, if I had written to him, he would have responded and offered names of people representing the Conservative party who would have sat on the group?
  Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman might perhaps have consulted his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, having announced publicly that he would do so, wrote to me some three weeks ago asking for a nomination for his equivalent advisory body. I have nominated for that body a very senior Conservative party member, who will play a constructive role in it. I would have expected the same courtesy from the Secretary of State for Wales.
  Mr. Davies: It is a matter not of courtesy, but of practice. The Secretary of State for Scotland has decided to consult in his way. I have consulted widely with Conservative party interests in Wales and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, later this week, he will accept the fact—I have no doubt about this, because he is not a churlish individual—that the individual who represents the Conservative party interest on the advisory group has wide experience and is a fitting representative of the Conservative party.
  As I have said, the advisory group will consult widely, and I have no doubt that a consensus will be developed. Importantly, however, I do not want the Bill to be too prescriptive about whether the assembly should adopt a "Cabinet" or "local government" style of internal working. That must be allowed to evolve, and it must be a matter ultimately for the assembly itself. The arrangements will therefore provide for maximum flexibility, subject to the safeguard that at least two thirds of assembly members must vote in favour of any change to the standing orders.
  Part IV covers the financing and auditing arrangements for the assembly. It creates the post of auditor general for Wales, to monitor and to report on the assembly's expenditure.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the Secretary of State perhaps assure the House that, in view of what he has said, the Bill as drafted would not prevent the assembly from moving to a Cabinet system if it wished?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman's understanding is correct, but, more than that, if the advisory group were to propose a balance of arrangements as between the Cabinet and local government styles, that would essentially be a matter for the group. I would want to consider its views carefully before the representations went to the statutory commission, which would ultimately create the standing orders, so that could happen before the first sitting of the assembly, but that is a matter for consultation and for those of us who are listening. I know that the Conservative party is pressing hard on the matter, and I want to see the representations that it makes through its excellent representative on the advisory group.
  When established, the assembly will become responsible for the £7 billion annual budget that is currently controlled by the holder of my office. Those

  681
  moneys are allocated to Wales, principally under the block and formula rules. As the explanatory and financial memorandum makes clear, annual changes to the Welsh block will continue to be determined by the population-based formula. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is again trying to intervene from a sedentary position. The explanatory and financial memorandum makes the position absolutely clear—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has any comments to make, he should make them at the Dispatch Box, so that they can be recorded. I do not like comments that may be pertinent and relevant being made from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Davies: I am happy to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene if he wishes.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Is he aware of any Act of Parliament in which the explanatory and financial memorandum appears as part of that Act and can be considered by a court to be part of the law of the land?
  Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting his point clearly, so that we can understand it. He wants the Barnett formula arrangements to be included in the Bill. He is nodding, so at least we agree on the question. The Barnett formula is not currently enshrined in legislation. It is a practice that has been adhered to by both the last Labour Government—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should let me develop the point. I might be able to help him.
  That practice was initiated by the last Labour Government, continued without question by successive Conservative Governments from 1979 to this year, and it is this Government's policy to retain it. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a question mark hangs over the continuation of the Barnett formula? If so, perhaps he should say that it is Conservative party policy to do away with the Barnett formula, if we in Wales have the. temerity to have our own local democracy. [Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to pursue the matter.
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Essex should listen carefully to this point, as it is one that concerns him. My right hon. Friend is today publishing a statement of principles about the operation of the block budget for the assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Copies will be placed in the Library, so that hon. Members can clearly see the principles to which the assembly will be working.
  Part V covers the Community law, human rights and international obligations of the assembly. This part of the Bill also requires the assembly to make formal arrangements for its relationship with local government and the voluntary sector. It also provides for amendments to existing Acts which the Bill makes necessary.
  The White Paper said that the assembly would work in partnership with local government and would promote and foster it. Those commitments are reflected in the Bill and ensure that local authorities, among other interests, will be afforded every opportunity to make a positive contribution to the way in which the assembly operates,
  682
  for the benefit of Wales. The partnership will be formalised in the creation of a statutory partnership council, with equal numbers of members from the assembly and from local government.
  For the voluntary sector, the Bill requires the assembly to enter into a formal scheme to cater for voluntary interests. The Government expect that a scheme to reflect the compact that my Department is currently discussing with the voluntary sector in Wales, and which we hope to conclude next year, will be specified—and the assembly's scheme will also specify how it will consult voluntary organisations and how it will support their work. There is already real co-operation of that nature between the Welsh Office and local authorities. It will be important that we are able to take forward, for example, the important initiative on tackling social exclusion that was launched by the Prime Minister this morning.
  Once the assembly is established, the Secretary of State for Wales will have a continuing role to represent Wales in the Cabinet, to liaise with the assembly and to develop the important non-statutory concordats that will be the foundation for the relationship between Government Departments and the assembly. In addition, the concordats will set out the role of the assembly in the policy discussions that settle the United Kingdom line for European negotiations on matters in which it has an interest, and, beyond that, its participation in relevant meetings of officials or politicians in Europe, including the Council of Ministers.
  The same arrangements will apply to both the Scottish Parliament and the assembly, and will ensure that the distinctive voices of Wales and Scotland can be heard more clearly in Europe.
  The assembly First Secretary or the appropriate assembly secretary will be able, with the agreement of the lead UK Minister, to take part in the UK delegation at relevant meetings, and will be able to speak on behalf of the delegation according to the previously agreed UK line. It will be for the assembly to decide whether it wishes to operate an office in Brussels to support its work.
  Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for assisting the House. What statutory functions, and therefore what budget, will the Secretary of State have after the transfer of functions to the assembly?
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend might find the answer odd. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State will have the statutory functions that I currently exercise but which are not transferred to the assembly. That is the important point, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives a clearer, written answer.
  Responsibility for allocation of the £7 billion block grant will belong to the Secretary of State. It will be for the Secretary of State to determine what very small part of the grant remains for running the residual office of the Secretary of State, with the bulk of the grant being transferred to the assembly.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: I was intrigued by the phrase "non-statutory concordats". Will my right hon. Friend explain whether those concordats will be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts, should one party to a concordat disagree with the other about its application?
  Mr. Davies: No, I do not envisage that the concordats will be subject to the courts. They will be agreements

  683
  that are entered into by the assembly and by the various Departments. I shall give my right hon. Friend an example, to clarify the matter. The Agriculture Council meets on a fairly regular basis, and, obviously—because agriculture is such an important function—the assembly will want to have a concordat ensuring more regular consultation and the assembly's involvement at a very high level.
  The assembly will not have responsibility—the right hon. Member for Devizes will be disappointed to learn—for foreign affairs. Therefore, the concordat between the assembly and the Foreign Office will be based on a different set of principles, allowing different sets of arrangements to apply between the assembly and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the assembly and the Foreign Office.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: On the same point, will the representative directly from Wales to Europe have some autonomous decision-making authority in making financial arrangements between Europe, and perhaps regions of Europe, and Wales?
  Mr. Davies: I do not invite another intervention, but I am not sure that I understood the hon. Gentleman's question. The arrangements by which the representative from the assembly will take part in the discussions at a European level will be subject to the concordats that will be worked out by the assembly and the relevant Whitehall Department. Any discretion given to an individual representative—whether an assembly secretary or another representative—will be a matter for the assembly to decide. That is the purpose of the arrangements. If assembly members wish to give autonomy on certain matters to representatives to work within the United Kingdom's Council delegation, it will be a matter for them.
  Part VI of the Bill begins the process of reforming the most significant Welsh quangos. Tai Cymru is to be abolished, and—under the provisions, for the first time—there will be an economic development agency with a true all-Wales strategic remit. The new agency will build on the best elements of practice and achievement of the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales. I pay tribute to those organisations' considerable achievements, which include: the WDA's outstanding record in attracting inward investment to Wales; the DBRW's expertise in rural areas, which will remain a priority; and the Land Authority for Wales's commercial expertise in the acquisition and assembly of land and sites, which has made an important contribution to the regeneration effort throughout Wales. The new body will draw on the strengths of those three constituent parts.
  Part VII contains general provisions relating to the Bill; and the 14 schedules to the Bill deal with points of detail.
  I am pleased to say that—in line with the recommendations in the report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons—copies of the notes on clauses have been placed in the Library and in the Vote Office. I very much hope that hon. Members find that the notes are helpful in informing their preparation for and participation in this debate, particularly by clearly stating the intention behind each clause.
  684
  I anticipate tabling Government amendments at the appropriate time, to cover one or two issues that still need to be addressed relating to sustainable development, the precise arrangements for forestry, the role of the ombudsman, the keeping of public records and, of course, human rights.
  The explanatory and financial memorandum provides for up to £17 million to meet the start-up costs for the assembly. I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that I am consulting on the most suitable location. The White Paper projected the annual running costs of the Assembly to be between £15 million and £20 million—in addition to those of the Welsh Office. That remains the estimate.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Some of my constituents are involved in this matter, because they are employed at the headquarters of the Forestry Commission in Edinburgh. What is likely to be the nature of those amendments, and what changes does the Secretary of State envisage in the proposals relating to forestry in Wales, Scotland and England?
  Mr. Davies: Those matters are currently the subject of discussions. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is not likely to be any diminution in the employment prospects of people working for the Forestry Commission in his constituency. We must ensure that the advantages that come from the Forestry Commission retaining an overall strategic role for forestry in the United Kingdom are compatible with our aim that it should be answerable for operations in Scotland and Wales to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
  Mr. Dafis: I have a constituency point, similar to that raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) because the national headquarters of the Forestry Commission—I use the word "national" rather than "regional"—are based at Aberystwyth. It is extraordinarily important that we have an all-Wales strategy for forestry with the organisational backing for it within Wales.
  Mr. Davies: As I have said, we shall table Government amendments to deal with that point, and I have no doubt that there will be an opportunity at the appropriate time for a fuller debate on the matter, when the hon. Gentleman can put his constituency case.
  I should like to deal briefly with the Opposition amendment. I know that the right hon. Member for Devizes and his colleagues are having some difficulty in coming to terms with their role as the Opposition, but they have plenty of time and eventually they will get the hang of it. I should like to offer them some friendly advice, which I hope is constructive. First, they need to settle on a policy, preferably one with which the Conservative party in Wales agrees. If they are in any doubt about the wisdom of accepting a new policy, I suggest that they ask Lord Wyn Roberts, the senior Welsh member of the Conservative party. He has accepted the referendum result and, like everyone else in Wales, now just wants to get on and build a successful assembly.
  Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should try to draft an amendment that can stand more than a passing examination. Their reasoned amendment is an insult to Parliament. At its heart, it calls for a statutory

  685
  assurance in relation to the supremacy of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman is called the constitutional spokesperson for the Conservative party, but the idea of a statutory assurance in relation to the supremacy of Parliament is constitutional nonsense. Parliament is supreme, and any statutory assurance to that effect by this or any other Parliament can be set aside by any future Parliament. It is not possible in any circumstances to give the type of assurance that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking.
  Mr. Ancram: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to take advice, because he has obviously not done his homework for the debate, about section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which is still extant?
  Mr. Davies: I am happy to take advice and to read the section to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but will he answer this central question? How is it possible for—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to engage in debate, he should do me the courtesy of listening to my question. How is it possible for Parliament to place in a piece of legislation a statutory assurance that the supremacy of Parliament will be recognised and, at the same time, prevent any subsequent Parliament from setting aside that provision? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that question?
  Mr. Ancram: I shall help the right hon. Gentleman. Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 states that
  "the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters, and things"
  in Northern Ireland. That assertion was put into the Act when it was passed and it is still extant in it. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about constitutional precedent, that of 70 years is surely a pretty good precedent on which to rely.
  Mr. Davies: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer this question: what is to stop this Parliament repealing section 75 of that Act? The answer is, nothing at all, which is precisely my point. Given that we have an unwritten constitution and that everyone recognises the supremacy of Parliament, his proposition that there should be a statutory assurance in relation to the supremacy of Parliament is absolutely meaningless.
  Thirdly, members of the Conservative party should not pretend to speak for the interests of those whom they do not represent. The Conservative party was kicked out of Wales on 1 May, and I should have thought that a little humility on its part would not go amiss. The people have shown that they want democratic reform, and the Conservative party should come to terms with that and not continue to live in the past. The Government will work with anybody of good will who is prepared to be constructive. Constitutional change must be based on the broadest consensus.
  I hope that, even at this late stage, it is not too late and that Conservative Members can drag themselves back to reality and accept the will of the people. I invite them now to withdraw the amendment: it has no basis in politics or logic. They should give the people what they want and the Bill what it deserves—an unopposed Second Reading.
  686
  I said at the outset that this was an historic event for Wales, and so it is. The Bill paves the way for a new era of democratic government and effective accountability for Wales. The Government have delivered on their commitment to the people, and I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.36 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, deploring the failure of Her Majesty's Government to respond to and allay the legitimate fears of the Welsh people expressed in the referendum vote of 18th September and in particular the omission from the Government of Wales Bill of any statutory assurances in relation to the supremacy of the Westminster Parliament, to the protection of geographic and cultural minorities, to the proper resourcing of Wales to reflect need, and to the safeguarding of the position of Wales within the United Kingdom and its voice within Europe, declines to give a Second Reading to the Government of Wales Bill."
  The Secretary of State—I suppose with tongue in cheek—ended by talking about consensus being part of the proposals on devolution. Everything that we have heard today suggests that his interpretation of the word "consensus" is that everyone else agrees with him. If he believes that that is consensus, he will have to think again.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us that he would appoint a Conservative representative to the committee that he is setting up to advise on the Standing Orders. That is the most arrogant and patronising attitude ever heard in the House. It reminds me—I say this with measured intent—of the sort of commissars we used to see on the other side of the iron curtain, who chose not only their own ministers, but their tame opposition. He is not selecting a representative of the Conservative party; he is selecting someone who he believes will be more amenable to his way of thinking than someone proposed by the Conservative party would be.
  Mr. Ron Davies: As the right hon. Gentleman has obviously taken umbrage, may I invite him to cast back his mind to a telephone conversation that he and I had in October this year? I had similar conversations with the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), as representatives of their parties.
  I invited all three Members to come to the Welsh Office to discuss a range of matters relating to how we conducted Welsh business during this Session of Parliament. Will the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) confirm his response at that time: "Until there is a Bill before us, I have nothing to discuss"?
  Mr. Ancram: I confirm that I said that. I wanted an agenda of what was to be discussed, and the Secretary of State said that there was no agenda. That does not excuse his making nominations from other parties by his own hand. I find that an extraordinary way to proceed. I make it clear that whomever the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to represent the Conservative party on his committee represents only himself; he does not represent the Conservatives in Wales. He cannot represent the Conservatives in Wales because he has not been authorised by the Conservative party in Wales.

  687
  Given the right hon. Gentleman's views about hereditary peerages and their unrepresentative nature, I presume that he has not selected a member of the hereditary peerage to represent the Conservatives on the advisory committee. If he has, I suspect that he will have many words to eat. It is not the first time that this has happened, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman takes lessons in courtesy, statesmanship and how to be a Secretary of State from the Secretary of State for Scotland, with whom I may have political disagreements, but who, when he talks about consensus, has the courtesy and wit to try to achieve it rather than destroy it.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): The right hon. Gentleman turned it down.
  Mr. Ancram: We have never been invited by the Secretary of State to nominate someone to the advisory committee. The Secretary of State tells us today that, despite the fact that no invitation has been extended, he has made a decision himself. The Secretary of State for Scotland issued such an invitation and I made a senior appointment; I was intending to make a senior and useful appointment to the same position in Wales, but the Secretary of State for Wales has ridden roughshod over the normal parliamentary procedures and courtesies. If he is looking for consensus, that is not the way to achieve it.
  Mr. Dalyell: Whom are we talking about? Some of us are in the dark.
  Mr. Ancram: The Secretary of State has announced what I can describe only as a shadowy figure to be his, not my, Conservative nomination for his advisory committee. If he wishes to have an authoritative representative of the Conservative party on the committee, he has not got one, because he has not gone through the appropriate channels.
  Mr. Ron Davies: In the spirit of inclusivity, let me ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. If I extend to him another invitation to discuss with me in the Welsh Office the way in which we should conduct Welsh Office business, will he accept the invitation this time, unlike last time?
  Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman gave my answer for me—he spoke of when there was a Bill before us. There is now a Bill before us and I said that, if he invited me when there was a Bill before us, I would come and talk to him. I have been waiting for that invitation; I have also been waiting for invitations to make nominations to the advisory committee. The right hon. Gentleman's behaviour is totally incompatible with the democratic nature of the House.
  We are being asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill whose purpose is to set up a Welsh Assembly. We are being asked quite a lot; in effect, we are being asked to endorse proposals which, in their White Paper form. struck anything but a resounding chord of assent in the hearts and minds of the Welsh people at the referendum on 18 September. We are being asked to go where three of every four Welsh electors feared to tread.
  688
  For all the Secretary of State's well-known capacity for hyperbole, which has been on show again this afternoon, nobody can deny that the outcome of the referendum was uncertain and unsatisfactory. Some 25 per cent. voted yes; 25 per cent.—only 7,000 fewer out of 1 million—voted no; and just under 50 per cent. did not bother to vote. Geographically, Wales was split almost straight down the middle, and Cardiff voted no.
  The Secretary of State, clearly not a man of vaunting expectations, described the tiny majority of 0.6per cent. as a striking victory and a firm indication of support for the proposals. How he can possibly regard one in four as genuinely democratic evidence of support is hard to see, but the right hon. Gentleman has strangely eccentric views on voting percentages. He never tires of describing the 20 per cent. support for the Conservatives in Wales last May as the wiping out of the Welsh Tories; whereas he describes the 25 per cent. vote for his assembly as a triumph. There must be some extraordinary magical quotient in the 5 per cent. in between. Today, he tells us that, at 20 per cent., the Conservatives are a minority; whereas a 25 per cent. vote for the Assembly is a satisfactory majority. It is curiouser and curiouser.
  Mr. David Hanson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on 1 May this year he secured 25,710 votes out of an electorate of 80,383 which means that 69 per cent. of the people of Devizes did not vote for him? I do not deny him his right to sit in the House, but if he wishes to do so, he can take the Chiltern Hundreds today.
  Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman checks the figures I think that he will find that my percentage of the vote was about the same as that achieved by the Labour Government in securing their victory with a large majority, but he will not find me questioning the validity of that election result.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the referendum has been held and that silly mathematical arguments do no service to the people of Wales? We have a Bill which will set the pattern of the governance of Wales for the foreseeable future, and the sooner we bend our minds to putting the right structures in place to serve the people of Wales, the better we shall be doing our jobs as politicians. We really must forget about silly mathematical arguments that are of no use; the right hon. Gentleman is doing no service to the people of Wales by carrying on in this fashion.
  Mr. Ancram: The percentages were first raised by the Secretary of State. I am merely responding to the debate, as I should. I accept that a simple majority may have been achieved—[HON. MEMBERS: "It was achieved."] A simple majority of 7,000 out of 1 million was achieved, but it cannot be claimed that it reflected the settled will of the Welsh people in favour of an assembly. It demonstrated clearly the uncertainties and fears in the minds of the Welsh electorate. Those fears were recognised by the Prime Minister on the morning after the referendum, when he referred to the narrowness of the margin and the need to take account of it and to allay the fears of the people of Wales.
  We might have been forgiven for thinking that we should see changes in the proposals to take account of those fears. If we did think that, we underestimated the

  689
  bull-headed obstinacy of the Secretary of State, who has charged on regardless. To him, 25 per cent. is a clear, if not decisive, indication of support, and 0.;6 per cent., if not decisive, is certainly a clear majority.
  Mr. Wigley: Has the Conservative party drawn up a list, which it may present at the Committee or Report stage of the Bill, of the changes that it wants to see in order to make the Bill acceptable to the people of Wales along the lines that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting?
  Mr. Ancram: Such lists normally appear as amendments on amendment papers. If the right hon. Gentleman contains himself he will see the amendments that we shall be introducing, about which I shall say a word or two later.
  We have to accept that the Bill is before us, and we even have to accept the political reality that the Government can push it through, but that does not mean that we can or should endorse it in its present form. We believe that it is seriously flawed, that it addresses none of the fears expressed in the referendum vote, that it undermines the United Kingdom and Wales's position in it, that it leaves Wales's financial and European interests severely exposed, and that it entrenches permanent minorities within Wales. Without assurances on those matters—none has come from the Secretary of State today—we should oppose the Second Reading; hence our reasoned amendment.
  I shall set out more fully our concerns over the Bill and the dangers that we perceive, both in terms of what it includes and what it does not include, but, before doing so, I shall make a couple of general points. We do not like the principle of what is being proposed now, any more than we did in the summer.
  We still believe that the Bill signals the start of a legislative process that, along with its Scottish counterpart, will loosen the bonds that hold together the United Kingdom; it will create new tensions and animosities between the component parts of the United Kingdom, including England, which, unattended, could break the United Kingdom apart. While this Bill does not raise the English dimension as directly as the Scottish Bill, it nevertheless sets out a clear direction away from that spirit of common purpose and unity that lies at the heart of our Union.
  Mr. Öpik: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ancram: No, I shall not give way at the moment, as I wish to finish this passage.
  Conservative Members still believe in the Union and in the value of the United Kingdom—this unique amalgam of nations, cultures and traditions, which has proved, and can continue to prove, a significant force for good, both at home and beyond.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman is in a purple patch now.
  Mr. Ancram: We know the hon. Gentleman's position on the United Kingdom; it is not ours.
  We will continue to fight for the Union. When it is threatened, we will respond. When it is undermined, we will seek to shore it up. However, we do not fear
  690
  reform as long as it is fully thought through and consistent with the maintenance of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it is worth remembering that Conservative Governments began the process of administrative devolution to Wales and set up the Welsh Grand Committee and the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs.
  We still question the need for the Bill, and we question even more the motives behind it. When it is considered alongside last week's White Paper on regional development agencies and the accompanying ministerial comments, it becomes clear that the Government regard the Bill as the first step in the regionalisation of the United Kingdom—we know that England is next in the firing line—and all in the cause of helping to create a Europe of regions. Fragmenting the United Kingdom and weakening the sovereignty of this Parliament is, and must be, a central part of that agenda. Why else would the Government radically change a constitutional structure in the United Kingdom which, by and large, works well?
  I warn the House that the Bill moves us significantly closer to the Europe of regions and away from the Europe of nations. In so doing, it is inimical not only to Conservative Members but to the vast majority of people in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Those concerns will guide our response to the Bill. We shall approach it with the best interests of Wales and the United Kingdom at heart because, unlike some people, we do not believe those two aims to be mutually exclusive. We shall press the Government to address the real concerns of the Welsh people and we shall do what we can to mitigate the flaws.
  We shall not seek to filibuster or unnecessarily to table amendments. If the Government are determined to proceed to an assembly, we shall want it to work in a way that is least damaging to the Union and most constructive for all the people of Wales. We will campaign hard for the true voice of Welsh Conservatism to be heard strongly within it and within consultations held in the lead-up to it. Our position in that regard has long been clear.
  I am appalled at the proposal that the Bill not be taken in its entirety on the Floor of the House. I believe that it is a Bill of first-class constitutional importance. It would be an insult to all that the Government have promised to the supporters of devolution in Wales if it were not taken in its entirety on the Floor of the House. It should not in any respect go to a Standing Committee.
  In the words of that great socialist, Herbert Morrison, speaking in the Procedure Committee on 18 September 1945,
  "you cannot play about with the British Constitution in a Committee upstairs, to put it colloquially."
  If I may put it equally colloquially, it is not good enough to claim that a two-day Second Reading debate allows all hon. Members to have their say on the detail of the legislation. Apart from its being in questionable order for them to do so during a debate on the principle, it is impractical and unreal. The devil is in the detail of the Bill, and that detail has implications for Wales and the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Ron Davies rose—
  Mr. Ancram: As the Secretary of State is about to intervene, I want to ask him a question. How do the

  691
  proposals square with his press release of 27 November, the day of the Bill's publication, which stated that, during its parliamentary progress,
  "it is, of course, also open to any MP to put forward changes to the Bill, and to have these explored in detail through open debate"?
  Perhaps he can explain how that can possibly happen in a Committee upstairs—or were those words simply for effect?
  Mr. Davies: No. Any hon. Member may speak on Second Reading. Any hon. Member may table amendments or new clauses on Report, if there is a Report stage. Third Reading provides a further opportunity. Any hon. Member who wishes to do so may speak on Second Reading and attempt to get a place on the Standing Committee. That includes Conservative Members, but I suspect that not many of them are dying to serve on the Standing Committee. That is my answer to the question.
  I have a question for the right hon. Gentleman. I do not necessarily want to negotiate on this matter across the Floor of the House, but as he has now acknowledged that the Government have the right to get this legislation, and has accepted the fact that it is his role to act constructively in seeking to improve the legislation where appropriate, will he give an undertaking that, if the Government were not minded to have the Bill considered in Committee upstairs, he would agree with the Government, through the usual channels, to have an agreed timetable to take the matter entirely on the Floor of the House?
  Mr. Ancram: Obviously, I would want to see the proposed timetable.
  Mr. Donald Anderson rose—
  Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, I am answering the question.
  The right hon. Gentleman has made me an offer, and I should have thought that it was more consistent with his statement that it was open to any hon. Member
  "to put forward changes to the Bill"
  to discuss it on the Floor of the House. If enough time were given to allow any hon. Member who wanted to propose a change to have it dealt with on the Floor of the House, I should wish to consider that. I shall not negotiate with the right hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box—he would not expect me to—but I am saying that he is in serious danger of creating a dangerous precedent, which he and others might well come to regret.
  Many countries require substantially weighted majorities to amend their constitution in referendums or in their legislature. For better or worse, we have relied on the scrutiny of the whole House of Commons to create a sufficient safeguard where constitutional reform is at issue. That scrutiny is to be jettisoned and the bulk of this comprehensive, if confused, piece of legislation will be relegated to a Committee upstairs instead.
  It cannot be for fear of time wasting—I have dealt with that—or for reasons of urgency, given the lackadaisical timetable which, despite 18 years in the preparation, has brought us the Bill some seven months after the election and nearly three months after the referendum. Indeed, there are still amendments to come.
  692
  Surely there cannot be anything more serious than the fundamental reform of the constitution of Wales and the United Kingdom, requiring priority time on the Floor of the House. [Interruption.] I heard what the Secretary of State said, but if he does not change his mind I shall take it as an example of the arrogant contempt with which the Government in general, and the right hon. Gentleman in particular, treat the House of Commons.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman accusing me of it?
  Mr. Ancram: Yes, I do accuse him of it. It lies four square with his patronising approach to those in the Labour party who have genuine worries about the detail of the proposals, and it tallies with his dismissive refusal to have any truck with the genuine concerns of the people of Wales about the Bill. It is a dangerous undermining of our constitutional procedures, and it cannot be justified by protestations of administrative convenience or modernised procedures. It may well make the Secretary of State's job easier, but all the procedures of the House should be not for the convenience of Government but for the good of our country and our constitution.
  The Bill requires the fullest and most careful scrutiny. It is not a measure for today, which can be changed tomorrow if it does not work. Constitutional reform is not like that, and nor should it be. It is for the long term, and there is an imperative for the House to try to get it right. That description is not applicable to the Bill.
  The Bill is a dog's breakfast, and is the more dangerous for it. In many ways, it is almost schizophrenic. A Bill that is designed to pass the powers of secondary legislation to the assembly leaves a staggering 45 separate order-making powers in the hands of the Secretary of State and a further 20 determinations or directions to be made by Welsh or Treasury Ministers.
  In five instances, the Secretary of State's staff may be required to consult before acting, but, given the current interpretation by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the word "consultation", that hardly gives any of us much comfort. The Bill as it stands is devolution subject to direction and veto: neither one thing nor the other. I shall discuss that in due course.
  The Bill contains significant areas for potential conflict between Westminster and the assembly, and between the Assembly and the Secretary of State. We shall be told, and have been told again today, that those areas of conflict are more imagined than real, because there will be a new consensus style of politics, which will prevent them arising—just as, I suppose, there is in the Secretary of State's dealings with Cardiff county council about Cardiff city hall as the home for the assembly.
  Long-term constitutional reform cannot be founded on wishful thinking or on best-case scenarios. Where new structures, new procedures and new relationships are being erected in a constitution, they must be tested against the hypothesis of the potential storm instead of the potential calm, against the times of disagreement instead of agreement, against, indeed, the worst-case scenario. Almost anything can be made to work in the best of all possible worlds, but that is not the world we live in or are likely to, as I suspect the Secretary of State is discovering daily the hard way.

  693
  We intend in both Houses to test the propositions in the Bill against reality, not aspiration. If devolution is to happen, it must be robust enough to withstand the economic and political storms that will inevitably occur. I believe that statement to be in line with the question that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) asked me earlier.
  On reading the Bill, I was relieved to find that old habits of socialists are alive and kicking, at least in the Welsh Office. The assembly—shades of some of those wonderful old communist regimes—will have at its head a First Secretary. That is a phrase to be conjured with, and takes me back a bit. The First Secretary will preside over not a Cabinet, but an executive or praesidium. I suppose that we will be told next that the assembly, if it can be found a home, will be called the grand hall of the people—in which required reading for members will be a little book called "The Thoughts of Chairman Ron". I suspect that it will be a small book—
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give up these silly points, and bear in mind the fact that the first First Secretary was Rab Butler?
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful for the history lesson—the hon. Gentleman's history predates mine. We could all poke a bit of fun if the matter were not so very serious. Indeed, the drafting of the Bill leaves little room for levity. It is one of the most confused pieces of legislation that I have had the misfortune to study—and there is some pretty stiff competition.
  The Bill gives the impression that it does not know what it is trying to achieve. It remains unclear whether the Assembly will be just a talking shop or a body with real teeth. It remains unclear whether the Secretary of State will be reduced to a messenger or elevated to the role of Governor General. There is evidence for both propositions. It is also unclear how the government of Wales will continue in an efficient, decisive and accountable manner.
  Just about the only really clear provision is that the members of the assembly will determine their own salaries and allowances. There is also a clear provision, as the Secretary of State has reminded us, to the effect that one third of the members will be elected by a closed list system—not even the open list system which the Home Secretary is studying in relation to the European elections. The system is designed to give maximum power and patronage to party leaders. We believe that both provisions are insidious and could be corrupting, and we shall oppose them.
  Let us look at the contradictions. Some parts of the Bill provide for an assembly that is able only to advise, discuss and consult—that wonderful word again—yet other parts confer on it seemingly sweeping powers without the need for further legislation. For instance, clause 32 is meant to give the assembly a real role in drawing up relevant primary legislation for Westminster, and requires the Secretary of State to undertake consultation with the assembly on the Government's legislative programme. But then come the words:
  "as appears to him to be appropriate".
  It goes on, amazingly, to remove the requirement to consult the assembly if the Secretary of State
  "considers there are considerations relating to the Bill which make it inappropriate for him to do so".
  694
  The whole thing is left to the subjective or political judgment of the Secretary of State: so much for the assembly.
  In almost the same breath, we are told that, under clauses 28 and 29, the assembly can centralise power by assuming to itself the powers of, say, health authorities. For example, it could abolish the North Wales health authority and run it from Cardiff or Swansea: so much for devolution. Without reference to anyone or anything, the assembly could disband the Welsh tourist board, the Welsh Language Board or even the Welsh Development Agency and assume their roles itself. If the House is sceptical about that, hon. Members have only to look at clause 39, under which the assembly may do anything that is "calculated"—another weasel word—to facilitate the exercise of any of its functions. How is that for a blank cheque?
  We do not even know for certain yet what functions will be transferred to the assembly from the Secretary of State or any other Minister of the Crown. We hear speeches from the Secretary of State and his Ministers about what is to be transferred, but there is nothing in the Bill about it except for a schedule of areas within which transfers of functions may be made by Order in Council, as the Secretary of State considers appropriate—those words again. A draft of the order is not even required until just before the elections to the assembly take place—another blank cheque.
  The Secretary of State told us that he will provide us with a working draft in January. At last, we thought, he is beginning to see that there is some purpose in giving the House information during the passage of the legislation, but he went on to say blandly that it will not be the final draft—many other things could appear in later drafts, he said. Once again, we are being asked to sign a blank cheque. This is hardly a sensible way in which to make fundamental constitutional reforms.
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of missing the point. Making the Bill too prescriptive in terms of the powers to be accorded to the assembly runs counter to the very principle behind it, which is to provide democratic accountability to match the administrative devolution that has gone on apace in Wales for the past 18 years.
  Mr. Ancram: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read the Bill. I am not complaining about the democratic institution of a Welsh Assembly deciding these matters; I am complaining about the Secretary of State deciding them under the 45 order-making powers that he retains under the Bill. He will not tell us what those orders will contain.
  The contrast between these approaches is quite breathtaking. I had hoped that it was the result of sloppy drafting which can yet be put right—we shall see. If the assembly's role is ambiguous, the Secretary of State's is much more so. If his current functions and budget are transferred, as he said today they would be, he will have little that is positive left to do, and even less authority to do it with. It is hard to see how his position could for long continue to command a place in the Cabinet. However, other clauses giving a very different impression soon appear.
  Under clauses 45, 49 and 50, far from decentralising decision making over its own affairs to the assembly, the Secretary of State reserves to himself the right to decide

  695
  its original Standing Orders. He then requires an awesome two-thirds majority in the assembly to change them thereafter. That is a draconian threshold, which puts the 25 per cent. yes vote in the referendum in perspective.
  There is more. Nothing in the Bill dispels the fear aroused by the White Paper that the concerns of Wales will hereafter be voiced less in the European Council of Ministers, and only at the whim and invitation of the Secretary of State. That would certainly fail the worst scenario test, and the people of Wales should know about it before it is too late.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) asked a significant question earlier, and got no response to it—not because the Secretary of State did not know the answer, although he gave a fair impression of being badly briefed, but because he knew that the answer was no. He knew, too, that if he gave that answer it would not please the hon. Gentleman or the House.
  What is more, the Secretary of State will have powers under clause 107 to overrule the assembly
  "in any way he thinks necessary"
  to fulfil commitments to the European Union. If ever there was a recipe for conflict and resentment, this is it. Add to that the 17 orders subject to affirmative procedure, the 25 orders subject to negative procedure and a few other powers thrown in, and the picture of a Secretary of State with a whip but without a role becomes clearer. His potential as a pivot for conflict, resentment and the encouragement of nationalism is self-evident, and it makes a mockery of the claimed stability of the proposals. Then there is the right hon. Gentleman's control over money—I shall return to it in a moment.
  What is certain is that these ambiguities and confusions will result in less clarity and accountability, and more bureaucracy and delay—the latter being feared by the chairman and director of the Welsh CBI, Elizabeth Haywood, who informed the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs last week:
  "there is no economic imperative for establishing a Welsh Assembly."
  I welcomed the right hon. Gentleman's recognition of that fear when he launched his Bill. He must know that uncertainty is the greatest enemy of business confidence, and that the Bill is riddled with it. Entrepreneurs and investors need a system of government that they know and trust. The Bill, in all its bureaucratic muddled glory, can hardly claim to provide it.
  It is from what is not in the Bill that the greatest fears arise; and it is in its failures that we find the greatest cause for concern and opposition. For a start, it fails to offer any statutory protection for minorities. The referendum showed that the Government had succeeded in splitting Wales down the middle: the north fears permanent domination by the south; the east fears bias towards the west; English and Welsh speakers fear losing out to each other. There is nothing in the Bill to safeguard the interests of minorities; without such a safeguard, the seeds of dangerous tensions could be sown.
  Setting up a series of regional committees is meant as a sop to north Wales—on examination, it turns out to be a meaningless gesture. The assembly will decide how many regions there will be and will then draw up their
  696
  boundaries. The regions will be only advisory in any case, and the assembly could cheerfully ignore them. They offer no statutory protection whatever.
  More astonishingly, the Bill gives no assurances on finance for a Welsh Assembly, or any sign that resources will be provided to meet need. Clause 80 states only that the Secretary of State
  "shall from time to time make payments to the Assembly out of money provided by Parliament of such amounts as he may determine".
  In other words, it is at his whim and discretion. If ever there was an area where it is in Wales's interests to see legislative assurance, it is here. If ever there was a candidate for the worst-case scenario test, it must be this. That is all that is said—beyond what is in clause 80, the Bill is silent. The financial future of Wales will be subject only to the discretion of the Secretary of State, who will, at the same time, have lost his clout with the Treasury. If ever there was an area of uncertainty, this must be it.
  It is no good the Secretary of State protesting that the much-vaunted Barnett formula is in the financial memorandum. He knows as well as I do that such a memorandum has no force in statute. It protects precisely nothing. What are the Government's longer-term intentions? What effect will the current fundamental spending review have on the formula? What bankable assurances can the right hon. Gentleman give the people of Wales that, financially, they are not being sold a pig in a very expensive poke? In short, can he offer anything more than the fragile and potentially transient good will of Secretaries of State in the future?
  I turn finally to the failure of the Bill to reassure on the vital question of the United Kingdom and Wales's place within it. None of us can know the outcome of the legislation in this regard, but we are entitled to fear it. I fear a Bill which, in clause 22, proposes that further powers be transferred from Whitehall to an assembly simply by Order in Council. I fear even more a provision that establishes that this is a one-way street and a ratchet that cannot be reversed, and which can only further distance Wales from the United Kingdom and further loosen the bonds of the Union.
  I must tell the Secretary of State that even in the negotiations on the framework document on Northern Ireland, the dangers of the one-way ratchet were recognised. Paragraph 44 of the White Paper on Scotland—we have not yet seen the Bill—suggests that there will be provision for transferring further matters to and from a reserved list. Here we have a one-way ratchet, and that is something at which the House should look carefully.
  To add to the confusion, clauses 43 and 44 propose that the House will no longer receive statements about secondary legislation from the assembly, although it will still be required to pass—at least for the moment—the primary legislation under which the assembly will operate. I say in all seriousness that that creates an open door for nationalist ambitions, and raises doubts about the ultimate sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Significantly, that is not mentioned in the Bill, although it was the focus of loud reassurance during the referendum campaign. It is not surprising that the absence from the Bill of such a measure creates suspicion, uncertainty and fear.
  All that the Secretary of State has to do to allay these fears, the phrase used by the Prime Minister in Downing street, is to declare unequivocally to the House—or, better

  697
  still, to table an amendment—that the supreme authority of this Parliament shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, all matters and all things in Wales.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Where has that been done before?
  Mr. Ancram: I will tell the Secretary of State: in the only case where there has been devolution of power of this kind within the United Kingdom. I will gladly give way to the Secretary of State if he wishes to make the statement for which I ask, and I look to him to place those words in the Bill.
  Mr. Davies: I have given the right hon. Gentleman a clear answer—that provision is meaningless. Will he answer my question? What is to stop this Parliament, if it wishes, repealing that measure?
  Mr. Ancram: The supremacy of this Parliament means that it can do what it wishes. If the Secretary of State refers to Northern Ireland, he will see that assurances were given by the inclusion of such a provision in the Government of Ireland Act 1920 Why is he frightened of putting that phrase into the Bill by an amendment, which would merely replicate what is in the Government of Ireland Act 1920? That is a good precedent.
  Mr. Davies: I am not afraid of anything. I am trying to explain to the right hon. Gentleman that I am resisting putting a meaningless provision in the Bill. He has acknowledged that there is nothing to stop any future Parliament repealing any measure passed by this or any other Parliament. Why does he not accept that a central pillar of the British constitution is that this Parliament is sovereign? Nothing that this Parliament does can bind any future Parliament. That needs no legislation.
  Mr. Ancram: The Secretary of State is wriggling. If he really felt that, he would have no compunction about putting such a phrase in the Bill. He is not prepared to do it because he is frightened of a confrontation with the nationalists. He fought the referendum on the basis that, while he was telling one half of Wales that devolution would strengthen the Union, he allowed the leader of Plaid Cymru, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), to go around Wales talking about how it would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom and to an independent Wales. He does not want to break up that happy friendship. Perhaps, in due course, we will help him to concentrate more closely on the matter.
  We do not like the Bill. We believe it to be dangerously flawed. If it receives a Second Reading, we will seek constructively to amend it and we will look to the Government to show that they are prepared to listen to the very real fears of many people in Wales about what is being done to them in the name of devolution. The way in which the Secretary of State responds to the suggestions will be watched closely by people in Wales. I have to say that the intransigent behaviour he has shown so far does not offer much encouragement.
  Above all, we will seek the reassurances that I have outlined and the responses that will fill those glaring gaps that I have outlined again, which are the cause of great concern in substantial parts of Wales. So far, the Government have ignored the legitimate fears of the
  698
  Welsh people and have done nothing to allay them. The Prime Minister's words in Downing street have turned out to be worth not the breath used to deliver them; they ring hollow today.
  We will not ignore those genuinely held fears. The Bill fails to assert the supremacy of this Parliament and fails to protect cultural and geographic minorities. It fails to ensure proper resourcing for Wales to reflect need, and fails to safeguard the position of Wales within the United Kingdom or its voice within Europe.
  We live in hope—vain, I fear—that, even now, before the debate is concluded, the Secretary of State will climb down from his high horse and that these assurances will be forthcoming and the relevant changes will be promised. If they are not—looking at him, I fear that they will not—we will have no option, on behalf of those anxious and worried people in Wales, but to urge the House to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading tomorrow night.
  5.15 pm
  Sir Raymond Powell: I am very pleased to be called to speak in this historic debate. The Principality has waited 18 long years for a debate on devolution for Wales. I should like to put on record the work undertaken back in the 1970s by the likes of Emrys Jones, the secretary of the Welsh Labour party; my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General; Michael Foot; and the noble Lord Callaghan, who devoted their time as part of a Labour Government to trying to get devolution on the statute book as long ago as 1978.
  The then Government produced the Wales Act 1978, which was rejected by 80 per cent. of the electorate, against the 20 per cent who were in favour. We worked for a yes vote in 1978 and at least we can console ourselves that our work forms the basis of the present proposals in the Government of Wales Bill; not all the present proposals, I hasten to add, especially not those dealing with proportional representation. I objected to those proposals when the White Paper was published and, as a result, subsequently voted no in the referendum.
  In the spirit of co-operation and as a result of the call for unity, I hope that, if amendments are tabled, they will be given due consideration and not rejected on the basis that they might alter the spirit of the Bill. I mention that in relation to all the views expressed since 18 September. As a democrat, I accept the decision that was taken, and I appreciate that the majority was in favour.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has suggested that we should not go into the facts and figures, as it would be a waste of time. I do not share his opinion. A small majority voted for the proposals and, until such time as we examine in greater depth and detail the decision taken by the electorate of Wales, we might not be able to get the unity which we need and for which we are calling.
  Mr. Rogers: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Raymond Powell: In a moment.
  The results of the vote need close examination. I shall quote figures published by the House of Commons Library. In the general election on 1 May, 75 per cent. of the electors in Wales voted overwhelmingly for Labour candidates to be returned to Parliament. Four and a half

  699
  months later, on 18 September, only 50 per cent. of the electors voted on the Government's proposals on devolution. Out of 2,224,000, only 1,112,000—that is, only 50.1 per cent. of the electors—voted at all. Of the half of the electorate who voted, 559,419 voted yes—50.3 per cent. of those who voted—and 49.7 per cent.—552,698 electors—voted no. That gave the Government's proposals a majority of 6,721 yes votes, out of 1,112,000 who voted—just 6 per cent. of the total.
  Therefore, we should all accept the need to aim for close co-operation. Judging from the major differences that have already erupted on the question of where the assembly will be housed, it does not seem that unanimity is being established even in these early days.
  Mr. Rogers: So that my hon. Friend does not misunderstand me further, I was objecting to the Conservatives' continual carping about the validity of the referendum. We can discuss the figures and their implications privately, but if we want to do a service to the people of Wales, the sooner we get down to considering the detail in the Bill, the better we shall be serving them. I accept, as my hon. Friend says with his great experience, that we need to bring about a reconciliation, but we certainly ain't going to get it from the Conservatives.
  Sir Raymond Powell: With all due respect to my hon. Friend, let me remind him that I am emphasising the need to examine the figures, and analyse who voted and who supported the Government's proposals. If we want co-operation, that does not just mean co-operation between members of different political parties or between Members of Parliament speaking in the House.
  Many people outside can express their views only by reference to Members of Parliament. We are introducing legislation on behalf of the 25 per cent. who voted no, and the 50 per cent. who did not vote at all. We must consult those people and ensure that we take them with us; otherwise, we shall not do justice to the assembly that I dreamed of in the 1970s and which I worked to establish in 1978, unlike a number of other hon. Members, including some on the Front Bench, who were not with us.
  I remind the House, and especially Labour Members, that one of the most prominent opponents of the Wales Act 1978 when it was put to a referendum is now a Commissioner in Europe. Four years after opposing the proposals that a Labour Government had introduced, he was elected leader of the Labour party. That shows the degree of tolerance that existed in the Labour party.
  Everyone would be wise to reflect on the attitudes adopted by the then Labour Government when the Wales Act 1978 was debated. They recognised the rights of Members of Parliament to express their views and continually to amend the Bill. There was no suppression of opinions, and no threat of expulsion from the party. None of the no voters was hounded—quite the opposite. We made the main protagonist a leader four years later, and 18 years later we made one no voter at that time the Secretary of State for Wales, so comrades, friends and Members of the House, let us have a little wara teg from now on, and a little tolerance for hon. Members who express different opinions from the Front Bench, Government or Opposition.
  700
  If we are to have a Welsh Assembly such as I and others have dreamed of since the 1970s, and if only as a mark of respect for the hard work that the late Emrys Jones put into devolution in Wales, we should have a great deal more tolerance on all sides.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I welcome the close attention that the hon. Gentleman is giving to the narrowness of the referendum result, and the high proportion of people who did not vote. Will he address the point stressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—the fact that, the day after the referendum, the Prime Minister emphasised that he recognised the concerns shown by the Welsh people, as demonstrated by the low majority for the proposals, yet there is nothing in the Bill to show that those concerns have been taken into account?
  Sir Raymond Powell: I tend to share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). We have gone through the figures and acknowledged the importance of analysing them in great depth and detail. I am a democrat, but I was disappointed by the size of the majority, as I wanted the proposals to be accepted by a larger majority in Wales, similar to the majority enjoyed in Scotland, so that we could go forward knowing that we had the support of a larger number of people.
  I want devolution to be a process of which we can be proud. I want an assembly of which we can be proud, and one that embraces true democracy. I do not want what some are suggesting—one of the largest-ever quangos.
  I am concerned about the numbers of the assembly. In reply to the spokesman for the Liberals, who spoke of a membership of 80, the Secretary of State said that he was opposed to that, and that he was not eager to accept any alteration. My views were expressed to the commission in the Labour party in Wales. I favour 40 men and 40 women to represent 40 constituency seats. Eighty members would be a fair number; we have had county councils in Wales with far more members than 80.
  In suggesting that a man and a woman should represent each of the 40 parliamentary seats, I hoped that there would be no need for PR, and it would be a tremendous step forward in the establishment of equal rights and opportunities for women in Wales. I still fail to understand why that suggestion was rejected, and why women in Wales did not give it greater support.
  Some people in Wales, including those who would stand for the assembly, have suggested that there will not be enough members to cover the committees and cope with the assembly's likely work load. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Government will consider seriously expanding the assembly's numerical strength to 80 members and allowing a man and a woman to represent each seat. There is no need to take the matter to Europe as women and men would have equal rights—the proposal does not involve short lists for women only—and we should have 40 men and 40 women representing 40 parliamentary seats and being accountable to their parliamentary constituencies. There is no better parliamentary framework in a democracy than that.
  At present, it is suggested that 20 members should be appointed on the basis of proportional representation: a faceless body would appoint 20 people from a list. I see the leader of Plaid Cymru, the right hon. Member for

  701
  Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), nodding. I am concerned that PR is not the correct system for electing assembly members, but I have another fear. I have fought Welsh National party candidates in the parliamentary seat of Ogmore not only for the 18 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, but for 15 years before that. I recall the stand taken by the Welsh nationalists from the time when I was a sub-agent in Carmarthen and Gwynfor Evans was elected.
  I cannot understand why this Government want to have a brotherly association with the Welsh nationalists and the Liberal Democrats, when we have a majority in this place that secures our independence. I have fought candidates from both those parties in elections, as well as those from the Green party, the Independent Labour party and many others.
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His comments about proportional representation have some interest in the context of the opening remarks by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who placed great emphasis on the need to protect minorities. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be appropriate for the Opposition to welcome that element of the proposals that will certainly preserve a minority in Wales: the Conservative party? If the assembly is to be all-embracing, it must represent all shades of opinion in Wales.
  Sir Raymond Powell: I agree—of course we want the minority parties to have a place on the assembly. However, those parties must do what the Labour party has done over the years. The Labour party was in a minority position for years—if one reads the history of this place, one will see that the Liberals were in the majority for a long time. The minority parties should earn their places with the electorate—they should not just expect their members to be elected under a system that is far from democratic. Under the PR system, people may be elected using lists that are controlled by the powers that be.
  I am concerned about the transfer of powers from the Secretary of State for Wales to the assembly. The transfer of powers proposed by the Wales Act 1978 is nothing compared with the current proposals. I am beginning to wonder—as one of the elder statesmen in this place and as one who might be looking forward to retiring at the end of this Parliament—what sort of Parliament we shall leave to our successors, especially those from Wales. What will be left for elected Members of Parliament to do? Is this move designed to encourage Welsh Members to stand for election to the Welsh Assembly? Perhaps it is. If Welsh Members will have no work to do in the House of Commons, they might seek a seat in the assembly.
  We should have enjoyed devolution in Wales and in this country for 18 years. I regret that the electorate refused to accept it at that time. I am very pleased that a majority of voters are now in favour of an elected assembly for Wales, and I hope that it will be possible to establish that elected assembly as soon as possible.
  I have received a letter from the secretary of the Cardiff city Labour group—I think that most Welsh MPs have received a copy of it—explaining in detail the reasons why that group rejected the proposal to house the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff city hall. I was a councillor in Ogwr
  702
  borough, and I can understand why the group took that decision. It had every right to reject the proposal, which would have cost ratepayers £7.3 million to secure the premises. That reason must be put on the record, although argument may continue as to whether the decision is right or wrong. Nevertheless, the group has ensured that Members of Parliament are informed by sending letters detailing its discussions on the matter. I was very pleased to receive that letter, which reveals the facts of the case.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I listened to the authentic voice of the elder statesman of the Labour party, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell), with considerable interest. Given his comments during the referendum campaign, I was particularly interested to hear the hon. Gentleman express the hope that the assembly would come into being as rapidly as possible and would be a fitting tribute to the late Emrys Jones. If that is the case—I clearly accept the hon. Gentleman's comments—there is at least some coming together on the principles, if not on the details, of the proposals before us today.
  I make it clear from the outset that Plaid Cymru supports the Bill and accepts it for what it is—although it falls well short of the ideal that we envisaged. However, we recognise that the Government have a mandate for the Bill as a result of both the general election and the Welsh referendum. In May this year, every Member of Parliament in Wales was elected on the basis of a party programme that supported at least this degree of national democracy for Wales. The only party that stood against any such development was the Tory party, which failed to win one seat in the general election. It ill behoves the Tories, speaking from their English bunkers, to tell Wales now that we cannot have any form of national democracy for our country.
  Mr. Rogers: We live in what is probably the finest democracy in the world, and I must confess that it is very sad to hear such trite remarks about developing a democracy. I contend that devolution and other forms of government have nothing to do with democracy. The Bill has nothing particularly to do with democracy—otherwise I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how on earth he comes to be sitting behind the Minister now. I cannot see how the Bill is an extension of democracy when it negates our existence in this place.
  Mr. Wigley: I listened with considerable interest to the arguments advanced by the Labour party throughout the campaign for a yes vote. They were largely based on extending democracy in Wales and getting democratic answerability for a tier of government, much of which was made up of quangos or was within the Welsh Office and not open to adequate scrutiny and answerability.
  I accept that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) may have taken a slightly different view from that held by the main stream of the Labour party on this matter, but I have set out the basis on which the proposals were made and the basis on which a majority of those who voted in Wales voted yes so as to secure a better system of democracy for our country.
  I pay tribute to the work of the Secretary of State and his fellow Ministers in the Welsh Office in the campaign to secure a yes vote. I pay tribute also to the work of Professor Kevin Morgan and his colleagues in the "Yes for Wales" campaign.

  703
  As for the referendum, it was a close result. Less than one hour before the outcome was known, the no campaigners appeared on television saying that, if they won by only a handful of votes, that would be enough to kill the Bill.
  Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that at about that time of night, when he thought that he was going to lose the referendum by a small number of votes, he said—he was recorded on television—to me, "I hope that we can have a replay next week."
  Mr. Wigley: I did indeed say that we would fight, fight and fight again to secure what we wanted. We acknowledged the validity, as did many of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues who appeared on television on the evening of the referendum, that, if the no campaigners won by a handful of votes, that would be enough to kill the Bill.
  What is sauce for the backward-looking, scaremongering, no-voting neanderthals is also sauce for the forward-looking, yes-voting alliance, which believes in democracy and in Wales. Let us recall that the turnout in Wales, at 51 per cent., was not all that much lower than the 59 per cent. achieved in Scotland. The swing in Wales from 1979 was greater than that in Scotland.
  It is worth reminding the House of the post-referendum mood in Wales. Even among those who voted no there was some satisfaction at the outcome. Some of the no voters told me that, when they saw the joy on the faces of the young people of Wales at the yes vote, they were glad that the referendum had gone that way. That was a fact and that has been said. It has been said on television by a former Conservative Member in a face-to-face interview. No doubt we shall hear more about that when the debate moves to the other place in due course.
  There are former Conservative Members as well as Labour doubters who now say that we must not be drawn into re-fighting the referendum. What is needed is a coming together to get the best national assembly that we can possibly secure for Wales. I appeal to Tories in England to take such a positive and constructive approach. Wrecking the Bill and giving Wales an inadequate assembly would be a great disservice to my country.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that there is great concern, that when dealing with an issue of such fundamental constitutional importance as the Bill that is before us, any mandate from the people should be large and healthy? The fact that the referendum did not get a large and healthy mandate concerned the Prime Minister when he said the day after the referendum that the Government would address the concerns that had been shown by the smallness of the mandate. However, the Bill does not address those concerns. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on that?
  Mr. Wigley: If in other circumstances it had been determined that a mandate must be above a certain threshold proportion of the electorate, Bill Clinton would not have become President of the United States, Margaret
  704
  Thatcher would not have been Prime Minister and most local authorities would not have had a mandate. Many such authorities have greater power than will the proposed assembly.
  As for misgivings in Wales, I accept that they existed. When the Bill is considered in Committee, such concerns will have to be addressed in some detail. There will have to be exploration of the role of regional committees and other similar provisions in the Bill, but that is not an argument against giving the Bill a Second Reading and building an assembly that can bring the people of Wales together, which I believe is possible.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Is there not greater concern about the vote going in such a way that Offa's dyke could have been said to have moved westward than about the narrowness of the vote? The boundaries of Wales seem to have changed. East Wales, with exceptions, voted against and west Wales, with exceptions, voted for.
  Mr. Wigley: That is an interesting point, given the fact that arguments in Wales are often presented as being polarised as between north and south. Recently, there has been an east-west divide—and not only terms of the way in which people voted in the referendum. We have seen the divide manifest itself in income per head, unemployment and many other factors. There may well have been a correlation. The highest yes votes were in the areas of greatest deprivation in Wales, both down the western side and in the old coalfield valleys, running through as far as parts of Gwent.
  I shall now consider the historic context in which the debate takes place. Wales as a nation was united, incorporated and annexed into England by the Act of Union of 1536. However, Wales as a nation refused to disappear. Through our language and culture, our literature in both languages, our religious institutions and social and political values, Wales retained its national identity.
  Over the past 100 years, many attempts have been made to give Wales at least some form of national democracy to ensure that our political values, manifested in the last century through the Liberal party and for a large part of the 20th century through the Labour party—I believe that Plaid Cymru is also an inheritor—are converted into practical reality in Wales.
  From the 1880s onwards, there have been numerous movements to give Wales some form of national elected democracy. The Cymru Fydd movement spearheaded the campaign a century ago. I remind the Tories that in 1886 Joseph Chamberlain advocated home rule—home rule all round, including Wales.
  In 1891, there was D. A. Thomas's National Institution Bill, which proposed an elected assembly for Wales. It is worth quoting the words of Tom Ellis, the former Member for Meirionnydd, and later a Liberal Chief Whip. At Newtown, in 1888, he said:
  "Without a national assembly—at once the symbol of unity and the instrument of self government—Wales's position as a nation cannot be assured, and her work as a nation cannot be done."
  One hundred years later, it is in the context of that work, which still needs to be done, that we welcome the Bill.
  Many Bills to establish Parliaments or assemblies for Wales have been presented to the House this century. There was the E. T. John home rule Bill of 1914, and the

  705
  S. O. Davies Bill of 1954. There was the new focus on the issue following Gwynfor Evans's historic by-election victory at Carmarthen in 1966, which led to the Kilbrandon report of 1973, advocating Parliaments for Wales and Scotland.
  The Labour Government of 1974 to 1979 brought forward, first, a Scotland and Wales Bill. In 1977, there was the Wales Bill that became the Wales Act 1978. The 1979 referendum shot that down. That failure left Wales vulnerable to the ravages of the Thatcher era. What a price we had to pay for that 1979 debacle. Now is the time to ensure that never again is Wales left defenceless to have imposed upon it, against its political will, a right-wing fundamentalist programme that is diametrically opposite to our social values, undermines our communities and drives Wales to the very bottom of the prosperity league in Britain.
  At the very least, our own national assembly will articulate the values that we hold as a people: it will be a bulwark against imposed dogma of the Thatcherite kind. When I say "as a people", I mean all the people of Wales. We regard all the people who live in Wales as citizens of Wales and all are equal irrespective of race, creed, colour or language. Plaid Cymru is a national party, but our nationalism is a civic nationalism. It is an inclusive philosophy, and we welcome the inclusive nature of the Bill.
  We want a national assembly in which all aspects of Welsh life are properly represented, including the ethnic minorities and disabled people, all the regions of Wales, both rural and industrial, and all parties including the Conservative party. In particular, we want a proper gender balance at the assembly.
  Mr. Dalyell: I have always understood the right hon. Gentleman's argument for independence, but will he confirm that, had the Wales Act 1978 come into force, it would in no way have defended Wales against Mrs. Thatcher?
  Mr. Wigley: We would, of course, have preferred the assembly envisaged in 1978 to have had the full law-making powers that Scotland would have got, and which it is now getting in its Parliament. However, I believe that the will of the people of Wales, articulated through the vehicle of an assembly, would have had considerable force with the way in which policies were implemented in Wales. It could not have been ignored. It would have been worth having, although it would not have given a guarantee. To that extent, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is right. I shall deal with that point in the context of our proposals later.
  Plaid Cymru recently adopted a formula to try to achieve a gender balance in the assembly. I hope that other parties will do likewise. I am concerned that the 40 plus 20 formula will not provide adequately balanced representation, but we can no doubt tackle that in Committee.
  There are four reasons for a national assembly: first, to secure better answerability for the Welsh Office, which has grown to cover most domestic portfolios; secondly, to provide better answerability for the quangos and, preferably, better democratic control or integration into a direct democracy system—they have grown out of all recognition in the past 20 years in Wales; thirdly, to
  706
  provide Wales with a stronger profile in Europe; fourthly, to provide a stronger strategic approach, on an all-Wales level, in line with Welsh political values.
  I spoke earlier of the need to protect Wales and to advance our social policies to fulfil Wales's aspirations for a fair, egalitarian community. We do not believe that that can be achieved without law-making powers. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. Scotland is to have those powers; Wales is not.
  If a Tory Government come to power in London in five or 10 years' time, the Scots will be able to protect their education system, health service, housing policies and agriculture by virtue of having their own legislation. Wales will not; to that extent, the hon. Member for Linlithgow is right. Wales will be at the mercy of the Tories in London in a way that Scotland will not. It is imperative that our national assembly has full law-making powers at least over those matters.
  It is ridiculous that, with our own national assembly, if we needed to amend the Welsh Language Act 1993 or the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, which deal with Wales alone, we would still have to come to Westminster. Such amendments should be provided through our national assembly. The Secretary of State has said before—he repeated it this afternoon—that devolution is not a one-off event, but a process. I welcome that statement. I hope that the Bill can be seen as strengthening that movement and that there will be provisions in it to reflect that aspiration, so that at least some primary legislative powers can be transferred to the Welsh Assembly in due course. Had such law-making power been in the White Paper at the time of the referendum, I believe that the vote would have been a substantially greater yes.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: On what the Secretary of State said earlier, does the right hon. Gentleman accept the supremacy and sovereignty of this Westminster Parliament, even with the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament?
  Mr. Wigley: I accept what the leadership of the Conservative party said before the general election and what the leadership of the Labour party has said: that, if the peoples of Wales and Scotland determined through referendums that they wanted assemblies, Parliament would deliver them and that the Conservative party would not scrap an elected Welsh national assembly or Scottish Parliament without a subsequent referendum. That is a de facto recognition of the right of the people of Scotland—of the claim of right, as it is defined in Scotland—and of the people of Wales to take those decisions.
  I am not a great devotee of 19th-century sovereignty. I believe that sovereignty does not exist only in one place. It comes from the people upwards, and should be aggregated at different levels for different functions. That is why I have no difficulty in recognising that some decisions must be taken at European level and that some sovereignty should be transferred for that purpose, as was done by the Thatcher Government. However, where sovereignty can be exercised at an all-Wales level, it should be.
  Technically, it is a tradition here at Westminster that sovereignty comes from the institution, but as a democrat I believe that sovereignty—or any rights or legitimacy

  707
  that we have—comes from the people. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) hopes to speak tomorrow on developing proposals for a fast track to present our legislation to Westminster.
  Another dimension of the Bill relates to links between Wales and the European Union. The Secretary of State gave a commitment when the White Paper was published—I was glad to hear him repeat it this afternoon—that our national assembly in Wales will have as full and equal a right as the Scottish Parliament in getting a voice in the European Union. Paragraph 3.46 of the White Paper states:
  "Wales needs a strong voice in Europe."
  The Bill does not appear to achieve that, but perhaps it will be achieved outside the framework of legislation. If so, we welcome it.
  The White Paper also states:
  "The Assembly will take over the Welsh Office's responsibilities for administering the European Strategic Funds".
  The Bill does not appear to provide that. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that in his reply.
  We want the Ministers, or Secretaries as they will be known, of our national assembly included as of right in the UK delegation to the Council of Ministers when issues within the assembly's competence—such as agriculture, which is in our minds because of the current crisis—appear on the agenda.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that a member of the assembly should sit in the Council of Agriculture Ministers?
  Mr. Wigley: Yes. From the assurances given in a Scottish context, I believe that the Scottish Agriculture Minister would be entitled to sit side by side with the UK Agriculture Minister in the Council of Ministers. Given the assurance that Wales will be treated equally with Scotland in that matter, I expect the Secretary of the Welsh Assembly with responsibility for agriculture to be part of the delegation when agricultural matters that have an impact on Wales arise in the Council of Ministers in Brussels. That is the spirit in which I took the statements made in the House today and on previous occasions. That is important for Welsh farmers.
  Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman's statement is news to us. As far as I know, there has been no assurance that Ministers responsible to an assembly in Edinburgh could speak in the Council of Ministers for the whole of the UK. Is he sure that such assurances have been given?
  Mr. Wigley: I did not use that term. I did not say that the representative of the Welsh Assembly or Scottish Parliament could speak on the behalf of the whole UK, but that he could be part of the UK delegation, side by side with the UK Minister. There is a difference between what the hon. Gentleman said and what I said. I am sure that he recognises that. It is an important right that there should be a direct link from the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly to the team in Brussels when vital matters that are their responsibility are discussed.
  Mr. Jenkin: We all understand the right hon. Gentleman's aspiration that Wales should one day have
  708
  an independent voice in the Council of Ministers. Realistically, with the UK being the signatory to the treaty and being entitled only to one representative at the Council of Ministers to exercise 10 votes—or no votes—Welsh or Scottish representatives would attend as flunkeys with the permission, or at the invitation, of the UK Minister, or not at all. The idea that the Welsh or Scottish representative could attend as a peer or equal of the UK Minister leads the Welsh people up the garden path.
  Mr. Wigley: At the Council of Ministers, a policy advocated at European level may be equally acceptable and relevant to England, Scotland and Wales or be acceptable to one part and not the others. if an agricultural policy is acceptable, say, in East Anglia but not in Wales, it is right and proper that we should have someone there to articulate that, even within the UK team. I would much rather we had a full seat in the Council of Ministers, but it is better for us to have someone there who can at least prod the United Kingdom Minister and say, "Hey, we have these requirements," than for us to have no one at all. To that extent at least, I see this as a step forward.
  Mr. Rowlands: Clauses 105 and 106 explicitly state that all Community obligations are binding on the assembly, although the assembly may disagree with those obligations profoundly. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept clauses 105 and 106?
  Mr. Wigley: Of course I do—and, as the hon. Gentleman no doubt accepts, the Community obligations are equally binding on the House.
  We believe that the assembly should have the right to an appointee in the new United Kingdom permanent representation office in Brussels—UKREP, as it is called—and the right to determine priorities for European funding allocated to Wales. The White Paper said that that needed to be spelt out more clearly during the Bill's passage and I hope that assurances will be given in the winding-up speech. The White Paper also said, in paragraph 3.53, that the Bill would
  "provide for members of the assembly to represent Wales on the Committee of the Regions."
  I do not see exactly where the Bill deals with that but, if I have missed the reference, it will doubtless be pointed out to me.
  Time is passing, so I shall deal only briefly with a number of other issues. One relates to the statutory committees proposed in part III. We do not consider a local government-type committee system appropriate or adequate for our national assembly: it would be too slow and too cumbersome, it would avoid ministerial responsibility and it would be open to abuse. The assembly's Secretaries must be given the power of ministerial responsibility. It is fine for them to be accountable to a subject committee, but we believe that the so-called executive committee must operate as a Cabinet and take responsibility along those lines. If that does not happen, there is a real danger that the assembly will degenerate into a talking shop. We shall return to the issue in Committee, and I welcome what the Secretary of State said about the facility offered in the Bill for progress in that direction.
  May we have confirmation that clause 73 gives powers for the establishment of committees fully analogous to our Select Committees, and that the authority of those

  709
  committees to call people to appear before them will be equal to that of Select Committees so that they can do a similar job? As for clause 75, might it be possible for Welsh MEPs, when appropriate, to attend assembly committees—although, obviously, not to vote? At the very least, could they be part of the partnership council that is proposed in clause 110?
  How will quangos such as the revamped Welsh Development Agency be answerable, and will the same pattern apply to all quangos? May we also have clarification of the intention of clause 22, relating to exactly what powers can be transferred from London Ministers to the assembly? I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said earlier, but I have some difficulty in regard to schedule 2. It maps out the areas that are open to transfer, but it does not deal with matters such as disability policy and the police. Unless there is a facility for amending the schedule by order, I do not think that it will be possible for it to be applied to matters that are not currently covered by it.
  Schedule 2 contains interesting anomalies. It includes culture, but does not include heritage; it includes industry, but does not include trade; it includes training, but does not include employment; it includes water, but does not include natural resources. I hope that, either tonight or tomorrow, we can hear some explanation of how the mechanism will work.
  I am sorry that the assembly will be entirely dependent on the Secretary of State for both grants and loans. The denial of any tax-varying or independent borrowing power takes a fundamental responsibility from the assembly, which will have less financial autonomy than a parish council.
  We in Plaid Cymru believe that all the taxes raised in Wales or on behalf of Wales should be channelled through a Welsh treasury department, but that clearly goes beyond what the Government have in mind. We need some assurance, in the Bill or outside it, about the Government's intentions in regard to the Barnett formula. We need to know that in future Wales will have a more generous deal than that formula has provided in recent years. [Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh. It may well be that they do not want Wales to have a better deal, but they will know that independent studies undertaken in Cardiff university have shown that Wales is missing out under the Barnett formula. Other areas may not be missing out, but Wales is.
  I shall deal briefly with the unnecessarily vexed question of the assembly's location. We had expected it to be located in city hall, Cardiff—a dignified building worthy of a national assembly and convenient for the Welsh Office civil service. For a Labour-controlled council in our capital city deliberately to frustrate a Labour Secretary of State prompts the question whether Cardiff really wants the assembly at all. If it does not, let there be no doubt that plenty of other places in Wales do: Caernarfon, Wrexham and Aberystwyth would give their right hands for it. I am particularly impressed by the positive moves made by Swansea council, but if the assembly meets outside Cardiff there should be no doubt of the far-reaching implication of such a move. It would, in practice, create a new administrative capital for Wales, which would in due course require the relocation of the Welsh Office and other Government offices.
  710
  It would be nonsense to have a European-type farce of civil servants serving committees having their papers moved in packing cases between Brussels and Strasbourg. Those services need to be in one location. The assembly should either be located in Cathays park, where it can be serviced conveniently—city hall is our preferred option—or leave Cardiff altogether. I am amazed at the narrow, selfish, blinkered view of Cardiff council, which is a disgrace to Wales.
  I remind Cardiff's civic leaders of an old Welsh proverb:
  "A fo ben, bid bont",
  which means, "He who wishes to be the leader must also be the facilitator." If Cardiff wishes to enjoy the benefits of being the capital city of Wales, it must take its responsibilities towards Wales seriously. If it does not, so be it: plenty of other places are willing not only to house the assembly, but to serve Wales as her administrative capital.
  I wish the Bill a speedy passage, albeit—I hope—in a strengthened form. We as a party will play a constructive role in considering it and as elected members of the assembly in due course. Our objective is to achieve the strongest and most effective national assembly for our country. We hope that that will lead to Wales taking an ever increasing responsibility for her own life and playing an ever greater role in the emerging united Europe. The assembly, however, will ultimately be judged according to the benefit that it brings to the ordinary people of Wales—the practical day-to-day benefit. It is our duty to create a national assembly for Wales that is worthy of their support.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I am delighted to follow the constructive good wishes expressed by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on behalf of his party. I expect similar good wishes from the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) on behalf of his party, joining the coalition of view that narrowly won in the referendum in September. It is sad that that group was not only not joined, but actively opposed—and remains actively opposed—by the Conservative party, whose spokesman this evening, in respect of Wales, offered a hymn of praise in favour of the status quo: no more, no less. The Conservative party is ready to oppose every innovation until it becomes a tradition, as it did in respect of the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency.
  This is an historic Bill, and an historic time. I welcome the proposals, and do so with a certain humility, as I was one of those who opposed—for other reasons—the proposals advanced in the 1970s, when I might have been designated a Cymru-sceptic. I have, to some extent, changed sides with my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell).
  I accept that the charge will inevitably come over a period. This is the start of the process, and ultimately we will have to move to a quasi-federal system through devolution in England as well as in Wales and Scotland.
  I want to make three points, the first of which stands on its own. The key decision on whether to have an assembly has now been taken by the yes vote in the referendum. It was taken by the people of Wales in a free vote. We respect that vote, as we would have done had it

  711
  narrowly gone the other way. Had there been a slim majority against the Government's proposals, the Bill would not have come before the House. Such an opportunity arises once in a generation. One vote is enough. I concede that the narrowness of the majority imposes certain constraints on the Government, but I commend the Secretary of State's approach. He has accepted that there are constraints on his proposal.
  The arguments and hesitations prior to the referendum must now be put in the context of the yes vote. I am wholly disappointed by the negative response of the Conservative party in Parliament. It has an "attitude problem" with the assembly. The proper response would have been to accept the decision taken by the people in September, and to try to improve the Bill at the edges in conformity with Conservative principles.
  I was particularly irritated at Welsh Question Time last Wednesday by the narrow and cheap points made by Conservative Members. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) talked about the taxpayers of Wales being expected
  "to pay ever-increasing amounts to prop up"
  the Secretary of State's incompetence. The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) referred to the assembly as
  "a job-destroying and expensive bureaucracy"—[Official Report, 3 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 337–42.]
  and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said that 75 per cent. of the Welsh electorate had voted against the proposal. We could make the same cheap points about the elected dictatorship in 1983, 1987 and 1992, when the Conservative party was elected with 42 per cent. or 43 per cent. of a 70 per cent. turnout, which is just under a third of the total electorate. That did not prevent the Conservative party from introducing the poll tax and other measures at that time.
  The people of Wales had the opportunity in the referendum to express their view. They voted in favour of an assembly, and we should take the Bill further in the context of that positive vote. I am irritated by the patronising, insulting and shallow view of the Conservative party in Parliament. It is only fair to add that I do not find such a patronising and shallow response from members of the Conservative party to whom I speak in Wales. Indeed, there has been quite a substantial sea change.
  Over the weekend, I talked to a senior Conservative in Wales, who told me that he and his colleagues are actively preparing for the elections. That is a different, a positive, approach, and a recognition of the result of the referendum and the fact that we are now operating in a new context.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that to oppose the creation of an assembly in principle while preparing to fight the election, given that it will happen, albeit wrongly in our view, is a consistent approach to take?
  Mr. Anderson: The principle of having or not having an assembly was decided not by us, but by the people
  712
  in the referendum. Once that major step has been taken, everything else is detail, and we can have a proper debate on the detail in Committee.
  Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government have been placed under certain constraints by the narrowness of the referendum result. How are those constraints expressed in the Bill?
  Mr. Anderson: I can give the hon. Gentleman a catalogue of examples. Had we been triumphalist and said that the majority that we won on 1 May entitled us to write the Bill as we liked, it is conceivable that we would not have adopted a system of proportional representation, which may bring the Conservative party back to life in Wales, given that it was chased out of Wales at the last election. That is one of the greatest acts of political generosity by a party that believes that a moribund corpse of the Conservative party in Wales is bad for democracy. The Conservative party had 20 per cent. of the votes in the election, but has no seats in Wales. We are trying to help because we are democrats: we are not being triumphalist.
  Another example of my right hon. Friend's inclusive approach is the establishment of a commission, the chairman of which—I shall choose my words carefully—has never been known as a Labour supporter. I support that inclusive approach. One of the great advantages of Wales is its diversity. The Bill ensures that there is a statutory obligation to have a committee for north Wales and other committees throughout Wales. I could go on, but I shall not, because time is short. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider objectively the way in which my right hon. Friend has most commendably responded.
  Secondly, the assembly could be a mechanism for binding the people of Wales together, and a focus for Welsh identity. Reference has been made to the identity of Wales within the European Union. May I add a smaller footnote: hon. Members may not know that the Welsh Assembly will be able to become a full member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, because it will have legislative powers. I have taken legal advice, and I am told that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly will, if they so wish, be members of that association, which will be another interesting way of boosting and endorsing Welsh identity.
  I fully appreciate the spirit of the Government's approach: it is not triumphalist, but objectively based on democracy and consistent with our Welsh traditions.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) to give examples of the restraints that have been imposed on the Secretary of State and which he has accepted, because of the narrowness of the referendum result. The first example he gave was the Secretary of State's adoption of a system of proportional representation instead of the first-past-the-post system, but that proposal was in the White Paper. The second example was the membership of the commission appointed by the Secretary of State to advise on Standing Orders, but that is also in the White Paper, which says that it will include:
  "representatives of each of the main political parties in Wales".

  713
  The Secretary of State has not given one breath of a concession in recognition of the fact that the majority in the referendum was minute.
  Mr. Anderson: First, I should have said that we should look at the advisory committee. Secondly, the issue of location has been opened for discussion by the Secretary of State through the consultative document that was issued on Thursday. The system of proportional representation may with one leap bring back from the dead the Conservative party in Wales. I shall give some of my reasons for supporting that proposal. I sent a memorandum to Labour's commission on precisely the lines that were accepted.
  To have more than 60 members would give rise to a negative reaction in Wales, because it would be said that there were too many legislators. We need a system of voting that is known to the electorate: hence the use of Westminster seats and the current European seats. The Westminster base will provide a link with constituencies. Perhaps most important is the fact that the number of assembly members coincides exactly with the number of seats in Swansea guildhall.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Perhaps I could clarify the genuine point that was debated between my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). In the White Paper we proposed a statutory commission. Of course, that cannot be created until after Royal Assent, which will be in July next year. To ensure a proper process of consultation between now and Royal Assent, I have created the advisory committee, which will be representative of all interests in Wales. It is not in the White Paper: it is an innovation and a genuine attempt to find a broader base on which to construct the working arrangements and the standing orders. It is in addition to the consultation that the Welsh Office is undertaking with all interests in Wales. We are consulting the Welsh Local Government Association, the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, the CBI, the Institute of Welsh Affairs and the Green Alliance. The genuine process of consultation goes far beyond anything that was envisaged in the White Paper.
  Mr. Anderson: I am pleased to have that clarification from my right hon. Friend. The proof of the pudding will be in the working out of the proposals. [Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is waving a piece of paper.
  Mr. Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the consultation process was going on before the general election and for some time before the publication of the Bill? It is more constructive to comment inclusively rather than to engage in the destructive criticism that tends to come from the official Opposition.
  Mr. Anderson: I am convinced that Moses Ron did not bring the tablets of stone down from Plynlimon, send them to the House and then leave them. The process is inclusive and it is wholly consistent with the spirit of diversity in Wales. Thus Hiraeth is not longing for Wales but for one's own locality. People who go to parties in Wales are never asked, as they would be in England, "What do you do?" as if one's identity is in one's job. People are asked where they come from, because the essence of our identity is the local area from which we come. That is a far more human response.
  714
  It is not only in structures but in policies that we look for something different in the assembly. Who can doubt that, if the assembly had been in existence for some years, we would not now have a system of communications in Wales that makes it difficult to move from north to south? I am sure that members of the assembly when they meet in different locations will see at first hand the problems that are encountered in moving from one part of Wales to the other. Thus transport priorities will be different.
  There is another policy that I hope that the assembly will change. I hope that its members will set their minds against the centralisation that was a feature of Conservative government in the 1980s and beyond and which allowed such a concentration of resources in Cardiff and the south-east. We were under the satrapy of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). At one time the Cardiff Bay development corporation received £52.5 million a year in grant aid but less than half that amount went to the Welsh Development Agency for the rest of its area.
  There are enormous distortions of expenditure. For example, on 21 November in a written answer, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West Mr. Thomas) was informed that over the past three years there was £376.4 million publicly funded capital expenditure in Cardiff. That is a distortion, and it arose because decisions were taken by a Secretary of State who was not seriously accountable to Wales. Such distortion will not occur in future, because people from different parts of Wales will be in favour of a far greater balance of development.
  Thirdly, the location of the assembly can also fulfil the same need for diversity in Wales. In setting up the assembly we do not want to substitute one form of centralisation for another. We must be wholly in tune with subsidiarity. For the Conservative party, European subsidiarity stopped at London. We shall ensure that it does not even stop at Cardiff but extends to other parts of Wales.
  I make no comment on the reasons for Cardiff council deciding not to proceed with the offer of the city hall. Happily, as a Swansea boy, I have no responsibility for Cardiff city council. However, its decision opens the debate—hence the consultative document. Decentralisation would have enormous practical and symbolic importance. It is not necessary to have the assembly in the capital city. It is certainly no longer necessary because of technical advances. I naturally make the case for Swansea guildhall, which by some happy chance has 60 seats in its council chamber. That number was in the memorandum that I sent some months ago to the Welsh Labour party, although I did not think at that time that the assembly would not be in Cardiff.
  Swansea guildhall, in conjunction with Mold, Aberystwyth and Cardiff, is by far the most cost-effective option. I look forward to the Secretary of State saying to the people of Wales, "Look, we said that the cost would be £17 million, but we have managed to save a great deal of money, and the savings from that cost-effective option will be used for education and health."
  I remind my right hon. Friend of the letter from Swansea's chief executive to him on 2 December which effectively states that we in Swansea will not be beaten on cost. It states:
  "At the present time the advice of our respective Estate advisers is that the leaseback to the Council would be £60,000 p. a. resulting in a net rental cost for the Assembly of £340,000 p. a."

  715
  The chief executive repeats the key point when she states:
  "we would be happy to negotiate other arrangements, either freehold or leasehold, for the Assembly's tenure of the Guildhall."
  The letter goes on to say that they
  "have set out to match the vision of their forefathers who, amongst many other achievements, bequeathed us the magnificent Guildhall building…Having tested such a wide range of local opinion, we have come to the view that in financial terms we should seek no more from you than the net rental figure set out above. In other words, the broader economic and democratic benefits of locating the National Assembly in Swansea would be full justification for absorption of any consequential costs to the Council".
  I will not set out the importance administrative, historical, cultural and economic case for Swansea.
  For Cardiff, it would not matter all that much if the assembly were to be sited in Swansea. For Swansea and the rest of the west Wales councils that have supported its location there, it would be earnest proof of the Welsh Office's intention to decentralise. I believe that the Secretary of State accepts that there has been an enormous distortion of investment in south-east Wales. To locate the assembly in Swansea would be a counter-magnet, something that, in terms of public investment and public symbolism, would move the focus a little further west—to the boundary of, dare I call it, Welsh Wales and English Wales and to the region that actually voted for the assembly.
  Over the weekend, I gained some idea of the enthusiasm in Swansea for the project. On Friday, I was at the prize giving of the Swansea Institute of Higher Education at Swansea's guildhall. When the acting principal mentioned that the guildhall could be the site of the assembly, there was an enormous roar of approval. On Saturday afternoon, I was with young Labour in the streets of Swansea collecting signatures. Generally, there was an enormously warm response to the idea.
  I can therefore truly say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there would be a whole-hearted and enthusiastic welcome from Swansea if the assembly were to be sited there, with committee meetings elsewhere in Wales. It would be against the prevailing trend of putting everything in south-east Wales, and it would be an enormous and welcome millennium project for the city and for south-west Wales.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Richard Livsey: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I gladly follow the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who, with enthusiasm for his city, shows that there would be a warm welcome if the assembly were located there. They are welcoming people in Swansea, and I understand why he said what he did. Only time will tell whether his party will sort out the problems of the assembly's location. Cardiff has strong claims, but the argument cannot go on for ever.
  The assembly is an historic milestone. The referendum vote was historic, and I congratulate the Secretary of State for Wales, his team and the "Yes for Wales" team on delivering that vote. We all contributed to it in a spirit of co-operation, and we are pleased about that.
  The Conservatives would like a re-run of the referendum. They want to turn the clock back, but even in the town of Presteigne in my constituency, which is
  716
  just 500 yd from the Herefordshire border, when an enterprising person put up on his shop window a list for people to sign saying, "We wish to see a re-run of the referendum," only 12 people did so. If only 12 people signed a list in Presteigne, what hope have the Conservatives in the rest of Wales?
  Conservative Members have said various things about the validity of the referendum, but only 43 per cent. of the electorate turned out to elect the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) in the by-election the other day, and only just over 50 per cent. of the Conservative party's membership elected its present leader—the first time that the party's membership has been involved in a party leader election. I remind Conservative Members of a person who used to sit on the Liberal Benches—a certain Winston Churchill—who returned to Conservative ranks and said that one vote was enough. That is what history tells us.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I shall try for the third time to make the point that hon. Members in other parties are avoiding: there is a difference between an ordinary vote and a vote on a major constitutional issue. We keep hearing this fudge that concessions are being made to acknowledge the smallness of the majority, but no one has made any concession acknowledging that point.
  Mr. Livsey: I did not notice the hon. Gentleman making determined efforts to put a clause into the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill to create a threshold, so ensuring that the principle that he is advancing now was part of the referendum. As he failed to do that, his argument falls flat on its face.
  Like many Welshmen, I have worked outside my country. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, I worked in Scotland. A pamphlet was produced at that time, which said in the introduction:
  "Our standpoint is certainly Tory.
  We are convinced that a measure of devolution to Scotland of power over her domestic affairs is essential. In every meaningful sense except the exercise of control over her internal affairs, Scotland is a country: to apply the current jargon of 'region' is inaccurate."
  It went on to say other things that basically favoured devolution. At the end, the pamphlet stated that one of its authors was a certain "Michael Ancram".
  I remember that well, because I was the Liberal party candidate in Scotland contesting the Perth seat. Views have changed over the years—the Conservative party's constitutional spokesman now opposes the creation of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. During the referendum campaign, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) told the Scots that the Scottish Parliament had too much power, but when he was in Wales, he told us that the Welsh Assembly needed more. There was a counterpoint to that argument.
  In discussing the Bill and in debating it in Committee, we have a great opportunity to get it right for Wales. I make no apologies for making remarks that may be slightly critical of certain aspects, but they are made in the spirit of co-operation and to achieve an assembly that is fair, democratic, just, free and united. I am sure that the forebears in my party, including Lloyd George and Gladstone, and Tom Ellis, leader of Cymru Fydd, whom the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned, were all in favour of a Welsh Parliament.

  717
  During this century, we have seen the creation of the Welsh Office, the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales and the gradual strengthening of government in Wales. Now is the time to give Wales true democracy. We want to unite English and Welsh speakers, rural and urban Wales, and poor and middle-income families in Wales—there are not many really rich people in Wales. We want to unite women, craftspeople, educators, farmers, miners, entrepreneurs, teenagers and all other sections of society.
  Over the years, it has been the Conservatives' tactic to divide and rule. That has been their stock in trade, but references to fear—and they are contained in the reasoned amendment—do not work any more on the people of Wales because, at the referendum, diversity was proved to be our strength. During the referendum campaign, the people of Wales came of age, because they co-operated with each other and did not listen to the campaign of fear that was directed at them.
  I should like to make a general point. The way things are set at the moment, in 1999, we shall have Welsh Assembly, county council and European Parliament elections. I ask the Secretary of State to consider the possibility of delaying the county council elections for one year, to the year 2000. It has been done before, in 1973–74. It might be a better and more constructive way to proceed, so that there is a proper concentration in 1999 on the assembly elections and then a proper concentration in 2000 on the county council elections. Clause 3 relates to community councils.
  Clause 4 relates to the electoral systems. The Liberal Democrats welcome the introduction of proportional representation for elections to the Welsh Assembly. We note that 40 seats will be under the first-past-the-post system and 20 under the additional member system. I agree with some of the Opposition's comments about open lists. That possibility should be examined in Committee, as open lists have a considerable amount going for them.
  Mr. Ron Davies: The debate on open lists was raised in the context of the European elections. There was an argument that electors had the opportunity to cast only one vote, so there was some criticism that they would be coerced into voting for the party rather than having the opportunity to vote for a preferred candidate within the list. I understand that argument as it relates to the European elections.
  However, with the assembly elections, people will not be coerced into voting only once, because they will have two votes. They will be able to vote for their preferred candidate under the first-past-the-post system, so it is not unreasonable—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) wants to play a constructive part in the debate, he should enter into the spirit. I am trying to explain an important point. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to raise questions about how parties select candidates, I shall be happy to debate that with him later.
  I can tell the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) that, with the elections for the assembly, it is not unreasonable to expect electors who will be able to vote for the candidate of their choice then to vote for the
  718
  party of their choice, because that is the basis on which the additional members for the wider constituency will be calculated.
  Mr. Livsey: I understand where the Secretary of State is coming from, but it is possible to have various members on an open list from different wings of a political party, on which the electorate might like to pronounce. It gives them more freedom of action when they vote under the additional member system. We must investigate various aspects of that in Committee.
  Has the Secretary of State considered getting the Electoral Reform Society to examine the system of proportional representation for the Welsh Assembly? It might have some constructive comments to make.
  When referring to my former colleague Alex Carlile, who represented Montgomery, the Secretary of State said that, if the outcome of the first assembly election was not as proportional as was thought to be fair, there might be a possibility of altering the system. There is also the possibility that the right hon. Gentleman might not be the Secretary of State for Wales; he might have moved onwards and upwards by that time. Another occupant of his office might take a contrary view. There is a case for trying to get it right first time. We shall be testing the Secretary of State in Committee, in a democratic and constructive way, on some of these matters.
  Like the right hon. Member for Caernarfon, we regret the fact that the Bill provides for only secondary legislation, and that there are no tax-raising powers. We would like law-making and tax-raising powers in a Senedd, which would have more power. I am sure that we shall discuss that in Committee. We need to ensure that the assembly is truly geographically inclusive. I should like it to sit in Llandrindod Wells, in my constituency. It is very well placed—some say that it is equally inaccessible for everyone in Wales. Perhaps that is a virtue, in some respects.
  During the past three months, there has been an increasing divide between the rural and the urban areas not just in Britain generally, but in Wales. That is surprising, because Wales is close to a rural life. The current crisis in the beef industry is compounded by ignorance among decision makers. I do not refer to the Secretary of State, who had a long tenure in agriculture and has a significant rural area in his constituency. However, others have taken an urban stance on problems in the agricultural industry. There is no market for beef at the moment, but I will not go into that.
  I expect the Welsh Assembly to be better informed in making decisions about agriculture. I expect its members to be pretty close to rural roots. That must be reflected in the assembly's agriculture committee, which must have a real power to influence. Outside the south Wales mining valleys—and even they have an element of agriculture—and outside parts of north-east Wales, Wales is a very rural country. In that respect, it is not dissimilar to Ireland, which wields great power on agricultural issues in the European Union. Wales, through its assembly, could also have a significant influence on agricultural and rural policies.
  If there is a Cabinet system—and my party is coming round to that view—there should be a Minister exclusively responsible for agriculture, as well as one exclusively responsible for rural affairs. Agriculture is very important

  719
  to the rural economy, with up to 25 per cent. of the Welsh population—especially in my area of mid-Wales—involved in agriculture. It is a significant part of the Welsh economy.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's musings about beef policy. Is it his understanding that an order to ban beef on the bone would be executed by the Welsh Assembly in respect of Wales and by the Scottish Parliament in respect of Scotland, and that such an order would apply in England only if executed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—that suggests chaos on such an issue—or that the order would be a United Kingdom ban executed through this Parliament by the Minister of Agriculture?
  Mr. Livsey: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noted that it was the Minister of Agriculture who made the announcement the other day. He has the power, under primary legislation, to make such orders. I do not foresee the Welsh Assembly, which will have only secondary legislation powers, being able to do something like that.
  The Bill refers to reform of the health service, especially health authorities, in Wales. It refers to the possibility of creating one health authority for Wales. I welcome that, because I believe that health administration in Wales is too complex and too bureaucratic. I should like there to be one health authority in Wales, and some thought to be given to how powers are given to that health authority and to strengthening trusts—based on communities—across Wales.
  I should like trusts to be coterminous with local authorities. In Northern Ireland, for example, there is strong co-operation between social services and health departments—they are essentially united—providing not only cost savings but more effective care for the elderly and children, and other aspects of care.
  In the Welsh Grand Committee, I mentioned the need for the Welsh Assembly to have more powers on transport, and particularly to have more influence over rail policy. Liberal Democrats think that we cannot implement an integrated transport policy in Wales without having real influence over rail policy. We shall have to make progress on that matter. Wales certainly has a third-world road communications system, which is a legacy of 18 years of conservatism. I hope that the assembly will soon start to put that legacy right.
  On the assembly's procedure, clause 49 provides that the Secretary of State will have power to modify standing orders and even to alter standing orders proposed by the commission. Liberal Democrats welcome the establishment of a commission—which I am sure will be composed of people of authority and wisdom—but we think that the Secretary of State's power to alter the commission's decisions will give him perhaps a little too much power. Surely the commission's word is final. It certainly should be in a matter of constitutional reform.
  Mr. Ron Davies: That is a fair point; and it is a matter of judgment. My view was that the Secretary of State is answerable to the House, and that the commission is answerable to no one other than the Secretary of State.
  720
  It therefore seemed that the most appropriate thing to do was to ensure that the commission took a view reflecting the advisory committee's recommendations—which would have to be put in the public domain—and that the Secretary of State would have to explain any deviation from those recommendations. That would place responsibility on the shoulders of the person who is ultimately democratically answerable.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that the provision is there only as a fail-safe mechanism, and that, if the Secretary of State were to depart from the commission's recommendations, he would do so only on the basis of providing a very good public explanation of what the commission was proposing and why he was deviating from it.
  Mr. Livsey: I welcome the Secretary of State's comments. Although I regard him as a reasonable man, perhaps a future holder of his office will not take the same view. We shall have to examine the matter.
  Mr. Dalyell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for intruding on his speech, but he said just a moment ago that the road system in Wales was like that in a third-world country. I do not know whether that is true—
  Mr. Wigley: It is.
  Mr. Dalyell: If it is true and it is to be put right, may an outsider ask where the money will come from? It is all part of the same kitty of resources.
  Mr. Livsey: That is a fair question. The Scottish Office, for example—I am very familiar with the hon. Gentleman's country of Scotland—has spent a lot of money on the A9 from Perth to Inverness. It would be wonderful if we had such a road—not a great big motorway or dual carriageway, but going fairly straight—right up through the spine of Wales. I could take him through my constituency, and he would be quite dizzy by the end of his journey; and that trip would be only in my constituency. From my constituency, I can travel to Scotland—on the road system in England—more quickly than I can reach Anglesey. We do not have that infrastructure in Wales.
  Liberal Democrats hope that the commission will have a good political mix, perhaps reflecting the general election results.
  Clause 53 provides that the assembly will establish committees on the basis of party balance. Does that mean that a member from a party other than the ruling party will have no chance of becoming a committee chairman? Perhaps the House will explore that matter in Committee.
  Clause 58 does not specify the number of members on the assembly's executive committee. We shall have to sharpen up that point in Committee. In some circumstances, we could end up with perhaps only three or four members on the executive committee. I am sure that that is not the Secretary of State's intention, and that no hon. Member wants an arrangement that is too cosy.
  Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Gentleman mentioned clause 53 and queried whether committee chairmen will

  721
  be from various parties. I draw his attention to clause 53(2)(b)—I realise that this is the Second Reading debate, and I shall not often intervene in such detail—which clearly provides that committee members
  "shall…be elected so as to secure that, as far as is practicable, the balance of the parties in the Assembly is reflected in the membership of the committee."
  Mr. Livsey: I do not want to go into too much detail in a Second Reading debate, but we can debate the matter further in Committee. Several points might emerge in that debate.
  Mr. Robert Syms: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Livsey: I give way for the last time, because I have spoken for too long.
  Mr. Syms: The hon. Gentleman said that he believes that the Secretary of State is a reasonable man. Did the Secretary of State consult him on appointing the Liberal Democrat member of the advisory committee? If so, in what way?
  Mr. Livsey: We certainly discussed the matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We were invited to the Welsh Office, as were members of Plaid Cymru, and we discussed the matter. The Conservative party did not take up the offer—which is unfortunate, but a statement of fact.
  Liberal Democrats believe that regional committees must be strong throughout the length and breadth of Wales, perhaps to counteract too much power in the south-east. I am sure that all hon. Members wish power to be distributed fairly across Wales. I am sure that we shall get that right.
  The block grant will be decided in the House. Many issues in the Bill—such as loans and the Secretary of State making payments to the assembly—have already been mentioned in this debate. The Barnett formula has also been mentioned. Liberal Democrats think it vital that the Barnett formula remains. There are also strong reasons why it should be reinforced. As Welsh Members know, in the past dozen years, gross domestic product in Wales has dropped by 10 per cent., and we need compensation through the Barnett formula for that drop. We shall need firmer commitments on that.
  Quangos in Wales need to be sorted out, and I sincerely hope that some of them will be abolished in the next couple of years. I also hope that the assembly will have a big input into how quangos are run. We must test the Government's resolve in that respect. As a mid-Wales Member, the loss of the Development Board for Rural Wales I regret. We hope that we shall be given sufficient powers in the proposed powerhouse for mid-Wales to compensate for the loss of that body, but it will have to do an extremely good job to equal what the DBRW has done in the past 18 years.
  We must look at the way in which the national parks are run. I shall refrain from discussing the current situation in my own national park, which is not exactly satisfactory. The national parks should be run according to a more democratic system, and the members governing
  722
  them should be elected from candidates drawn from residents within each national park. That would create more local support for the parks.
  The concordat on Europe is extremely important. Wales will have its place in Europe as one of its regions. The current review of structural funds and the loss of objective 5b status should be discussed and resolved in the Welsh Assembly, but I understand that that decision is subject to a timetable and will be reached by 1999.
  The Liberal Democrats believe that the people of Wales, including those who voted no at the referendum, have accepted that there will be an assembly and, like me, they care about and are proud of their inheritance and our heritage. We believe that it is our duty in this House to create an assembly of which we in Wales can all be proud. If we achieve that, we shall leave for the next generation something worth while, which they can get their teeth into in the 21st century.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) was sitting in front of me earlier and he suggested that if I spoke I should declare an interest as I have expressed the intention to stand for the Welsh Assembly. I am not sure whether I will be the only Labour Member to do so. Some Opposition Members may do likewise, but obviously Conservative Members cannot declare such an interest, although some ex-Conservative Members, seeking re-entry into politics, may do so. I believe that some have expressed that intention.
  I should like to question the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who has again temporarily left the Chamber, about his mathematics. He complained that the Secretary of State for Wales had laughed at the abysmal performance of the Tories in Wales, who got less than 20 per cent. of the vote at the general election. He asked what was so terrible about getting 20 per cent. of the vote when the Government registered only 25 per cent. support for the Welsh Assembly in the referendum. Of course, he made the fundamental mistake of not comparing like with like. The yes vote for the assembly, at 50.3 per cent., was more than two and half times greater than the Conservatives' 20 per cent. in the general election.
  If the right hon. Gentleman wants to use as a comparison the 25 per cent. of the electorate who voted yes at the referendum, and we allow for the turnout at the election, the Conservative share of the electorate is something like 14 per cent. Again, that is not far off half the yes vote recorded at the referendum. The right hon. Gentleman needs to be more careful in his use of figures.
  The right hon. Gentleman's speech in response to the Secretary of State was short on the historical context for the debate. He did not seem to realise that this is an extremely historic measure because it is the sixth time that the House has attempted to deal with the status of the Celtic fringe countries of the British Isles. I say it is the sixth attempt because I am leaving out the unsuccessful government of Wales and Scotland Bills of the late 1970s.
  Given that it is extremely likely that this Bill, based on the support registered at the referendum, will become an Act, we are talking about six Acts that have dealt with Wales, Scotland and Ireland. The two original Acts of Union for Wales were agreed in the middle of the

  723
  16th century. We then had the Scottish Act of Union in 1707; followed by the fish Act of Union in 1801; and then the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The right hon. Member for Devizes was extremely complimentary about its preamble. The final piece of legislation, the Government of Wales Bill, is one of a mere six measures over 450 years designed to deal with matters of such historical importance. That demonstrates to all of us that we are participating in an historic debate.
  I am sure that many previous Secretaries of State for Wales and other politicians representing Welsh constituencies would be rightly jealous of the fact that the current Secretary of State for Wales is in a position to introduce the Bill with the backing of the referendum.
  There is now every likelihood that the Bill will pass into law and that there will be a Welsh Assembly, sitting, I should like to think, in Cardiff city hall. In fact, an emergency meeting of Cardiff county council's Labour group started five minutes ago and, who knows, it may decide to reverse its earlier decision on the matter. If we had a video conference link, of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is so fond, between the Palace of Westminster and Cardiff county council's headquarters at Atlantic wharf, we would know what the Labour group was thinking, just as the group would know what we were thinking.
  In 18 months' time, there may be a Welsh Assembly meeting for the first time. The last time that happened was for two weeks in 1404—quite unlike the situation in Scotland and Ireland—when there were incipient Welsh Parliaments during Owain Glyndwr's rebellion against English rule. They met once at Machynlleth and once at Dolgellau, although the historical record about that second meeting is vague. The representatives at the Machynlleth Parliament were chosen by rather more democratic means than the procedures governing the House at the time. At least two representatives were chosen from every Welsh commote, as the parishes were then called.
  It is clear, therefore, that today's debate concerns events of major historical significance. The right hon. Member for Devizes, however, made daft alleged jokes about great halls of people and, by doing so, sold his party and Wales short. His performance as Opposition spokesman also sold the House short.
  The right hon. Gentleman completely forgot the context of the democratic devolution which we have gradually built up in Wales in the past 75 years since the original Welsh Board of Health and the Welsh Board of Education were set up in Cardiff in the 1920s. That development was followed by the institution, 33 years ago, of the office of Secretary of State for Wales. That office has been held by more Conservative Members than Labour Members because of the political current in this country during that time. Certainly in the past 18 years of Conservative rule there was no lack of volunteers for that position, even when the Government ran out of Welsh ones. The same can be said of the period between 1970 and 1974, when the Conservatives first had the opportunity to fill that office.
  The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said that it is 111 years since the first public calls were made by recognised Welsh public bodies or major political parties for an elected council for Wales. The
  724
  demand has existed for many years and it has been met by various strategies to provide administrative devolution, without accompanying democratic devolution. The English regions will find out, however, that administrative devolution inevitably leads to demands for democratic devolution, because mere administrative devolution is considered to be too bureaucratic.
  Some people, including the right hon. Member for Devizes, have made the criticisms that the arrangements are a dog's dinner, that they leave too many questions unanswered, that they are too reliant on good will, that they do not cater for the storms and that they will work only during periods of calm. To be honest, all methods of democratic government rely on a degree of good will and mutual understanding.
  This country's reliance until now on the supremacy of Parliament, rather than on a written constitution, has meant an even greater than usual reliance on good will; but, by and large, that good will has not failed us throughout the history of Parliament. It is good will which has carried us forward, not the demand for written, clear constitutional definitions of what is federal, non-federal or quasi-federal. We have relied on an element of British common sense to carry us through any disputes, whereas other countries such as the USA and Germany have relied on written constitutions that contain specific provisions requiring 75 per cent. or two-thirds agreement to make changes.
  Mr. Swayne: Can the hon. Gentleman comment on the inevitability of an element among those who support the assembly and who will be members of it setting out to maximise disputes between the assembly and Westminster, precisely because they want the assembly to become a parliament for an independent Wales? Will he reflect on the fact that the arrangements, if they are to survive, will have to work when there is a lack of good will, as well as when there is an abundance of it?
  Mr. Morgan: I certainly do not deny that there will be periods of stress in the relationship between any devolved parliament and the supreme central Parliament. Looking ahead over the next quarter century, I would never deny the likelihood of a few punch-ups and hot arguments between Westminster and a devolved parliament, but what does the hon. Gentleman think happens in other countries with devolved parliaments? What does he think happens in Germany in respect of decisions about what the lánder governments should and should not be allowed to do?
  What is at issue is whether that is an argument against democratic devolution. In the debate so far, Opposition Members have tried to stir up the idea that democratic devolution will be unworkable because of the likelihood of such disputes, but a crisis such as the hon. Gentleman describes is far more likely to occur if we do not have democratic devolution.
  Now that we have had the referendum, it is not right that the House should be detained overlong by anything that is predicated on our putting into operation anything other than a form of Welsh devolution, with its first sitting in mid-1999. The sooner the official Opposition—although the Conservatives are hardly the official Opposition in Wales—get used to the idea that there is going to be a Welsh Assembly, the better.

  725
  The Conservatives are starting to think about methods of selecting candidates and how to participate in the assembly. Once they have secured reasonable representation, proportionate to their usual level of support in Wales—let us hope they have a good year and exceed the 20 per cent. mark—they will find themselves taking part in a democratic assembly. They might occasionally find themselves enjoying it, rather than enduring it through gritted teeth, as seems to be their feeling today.
  Mr. Huw EdwardsWe do not hope that.
  Mr. Morgan: Sorry—in making my predictions about the level of support that the Conservatives will achieve, I am speaking as an ex-academic political scientist and psephologist.
  Britain is unusual in having no written constitution; when doing things such as this, we edge our way forward from administrative devolution to democratic devolution. Democratic devolution came to Northern Ireland—indeed, that is the only previous example, although it does not provide a model that one can quote with any commendation, as it was withdrawn after 50 years in 1972 because of the unusual religious circumstances and community divisions in Northern Ireland.
  People have said that we must remember the yes-no divide within Wales. We can all see that the referendum result was close, but we can also see that it showed a sort of historic line down the middle of Wales—an east-west divide stretching roughly from Great Ormes Head at Llandudno down to Nash Point or Port Talbot. West of that line, the vote was mostly yes; east of the line, the vote was mostly no, but the significant point is that there were large numbers of no voters in the yes areas and large numbers of yes voters in the no areas.
  One has to express surprise at the level of the yes vote in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards). All credit is due to him for the fact—staggering to those involved in the yes campaign—that 10,000 people voted yes within the Monmouthshire local authority area. That showed that there was still a large yes vote even in what is often referred to as the most anglicised area of Wales, or even as an area which has never really accepted that it is part of Wales—Monmouthshire having been declared part of Wales only during the 1960s. The divide was not a sharp one—the majorities fell east and west of the line I described, but there was more of a spectrum, with the percentage of yes voters gradually increasing the further westward one looked. There is no great danger of Wales being divided; none the less, the Welsh Assembly must make every effort to act as a bridge between yes-voting and no-voting areas.
  In the absence of true democratic institutions in the past in Wales, and given our geography—the reverse of Scotland's, where the mountains are on the outside and the people live in the middle, whereas in Wales the mountains are in the middle and the population live around the outside—centrifugal forces are strong in Wales. The Welsh Assembly will, for the first time, provide a focus—a collecting point—for Welsh public opinion in one coherent whole. Therefore, for the first time, the Welsh people will be able to express themselves democratically, rather than being divided by the forces of geography—the position of the mountains and the distribution of the population on the plains and in the river valleys of the Severn and the Wye.
  726
  Our geography also helps to explain the difference between the level of support for devolution in Scotland and in Wales. Given that 80 per cent. of the Scottish population lives in the central area, the centripetal forces are extremely strong, so it was easy for the yes campaign there to secure a high proportion of the vote, whereas it was difficult for us in Wales.
  Our difficulty was increased by the fact that the word "Welsh" carries two meanings, whereas the word "Scottish" does not. When we talk about a Scottish Parliament, everyone is clear about what we mean; but when they hear the words "Welsh Assembly", many people—especially in constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth—think that that means a Welsh-speaking assembly. The word "Welsh" has a meaning in the sense of language as well as in the sense of nationality and that gives rise to a somewhat bifocal view of Welsh identity. In the more anglicised areas, people are immediately suspicious of the word "Welsh", in case it means the Welsh language being rammed down their throats—an expression which is quite common in parts of Cardiff and Newport and is heard even more often further east, in the Wye valley and in north-east Wales.
  I am therefore pleased to see that the wording of the Bill has been changed from "Welsh Assembly" to "National Assembly for Wales", which gets around that bifocal view of the word "Welsh". Non-Welsh speakers suspect that something is about to be imposed on them if they agree to something Welsh, because they think the word refers to the language, not the nationality. I am pleased that, in making adaptations as we have progressed from the White Paper to the referendum campaign and on to the Bill itself, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken such concerns on board.
  Since the publication of the Bill and, more recently, the consultation paper, there has been controversy about where the assembly should be located. Cardiff councillors and Members representing Cardiff are not the most popular people among supporters of the assembly. People are suggesting that the population of Cardiff is less than whole-hearted, or is complacent, about Cardiff being the capital of Wales. Swansea people seem to be keen as mustard, but the people in Cardiff do not seem to care too much whether the assembly is located there or not. A peculiar situation has arisen and I am hoping that it may be resolved at the conclusion of tonight's meeting, or perhaps at another emergency group meeting on Wednesday. It is a pity that it has come to this.
  The consultation paper has unleashed commercial and political forces. Now that the deal between the Labour group of Cardiff county council and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has broken down—not irrevocably, we hope—and my right hon. Friend has issued the consultation paper on the Welsh Assembly's location, forces have been unleashed. Those forces could be described as the PFI and the PFO. The private finance initiative involves property developers who want the Welsh Assembly as part of their property development because they think that it will boost its value. PFO stands for parochialism fever outbreak. The combination of PFI and PFO is unhealthy and can get out of hand.

  727
  There are property developers in Cardiff who see enormous value in having the Welsh Assembly in an urban regeneration area. At least three, if not four, schemes in Cardiff bay are being unveiled and pushed. It was put to me very simply: the developers look at the White Paper, or the Bill, and say that the assembly's running costs will be halfway between £15 million and £20 million—let us call it £17 million.
  If the assembly is located in the middle of an urban regeneration PFI comprehensive redevelopment scheme, the property developers will say that that figure, multiplied by 10, will give the spending power emanating from the assembly—£170 million. They say that that £170 million guaranteed spend from the assembly in its first 10 years will fill the restaurants, taxis, hotels and houses. They therefore promise to invest £170 million in the surrounding property if they are allowed to build the assembly. Some of them are implying that they will even build the Welsh Assembly for half price or less for the honour of having it in the centre of their PFI comprehensive redevelopment scheme.
  All those factors show that it will be a difficult race for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ride. He will have to hold on to the reins carefully because those forces have been unleashed. None of that would have happened if the negotiations over Cardiff city hall had not broken down—that is a tragedy.
  Cardiff city hall was built to ambitious standards in 1903. It was built as part of the campaign to have Cardiff declared not the capital city of Wales, but its first city. Cardiff was not a city at the time and part of the campaign was for it to be declared a city—much later, it was to become a capital city. It was because it wanted to be a city that it thought that it should have a city hall to match its ambitions, which is why it has an enormous clock tower, known in Wales as the equivalent of Big Ben. In many ways, it is the Welsh Big Ben, but Big Ben has more of a claim to be called Welsh than does Cardiff's clock tower.
  I am told that Big Ben is named after Sir Benjamin Hall, a Gwent ironmaster, who stood 6 ft 4 in, weighed about 20 stone and was known as Big Ben. He was the Commissioner of Works of the Palace of Westminster. I am told that the clock tower of Cardiff city hall is a straight steal from the clock tower of Caracas cathedral, so Big Ben is actually Welsh, and Cardiff city's clock tower is Venezuelan. However, all that does not matter as, in the hearts and minds of the people of Wales, the clock tower shape with which we are all familiar—and with which we will be even more familiar after next year's European summit—is our equivalent of Big Ben.
  It would be odd to invest so much in raising the image of Cardiff's city hall by having the European summit there in the middle of June next year, only to find that the Welsh Assembly is not to be located there. We can imagine some strange conversations between the Prime Minister, Chancellor Kohl, President Chirac and Prime Minister Jospin. They would say, "This is a lovely building, but tell us, Prime Minister, why aren't you putting the Welsh Assembly here? Have you got better buildings than this to put the Welsh Assembly in?" The Prime Minister would say, "Well, we had better offers, but perhaps not better buildings."
  728
  It will be a shame if Cardiff city hall becomes one of the best-known buildings in the western world, but is not used for the assembly. For the three or four days that it is in the limelight during the European summit next June, its shape will become familiar. If it does not become the home of the Welsh Assembly after all the investment in raising its recognition factor throughout the world, the assembly will be the weaker. The guildhall in Swansea is a superb building of its era, but it is nothing like Cardiff city hall. Through its good fortune in hosting the Euro-summit next year, Cardiff city hall will achieve a special world recognition factor, something which Wales lacks.
  If anyone wants proof of Wales's low recognition factor, he has only to turn to the sports pages of The Observer yesterday. It contained a wonderful example of how Wales is perceived as less important than Scotland and Ireland. Yesterday, I leafed through the sports pages in a desperate attempt to find anything that did not relate to England drawing with New Zealand on Saturday. Eventually, I found something about the sale of fishing rights, which is a huge issue at the moment. The article said that one could buy fishing rights on stretches of the Tay and the Tweed for, say, £3,000 per yard or whatever, but one did not have to cross the border in order to buy excellent trout and salmon fishing rights, as one could buy a lovely stretch on the Conwy.
  That is a classic example of the perception that one does not have to cross the border to go to Wales, but one does in order to reach Scotland. When the Welsh Assembly is set up, I think that that problem will largely disappear. It will give us a probably never-to-be-repeated opportunity to increase Wales's international recognition factor close to that already achieved by Scotland and Ireland.
  The same will be true of the status of whichever city is chosen for the location of the Welsh Assembly. The question is not whether it will be Cardiff or Swansea, but whether any city in Wales can achieve the status—or something close to the status—that Edinburgh and Dublin already enjoy. I do not know that any city in Wales will ever reach the status of Edinburgh and Dublin, but we know that that is the competition. It would be nice to think that the location of the Welsh Assembly, whichever city my right hon. Friend eventually chooses, has a fighting chance over the next few decades to achieve the international recognition and status that cities such as Edinburgh and Dublin—with which one naturally tends to compare Cardiff, Swansea and Llandrindod Wells—already have. I do not believe that it is possible to achieve that for any city other than Cardiff.
  Cardiff has a good opportunity and a good start because of the European summit and the rugby cup final that will be held in June 1999, but those are only temporary boosts—one is for three days, the other for three weeks; we hope that the Assembly will last for 300 years. I do not think that that opportunity arises anywhere else but in Cardiff, which is why I make a plea, as I did at this morning's press conference in Cardiff along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), for Cardiff to be chosen. My plea also goes out to the Labour group on Cardiff county council and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he finally comes to make his decision.

  729
  I have heard the remarks about new technology and the fact that one should not be a luddite and should remember what can be achieved with microwave links around Wales and video conferences. I do not deny that, although such technology will probably always pass over my head as I am not of the techno whiz-kid generation. However, there are dangers in saying that it does not matter where the assembly is located, as one can use video conferences, e-mails, websites and the latest gizmos from the computer world. That may be fine for the under-30s. I accept that most democracies are terribly old-fashioned because they insist on conducting their business face to face in Chambers such as ours. Perhaps we are worse in some ways, or more conservative, than most, because we do not even have electronic voting, whereas most legislatures do.
  However, we are in danger of missing the point. The fundamental point of a parliamentary assembly or democratic body is that it is the place where people go to petition for redress of grievances. It must have the ability to legislate—it does not matter how modest the legislative powers in the Bill are. It must also have the ability to debate.
  Above all, a parliamentary assembly must be able to show the people whom it represents that it is worth their while to petition it for redress of their grievances. To do so, it must locate itself in a place that people look up to with respect and affection. People must be able to say, "That is the seat of power. That is where we shall go with our petition, with our deputation, our delegation, even the riot that we want to have outside the building." People may want to riot outside the place, but they want to know that the key people are inside the place.
  Let us take the farmers—
  Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Morgan: In a minute.
  The farmers who are in a great ferment—almost rebellion—in parts of Wales as a result of the beef crisis would want to know where they should go to have a riot outside or a meeting inside, or both, because that is what parliamentary assemblies are for. People must have the feeling that they can go there and cajole, threaten and make their feelings known as strongly as possible and argue that something must be done to stop what is going wrong at the moment, which is destroying their livelihood.
  A Parliament must fulfil that function. I do not believe that it is possible to video conference a riot or meetings in a way that could defuse tensions. We need to be able to say to people, "Yes, we will try to put that right. We know how strongly you feel because we have seen how strongly you feel in meetings or because we have seen you through the windows and said to one another, `'Oh my God, I can see 5,000 farmers out there, rioting.'"
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd:rose—
  Mr. Morgan: That is what Parliaments are for, in a way—to defuse tensions. People should think, "That is the seat of power. If we go there, we can get something done that will stop us all going down the Swanee and all being bankrupt in a few years' time."
  Mr. Swayne: To which Parliament should those who want their grievances redressed come? Should they riot outside this Parliament or outside the assembly? Should
  730
  they bring their grievances for redress to the hon. Gentleman, as their Member of Parliament, or to their assemblyman? The Bill does not make that clear.
  Mr. Morgan: That is an evolving issue. If they are mostly Welsh beef farmers and if they are as broke as most of them claim to be, they will be unable to afford to come to London, so they will tend to visit Cardiff. Instead of stopping Irish lorries, they will want to have a big punch-up, in the figurative sense, at the assembly. They will say, "You must damn well do something about the crisis in our industry or next year there will be no beef industry left." That is a good classical example for us to think about. Where would they go in future?
  The House might find itself almost in competition with the assembly, saying to people, "Come and have a riot in London because we can redress your grievances better than if you go to the assembly," but I believe that people will take their own decisions depending on what they consider to be the true seat of power on each issue.
  Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Morgan: I shall give way first to the hon. Gentleman. Later, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd).
  Mr. Evans: Is not the hon. Gentleman missing the point? Surely the issue is not whether Welsh farmers should riot in Cardiff or in London. If the Government were listening to the farmers of Wales, they would not need to riot anywhere.
  Mr. Morgan: Dear, dear, dear. I give way to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy.
  Mr. Llwyd: May I, on behalf of Welsh farmers, assure everyone that they have not have been rioting? Rioting is a very serious legal issue. The crisis is extremely deep. Let us please not take it lightly. The hon. Gentleman made some strange remarks ealier, and I found them downright offensive.
  Mr. Morgan: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman has mistaken my remarks. I am using the example of the farmers to show what a parliamentary assembly is for. I am surprised if, given his party, the hon. Gentleman does not think that an assembly will be the focus for people to express their dissent, and if he does not understand that the fundamental first function of a parliamentary assembly or a Parliament is to be the place where people go to petition for the redress of grievances. Yes, legislation will be passed, yes, there will be debate, but the assembly must also be the place to take a deputation or delegation and a crisis, which may boil over.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy may object to my use of the word "riot". I have used it as a colourful expression to help hon. Members to understand what a parliamentary assembly is for and to try to predict what would have happened if the beef crisis had happened after June 1999. I am saying to him that it is likely that, instead of focusing on the ports of Holyhead, Fishguard and Pembroke, the beef farmers would be more likely to petition in front of city hall at Cardiff, the guildhall in Swansea or a brand new building.

  731
  I hope that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will accept that I intended no disrespect for the strength of farmers' feelings. I have respect for the strength of feelings of an industry in crisis—a crisis which dates back 10 years to the start of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy problem in the mid-1980s and has now come to the boil because we cannot export and we are importing. Obviously, farmers feel extremely strongly about that. That matter must be placed in the context of the Bill. We should ask what effect the Bill would have had on that crisis if it had taken place two years hence.
  I make a plea to the Secretary of State. If a scheme evolves that represents an attractive financial option—similar to the claim that Swansea guildhall can be rented to the Secretary of State for Wales for the purposes of the assembly and that money will be left over—and if that is done via the private finance initiative, as these days it almost certainly will be, we must be sure that the fledgling Welsh democracy, sitting for the first time in June 1999, is not in hock to the property development consortium that provides the building.
  If the building is provided by private finance, it must be provided free of encumbrances on the conveyance, if I may use old-fashioned lawyer's language, which I am sure that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy understands. It must not be capable of restricting the actions of the new Welsh democracy.
  The new Welsh democracy will be taking a few walks before it learns to run. It is a fledgling, and we are not used to it. Unlike the Scots, who had a Parliament until 1707, we had one for only a week or two. It will be difficult to get Welsh democracy off the ground quickly and running. Any suggestion that the new fledgling Welsh democracy is constrained by its landlord, and that it must not offend the landlord if it is financed with private finance, would be damaging to the thing that I believe we all want. Perhaps even Conservative Members, in their heart of hearts, realise that Welsh democracy is coming. Indeed, the Conservative party, with proportional representation, may find it a lifeline to rescue it from its moribund state.
  That is my final plea. I hope that the Secretary of State or other Ministers can give us an assurance that if the private finance initiative is used to finance the building, it will not restrict what the Welsh assembly can do.
  Several hon.Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. There is an element of Parkinson's law creeping into the debate. Many hon. Members are still trying to catch my eye; if speeches continue at the present length, many will fail to do so.
  7.37 pm
  Mr.Robert syms: Unlike many of the contributors to the debate, I find this a sad day because, as a Conservative and a Unionist, I believe that it is the start, not the end, of many years of argument.
  The Bill, as drafted, falls between two stools. Although it will undermine the Union, upset the constitutional balance and pose a challenge that will cause a reaction
  732
  among my constituents in Poole, it will not satisfy the strong feelings among many of those in Wales who would wish the assembly to be developed into a full Parliament, with all that that entails.
  In any constitutional change, the key rule is to have a settlement so that what hon. Members decided in the Chamber sticks for many years. As the Bill stands, that will not happen. The Secretary of State said earlier that this is not an event but a process. We see in clause 22 a transfer mechanism for other powers. That is likely to increase the arguments between those of us who want to defend the Union and those in the assembly who want to promote and expand its powers. I see that as the likely future of politics for a number of years.
  Listening to the speeches today it struck me that hon. Members see all sorts of possibilities for the assembly, usually involving large pots of money to spend on their favourite projects. It has been pointed out as well that, under the proposals, there will be only the same total pot of money. There will have to be a great deal of disappointment—
  Mr. Öpik: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that, with judicious paring back of quangos, it is possible to release quite large quantities of money? If we replace quango appointees with elected assembly members, we shall not have to give them a large additional income for the same work.
  Mr. Syms: That is a good point. There is some scope for saving small sums of money from the quangos but, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) told us, the running costs of the assembly will be £17 million a year. He spoke of property developers, he spoke of 10 times average running costs—I could not help thinking that there must be other decent purposes in the Principality to which the money could be devoted. Already in the debate, Members have mentioned, for instance, a spine road through Wales and assistance to farmers. I wonder whether that is the best use of resources, although I accept that it is possible to reorder priorities.
  As the assembly will not have tax-raising powers and will control the budget currently controlled by the Secretary of State, it will in effect encroach on local government. By far the largest element in the Welsh Office budget is local government expenditure. There will be a tremendous temptation for the assembly to top-slice expenditure and to choose its own priorities.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the Welsh Local Government Association whole-heartedly supports the assembly?
  Mr. Syms: Yes, and I suspect that the association, controlled as it is by the Labour party, would.
  The problem that I have described will give rise to conflict between the assembly and local authorities. It will, after all, be the only place to which they can go for money. A further problem is that anyone elected to the assembly will try to find a way of being seen to make a difference. Overall, therefore, I do not believe that the proposals will be helpful.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) rightly said that the proposals must be tested against the worst-case scenario. Of course, good

  733
  unionists hope that people will work together and that the United Kingdom will remain an integral entity—but it will not always be easy. Conflicts will always arise with elected authorities. Indeed, there were conflicts between local and national government when my party was in power. One sees the same problem in the dynamics between Europe and this Parliament. Those in the assembly—which I suspect will be in Cardiff—will have every incentive to posture and argue for their particular authorities: it would be most unusual if they did not. Anyone elected to such an assembly always wants to secure to himself the maximum amount of power and authority.
  Meanwhile, the Secretary of State's role, if he is still in position at the time, will be difficult. Even if his party members dominate the assembly, there will be tensions. There are already tensions in the Welsh Labour group over Cardiff, for example. A certain amount of tension can be creative, but too much of it is dangerous to any democratic process. The legislation carries the implied assumption that there may be parties of the same political colour at Westminster and in Cardiff. That is not necessarily so in the long term; there could be a Labour-controlled assembly but a Conservative Government.
  Mr. Ron Davies: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with care because he is trying to make a rational case. He will not be surprised to hear me say that I do not necessarily agree with it. He is talking about tensions in the system. Is he aware of the sort of tensions there were while the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was Secretary of State? Not one local authority in Wales was in political agreement with him; the overwhelming majority of Welsh Members of Parliament were completely opposed to what he was doing; he was reorganising Welsh local government; and—crucially—he returned £110 million of the Welsh block to the Treasury because he wanted to fulfil a political agenda that had nothing to do with Wales. Doeshe hon. Gentleman understand the tensions that that can cause?
  Mr. SymsI do. In a former life, I served on Wiltshire county council. In the course of certain negotiations, we once attended a meeting in Cardiff with Welsh local authorities to discuss pay increases. I had the distinct feeling that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was not the most popular person in the Principality.
  There are pluses and minuses in any union. Some places contribute to the Exchequer, others take money out of it—people accept that. The same tensions may come to be felt in some parts of England if this Government stay in power for a long time.
  Given the electoral success of the Secretary of State's party in Wales, one is forced to wonder about the scale of those tensions if you stick to your manifesto promises in the Principality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) pointed out, the election result certainly supplied you with a mandate to set up an assembly for Wales, but I am not so sure that the referendum result gives you the mandate—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is addressing the Chair.
  Mr. Syms: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Clearly, the no vote in the referendum got two and a half times as much support as the Conservatives got at the general election. That means that many Labour and liberal Democrat supporters—not to mention an overwhelming majority of Conservatives—must have voted no. With such a narrow vote, it is obvious that the Welsh people were in two minds. So, although I congratulate you on your victory—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Syms: I do apologise.
  I believe that devolution will be bad for Wales. The CBI has said that there is no economic imperative for an assembly. We have heard that the Secretary of State is to have reserve powers.
  Before finishing, I want to mention the electoral arrangements. I support first past the post as the simplest and most accountable available system. True, it may benefit my party, but I do not believe that the system proposed for the assembly will do it justice: 40 members elected under first past the post, 20 by the alternative member system. That will mean two categories of assembly member. Will they have equal status? We just do not know. The alternative member system will operate as a closed party list system. Some may be elected in by-elections—those for the single-member constituencies—but those on the list will probably be filled by appointees. Immediately, there will be two different categories.
  Mr. Ron Davies: I am sorry to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman is so completely misinformed. There is no reason at all why the members on the list should come, as he is suggesting, from smoke-filled rooms and party lists. I would hope that my party, which has not made its decision on the matter, will decide its list system on the basis of a ballot of ordinary individual members. I have no doubt that this process will be followed by other political parties. There is no reason to suggest that it will be done by some stitch-up.
  Mr. Syms: I understand what the Secretary of State is saying—it will be a party, rather than an electoral, arrangement.
  An ordinary Welsh constituent will have a Member of Parliament, a Member of the European Parliament, a member of the assembly elected through the constituency system and four assembly members elected under the alternative member system. In other words, he will have seven people to deal with constituency problems. All of us in the House know that people are not always clear where the boundaries occur. If a constituent has seven people to write to, there will not be accountability. Who knows which assembly member is dealing with a matter?
  The system will diminish accountability. Under the present system, it is usually clear who is the Member of Parliament and where the buck stops if someone is not answering letters. There will be a problem with so many

  735
  representatives. This is an area where more does not necessarily mean better and does not provide a more accountable system.
  The proposals will be bad for the Union. They are expensive and will leave Wales over-governed with more political interference. The electoral arrangements are somewhat bizarre and will reduce accountability. The Bill sets too many bad precedents for the United Kingdom and leaves those of us who wish to maintain the strength of the United Kingdom a major task for the future.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Martyn Jones: Unlike the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), I think that this is a great day for democracy and a great day for Wales, as were I May and 18 September.
  The enemies and despisers of democracy among the Tory ranks have made their predictable points against government being closer to the people. "Ranks" may not be an appropriate description, given that there are no Tory Members representing Welsh constituencies. The same distrustful hot air and anti-democratic rhetoric was spouted in Wales and Scotland by the Tories before the election. Where, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are those Conservative Members now? The British people ejected them, and the Welsh and Scottish people ejected them entirely.
  Fortunately, the new Labour Government's plans for welfare to work and a minimum wage will ensure that former Tory Members are given an opportunity to contribute to society, perhaps in a way that they have not done previously.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Get them back to work!
  Mr. Jones: Get them to work might be more appropriate.
  The Labour party has long argued that government should be based on partnership, democracy and inclusiveness. As part of that belief, the Welsh referendum was one of our key pledges. We delivered it, and Wales said, "Yes."
  I must tackle the ridiculous suggestion that those people who did not vote were no voters. That is arrant nonsense. If that were the case, the last three Tory Governments would not have had majorities. Only 42 per cent. of the electorate voted for them, and if the 25 per cent. who did not vote had been counted as voting against them, they would not have had majorities. That is ludicrous. The "don't knows" remain to be convinced, and the Bill aims to create supporters from those "don't knows".
  From a personal point of view, the Bill is a boyhood dream. A national assembly for Wales, as outlined in the Bill, will ensure that the people of Wales have the voice that they deserve, and will ensure that Wales is not left behind. We shall have fewer quangos and more democracy. Wales will secure more jobs, and better schools and hospitals. All that is part of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's vision of a modern Britain.
  The Welsh Assembly will give Wales a better health service by ensuring that scarce resources are spent on nurses and doctors, not on bureaucrats and red tape.
  736
  It will provide better skills by setting tough new standards for literacy, numeracy and overall achievement. It will provide better job opportunities by providing a voice in Europe and around the world to attract investment and back Welsh companies.
  The assembly will provide better democracy and will ensure that decisions about local schools and hospitals will be made not behind closed doors in London but by people elected in Wales. It will provide better value for money, by bringing Welsh quangos to public account and scrutinising spending decisions.
  I am particularly pleased that the assembly will improve the government of Wales by working in partnership with others, particularly Welsh local government. In this way, the assembly will bring the process of decision-making closer to the citizen, making national decisions closer to local government and augmenting the vital work of local government, rather than encroaching on its role.
  The assembly is part of a wider vision of a modern Britain from a Government who believe that too much power is centralised in the hands of too few people, with too little freedom for local communities to decide their own priorities; hence the Government's proposals to meet the individual needs of Scotland, with a Parliament, and London, with a mayor. Perhaps, in time, we shall see regional governments throughout England. For the first time, decisions on schools, hospitals and other key services in Wales will be made by people elected by, and democratically accountable to, the people of Wales.
  There is a desire to make Wales more powerful economically, and the Bill's proposals will do much to make this desire a reality by securing inward investment and stimulating home-grown enterprise. Wales can go even further. Through the character of its people, its innovative entrepreneurs and its fine educational heritage, Wales has unparalled opportunities to become an economic powerhouse in the context of sustainable development, making Wales an economic powerhouse today and tomorrow for ourselves and our children.
  Sustainable development is not only a question of biodiversity, environmental protection, traffic reduction, renewable energy and securing clean air and water. It also provides opportunities to create jobs. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at the New York Earth summit on 23 June:
  "We must make the process of government green. Environmental considerations must be integrated into all our decisions, regardless of sector. They must be in at the start, not bolted on later."
  As Wales is reliant on industries such as agriculture and tourism, a healthy, rich and flourishing land is vital. It is also vital that sustainable development is integrated into all parts of the new assembly's powers.
  Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the point raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), who saw the assembly—quite how he discerned this I am not sure—as an opportunity for a vast new road-building programme in Wales? How does that square with sustainable development?
  Mr. Jones: That is a good point—it will be up to the assembly. However, the hon. Gentleman is putting words into the mouth of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), who was not talking about vast new road building. We need the dualling of a few roads

  737
  between north and south Wales. If the hon. Gentleman has driven from north to south Wales—I do not know whether he has—he will understand what we are talking about. If he leaves the New Forest and visits Wales again, he may come to understand why we would like some improvements. However, we are not talking about huge five-lane highways.
  Mr. Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) was referring to giving a higher priority to an integrated transport system for Wales? As someone who represents Wales, my hon. Friend understands how difficult it is for north Wales to connect to the south. Does t+he hon. Gentleman agree that that involves not new roads, but improvements to the existing infrastructure?
  Mr. Jones: I agree absolutely. The point is that the assembly will make those decisions whereas, at the moment, there are conflicting priorities for the Secretary of State, who makes the decisions. We have suffered from the fact that, until now, the Secretary of State for Wales has not been Welsh. On one occasion, a Secretary of State of ill fame preferred not to visit Wales. I do not know how he could have known whether the A470 down to south Wales needed to be improved.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am following the hon. Gentleman's remarks with interest, as he is dealing with a subject of great importance. Perhaps he can explain something to us. In the case of a trunk road, where a specific allocation is not made by the Department of Transport of the United Kingdom to the Welsh Assembly, how could funding for it be allocated by the Welsh Assembly, except by top-slicing the local authorities?
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is obviously unaware of the present situation. I forgive him, as he is a Member for England. He could not be a Member for Wales, as there are no Conservative Members representing Welsh constituencies. The Welsh Office currently deals with matters such as the hon. Gentleman describes. The funding is available and is run by the Secretary of State for Wales. The assembly would take over the role of the Secretary of State for Wales. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, I am sorry. He should know it.
  Sustainable development should be integrated into all the assembly's functions. The assembly can make such decisions. Farming deserves an extra mention. A strong Welsh voice in Europe—
  Mr. Letwin: I may be in genuine error, but it would be helpful to understand the point. Is the hon. Gentleman claiming that some sum of money, which is currently available to the Secretary of State, would be available to the Welsh Assembly for a trunk road programme, and that it would not include money that would otherwise go to local authorities in rate support grant?
  Mr. Jones: Yes. I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who was, I thought, educating the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), did not know that. It shows an even greater depth of ignorance if an hon. Member on the Front Bench does not know that. Of course there is no shadow Secretary of State for Wales, so perhaps we cannot blame the Opposition for their ignorance.
  738
  Farming in Wales is in trouble, but the Welsh Assembly would have a role in helping farmers to put their case to Europe. Their problems were generated by the previous Government, but are exacerbated by Europe because of the beef ban. When we have a Welsh Assembly and a representative who can go along with the UK Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that case can be put strongly to Europe. In the longer term, the environmental and social reform of the common agricultural policy is probably the answer for our hill farmers. Sustainability, openness and accountability under a Welsh Assembly will benefit farmers, consumers and industry.
  The creation of the Welsh Assembly should, in theory, be across party lines. It is, in the main, but sadly it does not seem to include the Conservatives. In the interests of democracy and of the people of Wales, I hope that one day some Tories will be part of that partnership.
  Unfortunately, the Conservatives have tried to make devolution a left-right issue in terms of political persuasion. It is a left-right issue—one that involves making sure that Wales is not left behind, and doing what is right for the people of Wales.
  The Bill is excellent. Even excellent things can be improved, but it is a wonderful start. Wales needed a voice, Wales deserved a voice, and now Wales will get a voice.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I shall be brief. After the referendum, the Prime Minister spoke of the need to allay fears and to be sensitive.
  The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) portrayed the narrowness of the result as having placed the Government under certain constraints. When asked to define those constraints, he gave two examples. First, he said that the Government had gone ahead with an element of proportional representation. I do not regard that as being sensitive or allaying fears. The hon. Gentleman's second example was the setting up of a consultative body, but as has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the Secretary of State has chosen the Conservative he wants on that consultative body rather than consult the Conservative party in order to make an appropriate choice.
  It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say, "He wouldn't come to the meeting." When I want something from somebody, be it advice or assent to a particular proposition, I invite that person to a meeting. Setting aside whether there is an agenda for that meeting, should the person fail to come to the meeting I take the elementary precaution of writing to him or her so that I at least have it in writing. I might write a conciliatory letter or, depending on the circumstances, I might write a fairly snooty letter, but I would write a letter. That clearly did not happen in the case in question.
  The Government have chosen the Conservatives they want to represent the Conservative party. We will not know until later in the week whom they have chosen, but that is unacceptable behaviour from a Government who, after the referendum result, set out to allay fears and to show sensitivity.
  I shall analyse three areas in which the Government have shown no intention of allaying fears and no semblance of sensitivity. The first is the absence from the

  739
  Bill of any statement of the sovereignty of Parliament in Welsh affairs. The Secretary of State argued that that would be constitutional nonsense because this Parliament is sovereign and cannot be bound by its successors. To put a statement about the sovereignty of this Parliament in the Bill would, in the Secretary of State's words, be meaningless.
  However, there is such a statement in the Government of Ireland Act 1920. It was included because of the need to allay fears. The fact that there is no such statement in the Bill shows insensitivity to the need to allay fears and greater priority being given to assuaging the desires of nationalist Members.
  Mr. Hanson: Has the hon. Gentleman read clause 1(3)?
  Mr. Swayne: I have, and at the outset of the debate I heard the Secretary of State's assertion that this Parliament is sovereign. The Bill should begin with a ringing declaration of the sort in the 1920 Act. For the Secretary of State to say that it would be meaningless because it could be repealed is nonsense. If this Bill becomes an Act, it too could be repealed, but that does not make it meaningless. The logic used by the Secretary of State is wholly inadequate.
  The second area in which the Bill fails to address the sensitivity issue or to allay fears is the fact that the Committee stage is not to be taken on the Floor of the House. Despite the press release issued by the Welsh Office on 27 November, which was quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, the Secretary of State has made it clear that the entire Committee stage will not be taken on the Floor of the House.
  The Secretary of State showed contempt for constitutional precedent when he said that he did not care about the precedents, that the procedure would be new and that he was proud of it. If the Government are attempting to show a measure of sensitivity, as the Prime Minister said, and to allay fears, the Secretary of State has robbed himself of one of the principal means by which he might have allayed fears—allowing a full and open debate on the detail of the Bill on the Floor of the House.
  The third area in which the Government have failed to exhibit sensitivity and to allay fears is their persisting with proportional representation. The hon. Member for Swansea, East claimed that the proportional representation element would act as a constraint on the Government, but I believe that it is one of the most regrettable and insensitive parts of the Bill. It is one of the provisions that is regarded with the most suspicion by those who voted against the proposition of an assembly in the referendum. Persisting with proportional representation would be a retrograde step.
  The Bill introduces a most pernicious form of proportional representation. It is pernicious for two reasons: first, it relies on the D'hondt formula, which is totally untransparent and extremely complicated for voters; secondly, the people will not vote directly for their representatives. It will lead to a most unhealthy separation between those who cast the votes and their representatives.
  Under the proportional representation system, candidates must concentrate not on the needs, aspirations and concerns of the voters—who do not vote for the
  740
  candidates—but on the priorities of those who make up the lists. It is argued that the lists may be compiled through some democratic forum within a particular party. It does not matter how wide the franchise is within a party: the decision will not be taken by the voters.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Is not the hon. Gentleman overlooking the fact that 40 representatives on the assembly—the majority—will be elected directly and will be accountable to their electors? Is there not merit in the fact that in south Wales, for example, the Conservatives will be topped up and will receive representation on the assembly through the additional members system? In mid-Wales, Labour will probably receive representation that it would not have otherwise. Is there not merit in all the parties receiving greater representation in proportion to their total vote? That did not happen to the Conservatives on 1 May.
  Mr. Swayne: No, I do not see any merit in that proposition. As far as I am concerned, 20 too many assembly members will be elected by proportional representation. The system will not be understood clearly by the electorate—the voters will be confused. Some assembly members will be elected by the people and others will not because they will be chosen within the party system.
  A further danger is that proportional representation leads to the separation of the electors from the elected. Anyone who visits Germany, which suffers under the proportional representation system, will be struck by the fact that ordinary people in the street are deeply anxious about—even hostile towards—plans to abolish the deutschmark, but consult members of the political caste and one will find no reflection of that anxiety or hostility among the people's representatives. The political caste has become divorced from the electorate because it looks not to the electorate and its concerns but to those who compile the party list and their concerns. That is precisely the weakness in this system.
  Mr. Öpik: I accept that the hon. Gentleman has a pernicious dislike of the proposed proportional representation system and assume that he does not wish to return to the first-past-the-post system, which would prevent the Tories from exercising any influence in Wales for a long time—so what system of proportional representation do he and his party propose for Wales?
  Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands my position completely. I am absolutely in favour of the first-past-the-post system. The Conservatives have not grumbled about the fact that we lost all our parliamentary representatives in Wales—although we made a not unhealthy showing in terms of total votes. We live and die by a system that has advantages and disadvantages. A clear advantage of the system is that it is understood by the people of Wales and of this country.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: Does my hon. Friend accept that the phrase "first past the post" is an inadequate way of describing that voting system?

  741
  Its great benefit is that it links the representative to the constituency and to the constituents to whom he should report.
  Mr. Swayne: That is precisely the strength of the system. We must recognise that many electors cast their votes against particular candidates. That is a phenomenon from which the Labour party benefited on 1 May—many voters were determined to see the back of a particular rascal. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Labour Members would rob the electorate of that opportunity in the case of a third of assembly members.
  That point may be regarded as a detail of the Bill that could be considered in Committee, but the Secretary of State has said that the Committee stage of the Bill will not take place on the Floor of the House. Furthermore, because the Government have made so much of the proportional representation element, they have in effect made it part of the principle of the Bill rather than a mere detail.
  The assembly will commence with an electoral system that is not understood by the people and that has a built-in democratic deficit. On that basis, the Bill should be opposed.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. David Hanson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this historic debate on legislation to establish an assembly for Wales. I am genuinely saddened by Conservative Members' failure to learn the lessons of 1 May and before then. It seems to me that the Conservative party has failed miserably to understand why no Conservative Members speak today for Wales from Welsh constituencies, why the Conservative party received its smallest share of the vote in Wales for many years and why it was wiped out in Wales for the first time since 1906. It saddens me that Conservative Members have failed to understand those issues concerning the Welsh dimension.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If the Conservatives are so out of touch with the views of the Welsh people, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why the approach that we took to the Welsh Assembly proposal chimed with that of half of those who voted in the referendum?
  Mr. Hanson: I shall come to that point in due course. All hon. Members have lessons to learn from the referendum campaign and its result, but that does not diminish the fact that the Conservative party has learnt nothing. I hope that, before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament, Conservative Members will come on board and help to make the assembly a success—which is what I believe most parties want.
  Many other countries in Europe have regional government. I believe that regional government is, in itself, a good thing. The arguments against regional government advanced by the Conservatives during the referendum campaign and in today's debate would be greeted with incredulity in Spain, France and Germany. Regional government can be a natural form of government that is close to the people and good for the community.,
  742
  I welcome the debate today because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), I believe that it is a good day for democracy and for the people of Wales. I welcome the Bill because it will transfer the functions of the Welsh Office to a regional assembly. It will give added impetus to the control of the 2,000 staff and the £7 billion budget that the Welsh Office is currently operating. It will give my constituents and others local democratic input into public service priorities.
  The Bill will also achieve something for which I have long campaigned in the House: it will make a start—I recognise that it is only that—on democratising the pernicious quango state that has existed in Wales for 18 years. It will also assist Welsh Office Ministers—and Ministers in future Governments—to raise a proper, effective voice for Wales in Europe on a range of issues.
  I welcome the start of the removal of the quango state. I think that further action can be taken in due course. The establishment of the assembly will democratise the quango state, which in Wales especially has been the fiefdom of an unelected Conservative party over the past 18 years.
  The Welsh Office currently makes 600-plus appointments. They are now being made by one Secretary of State and two junior Ministers. Under the previous Administration, those appointments included many, many people who were not representative of the people of Wales or part of the community. Some did not even live in Wales. The assembly will be a great step forward in terms of quangos.,
  One of my constituents, Mr. Philip Pedley of Cilcair, is an active Conservative who has fought three general elections for his party. He was appointed without one vote in Wales because he had contested English seats during three general elections. Mr. Pedley was appointed deputy chairman of Housing for Wales—Tai Cymru. He has benefited from the quango system. However, he voted for the assembly. Even as a Conservative, he went on a platform in my constituency and said that he recognised that the quango state was untenable and needed to be reformed for a democratic Wales and a democratic future.
  The ending of the quango state will be a great step forward and of great benefit to the people I represent. Its replacement with a democratically elected forum will, in my view, enhance people's understanding of the work that is done on behalf of the people of Wales and enable them to have a real say.
  One of my constituents even went to the stage of calling one of his race horses The Quango King. He was on so many quangos when he had that particular horse that he decided to throw a bone to democracy by so naming his horse.
  We have a democratic deficit that will be filled in great part by the assembly. The faceless, unaccountable and often unelectable will be challenged by the assembly, which will govern on behalf of the people with their democratic mandate.
  The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who is no longer in his place, mentioned tensions between the assembly and Government bodies. The Conservative party has never had a majority in Wales during my lifetime—not in 1979, 1983, 1987 or 1992. Since I have been able to vote in general elections, the Conservative party has never had a majority in Wales. As a result, there were tensions, and there will undoubtedly be tensions in future,

  743
  but those tensions will be against the background of the people of Wales having a say in their democracy and being able to elect a body to speak on their behalf. In some instances they will choose, perhaps, to elect an assembly that is in opposition to the Government, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. Tensions will be created occasionally, but they will be healthy tensions in a democratic system.
  Mr. Jenkin: We hear much of the argument that because the ruling party at Westminster had no majority of Members in the Principality, the United Kingdom Government's rule in Wales had no legitimacy. Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying? If so, he is articulating a nationalist argument, not a regionalist argument. That is a dangerous road to take his party down.
  Mr. Hanson: The House has been sovereign and has been accepted as sovereign. It is still sovereign under the Bill. I say that the government of Wales should reflect the wishes of the people of Wales. When the assembly is established, the people will have an opportunity to put forward their case, to argue their case and to elect assembly members. They will have a democratic input into the running of functions that are now run by the Welsh Office.
  Mr. Jenkin: The Government of Wales are sitting on the Treasury Bench—they are the Government of the United Kingdom. By setting up a separate administrative arrangement in Wales that is answerable to a separate assembly in Wales, the hon. Gentleman is institutionalising conflicts between Wales and London, between Cardiff—if that is where it ends up—and Whitehall. Is that not rather a dangerous thing to do given that some people do not support—the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who is not in his place at the moment, is one of them—the concept of the supremacy of Parliament? That being so, the assembly may become a platform for disputes about the sovereignty of Parliament.
  Mr. Hanson: Much in the Bill will strengthen relationships in the Union and the relationship between the House and the people of Wales because it will give confidence to both. The assembly, once in place, will establish public authority over the 80 quangos that are now operational in the Welsh Office. That is a good thing. The Bill gives power to elected democracy rather than to a quango democracy.
  The Bill will provide an economic powerhouse for Wales. It will provide for strong local national health service management as well as a strong input into education in Wales. It will provide a strong platform for transport improvements. It will also enshrine the relationship between voluntary organisations and other bodies that wish to have a role in that sector.
  I welcome the extension of the role of the Welsh Development Agency so as to create an economic powerhouse. It will be given the power to have the Land Authority for Wales under its jurisdiction. Individual but co-ordinated actions will be possible across the gamut of economic development.
  We shall have a raft of examples of democratisation without the existing structure being replaced by a dictatorship, which has often been the case in the past.
  744
  We shall be pulling in a democratic structure that will enable people in Wales to determine their priorities within the framework of the United Kingdom as a whole.
  As I have said to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), I believe that the Bill will bind the United Kingdom together. It provides for devolved regional government within the United Kingdom framework. The House will still be responsible for foreign affairs, social security matters, taxation and defence. Those are major areas of public expenditure. The £7 billion contribution from the Welsh Office is but a small part of overall expenditure on behalf of the people of Wales that is made by the House. The House will still be responsible for key areas of policy that affect constituents in Delyn and elsewhere.
  The referendum campaign was a great success.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman claims that the referendum was a great success and talks about regionalisation of the United Kingdom with assemblies everywhere. Does he not realise that the referendum was an appalling fiasco and failure in Wales, which is why the Government have derailed the assembly programme in England?
  Mr. Hanson: I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman will find that in due course there will be regional arrangements for England, because they constitute the natural way to go forward. I regard the proposed establishment of the assembly and the referendum in Wales as successes. As has been said, there was cross-party co-operation, which added to the success of the assembly campaign. The three parties—the Liberals, Plaid Cymru and Labour—worked together to try to ensure that there was a mandate. I accept that it was a marginal mandate and that in my constituency area, Flintshire, there was a no vote. It was, however, a Wales-wide assembly vote.
  I shall kill a couple of Opposition arguments. We all went into the assembly campaign as consenting adults. We all knew the rules before we began the campaign. Similarly, we all knew what the game was when we had the vote on 18 September. If Conservative Members feel that the Government would not have cancelled the Bill if they had lost the vote, they are living in cloud cuckoo land. It was an all-Wales vote, the margin was small but it was a yes vote. I hope that the Conservative party will accept that yes vote and begin to work with the assembly.
  It is argued that there was only a 25 per cent. turnout for a yes, that many people voted no, and that 48 per cent. did not vote at all. Following that argument, 69 per cent. of the electorate of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) did not vote for him. That was true of 68 per cent. of the electorate of the hon. Member for North Essex, 67 per cent. of that of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and 70 per cent. of that of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). I do not deny their right to sit in this Chamber. I do not expect them to take the Chiltern Hundreds or the Stewardship of the Manor of Northstead this evening. I recognise that

  745
  they won their contests under the rules; I hope that they recognise that the Government won this contest under the rules and that the assembly should proceed.
  Mr. Jenkin:rose—
  Mr. Hanson: I give way for the last time.
  Mr. Jenkin: Can the hon. Gentleman say in which European countries with a history and tradition of referendums a simple majority of a 50 per cent. turnout would be enough radically to change the constitution?
  Mr. Hanson: This is not "Mastermind", and my topic is not European referendums in the 20th century. I cannot answer that question; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will refer to it in his closing speech. The point is that, on 18 September, the rules were clear. The House set the rules and on 18 September the Government won on those rules.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes claims that all those who did not vote, effectively voted no. He must have great prescience and be able to communicate with the dead. The register was drawn up in October last year and the vote was on 18 September this year. Many of the people who did not vote died or moved out of Wales during the year. He must be Mystic Mike. He has decided that all the people who died or moved are against. That is not practical; it is not real politics.
  I hope that, after today's debate, the Conservative party will come on board. I do not want it to repeat the Winchester experience in the Welsh Assembly. In Winchester, it lost an election by a small majority, whinged about losing, took it to the nth degree and lost dramatically when it refought the seat.
  I hope that the Conservatives will play a full and active role in the assembly and argue their case. Dare I say that I hope that they win the odd seat. They have a right to sit there, because they got 20 per cent. of the vote in the general election. I hope that, like my constituent Mr. Pedley and Lord Roberts, they will come on board, bury their differences and put their constituents in Wales first so that they have a voice in the assembly.
  I have a couple of points on north Wales—my part of the country. There was a strong no vote in parts of north Wales. I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) privately and publicly about that. I hope that the Government accept that the no vote happened and that we need to campaign to ensure that people understand the relevance of the assembly. I voted yes, as did many of my colleagues and friends, but the campaign continues. It did not end on 18 September; it began in full that day.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State continues to make the campaign inclusive and to explain the benefits of the assembly and, following the process in the Bill, looks outwards to our communities. I hope that the regional committee will have a real and effective role in north Wales and that Ministers will try hard to ensure, both before after the assembly is established, that transport links between north and south Wales are strengthened, by rail, air and road.
  Mr. Letwin rose—
  Mr. Hanson; I have given way enough. As the hon. Gentleman represents West Dorset, perhaps he should
  746
  move to Wales and take part in the assembly. I hope that our constituents learn to use the assembly and make it strong and viable.
  There has been some discussion of the siting of the assembly in Swansea or Cardiff. I do not want to be regionalist, but wherever the final base is, we need a one-stop shop so that people in my part of north Wales can have a close link with the assembly. They should be able to call in and use the internet; to feel the administration. Its physical presence should not require the four hours on the train or road that it takes to travel from my constituency to Cardiff.
  There is much in the Bill that merits the support of all hon. Members in tomorrow's vote. I am proud to have supported the Bill during the referendum and I will be proud to vote for it tomorrow night. It will democratise much of what needs democratising in Wales. There is too much in the hands of Ministers. There is a crying need for people to play an active role in Wales. The Conservative party ignores that at its peril. If it does not play a full role, it will be sidelined even more than it already is in Wales.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I wish mainly to address the implications of clause 80, but before the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) leaves his place, I would like to discuss a point that he made of which I have yet to be persuaded.
  The Bill provides for a sum of money to be paid from central Government to the assembly. If the total sum remains invariant, and it is decided to allocate an increased proportion of that money to the trunk road programme—a point made by the hon. Gentleman and, I think, by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson)—I assume that it will have to come out of the current total. It must therefore come out of the health programme—is that what the hon. Member for Clwyd, South had in mind?—or the education programme, which seems unlikely. If it does not come out of those programmes, it must, as I suggested, come from top-slicing revenue support grant. That is by far the most likely outcome. I would be most interested in the hon. Gentleman's reply.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: The hon. Gentleman's original question was not clear but he has clarified it, perhaps with some education from his Front-Bench colleagues. I was trying to point out that road programme spending priorities will be in the hands of the assembly, which might decide to take money from other sectors of the Welsh Office budget. My point was that it might want to improve one part of the A470 rather than another. The hon. Gentleman's point is separate from that.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful for that clarification. I remain wholly unpersuaded. The Secretary of State already has such discretion in respect of the trunk road programme. The assembly will either be able to reprioritise, compared with the present, or it will not. As far as I can see, it will be able to reprioritise only if it deprives another element of the same total budget.
  Mr. Jones: I now know exactly where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. The Secretary of State currently has the power to prioritise road programmes in Wales. My point is that the assembly will have that power,

  747
  and that the assembly will consist of members from Wales with real experience of Welsh roads who will be able to make bids. Under Conservative Governments, we had Secretaries of State who had no experience of roads in Wales.
  Mr. Letwin: Now I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which brings me directly to the effects of clause 80.
  Clause 80 will no doubt be extensively debated, if it is one of those that we will be vouchsafed the ability to debate on the Floor of the House. If not, it will no doubt be debated upstairs in Committee. It is the most remarkable piece of drafting it has been the privilege of the House to consider, even under this Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said in his opening remarks, it states:
  "The Secretary of State shall from time to time make payments to the Assembly out of money provided by Parliament of such amounts as he may determine."
  That is unrestricted.
  It is a most interesting piece of drafting. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said that he did not want the private finance initiative origins of the headquarters of this great assembly to suggest in any way the ability to pull levers that would affect its decisions. Clause 80 allows the Secretary of State unrestricted powers to pull levers of any sort.
  Let us take the interesting case that I have just been discussing in my exchange with the hon. Member for Clwyd, South. Let us suppose that the Secretary of State for Wales determined that a decision on priorities set by the assembly in respect of transport or any other matter was slightly mistaken. If the Secretary of State did so decide, he would have available to him the immediate power to make the assembly listen to his view rather than to its view. He would be able to threaten—as, from time to time, is within his discretion—immediately to vary downwards the amount of grant given to the Welsh assembly.
  It is, of course, possible to generalise, and to apply that small example to a wide range of issues. What we have here, however, is an interesting picture not of an assembly, but of an animated poodle that is to be led by the Secretary of State around whatever courses he may choose, by means of the strong chain that the Secretary of State holds—the fact that he is its paymaster.
  That prompts an interesting question. What have the Government in mind to establish? Let me return to my earlier debate with the hon. Member for Clwyd, South. Do the Government intend to provide for the ability to reprioritise? If so, why, in drafting the legislation, did the Secretary of State not specifically bind his own hand to prevent himself from varying the amount downwards, merely because of the reprioritisation? Or does the Secretary of State intend never to exercise the power to vary the amount downwards as a use of prerogative power—or quasi-prerogative power—to force the assembly into a certain plan of action? Why does he not provide for that in the Bill?
  The Secretary of State has repeatedly described this as a process rather than an end point. Perhaps he intends the assembly, over time, to be given tax-raising powers, and
  748
  therefore feels that it will become less important and less of a lever. If that is his intention, surely it behoves him to tell the House now.
  One way or another, we are bound to conclude that the Bill bears a striking similarity to the Bank of England Bill, in that it appears to give another body a basis for independence—but, having given that appearance, it takes it back in clause 80. It creates a poodle, and, moreover, a poodle that can be kicked. it gives the Secretary of State the ability in practice to determine almost every aspect of the assembly's action by means of a constant subtle threat to use the financial lever, and then to complain, when the assembly takes steps that it is virtually bound to take because of the financial stringency imposed by the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it is the fault of the assembly rather than that of the Secretary of State. Similarly, under the Bank of England Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer can de facto control the Bank of England's activities by setting certain targets, and can then complain that it is the Bank of England's fault if the wrong interest rates have been set.
  That is a point of the utmost constitutional importance, and it brings us to a line of thought that has been brilliantly exposed in a series of speeches by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). Speaking on the entirely different topic of the European Union, the right hon. Gentleman has often reminded us that the biggest question that we face when considering constitutional issues is what we are trying to aim for. The problem that is revealed in clause 80 does not concern the mere mechanics; it concerns the objective.
  It must become clear to anyone who reads and understands clause 80 that the Bill and the assembly are founded on a certain political necessity, rather than on any clear concept of what the Government are trying to do in creating the assembly. That attack could, perhaps, be levelled with less justice against the proposals relating to Scotland: at least the intention is clearer in that regard. In this case, the lack of objective is likely, over time, to create the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) exposed so clearly.
  Where there is no objective at the time when the legislation is passed, there must be a great danger that, eventually, the assembly will itself assert objectives to which the House has never subscribed—that it will assert that the aim was somehow to create a genuinely independent state of Wales. We can be in no doubt that Welsh nationalist Members—none of whom are present now—will use that argument.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his reference to Scotland?
  Mr. Letwin: Yes. I do not wish to suggest that I believe that the objective is entirely clear in the case of Scottish devolution—which I oppose—but I think that it is at least clear that, in the case of Scotland, there is an intention to give a Scottish Parliament something approaching a national status. Those of us who violently object to that proposal object to it on those grounds.
  In this instance, I think that it is genuinely unclear what the Government have in mind. As I have said, I believe that in the long run that will be more likely to generate constitutional tension. Where there is a vacuum of ideas, the vcuum will be filled, and filled above all by those in the assembly who have a particular doctrine.

  749
  Whatever we may think of the Welsh national position—and Conservative Members wholly disagree with it—it is at least coherent: it has a clear objective.
  It seems altogether likely that, when a Government enact legislation that betrays the fact that it has no objective and creates an assembly that is a poodle, the poodle will react by becoming very vicious. It will try to obtain the maximum mileage by running up and down and yapping, and by trying to bite the heels of those who attempt to control it.
  I fear that we are creating the basis for continuing constitutional tension. The assembly will seek to assert itself, and to establish for itself an aim that the Bill—both mechanically and by intention—fails to give it. That strikes me as a remarkable example of lack of constitutional understanding and constitutional foresight. The most important task for a United Kingdom Government considering the constitution of the United Kingdom is not to reach a particular answer, but always to think about the long-term effect on our constitution—not just in Wales, but in the United Kingdom as a whole—of a particular set of objectives, or lack of objectives.
  That brings me to my last point. Labour Members have repeatedly asserted that there is a deficiency in Conservative doctrine, or the rights of Conservatives here, because there are no Conservative Members of Parliament in Wales. We are not debating the constitution of Wales; we are debating the constitution of the United Kingdom, or one aspect of it. In that, every UK citizen has an interest. We have an interest in it mechanically, but also from the point of view of the precedent and the concept that are established here.
  If we in the House accept legislation that establishes new constitutional mechanics without clear objectives, we put in doubt the whole future of the country's constitution. If we accept the establishment of an assembly that will lead to constitutional friction within the United Kingdom, everyone in the United Kingdom will suffer the disadvantages of that friction from now on. That is why I oppose the Bill.
  8.47 pm
  Mrs. Betty Williams: I have listened to many speeches today, some of which have led me to believe that we need the Bill so that the people of Wales can govern themselves as we want them to be able to.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team on the publication of the Bill. Our people—the people of Wales—have waited a long time for this day. I am particularly pleased and proud to be a Member of Parliament because I have witnessed this historic event. The White Paper published in July gave us in Wales an opportunity to engage in open and frank discussions on how we wished to be governed, and, between July and 18 September, that is precisely what we did.
  The White Paper was endorsed by the nation in the referendum on 18 September. The Bill translates the White Paper's proposals into the detailed provisions that are necessary to establish the Welsh Assembly. The nature and number of clauses in the Bill show the efforts that my right hon. Friend and his team have put into taking account of the views expressed by individuals and organisations in Wales.
  750
  As a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which has met several times since 18 September, I have been privileged to hear the views of a wide variety of bodies, such as the Welsh Local Government Association and, contrary to what Conservative Members have said, the Welsh Development Agency, the Confederation of British Industry, the Welsh Trades Union Congress and others. The Select Committee has also received many written representations. The overwhelming view is that we are moving in the right direction to enable us to have a real say in how we want to be governed in Wales.
  It is important to listen with tolerance to different points of view. Partnership is the key word for the success of the proposals contained in the Bill. I welcome clause 110, which requires the assembly to make a scheme for promoting local government in Wales, and to establish a partnership council for Wales consisting of members of the assembly and of local authorities. If our communities are to benefit from the establishment of a Welsh Assembly, it must have a strong, firm working relationship with democratically elected bodies in those communities. We must understand our communities and get the best deal possible for all the people, because they will be paying for and receiving services provided by the assembly and local authorities.
  Communities and their needs differ greatly within Wales. In Conwy, tourism and agriculture are extremely important. I know that the Secretary of State and his Ministers understand fully the points that I am making.
  Mr. Hain: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned tourism, which is vital in her part of Wales. Does she agree with me that the Welsh Assembly will provide a platform for Wales to market itself in Europe, Britain and internationally, which will give additional benefits to areas such as hers, and will ensure that Wales is put on the map in a way that it never has been before?
  Mrs. Williams: I whole-heartedly agree with my hon. Friend. People in my constituency and in neighbouring authorities who depend on tourism will look to the Welsh Assembly, and will look favourably on the proposals in the Bill.
  The needs of the people working in tourism and agriculture can be fully understood only by representatives that have been elected democratically by those communities. That is why partnership and constant dialogue is paramount if we are to succeed as a nation. The Bill cements that dialogue.
  The Bill acknowledges the importance of the voluntary sector. Those of us who have been involved in local and national politics for a long time understand that voluntary organisations are the backbone of our society and communities.
  Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Williams: I am running out of time, so I shall not give way.
  Without the dedication of voluntary workers in our communities, the previous Government's care-in-the-community proposals would not have got off the ground. When in government, the Conservative party cut to the bone the finances of social services, health,

  751
  education and other services that are important to our people. Hard-working voluntary workers deserve to be properly recognised at long last, and they are mentioned in the Bill.
  Since the Government were elected on 1 May, they have taken long, determined strides towards more open government. There is a long way to go before many of us will be satisfied. Several clauses in the Bill refer to more open government, which the Conservative party would not understand. Surely those proposals should be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I am sure that it would come as a great surprise to my hon. Friends if I failed to refer to clause 62, which requires the assembly to establish committees for north Wales and for each of the other regions of Wales. The function of such committees will be to give advice to the assembly about the regions with which they are concerned. In north Wales, we welcome that provision.
  I represent a part of Wales that has been neglected for a long time, that needs the right type of inward investment, where the nature of its rural communities has been neglected, and where the railway system is inadequate. I could go on. I am convinced that the proposals in the Bill are the way forward: they are exciting and far reaching. The people of north-west Wales needed these proposals yesterday, not in two years' time. They offer the people of Wales the opportunity to build a dynamic, successful, yet caring and compassionate society for Wales within the United Kingdom. I hope that the House gives overwhelming support to this historic document.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: The Liberal Democrats are wholly behind the proposal for devolution in Wales. It is courageous of the Government to risk giving Welsh people responsibility for their own future. We believe that this experiment is destined to succeed.
  I shall limit my comments to considerations of the economy, regional development and the regional structures that will be required for the successful development of Wales. I should also like to make a brief foray into some of the concerns that have been expressed by Conservative Members, who still seem unable to understand the benefits that a democratic structure and devolved system of government will bring to Wales.
  In the past 15 years, many aspects of the Welsh economy have improved. The growth of manufacturing employment has outpaced that in the rest of the United Kingdom in the past 10 years. Since 1983, Wales has been one of the few regions of Europe to increase manufacturing employment. Certain sectors, such as the electronics and automotive sectors, have benefited still more from inward investment. The main driving force has been the big improvement in manufacturing productivity. That was despite a Conservative Government.
  In fact, perhaps because we had a Conservative Government, some long-term forecasts suggest that Wales may remain one of the UK's poorest regions for some time. Benchmarking Wales against the rest of the UK suggests that its GDP per head is 17 per cent. below the UK average, even in the face of poor medium-term trends in the 1990s for other parts of the UK. Household income
  752
  is 14 per cent. below average; average full-time earnings are 10 per cent. below; and in some parts of Wales they are as much as 20 per cent. below average. Economic activity is, on average, 8 per cent. below the UK average rate. Those figures are not much to cheer about, and they form a powerful reason for giving Wales economic autonomy to a greater or lesser extent.
  There are four specific areas in which Wales can take the creative lead in the UK on rural and environmental policy within a general economic framework. If that is to be achieved, there must be a devolved assembly to make the right decisions. The four areas are: integrated rural policy; a strategy for food; a strategic environmental planning policy; and the initiation of a system of environmental duty. One must first consider what Wales needs. It definitely needs an economic policy that is sympathetic to the environment. Therein lies my first criticism of the Bill. It has not taken sufficient note of the environmental opportunities that are open to Wales.
  Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when I opened the debate, I said that the Government intended to table amendments. One of those will most certainly place a duty on the assembly to have regard to the principle of sustainability. We are currently consulting, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to let us have his observations. If he wishes to make written submissions on behalf of his party, we shall consider them and include them, if we can, in a new clause or an amendment.
  Mr. Öpik: I welcome the Secretary of State's offer, and I assure him that we shall take it up. His suggestion is welcomed not just by the Liberal Democrats, but, I am sure, by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the many other organisations that have lobbied us. I am sure that they will also be willing to contribute.
  Dr. Marek: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Secretary of State could go a little further and publish some of his draft proposals, so that we may comment on them? The assembly will be open and we are to have a freedom of information Act, but of course at the moment the civil service and Ministers work in the same old way as the people in the previous Tory Administration. Before my right hon. Friend chides me, perhaps I should say that it is not quite as bad as that. I am not being at all critical. There is a case for exposing such drafts of policies, and that might be a useful way to get consensus on the issue.
  Mr. Öpik: I welcome that suggestion. Contrary to what Conservative Members have said, it is encouraging that, during the Bill's evolution, the process has been inclusive. That happened before the election, and between the election and the publication of the Bill. I hope that it will continue as we approach the election of members of the assembly. Any move that opens discussion and allows all interested parties to participate is a welcome addition to the process of inclusive politics and constructive opposition.
  Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) does not need my invitation to express his view. I welcome the comments by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) about the Government's inclusive style. Just before Christmas, there will be a meeting of the Green Alliance which, as he

  753
  knows, consists of environmental groups in Wales. It will come as some surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham to know that the old regime does not apply in Wales, because a senior civil servant from the devolution unit in the Welsh Office will meet the Green Alliance to discuss our thoughts on how an amendment should be phrased.
  Mr. Öpik: I am delighted to hear that. If the public transport system in my neck of the woods were more effective, I might endeavour to turn up. However, as I have a smelly old diesel vehicle, I might have to steer clear, and cycling to Cardiff is perhaps beyond my physical capabilities.
  I should like to speak a little more about some economic issues. There was some discussion about the Barnett formula. I understand that there is no reason whatever to assume that Wales will be worse off under that formula simply because it has a devolved assembly. I understand that under the Barnett formula money can rise or fall, and that the formula could be completely changed. However, that is separate from the issue of having a devolved assembly.
  Mr. Wigley: Did the hon. Gentleman hear Lord Barnett say on Welsh television some three weeks ago that, if the Barnett formula were reviewed now, Wales would almost certainly be better off under that review than under the present formula?
  Mr. Öpik: I did not see the interview to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but I have no doubt that that is true. Who better than Mr. Barnett—[HON. MEMBERS: "Lord Barnett."] I tend not to recognise these heady titles. Coming from the Republic of Estonia, my parents, of course, never had to try to recall such privileges.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Would it not be for the benefit of the House if the hon. Gentleman commented on the fact that the Barnett formula was originally invented in the late 1970s to cope with the anticipated devolution, which never took place because of the referendum result in 1979? Therefore, it would be the height of absurdity to claim that democratic devolution is a threat to the Barnett formula, as that is what the formula was devised to accommodate in the late 1970s.
  Mr. Öpik: Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. In other words, we have been here before and, at that time, there was no danger to the Barnett formula from the simple virtue of introducing a democratic process.
  Mr. Hain: May I remind the House that, today, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury published a statement reaffirming the Government's commitment to the Barnett formula? Were it to be revised, in all likelihood Wales would benefit, because, under the Conservative Government between 1979 and 1997, Wales's gross domestic product fell relative to the English average, as a result of which, in any revision, Wales's overall block assessment is well placed to be uprated. Of course, the Barnett formula covers the percentage change in the block, not the total block, as it were.
  Mr. Öpik: I welcome this continuing good news from all around me in the Chamber on the Barnett formula. Indeed, I am beginning to fear that Wales will be awash with money, with the changes that have been described.
  Mr. Andrew George: We shall get some more good news if my hon. Friend keeps going.
  Mr. Öpik: Indeed. I should keeping going until Wales is the wealthiest part of Europe.
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Öpik: I shall happily give way for, I hope, further good news, this time from the Conservative party.
  Mr. Jenkin: I should be extremely grateful if the hon. Gentleman took the trouble to turn up at the Second Reading of the Bill on the government of Scotland to make all these explanations, and to make clear what he has discovered today, so that Scottish Members are equally well informed about the future of the Barnett formula and the likely effects on Scottish spending.
  Mr. Öpik: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous offer, but as a humble, relative new boy to the House, I believe that even the Öpik empire does not extend yet to Scotland. However, I shall pass those comments on to my colleagues north of the border.
  It is interesting to note that the Barnett formula has not, as the Minister pointed out, taken account of the 10 per cent. fall in GDP over the past decade—I believe that that is in real terms—and that needs to be addressed.
  Clearly, and without dwelling on it, there is a serious crisis in the rural economy, brought on not least by the most recent announcements by the Government—which I personally regard as regrettable—on the sale of beef on the bone. A Welsh Assembly could be regarded as an opportunity to lobby directly for the rural interests of those agricultural communities. Let me stress that Wales, perhaps more than any other part of the United Kingdom, is experiencing the deepest hardship in its rural economy on account of the proposals that have been made.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about beef on the bone. As I understand it, if the Bill is passed, the agricultural powers of the Welsh Office will end up in the Welsh Assembly. Does he understand that, in that situation, if an English Minister of Agriculture banned beef on the bone, a Welsh Assembly might not have to ban it?
  Mr. Öpik: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned about the limitations on the assembly's powers. We would like it to have primary legislation powers, which would provide a greater opportunity for Wales to fight its corner without endless reference to Westminster.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: I want to make my position clear. Is it the hon. Gentleman's understanding of the Bill that, if the English Minister of Agriculture was able to ban by order—not primary legislation—beef on the bone, as appears to be the case, a Welsh Assembly would not have to pass such an order, and people in Wales could continue to eat beef on the bone?
  Mr. Öpik: We could certainly do that in secret, but I shall give way to the Secretary of State to clarify the point.
  Mr. Ron Davies: My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) makes an interesting and persuasive case. If powers to make orders relating to animal or

  755
  human health were transferred to the assembly, my right hon. Friend's point would be correct. However, it is likely that the draft order that we shall produce, certainly in good time for the Committee stage, when we can have something more than a wide-ranging discussion on these issues, will make it clear that matters relating to animal or human health are likely to be reserved. Currently, the sort of order referred to by my right hon. Friend is made jointly by the Minister of Agriculture and me, as Secretary of State for Wales. Such an order is likely to continue, without those powers being transferred to the Welsh Assembly.
  Mr. Öpik: I am guided by the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and I thank him for the clarification—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Öpik: I want to move on, as other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I do not want to delay him unduly. Does he realise that an enormous hole has now been blown in his argument? If, as the Secretary of State has assured us, the Welsh Assembly will not have the slightest control over the matter, how on earth will it help the Welsh people, in respect of beef on the bone and other issues, to have a Welsh Assembly?
  Mr. Öpik: I want to make some progress—[Interruption.] I shall briefly answer the question head on.
  If the Welsh Assembly genuinely has the opportunity to represent the interests of Wales in the European forum—which to a greater or lesser extent is the case—there is no doubt that, if we were to achieve a phased lifting of the beef ban across the United Kingdom, not only would Northern Ireland have a good chance of being first in such phasing, but Wales would have a good chance of having its ban lifted earlier than the rest of the United Kingdom—[Interruption.]
  Opposition Members deride that comment. If they choose to reject my point, they are simply rejecting the efficacy of a devolved system of government. Many times they have said that they have little faith in a devolved system, but I cite the great belief of people in Scotland in a devolved system. They believe that they can make decisions in the European forum as well as in the United Kingdom forum. I also cite the guidance that we had today from the Secretary of State that that will, to some extent, be the case. It is something that we can discuss at greater length as the Bill proceeds.
  I want briefly to make the point about proportionality, which has been made many times before. We support a different system of election, but as the Bill is unequivocal on the proposed system, we reiterate once again our plea to increase the proportional nature by adding 10 additional places. I shall not rehearse arguments that have been made many times before, but we genuinely believe that there is plenty of evidence that that would achieve a more proportionate outcome.
  We accept the Secretary of State's unequivocal commitment, in writing, that the issue will be reviewed if it turns out that the system that has been chosen is not proportionate. We welcome that longer-term commitment to finding a proportionate system.
  756
  We must be clear about regional development agencies, and about the political structures across Wales. Economic and political autonomy will have to be clearly defined within the context of the Welsh Assembly. We cannot overestimate that matter.
  I very much agree with the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) that the majority in the referendum was insufficient for us to assume that everyone in Wales was completely comfortable with a Welsh Assembly. Liberal Democrats very much believe that a regionalised system that is transparent and devolves decisions to the regions of Wales will go a long way towards allaying many of the fears.
  No speech by me would be complete without mention of an integrated transport system, with strengthened and improved road networks consisting not of new roads but of improved roads; a more coherent approach towards an integrated rail network, with heavy emphasis on shifting freight from road to rail; and a regional air network. I am delighted that Ministers have now acknowledged the importance of a regional air network and I hope that that will continue to be an important priority in the coming months and years.
  I should like to make a few comments about the criticisms and concerns of those who are still unwilling to accept the case for a Welsh Assembly—or even the result of the referendum. In a rather dramatic intervention, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) reaffirmed the Conservative party's commitment solely to the first-past-the-post system. How ironic, therefore, that Conservative Members singularly rejected the first-past-the-post referendum result. There are no quotas or thresholds in general elections, and I have never heard Conservative Members call for them.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Öpik: I shall in a moment, for the last time. Oh—it is the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).
  How can Conservative Members expect to be taken seriously when—after the event—they whinge about the process simply because they did not like its outcome on 18 September?
  Dr. Lewis: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman—in my fourth intervention in the debate—the difference between a vote on an issue of immense constitutional significance and a straightforward vote in a general or any other election? The only reason why Conservative Members were not able to propose a threshold is that debate was guillotined. The Conservative party did propose a threshold in the other place.
  Mr. Öpik: Let me put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery. He has ignored the fact that, whereas decisions on legislation and policies governing the United Kingdom are tactical, the biggest decision that we make in the United Kingdom is electing a Government, who facilitate everything else. Therefore, when he implies that a constitutional decision is somehow greater, he ignores the fact that the Government facilitate those very constitutional changes. He can continue that line, but he is mixing up the tactical and the strategic. If he continues in that manner, I should very much like to hear—although not in an intervention in this debate—how he wants to

  757
  change the United Kingdom's electoral system. If he is implying that we need to introduce a proportional representation system to elect the Government, I very much welcome his point.
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman, as he is a member of a party of great principle, will encourage his party not to offer a single candidate under a list system, which it believes is undemocratic—although I do not imagine for a moment that that will happen.
  On funding, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) made some important, reasonable points about the size of the pot, echoing concerns that have also been expressed by those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the issue of the Conservatives and the electoral system, is it his understanding that, under the present arrangements, it is most unlikely that the Conservative party would ever get elected according to constituency selection? Does he agree that it is only under the additional list system that the Conservatives are likely to have any representation in Wales?
  Mr. Öpik: The Secretary of State makes the point that has been reiterated on many occasions, but apparently it has not been heard by those who stand to gain the most from a change to a fairer system of election. Believe or not, I would welcome the introduction of a system of election of assembly members that offered advantage not only to the minority parties in Wales, but to the non-existent party in Wales, the Conservative party.
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Öpik: I shall give way, but for the last time.
  Mr. Jenkin: Can we take it that the only reason why the Liberal Democrat party supports proportional representation is that it believes that it does better under that system than under the present first-past-the-post system that we have in the House of Commons? If so, and given that the Conservative party will put up candidates for the Welsh Assembly under PR, is he not being hypocritical by standing for this Parliament under a first-past-the-post system?
  Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman's second point is entertaining but entirely illogical, and his first point is perhaps even more amazing. If there is one party that stands to lose its status of importance in Scotland and Wales through the introduction of PR, it is the Liberal Democrat party, and if there is one party that stands to gain from its introduction in Scotland and Wales, it is the Conservative party. Although it might be difficult for some hon. Members to accept, the Liberal Democrats continue to support the change to fair votes out of principle rather than out of self-interest.
  As I said, the hon. Member for Poole made some interesting comments about funding. We, too, have argued about that on a number of occasions. We proposed that the assembly should have tax-varying powers, and we regret that it will not. As I said in an earlier intervention, money could be found in other ways, for example, by replacing quango appointees with elected representatives of the assembly. That could save many millions of
  758
  pounds—the upper estimate is a saving of as much as £24 million, although I have not corroborated that figure. Currently, there are 1,400 quango appointees in Wales and 1,273 councillors. In other words, there are more unelected appointees than elected councillors. Surely there is money to be saved by replacing those appointees.
  Hon. Members have also asked about how we shall invest in the priorities that matter. The answer, as the hon. Member for Poole acknowledged, is by changing those priorities. A repeated anxiety is that the assembly will destabilise the Union. Five words negate that concern—the United States of America. It is one of the most stable nations in the world, yet it is governed according to a federal system. It is unquestionably because of that federation and the acceptance of cultural variation, even law-making variation, across the United States, that that enormous nation is effective.
  It has also been argued that the assembly would be bad for business. I simply do not accept that and, once again, the United States' experience seems to negate that argument. It is a laudable act of faith among those who will run the assembly that they will be able to devolve decisions to the regions of Wales, which will provide the impetus for success. The Development Board for Rural Wales is a classic example of having regional autonomy has helped to reinvigorate an ailing economy.
  The location of the assembly has also been mentioned, and if I may add my tuppenny worth, I see no reason why the home of democracy in Wales, Machynlleth, should not be chosen, provided that the road network was greatly improved.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Everyone understands the hon. Gentleman's need to press for his own little area, but is there available in Machynlleth a meeting place of sufficient prestige with sufficient seating capacity, which could be available by May 1999, as Swansea guildhall would be in a cost-effective way?
  Mr. Öpik: Without entering into too parochial a debate, I can guarantee that, for £14.5 million, I would build it myself.
  Mr. Anderson: In time?
  Mr. Öpik: Oh, yes, in the time available.
  I apologise for having taken so much time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to raise a few points about the closed list system. We share the concern of the official Opposition that such a system carries the danger of party patronage. Even if that difficulty could be resolved, a problem of public perception would remain and assumptions would be made about jobs for the boys. We cannot constructively pursue that argument here on the Floor of the House, but I hope that we shall be able to debate it in subsequent stages of the Bill.
  Mr. Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as he has been so tolerant of interventions. If—as is likely to be the case both for the Labour party and for his own—the selection of candidates in the list is determined by one person, one vote among the electorate, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that

  759
  would create conditions in which democracy prevailed to a far greater extent than is suggested by the "jobs for the boys and girls" syndrome?
  Mr. Öpik: The Minister suggests a compromise solution that is far better than a simple closed system, which the public might suspect of being a set of appointments for the party faithful. Nevertheless, we still prefer the concept of an open list, although we can talk about the details at a later stage. I reiterate that my reason for saying this is that we must have a strategically transparent system for electing assembly members, so that no one can believe that certain individuals are there only as a reward for party activities and not primarily for the interests of Wales.
  My final point about the electoral system relates to clause 5, which has caused some confusion. It is not entirely clear to me whether it precludes an individual from standing in a constituency as well as in a list. I should be grateful if the Minister clarified that point of interpretation when he sums up the debate tomorrow.
  I have tried to cover a few specific areas, but I shall conclude on a broader point relating to the attitude of those in the Chamber tonight towards the introduction of a devolved assembly. It seems that there are those who still do not accept that, at the end of the day, devolution is a reasonable act of faith in the people to whom the responsibility is to be devolved. I once saw a wonderful cartoon, in which a father angrily asked his son, "How can you act so irresponsibly?" to which the son replied, "But Dad, that's how irresponsible people act!" In the same way, if we tell the Welsh people, ad infinitum, that they are incapable of governing their own affairs, they will live down to that expectation. However, finally—thankfully—on 18 September, enough people in Wales decided to believe in the national spirit to vote for the national devolution that we are now debating.
  In the Greece of 2,500 years ago—a country with few resources and a small population—the people showed great vision and achieved far greater success than would ever have been predicted for them. Fifty years before that success, there was a substantial political reform that set in place the democratic opportunities and processes that led to the creation of an empire.
  I am not suggesting that the Welsh will roll across the marches and take over Shrewsbury, however much those who live near the marches might want that to happen. I am suggesting that, with the opportunity of an assembly from 1999, Wales can express its own culture as it has never done before, and it can allow its language to thrive in a way that would not have been thought possible half a century ago. Wales will be able to experiment with its political structures in a way that seemed impossible even 20 years ago. Perhaps above all else, Wales will be able to create an economic climate that adds to the great success that the Welsh Development Agency has already had in acquiring foreign investment and foreign trade.
  760
  It may not be known by many hon. Members, but Wales already has its own space programme, called project Dragon Fire—
  Mr. Evans: No doubt it operates from the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
  Mr. Öpik: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is correct: it operates from my constituency. Its self-styled leader operates from a pub called The Bell, and hon. Members are most welcome to come to meetings of CASA—Cymru Aeronautics and Space Administration. Contributions from the Government would be most welcome.
  If there is one message that must come out of this Chamber to Wales, it is that Westminster has ascribed to Wales the authority to define its own future. It is that self-belief that will make the attitude that goes with the structures of democracy a success. If, after the debates that we are having here today and tomorrow, and as the Bill proceeds, we all pursue that objective constructively, we can have not only an effective, inclusive, cross-party consensus where differences of opinion are respected and welcomed, but a Wales which, in 10 or 15 years' time, will be the pride of the United Kingdom and the envy of the world.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Martin Caton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate about beginning the process of decentralisation in Britain and of democratisation in the governance of Wales.
  A clear understanding of what happened on 18 September is essential if we are to debate the Bill constructively. Quite simply, the people of Wales made a decision: they decided that they wanted to move away from rule by Whitehall outpost and quango archipelago; instead, they voted for government of the Welsh people for the Welsh people by the Welsh people. They voted for a directly elected Welsh Assembly, the "National Assembly of Wales" described in the Bill. They voted for democracy in the democratic process that was the referendum.
  It is very depressing to hear Opposition Members sneering at that democratic process and, having lost the argument and lost the vote, saying, at worst, that we should ignore the result or, at best, interpret it to mean something other than the go-ahead for the Government's proposals as described in the White Paper. That democratic process and that referendum cannot and must not be treated in such a cavalier fashion. Neither turnout nor closeness of result can seriously be used to argue that the Bill should not be approved substantially unchanged if we are to respect what the people of Wales have said.
  In fact, the turnout on an old register in a poll held at the end of the summer was far higher than is achieved in local government or European elections across the whole country. Should we, therefore, scrap our local authorities or not send representatives to the European Parliament? Some people argue that there should have been a threshold—we have heard that argument today. If we are honest, we know that the only people who argue for thresholds in such referendums are people who want to prevent change. A threshold is fundamentally undemocratic and possibly anti-democratic because it adds anyone not voting, for whatever reason, to the number of votes cast for one side of the argument.

  761
  That is the twisted logic of the Conservative Members who repeatedly preface their questions with, "As 75 per cent. of the Welsh people do not support the assembly". It is nonsense. Without compulsory voting, democratic decisions must be taken by the people who exercise their right to vote, and fairness demands that a simple majority must decide the question.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: For the fifth time, I argue that Labour Members do not accept that, when a vote takes place on an issue changing the constitutional rules of the game, the criteria for changing those rules should be higher than a simple majority. That is a constitutional safeguard in many democracies throughout the world, and it should have been a constitutional safeguard in this case.
  Mr. Caton: I understand that argument, but I do not agree with it. By imposing a threshold, one defends the status quo. Unfortunately, when we examine the Conservative Government's record, we find that they were prepared to impose thresholds to secure yes votes on some issues. When they were trying to remove council housing from local authority control, they imposed a threshold to shift the balance towards the yes votes. The Conservatives are not consistent in defending the status quo with thresholds.
  There is an argument for thresholds, but I do not agree with it. I believe that a democratic decision should be taken on a simple majority vote, whether it be in an election for a Government or for a change of structure.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I remind my hon. Friend of another example that shows that the Conservative party may be less than consistent—ballots in respect of grant-maintained status for schools. In a ballot in my constituency, despite a very small turnout and a minuscule majority, a school became grant-maintained. Therefore, for the Conservative party it is a matter not of principle but of what happens to suit its purpose at any moment.
  Mr. Caton: That is absolutely true, and I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Indeed, if we are thinking of ballots on grant-maintained status, the very fact that parents of children from feeder schools were excluded from the democratic process is another example of vote rigging by the Conservative party.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
  Mr. Owen Paterson rose—
  Mr. Caton: I give way to the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley).
  Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will agree that the Welsh assembly—
  Mr. Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman has just come in.
  Mr. Bottomley: I have not.
  The hon. Gentleman will agree that the decision to set up a Welsh Assembly is more important than the conversion of a building society from mutual status to profit earning. Why does he support the Government, who
  762
  say that a building society seeking to convert needs an absolute majority, but a referendum for a Welsh Assembly does not?
  Mr. Caton: The circumstances are very different. When attempts are made to bring about changes that will affect the interests of the members of a building society, who have joined for a purpose, those interests should be protected. That is a very different matter from changes in the general democratic process in a country, whether it be changes in structure—constitutional change—or the election of a Government, a council or Whatever.
  Mr. Ron Davies: I encourage my hon. Friend to continue to be robust in rejecting the arguments of Conservative Members. Will he reflect on the fact that those arguments would have more credibility now if they had been advanced during the passage of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill? Conservative Members had every opportunity to table amendments to ensure that there was a threshold. Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, because Conservative Members refused to do so then, the arguments that they are making now are spurious?
  Mr. Caton: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no, he isn't."] Oh, yes, he is. As my hon. Friends have said, we fought the referendum on a set of rules. We complied with the rules. Everyone knew those rules during the referendum process.
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: Is not this an illustration of parliamentary sovereignty in operation? Tonight, we have heard much from Conservative Members about parliamentary sovereignty. Does my hon. Friend agree that Parliament determined the rules within which the referendum would be conducted and that Parliament, exercising its sovereignty, determined that there should be no threshold?
  Mr. Caton: My hon. Friend has made the point rather better than I managed to.
  Mr. Paterson: The hon. Gentleman says that constitutional change should be made by majority. Does he agree that the British constitution belongs to all the people, and that it is a denial of democracy to have excluded 85 per cent. of the electorate from the referendum?
  Mr. Caton: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand what those of us who had a vote were voting on. We had, and have, devolved government in Wales, in the form of the Welsh Office. It has considerable powers. All that we voted for on 18 September was to make its powers accountable to the people of Wales. That was rightly a decision for the people of Wales.
  Dr. Liam Fox: The hon. Gentleman claims that changing the status of a building society requires an absolute majority, but changing the economic

  763
  status of our nation—as, for instance, with economic and monetary union—requires a simple majority of one. Is that the logic of his argument?
  Mr. Caton: That is an interesting question, but I have made my case. [Interruption] That would indeed be my position. [Interruption]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) is being far too noisy.
  Mr. Caton: I am happy to give way next to the Minister.
  Mr. Hain: Parliament decided in the summer to hold an advisory, consultative referendum. Conservative Members have missed the point, which is that Parliament retained its sovereignty in the matter. It decided not on a binding referendum but on a consultative one. It therefore makes perfect logical sense to require a simple majority—which is what it was.
  Mr. Caton: That is a good point. As for the wider British electorate's involvement, on 1 May the British electorate were of course involved. The Labour party fought the election on the idea that we would offer the people of Wales and of Scotland democratically elected and devolved government. They had their say then.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Another factor is that the party that claims to be the party of the Union would have been well on the way to destroying that Union if the clearly expressed views of Wales and Scotland had been overwhelmed by an English vote. Indeed, there could be no better recipe for the break-up of the union than if Wales and Scotland had been denied the constitutional settlement that they wanted.
  Mr. Caton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is another reason why thresholds are so dangerous. If a simple majority vote for a particular course of action and are then denied the ability to take that course by the threshold mechanism, unrest is created.
  Mr. Wigley: Is not the logic of these tedious Conservative interventions the idea that there should be a threshold for our Westminster votes as well? Are the Tories seriously advocating such a dramatic change in our practices here? They look bemused. It seems that they want to lay down thresholds for others, but not to entertain the idea here.
  Mr. Caton: The right hon. Gentleman makes a useful point.
  I wish to refer to the advisory nature of the referendum. As a Member of Parliament, I feel honour-bound to listen to the people of Wales. That is why I believe that we should not move too far away from the substance of the White Paper, as that is what the people of Wales voted on. That is not to say that there is no opportunity for change or debate. I confess that I have concerns, for instance, about the closed-list system in the electoral
  764
  process; such matters should be debated in the Chamber and in Committee. I am pleased that the Bill so accurately reflects what we voted for in the referendum.
  I do not intend to take up too much time by repeating points that were made during debates on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act, which were central to the debate in Wales during the summer campaign. Instead, I should like to address three specific matters: first, the future of the quangos; secondly, the committee structure that will emerge from the commission's drawing up of draft Standing Orders, and their consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; and thirdly, the right of consultation by representatives of interest groups in Wales.
  First, on quangos, some of my hon. Friends were disappointed that the White Paper did not go beyond dealing with the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Land Authority for Wales and Tai Cymru. I suspect that they were disappointed with the contents of the Bill. I do not share their disappointment.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: My hon. Friend is right to list the quangos to be dealt with by the Bill. However, he needs to remember that, under the existing powers, the Health Promotion Authority for Wales, the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, the Cardiff Bay development corporation and the residuary body will all be out of the way. We are currently carrying out the reconfiguration of trusts in which a substantial number of those will also disappear.
  Mr. Caton: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.
  I was involved in the development of devolution policy by the Welsh Labour party. I cannot remember a time—from early drafts onwards—when we were not looking at giving the assembly the main job of examining the functioning of the quangos. I have no problem with that, and I can see that the various bodies mentioned by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary must be dealt with urgently. However, it would be wrong for us to say to the assembly, "You are in charge of how the quangos function and you must make sure that they are transparent, accountable and more effective than what we had before," while imposing a fait accompli on the assembly.
  It is the job of the assembly to look at how the quangos in Wales function and to improve them. In that sense—and although some of my hon. Friends may feel that all we have is a campfire of the quangos—we are handing over the matches and the firelighters to the assembly to continue the work of democratising Wales.
  Mr. Ron Davies: I want to ensure that my hon. Friend fully understands the rationale of the Government's position, which is quite compatible with the Labour policy that he was instrumental in forming. It is a central requisite of the devolution policy that the assembly should be fully empowered to deal with all the public bodies to which my hon. Friend has referred. In the case of the Welsh Development Agency, for example, the assembly will be fully empowered to carry forward any further changes.
  The Government took into consideration the uncertainty and delay that might have adversely affected the work of bodies such as the WDA, if, at this stage, we

  765
  said that in two and a half or three years the assembly would be empowered to carry out a restructuring. The Government's view was that the uncertainty hanging over the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales made it imperative for us to take early action, so that the powerhouse could be created to carry forward the work of economic development in Wales.
  Mr. Caton: I entirely accept the logic of that action. The creation of the powerhouse is important also because of the changes on the structural front emanating from the European Union. We need one organisation to cover all the functions previously dealt with by three.
  My second concern relates to the committee structure that is to be developed for the Welsh Assembly. I note the intention to create subject areas covering all the matters listed in schedule 2. There are 18 of them: agriculture, forestry, fisheries and food; ancient monuments; culture; economic development; education and training; the environment; health and health services; highways; housing; industry; local government; social services; sport and recreation; tourism; town and country planning; transport; water and flood defence; and the Welsh language.
  I recognise that all those matters must be covered by subject committees. My worry is that the commission and eventually the Secretary of State may plump for too many committees. With such large subject areas, there may be a temptation to go for a large number of committees, and thus more chairs, leaders, First Secretaries or whatever we will call them—more chiefs and fewer indians. That does not make for democratic government or for effective government. I hope that the Secretary of State will bear that in mind.
  Mr. Wigley: Does not the Bill allow sub-committees to be set up for each committee? The committee may be both a supervisory committee for the Minister and a body akin to a Select Committee, given the powers that are available. Those powers may best be exercised through a sub-committee system, with a restricted number of main committees, and with sub-committees to focus on the detail to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
  Mr. Caton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that the commission and the Secretary of State will consider such an approach.
  There has been some debate about whether the assembly should work according to a Cabinet system or a local government committee system. The Bill allows for a new and different system that combines the best of both.
  Mr. Ron Davies: For the sake of clarity, I assure my hon. Friend that the advisory committee that will precede the work of the statutory commission will have a very wide remit. It can certainly consider the question whether the assembly operates on the basis of a Cabinet system or a local government system. I await the outcome with interest.
  My hon. Friend referred to the list of functions in schedule 2. The purpose of the schedule is to make it clear that the Secretary of State will have the responsibility for laying orders transferring functions in those areas to the assembly. It is not meant to be a prescriptive list of
  766
  the committee structure. I agree with my hon. Friend, and the point was made by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), that there might be six, eight or 10 committees, rather than the entire list in the schedule.
  Mr. Caton: I thank my right hon. Friend for those helpful remarks, and I welcome the approach that he is likely to take.
  As for the right of consultation for interest groups in Wales, like other hon. Members, I warmly welcome the provision in clause 110 that requires the assembly to draw up a scheme to sustain and promote local government. I particularly welcome the creation of the partnership council. The key to better government in Wales will be the right relationship between the two tiers of democratic representation in our country. Councillors and local authority employees have expressed fears that the assembly may seek to take over their responsibilities. Those fears have been aired in the Chamber today.
  I believe that the White Paper did much to dispel those concerns. However, the Bill—and, in particular, the creation of the partnership council—will inspire further confidence that the assembly is good news for local democracy, as well as for democracy at the all-Wales level. After 1999, the quality of most of our major public services and our ability to grow as a sustainable economy will be in the hands of both our new assembly and our local councils. With a dynamic and constructive partnership, things can only get better.
  The responsibilities and structures for which the Bill provides establish an excellent base on which to build. I am also pleased to see the requirement in clause 111 for the assembly to develop a scheme to promote the voluntary sector. Voluntary organisations throughout Wales will welcome a structure in which the criteria for financial assistance, the ground rules for monitoring the use of resources and the methods of consultation are debated openly and decided.
  However, I note that the Bill does not include similar consultation rights for the representatives of the main economic players: the employers and employees. Perhaps, in answering the debate tomorrow, the Under-Secretary will confirm whether consideration has been given to a statutory right of consultation for the social partners, either jointly, as a Welsh economic committee, or separately, as the Wales Trades Union Congress, the Welsh version of the Confederation of British Industry or some other appropriate representative organisation.
  Mr. Hain: I draw my hon. Friend's attention generally to clause 64(3)—he need not consult it in detail unless he wishes to do so—which makes it clear that business will need to be consulted in terms of regulatory appraisals of any regulations that the assembly might introduce.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the third or fourth time that the Government's Front-Bench spokesmen have helped to pad out the speech by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton). Is it conventional to provide such assistance

  767
  to an hon. Member as we approach 10 o'clock? Is the intention to exclude other hon. Members from speaking in the debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Worthing, West is making accusations. Interventions are perfectly within the rules of the House—that is why I have allowed them.
  Mr. Hain: For the benefit of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), I was seeking to draw to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that clause 64 addresses precisely his concern that business should be consulted. We have issued an open invitation to business, the voluntary sector and several other interest groups in Wales to submit their agendas to my right hon. Friend's advisory committee—and thereafter to the statutory commission—to explain what relationship they want with the assembly. It is an inclusive process, which will extend to the opening of the assembly in 1999.
  Mr. Caton: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I still recommend that thought should be given to the social partner approach to consultation with the economic players. Structures for consultation obviously help, but the culture of the assembly will be just as important. The electoral system, fair committee structures and rights to be heard will help to create a democratic body that is more constructive and inclusive and less confrontational than anything we have seen before.
  Working practices are part of the answer but attitude is equally important. A heavy responsibility lies on the shoulders of our first elected assembly women and men. It will be their job to nurture a co-operative and
  768
  consensual culture. The location of the assembly might help them to achieve that objective. The mind-opening significance of daring even to consider basing our assembly outside Cardiff has provided enthusiasm and excitement in Swansea and south-west Wales. That has been matched only by the arrogance of some statements from Cardiff-based media.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Dr. Nick Palmer be added to the Administration Committee.—[Mr. Clive Betts, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  CATERING COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Patrick McLoughlin be discharged from the Catering Committee and Mr. Keith Simpson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Clive Betts, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Cynog Dafis be discharged from the Education and Employment Committee and Mr. Paul Keetch be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Clive Betts, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  WELSH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Paul Flynn be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Mr. Huw Edwards be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Clive Betts, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Conygar Quarry, North Somerset
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Janet Anderson.]
10 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: I shall begin the debate by making it clear that this is not another not-in-my-back-yard debate about quarrying. My constituency has many quarries within it and my constituents are used to the problems that are associated with quarrying. They are used to making sacrifices that they regard as part of their civic duty. They know that road building, for example, is an important part of improving the country's infrastructure.
I initiated the debate because I feel that a genuine injustice is being done. If the letter of the law has not been broken and if procedures have not been wrongly conducted, at least the spirit of the law has been ignored.
It will perhaps be useful for me to put on the record a brief history of Conygar quarry in Clevedon. It is a 19-acre sandstone quarry, which was worked during the 19th century. Permission was registered under an interim development order in 1947. It ceased production in the late 1950s, incidentally with a maximum recorded output of 17,000 tonnes per annum. Tipping permission for inert waste was granted in 1962. As a scrap yard, the quarry was used until 1989.
In 1990, the site was purchased by Tasplot Ltd., which took Woodspring district council, as it then was, to the High Court in that same year for denying knowledge of the planning permission. In an undefended action, Tasplot obtained £2,000 in damages, a full-page apology twice in the local newspaper, the Mercury, and a declaratory judgment on the basis that no evidence was offered by the district council and so it had to accept anything that Tasplot demanded.
Tasplot, as many of the owners of the quarry mysteriously have done, went into receivership in 1992, owing over £800,000. After much action group lobbying, the quarry was registered as dormant under the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. An appeal against that registration was rejected by the then Avon county council, which thankfully we managed to abolish shortly afterwards.
In 1994, an application by Federated Aggregates Ltd. to reopen the site with a new road across the Gordano valley was requested. Avon county council allowed extraction of only 40,000 tonnes per annum. That restriction was accompanied by 100 generally acceptable but not universally popular, by any means, working conditions.
Federated Aggregates Ltd. lost interest, as did many companies before them, and Conygar Ltd. obtained control. Recently, a local farmer, in conjunction with Conygar Ltd., appealed against the conditions. Then came the inspector's bombshell.
This is a major local issue. It affects those near the quarry and all those living in Clevedon, the largest town in my constituency. It took a recent trip by air from nearby Lulsgate airport for me properly to appreciate the sheer scale of the quarry. The sight from the air of the number of residential properties adjacent to the quarry, the development that has taken place since it was opened and, not least, the school close by, has to be seen to be
770
believed. Hon. Members will agree that an issue's importance can be measured by the size of one's postbag. I dealt with about five times as many letters about the quarry as about hunting.
Avon county council's conditions were not welcome, but they were accepted. That says much for the patience and understanding of the people who live nearby. They were willing to accept the conditions. The town council accepted them; the district council accepted the situation. As the Member of Parliament representing the wider area, I was willing to accept it. I pay special tribute to the action group, whose determination has achieved so much in bringing the issue to public prominence. The inspector did not share the democratic view, and it is to a point of democratic deficit that I should like to return.
I told the Minister that I would mention the environmental setting of the quarry, because the Government talk of having a new priority for the environment. Let me tell them about us. We are a seaside town. The quarry lies at the edge of the Gordano valley, which contains priority landscape and wildlife conservation and historic landscape areas. It is a site of special scientific interest and lies within the Bristol green belt. Those facts have either been ignored or are considered irrelevant. It is important not only for the quarry in my constituency but for the situation beyond that such factors are taken fully into account in the decisions of faceless bureaucrats.
One of my biggest worries, having also been a general practitioner in a nearby town, is safety. The quarry opens into the narrow Norton's Wood lane. The matter was put well in a letter from a constituent, Dr R. J. Pring, who said:
"The lane onto which the quarry fronts is narrow (too narrow for two lorries to pass) with no footpath, is part of the local cycleway and is used by horseriders. The lane itself then exits on to a 'B' road almost opposite the road serving the comprehensive school. Travelling the opposite way, the lane narrows, and lorries would either have to negotiate about four miles of narrow lane until reaching a road for Portishead, or take a left hand turn passing through another small village and emerging onto the 'B' road at a blind crossroads."
Since the quarry reached its maximum output in the 1950s, Clevedon comprehensive school has been built. There is a busy and dangerous junction. I had forgotten how dangerous it could be until I had a narrow miss on Saturday morning while visiting the quarry site. Some 1,500 local school children aged four to 18 use the same roads. If anything happens because of the increased traffic that will result from permission to quarry an unlimited amount, more than a small amount of blame will lie with whoever's signature lies on that permission. It would be almost comical, if it were not true, that a cemetery was not allowed by the highways authority for safety reasons, but we are to have unlimited quarrying and an unlimited number of lorries on our narrow lanes.
The inspector's report must be seen to be believed. It is almost as though the report was written by one person and the conclusions by someone else who had not only never visited the district but not read the report in the first place. Paragraph 43 states:
"Although I have little evidence on the economic structure of the operation it seems to me that to prevent access from 1.00–2.00 may be unduly onerous. Nevertheless, I appreciate that the view could be taken that there would be unacceptable risk to school children at lunchtimes".

771
The inspector accepts that there may be unacceptable risk but, lo and behold, in the conclusion, the unacceptable risk becomes acceptable. The previous restrictions that safeguarded our children at the local school simply disappear.
The inspector states:
"I consider it unlikely that large numbers of primary school children would be out at lunchtime".
There is no mention of the quarries opposite the secondary school, where a large number of pupils are out at lunchtime—pupils who deserve our protection.
Paragraph 40 of the report states:
"Delivery vehicles are most likely to have difficulty negotiating the (Walter Road) junction. I am convinced by the written and photographic evidence and by my inspection, that the junction is potentially dangerous and that there would be harmful effects on safety and amenity resulting from the use by heavy vehicles of the narrow lane. Most danger would be caused to those on foot and on bicycles."
The report concludes that an unlimited number of lorries would use the junction, and that—in the inspector's own words—that would be dangerous.
I could go on and on—I could give example after example—but let me just say to the Minister that there is a democratic deficit. I was aware of it when my party was in government, and I do not pretend for a moment that that was not the case; but if Secretaries of State simply sign the recommendations that inspectors give them, and we as a democratic body have no way of redressing those decisions, what is the role of democracy in the process?
The decision is ultimately being made by a faceless bureaucrat who, on the basis of one visit to my constituency, is able to overturn what I think and what my district council, my town council, local people and the action group think. Everyone's view is irrelevant: all the rounds in the planning inquiry are meaningless except the last round. As long as the last round is won, that is enough. The Secretary of State will sign, and that is it. We as democratic politicians have no locus, and that cannot be right. What will be the Government's response to a situation that allows lorry movements to increase from 20 a day to an unlimited number, an increase in extracted tonnage by 300 per cent. to 125,000 tonnes, no lunch-time lorry restrictions, unlimited blasting and earlier starting times? All that will be to the detriment of our local environment.
Let me make this clear to whoever owns the quarry, or will own it in the future. We understand that time is money, and we know the value of delay. I shall use my offices to investigate any way, any device and any project to make the quarry unviable. I look to the Government to help to prevent an act of unsafe, unfounded vandalism. The people of my constituency—people in Clevedon and in north Somerset generally—are slow to anger, but that should not lead us to understate their determination. They have shown admirable resilience and courage in their battle over the quarry. They have my admiration, and, for as long as I represent them, my total support.
10.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on securing the debate, and on his speech. I know he will understand that my response must necessarily avoid comment on the details of the case, because the Secretary of State no longer has any jurisdiction in the matter. Indeed, the legal processes in the case are complete. However, I want to make it clear at the outset that the Government recognise and understand the real concerns raised locally by quarrying and its impact on the environment. Successive Governments have sought to respond to those concerns, and to achieve a sensible balance between the interests of the economy and the construction industry and those of the environment. That is reflected in primary legislation.
I shall return to the planning processes of the Conygar quarry case shortly. For the avoidance of doubt, it is important to set out the stages through which the consideration of the quarry has passed. First, however, I shall set out the legislative position in some detail, as it is important to explain clearly the purposes of the reforms of recent years.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, successive Governments have accorded the reform of old quarrying permissions considerable priority in recent years, and I want to remind the House of the progress that has been made.
The modern reform of the mineral planning system began as far back as 1976 with the publication of the Stevens committee report. Its recommendations formed the basis of the Minerals Act 1981, which is now consolidated in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and is the cornerstone of modern mineral planning legislation. The 1981 Act introduced a duty on mineral planning authorities—in current terms, the counties, unitaries and national park authorities—to review and make orders updating mineral permissions, and established that the minerals industry should bear part of the costs under the polluter pays principle.
However, the provisions in the 1981 Act for review and updating of conditions did not work well in practice. Mineral planning authorities were reluctant to risk incurring compensation liabilities, which were difficult to assess, in advance of using their order-making powers. The shortcomings of the 1981 Act were recognised, and, as a result, two further pieces of legislation were enacted to deal with them.
The first was the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The then Government legislated to reform interim development order planning permissions. They were the earliest remaining mineral permissions in the United Kingdom, and were granted under interim development orders between 1943 and 1948, chiefly to meet wartime needs and the demands of post-war reconstruction. Conygar quarry is one of those IDOs, and received its permission in 1947.
Those permissions had few, if any, planning conditions attached, and in many cases records of their existence had been lost. Under the 1991 Act, IDO permissions had to be registered with local mineral planning authorities and then submitted to them for updating of their working and restoration conditions.

773
All IDO permissions remain valid and cannot legally be revoked without compensation. That is consistent with the wider general principles of planning and property law. There is no compensation for the cost of complying with new conditions, but our planning guidance makes it clear that conditions imposed on active sites should not
"fundamentally effect the economic structure of the operation."
For dormant sites—sites where there was no substantial working for the two years between May 1989 and April 1991—full modern conditions may be imposed without compensation. Full planning guidance is given on the operation of the 1991 Act in mineral planning guidance notes 8 and 9.
On the whole, those reforms have worked well over the years, and are delivering real benefits as older quarries are brought up to modern environmental standards. In recent years, the responsible members of the quarrying industry have taken steps to be good neighbours, and to reduce the environmental impact of their operations. As society looks towards higher environmental standards, the industry's standards will also have to rise. I look to the industry for a positive response in cases of difficulty, so that local harmony and good relations between quarry operators and local populations can be sustained.
The Environment Act 1995 built on that earlier success and made provision for similar reforms to deal with permissions that were granted between 1948 and 1982. The details of that legislation are not relevant tonight, except in one important aspect.
It is very important that, once modernised, mineral permissions do not slip back again. None of us wants to be continually confronted with this issue. The Environment Act 1995 therefore provides for periodic reviews, at 15-year intervals, of all mineral permissions, irrespective of the date on which they were granted, to ensure that, once modernised, they are kept in line with current environmental standards and best practice. This is a particularly important aspect of the reforms, and has clear benefits.
The overall aim of the review process, which successive Governments have supported, is to ensure environmentally sound outcomes while not prejudicing economic viability. The hon. Gentleman made that point.
I want to outline the sequence of the planning processes involved in the Conygar quarry case, so that the Department's role is clear and transparent. Conygar quarry received its planning permission in 1947. It was registered as a dormant site under the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 by the then Avon county council. The mineral planning authority for the quarry now is North Somerset district council.
An application to reactivate the quarry was made by Conygar Quarry Ltd., and was the subject of an appeal to my Department. A planning inspector visited the site on 2 July 1996 and, after a thorough and independent consideration of all the issues, reported to the then Secretary of State on 22 November 1996. As no decision had been issued before the general election, the matter fell to be determined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. He agreed with the inspector's recommendations on the conditions to govern this case and issued his decision letter on 25 June 1997.
The recommendations included conditions on traffic, time limits on blasting, and vibration limits in line with Government guidance. As the hon. Member for
774
Woodspring raised some of those issues in his speech, I should like to respond briefly on each. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the decision letter and in the inspector's report, considerable attention was given to conditions regulating traffic weights, access and signing. The hon. Gentleman referred to passages from the inspector's report.
The report included conditions governing automatic wheel and chassis washes, and the sheeting of lorries to provide for the cleanliness of roads leading to and from the public highway and of vehicles leaving the site. Traffic conditions were also included to control access to and from the highway, to provide for the display of on-site signs showing recommended vehicle routes, to warn HGV lorry drivers visiting or leaving the quarry about local schools, and to prohibit night-time working.
The inspector gave careful consideration to the issue of output from the site in paragraphs 114 to 122 of his report and produced firm recommendations. Indeed, he recommended a shorter period for controlling the average output from the site and allowed for more frequent monitoring. He considered that this
"would prevent the possibility that a long high peak in production could lead to very high levels of traffic over a protracted period."
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saw no reason to disagree with that, and imposed conditions accordingly.
As the hon. Member for Woodspring referred to two passages in the inspector's report, it is right that I should refer to the relevant recommendations. I shall quote from paragraph 40 of the inspector's report because the hon. Gentleman quoted from it and spoke about potential danger to schoolchildren. The paragraph ended with the following words which the hon. Gentleman did not quote:
"I am satisfied, therefore, that there is a need for a condition preventing the distribution of stone at times when the lorries are most likely to come into conflict with other road users."
In paragraph 44 of his report the inspector turned to the subject of the safety of schoolchildren. He states:
"In my experience, the peak time for arrival at schools is short and well defined. On the specific evidence, it seems to me that a period of restriction from 8.30 to 9.15 would not be unreasonable".
Paragraph 46 makes the following recommendation:
"No vehicle in excess of 1 tonne laden weight shall enter or leave the quarry except between the hours of 07.30 am—08.30 am, 09.15 am—3.00 pm and 4.00 pm—6.00 pm Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 08.00 am—1.00 pm on Saturdays. These restrictions shall not apply at times of the year when both the East Clevedon Primary School and the Clevedon Secondary School are not in session."
That obviously reflects the inspector's concern for the safety of schoolchildren.
The inspector also recommended blasting conditions providing for limits on the timing of blasts and on ground vibrations. I accept that these may differ from those desired locally, but the inspector made firm recommendations on the type of blasting conditions that were appropriate and in line with published guidance and, therefore, they were accepted by my right hon. Friend.
I understand that there has been some concern about the end date of the permission. I want to address the end date issue specifically as it is important that it is clearly understood. Many old mineral permissions that were granted planning permission before 1982 were open-ended. That is to say, they had no end date whatever.

775
The Minerals Act 1981 recognised that that was unacceptable, and imposed a time limit of 60 years on all permissions which at that time were open ended.
In the case of Conygar quarry, the 60-year life runs to 2042. I recognise that that date is still considered to be much too long. However, the then Government concluded that it would not be right to change the date. Consequently the 2042 date can be changed only by agreement between the operator and the mineral planning authority. If the mineral planning authority alters the date unilaterally, it risks liability for compensation.
The inspector considered the end date of Conygar quarry, but pointed out that, although the mineral planning authority would have liked to curtail that date, schedule 2(1)(c) of the 1991 Act allowed no scope for that to be done. However, the Secretary of State made it clear in the decision letter that, although the legislation does not permit variation of the 2042 condition, nothing in practice prohibits operations on the site ceasing before the end date.
The operator, the mineral planning authority and any interested third parties had a right to challenge the Secretary of State's decision in the High Court within six weeks of the date of the decision letter—that is, by 6 August. No such challenge was made, the legal avenues are now closed and the Secretary of State has no further jurisdiction in the matter.
That is not to say that no further avenues are open should the circumstances surrounding the site change. As I have mentioned, under the provisions of the Environment Act 1995, all mineral permissions are subject to periodic review. That means that the quarry will be subject to periodic review at least twice more—in 2012 and in 2027—before the planning permission expires.
Furthermore, if North Somerset district council, as the mineral planning authority, considers that action is needed sooner than the next 15-year review—because, for example, the planning circumstances have changed materially since the decision letter was issued—it can modify or revoke the permission using its order-making powers, but it may have to pay compensation to the operators if it does so.
As the law in relation to order-making powers has only recently been reconsidered, it may be helpful if I set out the main features. Mineral planning authorities have order-making powers to act in cases of urgency between normal 15-year periodic reviews, or in cases of technical default. New regulations—the Minerals Compensation Regulations 1997—that modify the basis on which compensation is assessed following such orders came into force on 25 March with all-party support. Those regulations brought the compensation entitlement for such cases into line with that for periodic reviews.
776
The Secretary of State's guidance on the orders and new regulations was published as mineral planning guidance note 4 in August.
If a mineral planning authority makes an order, it is subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State, so I do not propose to go further beyond that outline of what mineral planning authorities can do.
Dr. Fox: Given that, by 2042, even I will be 81, will the Minister help us with the legal problem in the short term? It seems odd—I am not a lawyer—that we cannot have a cemetery in the lane because it is too dangerous, but that we can have a quarry in the lane, where the lorries are larger than the hearses we might have locally. How can it be that the district council, through the highways authority, can stop the cemetery going ahead, but is powerless to stop the quarry traffic? Will the Minister undertake to ask his Department to get a legal view on what powers the district council has through the local highways authority to restrict traffic on safety grounds?
Mr. Raynsford: I regret that I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. As I have made clear, the matter has now reached the end of the process in which the Secretary of State has any involvement. The legal processes are terminated. The option was there for people who were unhappy with the decision to challenge it in the High Court under the agreed procedures. No such challenge was made. As I have stressed, the legal avenues are closed and there is no further opportunity for the Government to take any role in this case.
Dr. Fox: That was not my point. I was asking the Minister whether the Government, through their responsibility for the local authority, could ask their lawyers to give us a view on the relative responsibilities of the district council's highways authority and its role in challenging the right of access—for example, to a quarry where permissions have already been given. It is a slightly separate matter from the Government being involved in the permission itself. I would be grateful for that legal view.
Mr. Raynsford: As I have made clear, the inspector covered in considerable detail issues of traffic. I have highlighted one or two of the passages in his report to show that he considered matters that the hon. Gentleman implied might have been overlooked. Therefore, the matter has been given thorough consideration. However, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me, I will consider any matters relating to hazards that may exist on local highways, and talk to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have responsibility for those matters.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Cigarettes
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee if he will take steps to discourage sales of House of Commons branded cigarettes. [18613]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  It would be very unusual if a Chairman of the Catering Committee sought to discourage the sale and consumption of items sold as gifts and souvenirs from the Refreshment Department outlets. However, I accept fully that the situation with cigarettes is unique. In the previous Parliament I understand that the view of the Committee was that for as long as the smoking of tobacco products was legal, it was acceptable for the Department's outlets to sell cigarettes. My Committee will consider this subject in due course, and no doubt hon. Members will make representations about it.

  Westminster Hall Cafeteria
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee if he will allow participants of guided tours to use Westminster Hall Cafeteria; and if he make a statement. [18719]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  On 12 July 1994, the House approved the First Report of Session 1992–93 from the previous Catering Committee, "Refreshment provision for line of route visitors". One recommendation was that the area currently occupied by the Westminster Hall Cafeteria should be converted to a visitor centre, which would provide light refreshments and toilet facilities for the public, but that this should take place only once a suitable alternative has been found for the present lunchtime users.

  Initial discussions between Officials have been held regarding the proposed nature of a visitor centre, and their proposals will be put before my Committee by Easter 1998. However, I do have to advise my hon. Friend that in excess of 500 people, mainly staff, have lunch daily in the Westminster Hall Cafeteria; the other outlets currently available to staff would not be able to accommodate the extra customers if the Westminster Hall Cafeteria was closed before the opening of the new Cafeteria in Portcullis House, which I understand, will not be until 2001. Therefore, it will not be possible to open a visitor centre before then.

  Blood Donor Sessions
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if she will arrange for regular blood donor sessions to be held within the Palace of Westminster. [18720]

  Mrs. Roe
  The North London Blood Transfusion Service operates a two day clinic very near the House in HM Treasury or the Cabinet Office once every six 404
  months, when arrangements are made for hon. Members, their staff and staff of the House who wish to do so to give blood.

  Both a lack of space and an insufficient donor base preclude holding a dedicated clinic on the Parliamentary Estate.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many car parking spaces are provided for(a) ministers, (b) hon. Members, (c) employees and (d) visitors in the House of Commons car parks. [19458]

  Mrs. Roe
  Details of the number of car park spaces, and who is entitled to use them, are given in the Serjeant at Arms leaflet "Car Parking" dated Spring 1997. I have asked for a copy to be sent to the hon. Gentleman.

  Hearing-impaired People
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee (1) what the procedures are by which a deaf member of the public can be provided with sign language interpretation of the proceedings of the House within the Strangers Gallery; [18955]

  (2) what the procedures are by which a member may be provided with (a) a sign language interpreter and (b) a portable induction loop in order to facilitate communication with deaf or hard of hearing visitors to the Palace of Westminster and associated buildings. [18956]

  Mrs. Roe
  Portable induction loops can be provided on request to the Serjeant at Arms Office. Forty eight hours notice should be given whenever possible. The House does not provide sign language interpreters; however, arrangements are made for interpreters accompanying deaf members of the public to operate from a suitable place in the Gallery.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will list those publicly accessible rooms within the Palace of Westminster and associated buildings which are fitted with an induction loop to assist persons who wear hearing aids. [18957]

  Sir. Sydney Chapman
  The Accommodation and Works Committee has responsibility only for those areas of the parliamentary estate administered by the House of Commons. There are no publicly accessible rooms in outbuildings administered by the House of Commons which are fitted with induction loops. Induction loops are installed in the following places within the Palace of Westminster administered by the House of Commons:The House of Commons Chamber—the floor and galleries;
  All Committee Rooms administered by the House of Commons, with the exception of Nos. 7, 13 and 16;
  The Grand Committee Room.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Visas (India and Pakistan)
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for visitors' visas to the United Kingdom were received between January and October at the posts in(a) Bombay and (b) Islamabad; and how many of these applications were refused. [18667]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Between January and October there were 53,059 applications in Bombay to visit the UK, of which 3,742 were refused; and 22,645 applications in Islamabad, of which 4,044 were refused.

  Correspondence
  Sir Archie Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons he has not replied to the letter from the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell of 1 July concerning his constituent Mr. Ramik Shah. [18884]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The right hon. Member's letter of 1 July was passed to the Home Office for reply since the question of special vouchers falls within its remit. I understand that a Home Office Minister will be replying shortly under file reference IMG/97 366/1205/1.

  Tibet
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to raise the conditions of the Tibetan people with the Chinese Government; and if he will make a statement. [19014]

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of China concerning human rights in Tibet. [19341]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Tibet. We take every opportunity to raise the issue of human rights with the Chinese authorities, both nationally and with our European Union partners. Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I did so most recently when we met the Chinese Vice-Foreign Minister in London between 3 November and 6 November.

  China and Tibet
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will promote talks between the Chinese authorities and the Tibetan Government-in-exile during the United Kingdom EU Presidency, and encourage the European Union to host such talks. [18743]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 5 December 1997]: In our dialogues with China, both bilateral and at EU level, we have sought to encourage talks between the Chinese Government and the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama. We will continue to do so.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the Vision 2010 project in Nigeria; and if he will make a statement. [19348]
  406
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are in regular contact with several members of the Vision 2010 Committee. Our High Commission in Nigeria attended the launch of the Vision 2010 report on 27 November. The Report sets out a blueprint for economic reform in Nigeria. We will be following closely the implementation of its recommendations.

  Algeria
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will promote talks during the United Kingdom Presidency of the EU between the French and Algerian Governments and other European Union member states on abuses of human rights in Algeria. [18745]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 5 December 1997]: The EU already raises with the Algerian Government its concerns about allegations of human rights abuses. We will continue to monitor the situation closely during our Presidency of the EU.

  Indonesia (Police Training)
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his statement in Jakarta on 29 August, what proposals he(a) has made and (b) plans to make to the Indonesian Government to provide assistance with police training. [19296]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 5 December 1997]: Detailed proposals are still being worked out; we shall make an announcement in due course.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the lecture on modern policing methods by British police experts in Indonesia, announced in his statement in Jakarta on 29 August, took place; and where. [19297]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 5 December 1997]: We have not yet finalised arrangements for the proposed lectures.

  Sudan
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those resolutions Her Majesty's Government has(a) tabled and (b) supported in the United Nations General Assembly concerning the Government of Sudan between January 1992 and November 1997. [19597]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The United Kingdom has supported the following United Nations General Assembly resolutions about Sudan:

  GA RES 47/167 (18 December 1992)

  GA RES 48/201 (21 December 1993)

  GA RES 49/21 (20 December 1994)

  GA RES 50/58 (22 December 1995)

  Emergency assistance to Sudan.

  407

  GA RES 47/147 (18 December 1992)

  GA RES 48/147 (20 December 1993)

  GA RES 49/198 (23 December 1994)

  GA RES 50/197 (22 December 1995)

  GA RES 51/112 (12 December 1996)

  The situation of human rights in Sudan.

  The United Kingdom co-sponsored all the human rights resolutions, but not those on emergency assistance.

  Iraq
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions since the ending of the war in the Gulf the Iraqi regime has been offered the opportunity of selling oil to buy food and medicines; and if he will make a statement. [19706]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Iraq refused the benefits of SCRs 706 and 712. Because Iraq at first would not co-operate in implementing SCR 986 the implementation of the resolution was delayed until December 1996.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government in Zimbabwe on their policy towards private farmland; and if he will make a statement. [19119]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) on 4 December 1997,official Report, column 303.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many car park spaces are provided for his Department's(a) ministers, (b) employees and (c) visitors in (i) London and (ii) the United Kingdom. [19364]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The following is the information:

  Ministers

  Employees

  Visitors

  London

  5

  96

  15

  Elsewhere in the United Kingdom

  —

  900

  30

  EU Projects (Funding)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much funding of European Union projects for 1996 operated through the actions ponctuelles. [17263]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply. A very small amount of the European Community Budget—less than 1 per cent. of the total—was spent on non-significant actions (including "actions ponctuelles") in 1996.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what initiatives Her Majesty's Government propose to take following the visit to Edinburgh of the delegation of the United Nations Legal Affairs Office to make inquiries on behalf of the United Nations about the Scottish legal system with a view to discussing a Lockerbie trial with Libya, the Arab League and the Organisation of African States. [19674]

  The Prime Minister
  We took the initiative to invite the United Nations to send legal experts to visit Scotland to witness at first hand the fairness and impartiality of Scottish justice, and to discuss the modalities of attendance at a trial in Scotland by international observers.

  It remains the Government's view that Libya should comply with the United Nations Security Council Resolutions by surrendering the two accused for trial in Scotland or the United. States, since any other solution will reflect quite wrongly on the quality and standards of justice in either jurisdiction.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the role of the Lord Chancellor and his responsibilities as Chairman of the Cabinet Committee responsible for the future constitutional arrangements for the United Kingdom following the creation of a Scottish Parliament. [18018]

  The Prime Minister
  The proceedings of Cabinet Committees necessarily remain private but it will be clear that my right hon. and noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor and his Committees are doing an excellent job in delivering the Government's constitutional reform programme. That will be an on-going task until we have completed the modernisation of the political system in this country.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the terms of reference and work programme of the Social Exclusion Unit. [20004]

  The Prime Minister
  I today launched the Social Exclusion Unit at Stockwell Park School Lambeth. Social exclusion is a shorthand label for what can happen when individuals or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown. The Government have policies that are targeted at reducing all of these individually, but Government programmes have been less good at tackling the interaction between these problems or preventing them from arising in the first place.

  The purpose of the unit is to help break this vicious circle and co-ordinate and improve Government action to reduce social exclusion by first improving understanding of the key characteristics of social exclusion, and the impact on it of Government policies; and, secondly, by promoting solutions, encouraging co-operation, disseminating best practice and, where necessary, making recommendations for changes in policies and machinery or delivery mechanisms. The unit will not cover issues

  409
  which are of interest to one Department only, or duplicate work done elsewhere. It will focus on areas where it can add value and address the long-term causes of exclusion.

  I have asked the Unit to focus on the following priorities in its first phase to July 1998:

  (a) Truancy and School Exclusion: to make a step change in the scale of truancy and exclusions from school, and to find better solutions for those who have to be excluded—with a report to Ministers by Easter.

  (b) Street living: reducing to as near zero as possible the numbers sleeping rough in towns and cities—with a report to Ministers by Easter.

  (c) Worst estates: developing integrated and sustainable approaches to the problems of the worst housing estates, including crime, drugs, unemployment, community breakdown, bad schools, etc.—with a report by June.

  I will chair one summit involving key interests on each of these topics, starting with one on school exclusion and truancy at Stockwell Park School this morning.

  In addition, in its first phase,. the unit will focus on improving mechanisms for integrating the work of departments, local authorities and other agencies at national level and on the ground, so money spent on excluded groups is used more effectively and has more chance of meeting its objectives. There will be a first report to Ministers by the end of June next year. Secondly, it will feed in to the Comprehensive Spending Reviews any recommendations for redirection of priorities arising from the unit's initial work. Finally, it will draw up key indicators of social exclusion, recommending how these can be tracked to monitor the effectiveness of Government policies in reducing social exclusion and will report to ministers by the end of June.

  The unit should draw on its experience with these first tasks to make recommendations on possible targets for the second half of 1998. Particular areas could include identifying key preventive interventions with children and young people; probing aspects of exclusion which disproportionately affect particular ethnic minority groups; options for improving access to services, public and private, for low income areas or individuals; and ways to encourage and focus individual and business involvement in tackling social exclusion. The unit will discuss those and other areas with interested groups before making recommendations.

  The unit is part of the Economic and Domestic Affairs Secretariat in the Cabinet Office. It will report to me and work closely with the No. 10 Policy unit. It will be staffed by civil servants from other Whitehall departments and secondees from local authorities, voluntary bodies and other main agencies. It is being set up for an initial period of two years and its future will then be reviewed. The Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will consider how best to tackle social exclusion, taking account of the particular needs and characteristics of their respective communities. The Social Exclusion Unit will work closely with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish offices and the unit's findings will be made available to these departments.

  I will steer the work of the unit personally and chair regular meetings with relevant Ministers to review the initiative. Policy decisions will be cleared through the appropriate Cabinet Committee, and implemented by the departments. I will report to Parliament next summer on
  410
  the work of the unit and on the forward agenda. Any policy changes proposed will have clear targets and evaluation plans. To build on the unit's cross-departmental focus, I have nominated a network of Ministers in the Departments most affected, to draw together exclusion issues in their own departments, and to help present and guide the unit's work as follows; the Minister for Local Government and Housing, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Bradley), the Minister for School Standards, the Minister for Public Health, the Minister without Portfolio, the Minister of State, Home Office, the Paymaster General, the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry.

  The unit will draw extensively on outside expertise and research, and lock into relevant external networks to hear views from local authorities, business, voluntary organisations and other organisations/individuals with experience of dealing with exclusion. The unit will adopt an outward-facing and open approach, participate in relevant seminars and conferences, seek out existing good practice and encourage its wider dissemination.

  Copies of a leaflet setting out the purpose, priorities, working methods and staff in the unit have been placed in the Library.

  Early-Day Motions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if hon. Members holding the office of PPS have been requested not to sign early-day Motions critical of the Government; and if he will make a statement. [18909]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 December 1997]: The principles which govern the behaviour of Parliamentary Private Secretaries in the House are set out in paragraph 46 of the Ministerial Code, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House in July 1997.

  Cleaner Vehicles
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Prime Minister what account he took of the publishing opinions of Mr. Keith Taylor, Chairman of ESSO, in appointing him to his task force on cleaner vehicles; what assessment he made of their consistency with the Government's policy on global warming; and what consultations he had with the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions prior to the appointment. [19152]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 December 1997]: The Government have a clear commitment to addressing climate change. The Cleaner Vehicles Task Force aims to create a new partnership between Government and the private sector to promote environmentally friendly vehicles that people actually want to drive and buy. It will draw on a cross-section of industry, including the oil industry, and I welcome the participation of a wide range of interests. The members of the Task Force's steering group were nominated by the Minister for Transport, in close consultation with the Science, Energy and Industry Minister and officials from the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish a ministerial committee to consider the future of the coal industry, with public membership and terms of reference. [19221]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 December 1997]: No.

  E-Mail
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 10 November 1997, from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,Official Report, column 441, if he will list his e-mail address along with those of (a) his senior officials and (b) his political advisers. [15863]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]: No.10 Downing Street has a website on the Internet.

  It is not the current practice to publish the e-mail addresses of my staff.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on overseas travel for (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1987–88, (iii) 1990–91, (iv) 1991–92, (v) 1992–93 (vi) 1993–94, (vii) 1994–95, (viii) 1995–96, (ix) 1996–97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997; and if he will provide a breakdown to show (1) air fares and (2) other expenditure relating to overseas travel. [15275]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: For this purpose, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 5 December 1997, Official Report, column 377.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on official hospitality for (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1987–88, (iii) 1990–91, (iv) 1991–92, (v) 1992–93, (vi) 1993–94, (vii) 1994–95, (viii )1995–96, (ix) 1996–97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997. [15274]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: For this purpose, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 5 December 1997, Official Report, column 376–77.

  Table A1.26: Proceedings instituted by HSE by result and by industrial sector 1992–93—1996–971

  Standard Industrial Classification (Sic 92)

  Section year

  Agriculture, hunting forestry and fishing A, B

  Extractive and utility supply industries C, E

  Manufacturing industries D

  Construction F

  Service industries G-Q

  Unclassified—

  All industries—

  Informations laid

  1992–93

  284

  46

  850

  702

  268

  7

  2,157

  1993–94

  276

  50

  664

  531

  253

  19

  1,793

  1994–95

  227

  48

  663

  630

  222

  13

  1,803

  1995–96

  162

  24

  645

  598

  287

  51

  1,767

  1,21996–97

  85

  40

  483

  414

  234

  —

  1,256

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the total expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95, (iii) 1995–96, (iv) 1996–97, (v) the 1997–98 year to date, (vi) the 1997–98, full year estimate and (vii) the 1998–99 planned expenditure. [15277]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: For this purpose, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 5 December 1997, Official Report, column 377.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Construction Industry (Health and Safety)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions have taken place against employers for unsafe and dangerous working practices in the construction industry so far in 1997; and if he will make a statement. [18571]

  Angela Eagle
  I regret that this question cannot be answered accurately in the form in which it has been asked. Between 1 January 1997 and 31 October 1997, there were 376 convictions obtained in proceedings instituted by HSE in the construction industry. These figures, which are only provisional, include all those prosecuted. Some offences may have been committed by the self-employed who by their actions put other workers, or members of the public, at risk. In addition, offences by those such as clients and designers, who may have had no direct control of working practices, but who may have failed to play their part in overall risk management and control, are included. To eliminate these cases from the figures and revise the reporting period would involve disproportionate cost.

  The best guide to the pattern of recent prosecutions in the construction industry is provided by Table A1.26 of Health and Safety Statistics 1996–97, which was published recently. A copy of Page 170 of the publication is attached for information.

  The protection of the health and safety of all those working in, or affected by, the construction industry is a high priority. The prosecution of those who breach health and safety law and the penalties the courts impose are important aspects of achieving this protection.
  413

  Table A1.26: Proceedings instituted by HSE by result and by industrial sector 1992–93—1996–971

  Standard Industrial Classification (Sic 92)

  Section year

  Agriculture, hunting forestry and fishing A, B

  Extractive and utility supply industries C, E

  Manufacturing industries D

  Construction F

  Service industries G-Q

  Unclassified—

  All industries—

  Convictions

  1992–93

  239

  40

  780

  573

  226

  7

  1,865

  1993–94

  227

  45

  585

  415

  217

  18

  1,075

  1994–95

  173

  42

  589

  494

  188

  13

  1,499

  1995–96

  114

  21

  558

  476

  241

  41

  1,451

  11996–97

  73

  35

  416

  339

  189

  —

  1,052

  Average penalty per conviction (£)

  1992–93

  357

  4,469

  1,512

  1,300

  1,776

  397

  1,390

  1993–94

  604

  11,638

  32,973

  43,384

  53,939

  922

  63,103

  1994–95

  794

  9,420

  73,042

  82,697

  3,322

  1,962

  92,873

  1995–96

  1,095

  5,595

  2,678

  2,232

  3,389

  2,820

  2,572

  11996–97

  1,194

  1,903

  108,068

  115,354

  125,592

  —

  135,421

  1 = Provisional

  2 Approximately 300 informations held over from 1995–96 have been transferred to the new computer system but have not yet been validated and, therefore, are not included in the provisional statistics but will be added when final data is released.

  3 Includes fine of £250,000 against Hickson and Welch and the fine of £100,000 against GEC Alsthorn Engineering Systems Ltd. The average fine without these convictions would be £2,383.

  4 Includes the fine of £150,000 against J. Murphy and Sons Ltd. The average fine without this conviction would be £3,030.

  5 Includes the fines of £250,000 against Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. The average fine without this conviction would be £2,799.

  6 Includes the fines of £250,000 against Hickson and Welch and Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, the fine of £150,000 against J. Murphy and Sons Ltd. and the fine of £100,000 against GEC Alsthorn Engineering Systems Ltd. The average fine without these convictions would be £2,612.

  7 Includes the fine of £100,000 against The Balmoral Group. The average fine without this conviction would be £2,877.

  8 Includes the fine of £200,000 against BP Chemicals. The average fine without these convictions would be £2,677.

  9 Includes the fine of £200,000 against BP Chemicals and the fine of £100,000 against The Balmoral Group. The average fine without these convictions would be £2,677.

  10 Includes the fine of £500,000 against Lloyds Register of Shipping, the fine of £750,000 against Fartygsentreprenader AB (part of the Mattson Group), the fine of £250,000 against Fartygoskonstruktioner (part of the Mattson Group), the four fines of £100,000 against Pembroke Cracking Co. Ltd. and the £100,000 fine against Firth Vickers Centrispinning Ltd. The average fine without these convictions would be £3,324.

  11 Includes the fine of £100,000 against Cheetham Hill Construction Ltd. The average fine without this conviction would be £3,068.

  12 Includes the fine of £200,000 against Port Ramsgate Ltd. The average fine without this conviction would be £4,558.

  13 Includes the fines of £500,000 against Lloyds Register of Shipping, the fine of £750,000 against Fartygsentreprenader AB (part of the Mattson Group), the fine of £250,000 against Fartygskonstruktioner (part of the Mattson Group), the four fines of £100,000 against Pembroke Cracking Co. Ltd. the £100,000 fine against Firth Vickers Centrispinning Ltd. the fine of £100,000 against Cheetham Hill Construction Ltd. and the fine of £200,000 against Port Ramsgate Ltd. The average fine without these convictions would be £3,266.

  Radioactive Materials
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the United Nations International Maritime Organisation's conclusion on the safety of ro-ro vessels for the transport of radioactive materials; and if he will make a statement. [18849]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The statement attributed to the IMO in a recent press article that ro-ro vessels are"exceptionally vulnerable to human error"
  is taken from a 33 page IMO background information paper entitled "IMO and ro-ro safety" The paper deals with ro-ro safety in general and makes no reference to the transport of radioactive materials in particular. However, in 1993 the IMO Assembly adopted, and has recently amended, the Code for the Safe Carriage of Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Waste in Flasks on board Ships (INF Code). UK companies involved in the transport of materials covered by the INF Code use ships complying with the Code.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures are being taken to ensure than shipments of radioactive material comply with safety and security regulations; and if he will make a statement. [18850]
  414
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Officials of my Department's Radioactive Materials Transport Division are responsible for the safety assessment of package designs for the safe transport of radioactive material, requiring competent authority approval, by all modes. Their compliance assurance branch monitors the design, manufacture and operation of all packages and is responsible for enforcement of the radioactive material road transport regulations. Enforcement during carriage by rail, air and sea, is carried out respectively by HM Railways Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department's Marine Safety Agency.

  Matters of physical security are for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on(a) the public safety implications and (b) the security issues involved in the use of roll-on roll-off ferries to transport plutonium around the United Kingdom; and what action he is taking to monitor this activity. [18848]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Public safety is ensured by enforcing the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1990 monitored by the Department's Marine Safety Agency. These regulations require such material to be carried in packages which are
  415
  resistant to severe accident conditions and which have been approved by my Department. UK companies involved in the transport of plutonium by sea use ships meeting the International Maritime Organisation's "Code for the Safe Carriage of Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Flasks on board Ships" (INF Code).

  The UK applies the requirements of the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. Matters of physical security are for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Household Projections
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates of the levels of cohabitation were included in the latest household projections; and to what extent these differ from previous projections. [18604]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The most recent, 1992-based household projections were the first to use co-habiting couples as a separate household category for estimation purposes. This followed the inclusion of "living together as a couple" for the first time as a recognised relationship in the 1991 Census. It is not possible, therefore, to make comparisons with previous projections about assumed levels of cohabitation.

  The levels of co-habitation assumed for the latest households projections were the 1992-based projections of marital status made by the Government Actuary's Department. A detailed description of the methodology and statistical assumptions underlying the latest household projections is set out in the annexes of "Projections in

  Thousands

  Housebuilding

  Household projections—increase in households 1991–96

  1991–96

  1981-based

  1983-based

  1985-based

  1989-based

  1992-based

  Cleveland

  8.1

  2

  4

  2

  3

  7

  Durham

  7.8

  3

  2

  3

  4

  8

  Northumberland

  4.7

  2

  3

  4

  4

  5

  Tyne and Wear

  13.0

  -2

  -4

  0

  6

  17

  Cheshire

  15.7

  14

  15

  17

  22

  20

  Cumbria

  7.4

  3

  3

  6

  10

  8

  Greater Manchester

  36.0

  2

  6

  11

  25

  35

  Lancashire

  20.3

  11

  10

  12

  23

  22

  Merseyside

  20.0

  -4

  -2

  -4

  0

  14

  Humberside

  16.0

  7

  6

  6

  15

  17

  North Yorkshire

  14.2

  9

  10

  14

  21

  16

  South Yorkshire

  14.4

  9

  6

  5

  15

  18

  West Yorkshire

  27.0

  11

  11

  15

  28

  38

  Derbyshire

  17.0

  8

  11

  12

  18

  19

  Leicestershire

  15.4

  14

  13

  15

  22

  23

  Lincolnshire

  16.3

  5

  12

  15

  17

  17

  Northamptonshire

  14.3

  14

  13

  16

  20

  14

  Nottinghamshire

  14.9

  11

  12

  17

  22

  21

  Hereford and Worcester

  15.6

  15

  14

  15

  18

  18

  Shropshire

  9.9

  8

  8

  11

  12

  10

  Stafforshire

  17.3

  14

  13

  15

  21

  18

  Warwickshire

  8.8

  8

  8

  9

  9

  10

  West Midlands

  26.0

  11

  6

  13

  22

  29

  Bedford

  11.2

  10

  10

  12

  13

  14

  Cambridgeshire

  15.1

  14

  15

  23

  28

  25

  Essex

  29.4

  27

  25

  30

  34

  34

  Hertfordshire

  17.8

  20

  19

  22

  18

  22

  Morfolk

  19.7

  11

  11

  16

  19

  19

  Suffolk

  13.6

  11

  13

  16

  14

  12

  Greater London

  75.5

  12

  37

  80

  74

  144

  416
  Households in England to 2016", published by the Stationery Office in March 1995. The treatment of the marital status projections and cohabitation is provided in Annexes D and G of this publication, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many homes were built in each English county between 1991 and 1996; and what change in the number of households was previously projected over those years. [18598]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is provided below. The total number of new dwellings built, by county, covers the period from July 1991 to June 1996. The figures for successive sets of household projections are the differences between the published projected figures for mid-year 1996 and mid-year 1991. These are subject to rounding error as the published figures are only readily available to the nearest thousand.

  It is not appropriate to make a direct comparison between the number of dwellings built between 1991 and 1996 and the projected number of households forming over that period, for two reasons. First, the household projections are not an estimate of the number of additional houses which have to be built in any period. Rather, they represent one of the factors to be taken into account by local planning authorities when arriving at figures for housing provision to be included in regional guidance and development plans. Secondly, the housebuilding figures do not include other sources of new dwellings such as conversions. Furthermore, the 1992-based household projections were not published until March 1995 and most county structure plans prepared since 1991 have used earlier household projections as the basis for planning housing provision.
  417

  Thousands

  Housebuilding

  Household projections—increase in households 1991–96

  1991–96

  1981-based

  1983-based

  1985-based

  1989-based

  1992-based

  Berkshire

  11.5

  23

  20

  19

  25

  24

  Buckinghamshire

  18.8

  21

  21

  24

  27

  23

  East Sussex

  10.9

  13

  5

  14

  17

  13

  Hampshire

  26.4

  27

  40

  45

  41

  36

  Isle of Wight

  1.9

  2

  1

  2

  2

  1

  Kent

  20.2

  23

  22

  27

  32

  27

  Oxfordshire

  12.9

  15

  11

  15

  21

  16

  Surrey

  14.4

  17

  17

  21

  12

  17

  West Sussex

  12.9

  18

  14

  17

  17

  14

  Avon

  13.9

  16

  10

  17

  19

  22

  Cornwall

  6.4

  9

  9

  11

  11

  11

  Devon

  16.7

  15

  17

  22

  27

  23

  Dorset

  13.0

  16

  13

  16

  19

  16

  Gloucestershire

  10.8

  9

  8

  10

  13

  13

  Somerset

  6.8

  10

  9

  10

  12

  12

  Wiltshire

  13.8

  10

  15

  17

  19

  18

  England

  753.5

  522

  544

  714

  874

  962

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which county councils have been written to by Ministers in respect of the housing numbers being proposed in structure plans. [18607]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since the responsibility for adopting structure plans passed to local authorities, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has written to the following county councils in respect of proposed housing numbers in their plans:

  Bedfordshire

  Berkshire

  Cheshire

  Devon

  Dorset

  Hampshire

  Hertfordshire

  Kent

  Oxfordshire

  Somerset

  West Sussex

  Wiltshire.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which county structure plans have been adopted with housing requirements lower than those set out in regional planning guidance. [18606]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Of the counties that have adopted their structure plans after the publication of the Regional Planning Guidance for the region concerned, two have adopted housing figures lower than those in the RPG. In both cases the differences were marginal. The counties concerned were Buckinghamshire (64,000 compared to an RPG figure of 65,340) and Surrey (35,600 compared to an RPG figure of 36,000).

  Local Government Finance
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the effect on local authority costs of inflation at 2.75 per cent. per annum during the period 1997–98 to 1999–2000. [18803]
  418
  Mr. Raynsford
  The impact of inflation on local authority costs would depend on the rate of increase in prices for the particular services and goods purchased by authorities.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for 1998–99 the annual(a) SSA and (b) capping limit for Harrogate Borough Council for each year between 1990–91 and 1998–99. [19474]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Standard Spending Assessment and capping limit for Harrogate Borough Council for each year between 1990–91 and 1998–99 is as follows:

  £ million

  SSA

  Capping limit

  1990–911

  8.679

  —

  1991–922

  11.119

  15.000

  1992–93

  11.663

  15.000

  1993–94

  11.718

  15.234

  1994–95

  12.841

  15234

  1995–96

  12.594

  15.234

  1996–97

  11.867

  14.936

  1997–98

  11.853

  14.942

  1998–993

  12.925

  14.942

  1 Harrogate Borough Council was not given a capping limit.

  2 Harrogate Borough Council had a budget less than £15 million and under the capping regime of 1991–92 the cap limit was effectively 15 million.

  3 The 1998–99 SSA and capping limit are provisional.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for 1998–99 the proposed(a) revenue support grants and (b) standard spending assessments for (i) district councils and (ii) shire councils as a sum per head of their populations ranked and numbered in descending order. [19526]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As the tables showing the figures for shire districts and shire countries are lengthy, I have placed them in the Library.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the percentage changes in(a) standard spending assessments and (b) revenue support grants for (i) shire

  419
  counties and (ii) district councils between the settlement for 1997–98 and the proposals for 1998–99, ranked and numbered in descending order. [19525]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The figures for shire counties and shire districts are shown in tables which I have placed in the Library. The 1997–98 figures for Revenue Support Grant and Standard Spending Assessments are not comparable with the provisional figures for 1998–99 because of changes in local authority functions (e.g. in relation to under-fives) and local government reorganisation (for 1998–99 this affects the county areas of Berkshire, Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Devon, Essex, Hereford and Worcester/Worcestershire, Kent Lancashire, Nottinghamshire and Shropshire).

  Empty Council Properties
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many council properties in each of the London boroughs are empty; and how many have been empty for(a) up to six months, (b) up to one year and (c) over one year. [18581]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local authorities in England report the numbers of their vacant dwellings at 1 April each year, together with the length of time they have been vacant, in their annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP1) returns. The latest available figures for the London boroughs relate to the position on 1 April 1996 and are given in the 1996 "HIP 1 All Items Print", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Air-Sea Rescue Service
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for changes in the operation of, and what assessment he has made of future employment levels at, the air-sea rescue service from HMS Daedalus. [18881]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  HMS Daedalus was a former naval base and is where the Coastguard Agency leases accommodation for Search and Rescue (SAR) helicopter facilities from the Ministry of Defence. Following the announcement of HM Coastguard' s five-year strategy, there will be no change to the Coastguard helicopter provision at Portland and Lee-on-Solent. New five-year contracts have been let recently to Bristows Helicopters Ltd. for the provision of Coastguard (SAR) helicopters at both locations thus ensuring their continuing presence until at least 2002. There are no plans to relocate these major SAR resources. The crewing of these helicopters is a matter for the contractor.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will(a) obtain from BAA plc and (b) publish details of those flights which landed at or departed from Heathrow Airport between midnight and 7 am on Christmas morning 1996, indicating airline, aircraft, origin or destination and schedules and actual times of arrival and departure. [18995]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information from Heathrow Airport Ltd. is as follows:420

  Arrivals

  Airline

  Aircraft

  Origin

  Actual time of arrival

  Due

  British Airways

  B747

  Hong Kong

  0417

  0425

  Virgin Atlantic

  A340

  Hong Kong

  0421

  0445

  British Airways

  B747

  Hong Kong

  0432

  0430

  British Airways

  B777

  Jeddah

  0503

  0520

  British Airways

  B777

  Boston

  0509

  0520

  British Airways

  B747

  Kuala Lumpur

  0512

  0520

  Singapore Airlines

  B747

  Singapore

  0516

  0530

  Lufthansa

  B737

  Bonn

  0520

  0520

  British Airways

  B747

  Singapore

  0526

  0535

  British Airways

  B747

  Delhi

  0533

  0510

  Cathay Pacific

  B747

  Hong Kong

  0536

  0515

  Qantas

  B747

  Singapore

  0538

  0530

  British Airways

  B747

  Bangkok

  0541

  0540

  British Airways

  B747

  Johannesburg

  0556

  0525

  British Airways

  B767

  Kuwait

  0603

  0620

  Malaysian Airlines

  B747

  Kuala Lumpur

  0606

  0555

  American Airlines

  B767

  New York

  0608

  0625

  United Airlines

  B777

  Newark

  0610

  0640

  United Airlines

  B777

  Washington DC

  0613

  0630

  American Airlines

  MD11

  Chicago

  0615

  0630

  Qantas

  B747

  Bangkok

  0617

  0625

  Royal Brunei Airlines

  B767

  Dubai

  0620

  0630

  Thai Airways

  B747

  Bangkok

  0621

  0620

  British Airways

  B747

  Buenos Aires

  0622

  0625

  Japan Airlines

  B747

  Anchorage

  0624

  0605

  Virgin Atlantic

  A340

  Washington DC

  0626

  0645

  British Airways

  B747

  Singapore

  0627

  0620

  British Airways

  B747

  New York

  0629

  0655

  British Airways

  B767

  Bahrain

  0631

  0640

  Canadian

  B767

  Toronto

  0633

  0625

  United Airlines

  B767

  New York

  0635

  0655

  Air Canada

  B767

  Montreal

  0637

  0645

  British Airways

  B747

  Bombay

  0639

  0650

  United Airlines

  B767

  Delhi

  0642

  0650

  American Airlines

  B767

  New York

  0643

  0650

  United Airlines

  B767

  Chicago

  0645

  0710

  Virgin Atlantic

  B747

  New York

  0648

  0710

  Pakistan International Airlines

  B747

  Lahore

  0650

  0625

  Air Canada

  B747

  Toronto

  0656

  0650

  Kenya Airways

  A310

  Rome

  0700

  0640

  Of these landings, all those between midnight and 0600 counted against the movements limit and against the noise quota, in accordance with the night flying restrictions. There were no departures between midnight and 7 am.

  Tyne and Wear Fire and Civil Defence Authority
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he will take to ensure that the Tyne and Wear Fire and Civil Defence Authority has sufficient funds to meet(a) its statutory duties and (b) its minimum recommended standard of service in 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [18989]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Statutory responsibility rests with the Tyne and Wear Fire and Civil Defence Authority to set a budget which will allow it to meet its statutory duties and maintain the national standards of fire cover. As part of the provisional local government finance settlement, announced by the Deputy Prime Minister on 2 December,
  421
  the Authority will be able to increase its budget requirement for 1998–99 by up to £1.736 million (4.5 per cent.)

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects work on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link(a) to begin and (b) to be completed; and if he will make a statement on negotiations concerning the construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. [19236]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the Development Agreement with the Government, London and Continental Railways (LCR) are contracted to complete the Channel Tunnel Rail Link within five and a half years of raising finance for the project. LCR say that this is planned for around mid-1998, that they are currently discussing related proposals with a number of parties and that main construction should begin next April.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met the Chief Executive of Railtrack; and how often he(a) has met the Chief Executive and (b) officials in his Department have met officials of Railtrack. [19223]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has met the Chief Executive of Railtrack once, on 30 October. Officials from the Department meet Railtrack officials frequently to discuss various railways issues.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to prohibit the use of mobile phones by drivers in charge of their vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [19465]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The police can and do prosecute motorists using mobile phones for failing to have proper control of a vehicle, careless and inconsiderate driving or other more serious offences where appropriate. The Association of Chief Police Officers considers that existing road traffic legislation is sufficient to deal with cases arising from the use of a mobile phone while driving.

  Our aim is to persuade motorists not to use phones while driving. One of the principal changes proposed in the recent consultation on the new edition of the Highway Code was a strengthening of the advice on this issue. We are drawing up good practice guidelines for drivers and for employers; and are considering what other measures may be necessary to reinforce the advice in the Highway Code.

  Discharges to Water
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many discharges to water in excess of permitted limits were 422
  identified by the Environment Agency in 1996; how many prosecutions resulted; how many were successful; and what penalties were applied. [18683]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 4 December 1997]: The number of discharges which exceeded their consented limits in 1996 was 3,448. Inevitably, this headline figure disguises a considerable range of cases from marginal exceedances to substantial failures. The Agency brought 18 prosecutions under section 85(6) of the Water Resources Act 1991 for breaches of consent in 1996. All were successful and the fines imposed ranged from £450 to £10,000. However, the majority of prosecutions brought by the Agency are for the general offence of causing water pollution under section 85(1) of the 1991 Act. Some of these cases may also be attributable to a consented discharge. One of the reasons for the low number of prosecutions in relation to breaches of consent is that, on being notified of a failed sample, most dischargers take prompt action to remedy matters. In other cases, the Environment Agency may issue a formal caution.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many car park spaces are provided for his Department's(a) Ministers, (b) employees and (c) visitors in (i) London and (ii) the United Kingdom. [19366]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department provides the following car parking spaces:

  London

  United Kingdom

  (a) Ministers

  9

  0

  (b) Employees

  405

  5,406

  (c) Visitors

  204

  1.242

  Slurry Lagoons
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's policy on the requirement for a site investigation covering the hydraulic properties of soil, subsoil and bedrock as a prerequisite to the granting of permission for slurry lagoons in areas of high groundwater vulnerability. [19120]

  Angela Eagle
  Any person having custody or control of slurry must store it in accordance with the requirements of the Control of Pollution (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) Regulations 1991. Slurry storage systems covered by the regulations include lagoons. The regulations require the base and walls of any effluent tank, channels and reception pit and the walls of any pipes to be impermeable. The regulations do not require a site investigation to be undertaken. However, no part of the storage tank, any effluent tank, channels, pipes or reception pit is to be situated within 10 metres of any inland freshwater which slurry could enter if it were to escape unless this has been agreed by the Environment Agency on the basis of suitable precautions to avoid any significant risk of pollution of controlled waters. The Department has issued general guidance to farmers on the regulations. The Code of Good Agricultural Practice for
  423
  the protection of water issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food also contains advice to farmers in respect of slurry storage.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government's target for a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 is contingent upon the carbon dioxide emission targets of other countries; and if he will make a statement. [19264]

  Angela Eagle
  Our domestic aim is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. After Kyoto we will be launching a national debate on how we might move over time towards this level of reduction. However, this is not an offer to take on a legally binding target of 20 per cent. regardless of the commitments other countries are prepared to make. In Kyoto we are supporting the EU proposal that all developed countries should reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases to 15 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the Government is awaiting the outcome of the Kyoto environment conference before setting out the measures which will be taken to achieve its 20 per cent. carbon dioxide reduction target; and if he will make a statement. [19263]

  Angela Eagle
  As a first stage, we will consult next year on a programme of measures which will largely focus on delivering our legally binding commitment from Kyoto. We will also launch a national debate on how we might move over time towards our 20 per cent. aim. Our programme must take account of decisions reached at Kyoto, including those on targets, policies and measures, and the scope for using instruments such as emissions trading and joint implementation. It must also reflect the outcome of a number of policy reviews in progress, such as on renewable energy and development of an integrated transport policy.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the depreciation associated with the average use of an average bicycle. [18791]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  Tax relief for depreciation on the cost of a bicycle used for the purposes of a business or employment is available through capital allowances at 25 per cent. per year. The allowance is adjusted for any private use.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total public expenditure in each district council area in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years. [18933]
  424
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information requested is not available. Public expenditure allocations are generally not recorded by District Council area.

  Planning Application (Portadown)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, with regard to the application for planning permission for land to the south of No. 68 Mahon Road, Portadown, made on 28 July 1996 (N/96/0564), what were the original observations of the Roads Service when consulted by the Planning Service; what previous applications were made in respect of that land; what was the outcome of such applications; and what were the reasons for refusal. [18958]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Planning Service under its chief executive, Mr. T. W. Stewart. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from H. S. McKay to Mr. David Trimble, dated 5 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked Mr. T. W. Stewart, Chief Executive of the Planning Service, to reply to your recent Question about a planning application for land to the south of No. 68 Mahon Road, Portadown (N/96/0564). I am responding on Mr. Stewart's absence on annual leave.
  The Roads Service was formally consulted about this planning application on 9 September 1996 and in its consultation response to the Planning Service of 10 February 1997 commented as follows:
  "Safety and Convenience of Traffic
  Roads Service has no objection to this application. The access must be located close to the southern end of the site to provide adequate forward visibility on Mahon Road. The existing footway along the site frontage must be widened to 1.8m"
  On foot of Roads Service advice a condition and informative relating to sight distances and access were included in the decision notice.
  The Planning Service has no record of any previous applications having been made in respect of this land.
  I do hope this clarifies the position.

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the lowest hourly rate paid by her Department to(a) full-time employees, (b) part-time employees, (c) persons employed under personal contract and (d) persons employed by firms undertaking contracted-out services for central government offices, defining the job title in each case. [18106]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 2 December 1997]: For the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments, the information is as follows:

  Hourly rate (£)

  Job title

  (a)

  3.27

  Administrative Assistant

  (b)

  3.27

  Part-time Administrative Assistant

  (c)

  3.42

  Typist

  (d)

  1—

  —

  1 Information is not readily available.

  Republic of Ireland
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 25 July 1997,Official Report, column 773, on the Irish Government's territorial claim to Northern Ireland, what steps her Department has taken subsequently to establish confidence-building measures in respect of the Irish constitutional claim to Northern Ireland. [18934]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Constitutional issues have been discussed by the two Governments in meetings as part of the talks process. The Government have always made clear their view that there is a need for amendments to relevant constitutional legislation, reflecting the widespread support which exists for the consent principle in all its aspects.

  The Government remain of the view, expressed by the Prime Minister in his speech in Northern Ireland on 16 May, that changes to the Irish constitution to reflect the principle of consent would be a helpful confidence-building step in advance of any settlement.

  Miss Mildred McIlveen
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make it her policy to permit Miss Mildred McIlveen to purchase her Housing Executive flat at 24c Ardgeehan Gardens, Bangor; and if she will make a statement on long term residency and purchase rules. [18935]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The House Sales Scheme operated by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive broadly mirrors the Right to Buy scheme operated by housing authorities in England and Wales. Its operation is a matter for the Executive's Chief Executive and it would be improper for me to intervene. The Chief Executive informs me that the period of residency in Executive or other social housing determines the percentage discount that a tenant may qualify for, against the valuation price of the house. The basic rules for purchase are that, with certain exceptions, tenants may purchase the dwelling they are living in. The exceptions are sheltered dwellings and those dwellings considered suitable for the elderly, the rationale being that there is constant demand for these properties and it is likely to increase. In the case of dwellings considered suitable for the elderly, such dwellings are single storey properties and ground floor accommodation with no more than two bedrooms and which have been let to, or are for, someone over age 60. Where a dwelling was let to someone over 60 at the time

  Company name

  Divisional Planning Office

  Belfast

  Craigavon

  Ballymena

  Downpatrick

  Omagh

  Londonderry

  Cabletel

  1(0)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Vodafone

  0

  1(1)

  0

  0

  1(1)

  0

  Orange PCS

  0

  4(0)

  11(7)

  7(0)

  9(4)

  12(5)

  Millennium Communications

  0

  1(1)

  1(1)

  0

  2

  0

  Telecom Securior Radio

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2(1)

  0

  Castle Transmission

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2(1)

  3(2)

  Teleport (NI) Ltd.

  0

  0

  2(1)

  0

  0

  0

  Others

  5(2)

  1(1)

  2(2)

  3(3)

  1(1)

  1(1)

  Total

  6(2)

  7(3)

  16(11)

  10(3)

  17(8)

  16(8)

  Figures refer to planning applications for all types of telecommunications equipment.

  ( ) Refer to numbers approved.

  I do hope this is helpful.
  426
  when the tenancy began, the successor in title may not buy the dwelling. If, in very exceptional circumstances, a dwelling considered suitable for the elderly is let to someone less than age 60, the house is not exempted from the House Sales Scheme.

  Chief Executive of the Housing Executive has advised me that there are no plans to change the House Sales Scheme as it applies to exempted properties.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will list the telecommunications masts which have been erected without the benefit of planning permission due to permitted development rights; [18129]

  (2) on how many occasions the Department of the Environment Planning Service has withdrawn permitted development rights in respect of the erection of telecommunications masts; and what were the locations of these masts; [18130]

  (3) how many applications for planning permission for telecommunications masts have been made to each of the divisional planning offices since 1 April; what applications were approved; what are the locations of these masts; and how many have been erected. [18196]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Planning Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. T. W. Stewart. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. S. McKay to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 5 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked Mr. T. W. Stewart, Chief Executive of the Planning Service, to reply to your recent Questions about the erection of telecommunications masts throughout Northern Ireland. I am responding on Mr. Stewart's absence on annual leave.
  The Planning Service does not hold records of the number of telecommunications masts actually erected. However, I can say that since 1994 there have been 236 requests for determinations as to whether telecommunications equipment of various types could be erected under the permitted development, of which 203 requests were confirmed 7 were not permitted development, and the remainder are currently outstanding. Once confirmed that a proposal is permitted development, there is no time-scale laid down within which it has to be erected. To date, the Department has withdrawn the permitted development rights in respect of one telecommunications mast in the Downpatrick area.
  As regards the number of planning applications submitted and approved for telecommunications masts since 1 April 1997, the information is not readily available in the precise form requested. The available information is as follows:

  Departmental Accounting Systems (Payment)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list each of the functions relating to payment for goods or services supplied for which her Department is responsible indicating the management systems purchased, all sub-contractors involved in the work, co-operative arrangements with other Departments; and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available. [12555]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Departments of Agriculture, of Economic Development, of Environment and Health and of Social Services use accounts systems based on Oracle Financials software. All these Departments use ICL CFM as sub-contractors and have a basic overall maintenance contract costing around £830,000. The Department of Health and Social Services in addition employed Deloitte Touche and the Helm Corporation in the implementation of the system.

  The Department of Education use McDonnell Douglas "Reality" system operating CAFIS software with an annual maintenance cost of £14,000.

  The Department of Finance and Personnel use IFMIS Financial System maintained by McDonnell Douglas at a cost of £11,000.

  The Northern Ireland Office use the Integra Accounting Package, Sage Sovereign Accruals Package from Microcare (NI) Ltd, a Selima Purchase Ledger from Sanderson and a package where payments are made via payable order, BACS or occasionally a tele-banking facility.

TREASURY

  Teachers (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what relief from taxation was allowed to teachers in 1995–96 in respect of claims for(a) books and (b) computer software. [18558]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 December 1997]: Teachers may claim a deduction for income tax purposes for books and computer software if these expenses are incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties of their employment. Although Tax Offices establish what deductions are valid in relation to the individual's employment, information on the numbers and amounts claimed for particular types of employment is not routinely collected. The amount of deductions claimed for particular items by teachers is not, therefore, available.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of tax relief was claimed by teachers in 1995–96 for professional association fees. [18557]

  Dawn Primarole
  [holding answer 1 December 1997]: Teachers may claim a deduction for income tax purposes for annual subscriptions paid to certain approved professional bodies or learned societies, where the body's activities are relevant to the duties of their employment. Although the Tax Offices establish that any deductions are valid in relation to the individual's employment, information on the numbers and amounts claimed for
  428
  particular types of employment is not routinely collected. The amount of deductions claimed by teachers is, therefore, not available.

  VAT (Health Service)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the annual cost to(a) the NHS and (b) social services of the Value Added Tax (Drugs, Medicines and Aids for the Handicapped) Order 1997. [18641]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 December 1997]: The NHS and Local Authorities are funded to take account of VAT. The Order seeks to close tax avoidance arrangements.

  Charity Shops
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he is planning to the VAT status and business rate status of charity shops; and if he will make a statement. [18996]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A Review of Charities' Taxation was announced in the July Budget. Since then charities have been giving their views and proposals to Customs and Excise, who are now analysing them. We expect to publish a consultation document in Spring 1998.

  The Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions is also considering the issue of business rates reliefs for charity shops as part of their Review of Local Authority Finance. A consultation document is due to be published shortly.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reform insurance premium tax; and if he will make a statement. [18997]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As with all taxes, insurance premium tax is kept under review and changes will be made if and when appropriate.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to eliminate the smuggling into the United Kingdom of goods which are subject to substantially lower rates of duty and taxation in other parts of the European Union; and what representations he has received from proprietors of convenience stores on those measures. [19204]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of front-line Customs staff to deal with Single Market Excise smuggling has been significantly increased in the last 15 months. An extra 70 have been allocated throughout the country under the Spend to Save initiative. In addition, a further 30, backed up by specialist investigation officers, are currently being deployed at Dover to intensify the drive against illegal trade. Customs announced new measures on 26 September 1997 to crack down on hired vehicles used for smuggling.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget a review of the effects on the Exchequer and the industry of alcohol and tobacco fraud, smuggling and cross-border shopping. The review, which is being

  429
  conducted in partnership with all the trade sectors concerned and with key Government Departments, will be completed by the end of the year.

  I have received a number of representations on this subject from businesses and members of the public; the records do not separately distinguish those from proprietors of convenience stores.

  Family Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the proposed working family tax credit will(a) be available only to families with dependent children and (b) only benefit those who currently have zero tax liabilities. [19031]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 4 December 1997]: The Government are considering all options.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the proposed working family tax credit will be withdrawn as income rises. [19032]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 4 December 1997]: The working families tax credit could provide a highly effective way of targeting help at low-income families. The Government are considering all the options for its potential design and delivery.

  Child carers
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much time the young people who are to be trained as child carers under his proposals will spend on that training in hours per week and over what period of time; and to what level they will be trained. [18824]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have been asked to reply. Under the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, young people undertaking training as child carers through the Full Time Education and Training option will spend up to 12 months in full-time study towards approved qualifications at NVQ Level 2 or, exceptionally, NVQ Level 3. Those undertaking training through the Employment or Voluntary Sector options will study for a minimum of the equivalent of one day per week, for up to 6 months, towards approved qualifications at NVQ Level 2 or, if appropriate, Level 3.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Higher Education
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to encourage young people to enter higher education and to complete their courses. [18798]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government's approach to raising school standards, exemplified by our School Standards and Framework Bill, is designed to raise educational achievement. While there are other factors influencing the participation of young people in higher education, achievement of the required entry qualifications is by far the most significant.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the estimated cost of 430
  preparing, printing and publishing his Department's communications which have been sent to educational institutions explaining the Government's policies on higher education. [19506]

  Dr. Howells
  The cost, since 1 May 1997, of preparing, printing and publishing communications explaining the Government's policies on higher education is £64,500.

  UK universities and colleges have traditionally achieved high retention rates and we see no reason for this changing. Research evidence suggests there are several reasons why students drop out of higher education and it is primarily for universities and colleges, through appropriate support, counselling and advice both before and after admission, to address these.

  We expect our plans to introduce a fairer system of financial support for students will help encourage young people to participate, and subsequently complete their courses, in higher education.

  Summer Literacy Schools
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment his Department has made of the effect of this year's summer literacy schools on the reading standards of the pupils who participated. [19505]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department published its assessment of the effect of this year's Summer Literacy Schools scheme in a summary report published on 20 November. A copy is in the Library.

  Students (Benefits)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if students attending further education colleges as part of the New Deal programme will continue to receive social security benefits. [19524]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Participants on the Full-Time Education and Training Option of the New Deal for young people aged 18 to 24 will receive an allowance equivalent to their usual Jobseeker's Allowance payments, and will retain entitlement to any passported benefits.

  Young people in the other three New Deal options may attend a further education college part-time, under the education and training element of those options. Participants in the Employment option will be paid a wage. Those in the Environment Task Force and Voluntary Sector Options will receive either a wage or an allowance equivalent to their usual benefits plus a grant amounting to £15.38 per week, plus any passported benefits to which they are entitled.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many car park spaces are provided for his Department's(a) Ministers, (b) employees and (c) visitors in (i) London and (ii) the United Kingdom. [19367]
  431
  Dr. Howells
  Car park spaces used by the Department for Education and Employment are detailed in the table.

  Ministers

  Employees

  Visitors

  Total

  DfEE London HQ

  6

  40

  7

  53

  DfEE HQ Outside London

  Nil

  703

  109

  812

  Employment Service (ES)

  Nil

  7,200

  7,200

  Total

  6

  743

  116

  8,065

  ES figure includes 200 spaces in central London.

  Compulsory Retirement
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his Department's policy on compulsory retirement ages for its employees. [19507]

  Dr. Howells
  The normal retirement age for all staff in this Department is 60. Some staff may be retained past age 60, but only if they are fit and efficient and there is a need for their service.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his decision to compel St. Andrew's GM Church of England Primary School, Weeley, Essex, to take an extra pupil into their year I class; and what is his policy in circumstances when such enrolments result in class sizes of over 30. [19490]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government have pledged to reduce class sizes for all five, six or seven-year-olds to 30 or below. We will achieve this by the end of the Parliament. The School Standards and Framework Bill will impose a duty on LEAs and schools to comply with class size limits prescribed by the Secretary of State. Until such limits come into force, there may continue to be circumstances in which infant class sizes exceed 30. This may, very occasionally, follow a direction under section 431 of the Education Act 1996. In the case of St. Andrew's School in Weeley, the Secretary of State decided that the LEA's direction should stand.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what target date he has set for every child aged between five and seven years to be taught in a class of 30 pupils or fewer. [19182]

  Mr. Byers
  We shall honour our pledge to reduce class sizes to 30 or below for every five, six and seven year-old by the end of this Parliament.

  New Deal
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people aged between 18 and 24 years, unemployed for over six months, will benefit from the new deal in the first year of operation. [19134]
  432
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is not possible to provide precise estimates of the total numbers of young people who will require help from the New Deal. In its first year, we will offer to help everyone who becomes eligible for the New Deal, and sufficient places will be available to meet this commitment.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the new deal resources for education and training he expects to be allocated to the further education sector. [19192]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  FE Colleges will have the opportunity to bid for well over £100 million-worth of New Deal resources next year.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he will take to ensure that unemployed adults participating in the new deal will be able to continue their training beyond NVQ Level 2 or equivalent. [18992]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Full-Time Education and Training Option in the New Deal for unemployed people aged 18 to 24 is primarily aimed at helping young people who do not hold qualifications at or above N/SVQ2 or equivalent. In circumstances where it will clearly enhance their employability, young people who already hold Level 2 qualifications will be able to work towards a higher level qualification. Under the education and training element of the other three options, participants will pursue an approved qualification, which might be at NVQ Level 3, or equivalent, if appropriate.

  The education and training element of the New Deal for adults will allow the long-term unemployed to study on full-time employment related courses for qualifications broadly up to NVQ3 level for up to a year while receiving Jobseeker's Allowance.

  School Classroom Technicians
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people are currently employed as school classroom technicians. [18128]

  Mr. Byers
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Full-time equivalent numbers of education support staff in schools in England: January 1997

  Technicians1

  Nursery

  n/a

  Primary

  n/a

  Middle

  173

  Secondary

  12,420

  Special2

  256

  Pupil Referral unit

  n/a

  City Technology Colleges

  143

  Independent

  n/a

  n/a = not available.

  1 Includes laboratory assistants/technicians, design technology assistants/technicians (including home economics assistants, craft technicians), IT technicians.

  2 Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Service
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many telephone lines are in service at Lunar House; and how many telephone operators are on duty during daytime working hours. [18397]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]: There are 162 telephone lines connecting either to an operator, or to a recorded message or directly to a member of staff. Of these, 28 are to the Telephone Inquiry Bureau which is staffed by an average of 20 staff on weekdays from 9am (10am Thursday) to 4.45pm (4.30pm Friday). The precise number of operators depends upon the demands of the Public Inquiry Office, with which staffing is shared.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies he has carried out into improving the Immigration Service by decentralising immigration control functions to offices outside London. [18398]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]: Fewer than half the staff of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate work at the Croydon headquarters. The rest are at locations around the United Kingdom including sea and airports, enforcement offices, detention centres, presenting officer units and the Nationality office in Liverpool. The use of accommodation is kept under review but in present circumstances significant shifts of work away from Croydon are unlikely to be cost effective.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been received regarding accessibility of the Immigration Service at Lunar House by telephone in the last 12 months. [18395]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]: This information is not collated centrally. The Telephone Inquiry Bureau received 13 complaints.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contingency measures he has established against failures in millennium compliance in each emergency service. [19197]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]: It is the responsibility of each police force and fire brigade to ensure that its information technology and communications systems are Year 2000 compliant.

  The Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) is co-ordinating the police response to the millennium problem. PITO has issued a guide to the police which provides a blueprint for action and has also held two conferences this year to disseminate best practice. A national electronic police bulletin-board is regularly updated to provide on-going advice and guidance to forces. Forces are engaging their information technology (IT) suppliers to ensure their local systems will be complaint and are also writing to other organisations in their area, whose millennium compliance may be crucial to police operations, to seek assurance that those systems will be ready. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary is monitoring the progress of forces
  434
  during its regular inspections. The Police National Computer, which is operated by PITO, will be compliant by early 1999.

  In the case of the fire service, discussions have been held with the relevant fire service committees and central guidance, in the form of a Home Office Circular, will be issued to brigades later this month. Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate will also be monitoring progress within brigades.

  If, during its audit of IT systems, a force or brigade establishes that there is a problem which cannot be, or is unlikely to be resolved before the millennium, it will be expected to establish contingency plans to ensure the continued integrity of its emergency service.

  I have placed a copy of the guidance issued by PITO in the Library. A copy of the Home Office circular to chief fire officers will also be placed in the Library as soon as it is published.

  The contingency arrangements made by the Coastguard Agency and the ambulance service are a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and for Health respectively.

  MI5
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances MI5 is permitted to determine that a file is not suitable for Ministerial eyes. [18685]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]: By virtue of section 2(2)(a) of the Security Service Act 1989, the Director General of the Security Service is under a duty to ensure that there are arrangements in place for securing that no information is disclosed by the Service except so far as is necessary for the proper discharge of its functions, for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime or for the purpose of any criminal proceedings. The Director General must have regard to these provisions in deciding what information in the possession of the Service should be disclosed to persons or organisations outside the Service.

  Group 4
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 1997,Official Report, column 647, if he will list those former Home Office officials and Prison Service staff who have taken paid employment with Group 4 Prison and Court Services Ltd. after leaving his Department; and if he will list all their former responsibilities within his Department. [17770]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 25 November 1997]: We now understand from Group 4 Prison and Court Services Ltd. that they have employed a total of 40 former Prison Service employees. This includes 14 former governor grades, not 20 as previously stated in my answer to a Question from the right hon. Member on 13 November 1997, official Report, column 647, and two Psychologists. The remainder were either prison officers of differing grades and specialisms, or prison auxiliaries.
  435
  It is not general policy to mention officials or former officials by name.

  Details of posts held by former officials are not kept centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prison Service (Health Care)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take to enable health care staff in prisons to develop the skills of practice as community nurses; and if he will make a statement. [19294]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]: The Prison Service supports the training and development of nurses through a variety of health-related training programmes including England National Boards courses, National Vocational Qualifications, diplomas and university degrees in health care. Prison health care centres have developed and continue to develop close links with community nursing teams in local National Health Service Trusts and General Practitioner practices, contributing to the development of community nursing skills of prison health care staff, along the more formal training courses.

  Prison Suicides
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases involving suicides in prison establishments in the last 10 years the families of victims have sought compensation from the Prison Service; and in which cases compensation has been paid. [18842]

  Ms Quin
  Centrally available records do not provide information in the form required. This could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Algerians have sought asylum in the United Kingdom in 1997 to date; and how many have been(a) granted and (b) refused asylum. [18964]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Decisions on applications1,2 for asylum in the United Kingdom from Algerian nationals, excluding dependants, in 1997 to date (January to October)

  Number of principal applicants

  Asylum applications

  545

  Total decisions3

  710

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  80

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain4

  *

  Total refusals

  630

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5 with "*" = 1 or 2.

  2 Provisional figures.

  3 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the period.

  4 Usually granted for a year in the first instance, subject then to further review.

  436
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made with the review of asylum seekers procedures. [18929]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The review team has made substantial progress and will shortly start drafting its report. Proposals will be submitted to Ministers in the new year.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were being held on rule 43 in prisons in England and Wales on 1 November. [18961]

  Ms Quin
  The available provisional information is for 31 October 1997. On that date, the number of inmates held on Prison Rule 43 or Young Offender Institution Rule 46 were:

  Good order and discipline

  Own protection

  Males

  468

  1,297

  Females

  8

  28

  Total

  476

  1,325

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the age profile of prison inmates in England and Wales. [18960]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is as follows:

  Population in prisons in England and Wales on 31 October 1997: by, age1

  Age

  Number

  15–17

  2,451

  18–20

  7,659

  21–24

  11,808

  25–29

  13,753

  30–39

  17,184

  40–49

  6,528

  50–59

  2,880

  60 and over

  963

  Total

  63,226

  1 Provisional figures.

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for British nationality are under consideration by his Department. [18962]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As at 30 November 1997, there were 75,015 applications for British citizenship awaiting determination, of which 35,518 were at various stages of consideration.

  Stonnall Road Bail Hostel
  Mr. Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the legal costs incurred by the West Midlands Probation Committee in its unsuccessful challenge, in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, to the decision of the Planning Inspector not to grant permission to extend the Stonnall Road Bail Hostel. [18877]
  437
  Ms Quin
  The legal costs incurred by the West Midlands Probation Committee in the High Court were £21,000. Provisional estimates are that the costs incurred in the Court of Appeal will be in the region of £13,000, to which any legal costs incurred by the Crown in the appeal would be added.

  Gloucester Prison
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons funding has been withdrawn from the job focus courses at HMP Gloucester; and what alternative provision will be made available for inmates who are about to be released. [18928]

  Ms Quin
  Job focus courses run at Gloucester prison and other prisons in England and Wales are funded by the Employment Service of the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). A decision was made a year ago to cease funding for these courses and concentrate resources on people already in the labour market.

  The current contract for the provision of the job focus course at Gloucester prison, involving a prison officer and a tutor from Gloucester College of Art and Technology, will cease on 31 March 1998. The governor of Gloucester prison will maintain the job focus club by continuing the involvement of the prison officer but does not have the resources available to replace the funding from DfEE for the tutor.

  Help for ex-offenders from Employment Services will be available nationally through a number of measures including:

  specialist advice and guidance from Employment Service staff to ex-offenders about their jobsearch;

  allowing time spent in custody to count towards eligibility for Employment Service programmes;

  maintaining Employment Service contact with prison authorities at local level to provide advice on programmes and services as part of a pre-release programme;

  allowing prison staff to attend Jobclub leader training courses (where places are available) without charge;

  continuing the availability of Jobclubs in prisons where all parties consider them to be useful.

  National Hunt Racing
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the problems facing National Hunt racing; and if he will make a statement. [17991]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government have not carried out their own assessment. We have seen the British Horseracing Board's assessment of the impact a hunting ban would have on National Hunt racing. There will be an opportunity to discuss this during the Committee Stage of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many car park spaces are provided for his Department's(a) Ministers, (b) employees and (c) visitors in (i) London and (ii) the United Kingdom. [19372]
  438
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Home Office Central London Estate, which comprises six buildings, has a total of 155 car park spaces. Ministerial vehicles are parked in the outside courtyard of the Home Office. No other spaces are normally provided for Ministers. Eighteen are reserved for staff with medical or child care needs. The remainder are used for staff, visitors and contractors as appropriate to their needs. Figures for the rest of the Home Office estate could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by nationality the(a) men and (b) women who were being held in custody in England and Wales under immigration laws on 1 November. [18963]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information on persons held in detention in England and Wales under immigration powers as at 31 October 1997, but nationality and gender, is given in tables 1 and 2.

  Table 1: Males recorded as being in detention1,2 under Immigration Act powers in England and Wales, by nationality as at 31 October 19973

  Nationality

  Total detainees

  Afghanistan

  4

  Albania

  6

  Algeria

  57

  Angola

  13

  Bangladesh

  21

  Bulgaria

  10

  Burundi

  2

  Chile

  2

  China

  25

  Colombia

  9

  Cyprus

  12

  Czech Republic4

  26

  Democratic Republic of Congo5

  8

  Ecuador

  8

  Egypt

  2

  France

  2

  Gambia

  12

  Ghana

  34

  Greece

  3

  Guyana

  2

  India

  123

  Iran

  10

  Iraq

  3

  Israel

  2

  Ivory Coast

  7

  Jamaica

  29

  Kenya

  16

  Lebanon

  7

  Liberia

  6

  Libya

  4

  Morocco

  6

  Nepal

  2

  Netherlands

  3

  Nigeria

  88

  Pakistan

  73

  Palestine

  2

  Poland

  2

  Romania

  18

  Sierra Leone

  4

  Slovakia

  22

  Somalia

  3

  South Africa

  4

  Spain

  2

  Sri Lanka

  14

  St. Lucia

  3

  Sudan

  5

  Tanzania

  3

  Tunisia

  3

  439

  Table 1: Males recorded as being in detention1,2 under Immigration Act powers in England and Wales, by nationality as at 31 October 19973

  Nationality

  Total detainees

  Turkey

  34

  Uganda

  3

  USA

  3

  Venezuela

  2

  Former USSR

  18

  Former Yugoslavia

  17

  Stateless6 and Nationality Doubtful

  7

  Other

  25

  Total

  831

  1 Persons detained in prisons or immigration detention centres.

  2 Excluding persons detained in police cells.

  3 The data are provisional.

  4 Figures for the Czech Republic may include persons holding Czechoslovakian passports.

  5 Formerly Zaire.

  6 Excluding Palestine and Hong Kong stateless persons.

  Table 2: Females recorded as being in detention1,2 under Immigration Act powers in England and Wales, by nationality, as at 31 October 19973

  Nationality

  Total detainees

  Angola

  5

  Colombia

  2

  Czech Republic4

  2

  Ghana

  6

  Jamaica

  11

  Kenya

  4

  Nigeria

  18

  USA

  2

  Other5

  20

  Total

  70

  1 Persons detained in prisons or immigration detention centres.

  2 Excluding persons detained in police cells.

  3 The data are provisional.

  4 Figures for the Czech Republic may include persons holding Czechoslovakian passports.

  5 The category "Other" includes persons whose nationality is doubtful or for whom no nationality is recorded.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Know How Fund
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the total budget of the Know How Fund. [19555]

  Clare Short
  We plan to spend £89 million on Know How Fund programmes in 1997–99.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's contribution to the Strategic Defence Review. [17745]

  Clare Short
  I had a very interesting and constructive meeting with the Chief of Defence Staff, General Sir Charles Guthrie, which covered a number of subjects of mutual interest, and plan to meet the Secretary of State for Defence later this month.
  440
  We have been consulted on the Strategic Defence Review and continue to participate in the discussions and seminars. DFID has participated as a member of the Defence Review Steering Group chaired by the Cabinet Office, and in more detailed discussions of particular issues. These include consideration of the Government's wider international responsibilities, particularly in relation to the maintenance of peace, international order and stability, humanitarian principles and democratic rights. Particular issues of interest to us include:
  Disaster preparedness;
  international conflict prevention and peacekeeping;
  humanitarian relief and reconstruction—DFID and MOD have collaborated on peacebuilding in Bosnia;
  controlling arms exports;
  anti-personnel landmines—co-ordination of resources to focus better military expertise in demining sector, including adaptation of existing technologies to the specific needs of humanitarian demining and the provision of training facilities;
  military training and promoting civilian control of the armed forces in developing countries—Work in this field can make a significant contribution to our efforts to promote good governance and the rule of law and in curbing excessive military expenditure in poor countries;
  the respective roles and responsibilities of individual countries and international organisations in emergency situations and areas of conflict; and how we can work together;
  sharing relevant experience and expertise;
  developing regional and local capacity in peace building and conflict management.

DEFENCE

  Car Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many car park spaces are provided for his Department's(a) Ministers, (b) employees and (c) visitors in (i) London and (ii) the United Kingdom. [19365]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally and could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Service Personnel (Compensation)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the arrangements for compensating service personnel for death or injury due to service. [20025]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government share a number of concerns about the anomalous and complex nature of the current arrangements for paying compensation to Service personnel who are killed, injured or suffer serious illness as a result of their service. Experience from the Gulf conflict and operations in Bosnia underline the need for arrangements which properly reflect the special nature of the commitment which Service men and women make to the defence of our country.

  We have therefore decided there should be a comprehensive review of the arrangements for compensating Service personnel (or their dependants) and for the payment of death and invaliding pension benefits. Our aim is to devise a modern, fair and simplified scheme which could apply to all Service personnel injured or

  441
  killed on peacetime duties—in training or on operations—where death or injury was attributable to military service, to replace the current complex arrangements.

  The main aim of the review will be to recommend new arrangements for the future, but it will also examine the extent to which personnel currently serving may be able to benefit from a simpler and more comprehensive approach. The War Pensions Scheme will continue to be available to existing ex-Service personnel.

  The review will be conducted jointly with the Department of Social Security, the Department responsible for the War Pensions Scheme. We intend to publish the results of the review in a consultation document.

  A review of compensation for Service personnel was recommended in the House of Commons Defence Committee Sixth Report on Gulf War illness, published earlier this year. I hope that the whole House will support the initiative we are now taking.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Cox
  to ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reported incidents involving drug misuse in the armed forces there have been in each of the last three years. [18586]

  Dr. Reid
  It is not yet possible to provide confirmed figures for 1996 and 1997. However, figures for 1993–1995 are as follows:

  Drug offences dealt with by Court Martial, Summary Trial or Summon' Proceedings, or civilian courts

  RN/RM

  Army1

  RAF

  Total

  1993

  286

  627

  79

  992

  1994

  236

  355

  48

  639

  1995

  111

  174

  7

  292

  1 The Army figures may be subject to slight revision.

  Those dismissed for drug related offences following a sentence of dismissal from Service at Court Martial, Summary Trial or Summary Proceedings, or a sentence of imprisonment from a Service or civilian courts:

  RN/RM

  Army

  RAF

  Total

  1993

  51

  81

  20

  152

  1994

  45

  68

  8

  121

  1995

  31

  37

  1

  69

  (Latest figures available).

  In addition to the above figures, the numbers of those administratively discharged for drug related incidents are:

  RN/RM

  Army

  RAF

  Total

  1993

  2

  204

  10

  216

  1994

  0

  136

  22

  158

  1995

  0

  253

  14

  267

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the total expenditure on 442
  all forms of publicity and advertising by (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for (i) 1993–94, (ii5 1994–95, (iii) 1995–96, (iv) 1996–97, (v) the 1997–98, year to date, (vi) the 1997–98 full year estimate and (vii) the 1998–99 planned expenditure. [15269]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: Details of central MOD expenditure on publicity and advertising are contained in the annual MOD Departmental Reports. For 1993–94, the information is shown on page 39 of Cm 2801; for 1994–95, the information is shown on page 43 of Cm 3055; for 1995–96, the information is shown on page 32 of Cm 3448; and for 1996–97, the information is shown on page 49 of Cm 3781. Copies of these Reports are available in the House.

  Estimated expenditure for 1997–98 is £40.97 million. We do not publish detailed future plans as approval to commit expenditure is subject to formal endorsement through Ministers and the Parliamentary supply system.

  Expenditure by non-departmental public bodies for the years in question is set out below.

  £

  1993–94

  629,262

  1994–95

  487,663

  1995–96

  456,644

  1996–97

  408,826

  1997–98 to date

  291,816

  1997–98 full year

  421,995

  1998–99

  1—

  1 Detailed figures not yet agreed.

  Publicity expenditure for Departmental Agencies is not held centrally. I have asked Chief Executives, where appropriate, to write direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. R. Drew to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about how much was spent by Defence Agencies on publicity and advertising, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO).
  I attach a table with the appropriate breakdown of costs for 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–98 year to date and the 1997–98 full year estimate. The substantial increase in 1997–98 is due to our involvement, as part of the Army's presence, in the Royal Navy and British Army Equipment Exhibition in September 1997.

  Total expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising for the Army Base Repair Organisation

  £

  1993–94 (Actual)

  5,036

  1994–95 (Actual)

  7,618

  1995–96 (Actual)

  30,026

  1996–97 (Actual)

  37,721

  1997–98 (Forecast)

  176,868

  Total

  257,269

  1997–98 (To date)

  77,943

  443
  Letter from M. J. Heritage-Owen to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about total expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Maintenance Group Defence Agency who is away on duty, as this matter falls within his area of responsibility.
  The information requested, broken down by financial year, is as follows:

  Financial year

  Total (£)

  1995–96

  54,460

  1996–97

  359,741

  1997–98 (To end of October)

  135,668

  1997–98 (Estimated full year)

  405,531

  1998–99

  1—

  1 Detailed figures not yet available. Information for FY 1993/94 and FY 1994/95 is not available in the format requested and is, therefore. not provided. Expenditure includes advertising and promotional costs. The increase since 1995/96 is due primarily to increased civilian recruiting costs resulting from the drawdown of Service manpower.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Letter from David G. Wadsworth to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about recruitment and advertising expenditure, as this matter falls within my areas of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Service Children's Education Agency.
  The SCE Agency recruits teaching and specialist staff in UK and overseas. Details of the past, current and future recruitment advertising budget is attached at Annex A.
  In addition to this, each of the 56 SCE Schools around the world is required to produce a school brochure in line with the practice followed by LEA maintained schools in the UK. These brochures are used largely as information for parents. However, in a few cases they may be used to advertise the benefits of attending an SCE school, where more than one is available in a given location or where irreducible spare capacity can be offered to fee paying parents.
  Information on school brochure expenditure is not collected as a matter of course, as most are produced locally at very little cost. Based upon information available so far in this financial year, I would not expect the total sum to exceed £15K.
  If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact my office.

  Annex A: Expenditure on all forms of recruitment advertising

  £000

  1993–94

  1—

  1994–95

  32

  1995–96

  52

  1996–97

  66

  1997–98 (year to date)

  18

  1997–98 (full year estimate)

  51

  1998–99 (planned expenditure)

  2—

  1 No information available.

  2 Not yet finally agreed.

  Letter from Peter Ewins to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about expenditure on publicity and advertising. For the Meteorological Office, this matter falls to me as Chief Executive.
  444
  Expenditure by the Meteorological Office on publicity and advertising (in thousands of pounds) is estimated to be as follows:

  Period

  Expenditure £000

  1993–94

  777

  1994–95

  758

  1995–96

  735

  1996–97

  666

  1997–98 (to date)

  288

  1997–98 (full year estimate)

  765

  1998–99 (planned expenditure)

  955

  This should be set against income from our commercial activities as a Trading Fund, currently running at over £22 million per annum.

  Letter from D. L. Burden to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  I am replying to your question (PQ 1029i) to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the total expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising by the MOD, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies, in so far as it applies to the Army Personnel Centre (APC).
  I should explain that the only expenditure incurred separately by my Agency which falls into these categories is related to civilian staff recruitment advertising costs during FY 1996/1997. These, inclusive of VAT, were as follows:

  £

  First advertisement, April 1996

  3,578

  Second advertisement, April 1996

  1,037

  Total

  4.615

  There is no planned expenditure of this nature for the remainder of this FY or during FY 1998/1999.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from D. J. Stevens to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about expenditure on publicity and advertising in respect of the Naval Bases and Supply Agency.
  This agency was launched in December 1996 and is formed from a number of management areas within the MOD. The information which you requested is not available therefore for the years prior to 1996/97. The figures requested for 1996/97 and 1997/98 are given below and cover mainly recruitment advertising and external publicity, including attendance at exhibitions, advertising our irreducible spare capacity from which we earn income. I am unable to give a figure for 1998/99 as detailed budgets have yet to be agreed.

  £

  1996–97

  19,464

  1997–98 (to date)

  37,035

  1997–98 (full year estimate)

  48,035

  Letter from T. McG. Brown to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding expenditure on publicity and advertising. As Chief Executive of the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency (DPCSA) I am responsible for expenditure within my Agency and I am therefore providing the details you have requested.
  All publicity costs are for the production of our Annual Report and Accounts. In accordance with our Accounts Direction (issued by HM Treasury) and our Framework Document the Agency is obliged to present an annual report to Parliament. Some of the publicity costs shown below were incurred on my Agency's behalf by other areas of the MOD. All advertising costs are for staff recruitment.

  445

  £000

  Year

  Publicity

  Advertising

  Total

  1993–94

  10.9

  0.0

  1,210.9

  1994–95

  16.9

  0.0

  216.9

  1995–96

  18.6

  7.6

  26.2

  1996–97

  23.2

  6.6

  29.8

  1997–98 (to date)

  0.7

  4.2

  34.9

  1997–98 (year end estimate)

  20.0

  10.0

  330.0

  Detailed figures for 1998–99 are not available at present.

  1 Production costs for the first Annual Report, a smaller document containing unaudited accounts, were significantly lower than for subsequent larger Annual Reports with complete audited accounts.

  2 During 1993–94 and 1994–95 there were no advertising costs as staff recruitment for the Agency was the responsibility of central MOD organisations at that time.

  3 Final costs for the latest Annual Report have not been finalised.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Malcolm Bruce dated 8 December 1997:
  Thank you for your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about estimates of expenditure on publicity and advertising. I am replying on behalf of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
  The following figures for graduate recruitment advertising represent the majority of expenditure in this area:

  £

  i.1993–94

  1—

  ii.1994–95

  888,000

  iii.1995–96

  1,366,000

  iv.1996–97

  1,392,000

  v.1997–98 (to date)

  1,033,000

  vi.1997–98 (full year estimate)

  1,570,000

  vii.1998–99 (planned expenditure)

  1,685,000

  1 Information not available.

  Other advertising and publicity costs are in the region of £200,000 per annum. This figure includes the cost of the DERA Press Office and the Annual Results Press Conference.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Letter from M. J. A. Smallwood to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about publicity and advertising, on behalf of the Chief Constable/Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency, as this falls into this area of responsibility. The Chief Constable/ Chief Executive is away from the office at present.
  I have identified the following expenditure in respect of publicity and advertising: 1993–94 £6,572; 1994–95 £6,985; 1995–96 £36,659; 1996–97 £28,164; 1997–98 £13,775 up to 28 November 1997. I expect the final outturn for the current Financial Year to be £20,000. Spending plans for 1998–99 have not yet been finalised.

  Letter from Brian Raine to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  I have been asked to respond to your Question regarding all forms of publicity and advertising and give our response below.
  The amount spent on advertising is as follows:

  1993–94: £4,116

  1994–95: £2,100

  1995–96: £3,451

  1996–97: £6,929

  1997–98: £5,297 to date

  1997–98: £5,750 full year estimate

  1998–99: Details not yet agreed

  446
  Letter to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  In November you asked the Secretary of State for Defence a Parliamentary Question relating to expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising. As this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKIIO), I have been asked to reply to your direct.
  The information you requested is as follows

  UKHO—Total expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising

  Financial year

  Amount (£)

  1993–94

  228,741,97

  1994–95

  226,396.90

  1995–96

  340,446.88

  1996–97

  323,672.13

  1997–98 (to date)

  239,776.25

  1997–98 (full year estimate)

  1494,887.15

  1998–99 (planned expenditure)

  687,000.00

  1 Includes to date figure.

  As the UKHO operates in an international commercial market, the attainment of Trading Fund status has provided the UKIIO with additional flexibility to respond to commercial activities. In the first year of operating as a Trading Fund the UKHO achieved a net profit of £3.7M which clearly demonstrates that costs are more than fully recovered by sales activities.
  I hope the above has been of assistance. Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to get in touch with my Office.

  Letter from J.D. Coles to Mr. Malcolm Bruce dated 8 December 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces about the estimate of total expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising, as it relates to the Ships Support Agency, for which I am responsible.
  The Agency was established on II December 1996 and the estimate of expenditure since that date is as follows:

  £

  (b)(iv) 1996–97

  30,000

  (b)(v) 1997–98, year to date

  15,000

  (b)(vi) 1997–98, full year estimate

  15,000

  Detailed budgets for 1998–99 have not yet been agreed.
  The figures relate to actual and planned expenditure associated with: Agency launch; the printing of the Agency's Framework Document, Corporate Plan, and Annual Report and Accounts; and the Agency's input to the International Maritime Defence Exhibition 1997 at the Royal Naval College Greenwich.

  Letter from P. D. Foxton to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  I am replying to the recent question you tabled to the Secretary of State for Defence for those matters that fall within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency (ABSDA). You asked about the expenditure by ABSDA on all forms of publicity and advertising for Financial Years 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97 and the year 1997–98 to date, and the 1997–98 full year estimate.
  For clarity I have incorporated the answer in the form of a table.

  Financial Year

  Cost (£)

  Estimate(£)

  1994–95

  3,788

  n/a

  1995–96

  10,379

  n/a

  1996–97

  5,824

  n/a

  447

  Financial Year

  Cost (£)

  Estimate £

  1997–98

  3,649

  8,248

  1998–99

  n/a

  The Agency was not formed until 1995 and therefore no expenditure is recorded for the Financial year 1993–94.
  I trust I have answered your questions satisfactorily.

  Letter from S. R. Hill to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  1 I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the expenditure on publicity and spending by Defence agencies as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation (NARO).
  2. Attached is a summary of the figures for this Agency.

  Parliamentary Question—Expenditure on Publicity and Advertising by Defence Agencies

  Financial year

  Recruitment costs (civilian)£

  PR/Marketing and business support£

  1993–94

  934

  988

  1994–95

  1,205

  3,153

  1995–96

  1,478

  0

  1996–97

  4,154

  45,416

  1997–98 (to date)

  5,604

  2,606

  1997–98 (forecast)

  11,083

  15,000

  The recruitment costs are for advertising.

  Letter from K. A. Bradshaw to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence/Her Majesty's Government about Advertising and Publicity Costs as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of Defence Codification Agency.
  The Defence Codification Agency has expenditure for the years quoted as follows:

  £

  1996–97

  38,438

  1997–98 (to date)

  14,525

  1997–98 (forecast)

  21,000

  1998–99 (yet to be finalised)

  —

  For background information, the Defence Codification Agency was launched in June 1996. At that time funds were disaggregated from the Defence Information Division (DINFOD) for our Marketing function.

  Letter from I. G. McIntyre to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about expenditure on publicity and advertising as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Dental Agency.
  During 1996/97 my Agency spent £13,738. This figure includes the cost of the national advertising for the national advertisement for the post of Chief Executive. The spend to date in 1997/98, the current financial year, is £1,020 with the full year estimate being £2,000. Details of budgets for future years have not yet been finalised.

  Letter from R. J. Mealing to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  In response to your Question, and in the unavoidable absence of the Chief Executive on business, I am writing to inform you of expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising in so far as it effects the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency.
  448
  Most of the expenditure incurred on publicity and advertising by my Agency is attributable to job advertising in newspapers. The following table shows the information you have requested.

  Financial year

  Expenditure (£)

  1993–94

  1—

  1994–95

  Nil

  1995–96

  5,901

  1996–97

  24,261

  1997–98 (so far)

  24,650

  1997–98 (estimate)

  27,053

  1998–99

  2—

  1 DCTA not formed as an Agency.

  2 Detailed budget not yet agreed.

  Letter from Malcolm Westgate to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about advertising and publicity costs. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Disposal Sales Agency.
  During 1995/96 my Agency spent £6,844.37 on advertising the post of Chief Executive. All other publicity and advertising expenditure has been included in the reply given by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.

  Letter from P. R. Wildman to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about expenditure on publicity and advertising as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive.
  Military Survey's expenditure on publicity and advertising since 1993 is as follows:

  1993–94: NIL

  1994–95: NIL

  1995–96: £16,737 Intl VAT

  1996–97: NIL

  1997–98: £18,893.07 incl VAT (to-date; none further planned)

  1998–99: NIL planned.

  The expenditures were on recruitment advertising for civilian posts with the Agency.

  Letter from M. I. Laurie to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about expenditure on publicity and advertising as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Intelligence and Security Agency. The Agency was formed on 1 October 1996 and the figures below represent expenditure after that date:

  £

  (a) 1996–97 (October 96-March 97

  2,686

  (b) 1997–98 (to date)

  5,370

  (c) 1997–98 (full year estimate)

  6,694

  (d) 1998–99 (estimated)

  Nil

  On its formation the Agency began a collocation programme, moving from five previous sites to one. The expenditure detailed above relates to newspaper advertising of job vacancies at the new site.

  Letter from G. Jones to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising, by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies, in each of the last four financial years, the current financial year to date with a full-year estimate, and that planned

  449
  for 1998–99, for which figures are available, as these matters fall within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment Defence Agency.
  Advertising by the Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment Defence Agency has, to date, been confined to that required for the recruitment of civilian staff. We have no record of any expenditure prior to 1996–97 because most recruitment was conducted centrally. In September 1996 the Agency was delegated additional responsibility for recruitment and, as a result, the expenditure on recruitment advertising in 1996–97 was £61,685. In 1997–98 the expenditure to date has been £43,435, with a forecast for the complete year of £120,000. Expenditure for 1998–99 is expected to be similar to that for the current year, but the funding is still the subject of the 1998 Long Term Costing process.

  Letter from D. D. Allan to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  1.I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about estimates of expenditure on publicity and advertising as this matter falls within my area of responsibility. I am replying in the absence of the Chief Executive of the Logistics Support Services Agency who is away on business.
  2.Our expenditure on publicity and advertising, both actual and estimate, is detailed in the table below and the figures are exclusive of VAT.

  Total

  1993–94

  0

  1994–95

  0

  1995–96

  0

  1996–97

  6,990

  1997–98(spend)

  5,360.08

  1997–98(estimated)

  8,100

  1998–99

  1—

  1 Planned figures not yet accepted.

WALES

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with(a) the President of the Board of Trade and (b) the Chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning inward investment; and if he will make a statement. [19532]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend has had discussions about inward investment with both the President of the Board of Trade and the Chairman of the Welsh Development Agency. We all recognise the importance of continued inward investment success to our aims of economic and industrial strength and stability.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the advantages of establishing the National Assembly for Wales at the Flintshire County Council Offices at Ewloe, Deeside, Flintshire; and if he will make a statement. [19528]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Council Offices at Ewloe, and a wide range of other options, are being assessed against the criteria described in my consultation paper, "The National Assembly for Wales; Accommodation Options". I now wait to hear the views of the people of Wales before deciding where the Assembly will be located.
  450
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the range of estimates of the cost of the proposed locations for the National Assembly for Wales. [19599]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  My consultation paper sets out the range of options across Wales which we have considered in most detail. It also gives indicative costs for the different approaches to housing the Assembly, within the cost ceiling the Government have established.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the location of the National Assembly for Wales. [19529]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I shall announce the location of the Welsh Assembly within the next few months, following my consultation with the people of Wales which ends on 30 January 1998.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the location of the National Assembly for Wales. [19530]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have already received a number of representations about the location of the Welsh Assembly, and expect to receive more during the period of my consultation with the people of Wales.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the' reconfiguration of NHS trusts in North Wales; when he will announce his decision; and if he will make a statement. [19531]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I have received representations from a number of hon. Members, NHS Trusts, Community Health Councils, General Practitioners, Local Authorities, NHS staff groups and the general public. Public consultation on our proposals for a new configuration of NHS Trusts in Wales, in line with statutory requirements, will take place next summer. Following this, I expect a decision to be announced in October 1998.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase the use of public transport in rural and urban areas; and if he will make a statement. [19533]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government are currently embarked on a review with the aim of producing a White Paper next year setting out proposals for a new Integrated Transport Policy. Reducing dependence on car travel and the promotion of public transport will be among the key objectives of that policy. The Welsh Office is participating fully in the review and will be producing its own Welsh Transport Policy statement at around the same time as the White Paper is published.

  Job Creation (Alyn and Deeside)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the Chairman of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss job creation in Alyn and Deeside. [19534]
  451
  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend regularly meets the Chairman of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss a range of issues. The creation and safeguarding of jobs in Wales continues to be a priority for the Agency and I know that the Chairman has recently visited Alyn and Deeside constituency and met my hon. Friend and representatives of the workforce and management of the British Aerospace plant to discuss their expansion plan.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the reasons for the delays in paying sheep annual premium payments to Welsh farmers; and if he will make a statement. [19099]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The timetable of payments has been delayed by the need to comply with additional information requirements to support European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) payments made after the start of the new EAGGF financial year on 16 October 1997. Without the new supporting information any payments made will be subject to disallowance by the European Commission. The Welsh Office has been working to address these new requirements and this has involved substantial computer reprogramming. The position on Sheep Annual Premium is that some 85 per cent. of first advances in Wales had been paid by early October, and the payment of the second advance is now well under way.

  Charities and Voluntary Groups
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the charities and voluntary groups which received grants and other assistance from his Department in the financial year 1996–97 together with the amounts given. [19096]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I have asked for the information to be collated. I will write to my right hon. Friend as soon as the exercise has been completed and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on welfare reform for disability benefits. [19527]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are committed to modernising the Social Security system so that it helps people to work as far as they are able; provides appropriate support to those who cannot work; and makes the most effective use of the resources available.

  As a first step we are undertaking a comprehensive review of the Department's expenditure. The review is wide-ranging and includes consideration of the complex range of benefits paid to people who are disabled or have health problems. We want to end the exclusion of disabled people; to empower them to play a full part in society, and to develop an approach which focuses on people's abilities and their capacities, rather than only their disabilities and incapacity.
  452
  As part of this process, up to £195 million has been made available from the Windfall Tax to test a range of options to help people with long-term health problems or disabilities to move into, or remain in, work.

  We will, in due course, consider how many proposals for change should be taken forward.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to increase the availability of documents in the Public Record Office. [18017]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government are committed to ensuring that public access to public records is improved. There is a vigorous review of all files to ensure that as many as possible are released. In July we announced that over 77,500 records that had previously been withheld, had been released in the Public Record Office, after the Departments had reconsidered them. Further updated figures should be available soon.

  Lord Chancellor (Accommodation)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received about the Lord Chancellor's accommodation. [18019]

  Mr. Hoon
  I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Lord Chancellor's Official Residence in the Palace of Westminster. This is the fifth question I have answered on this topic from hon. members, and I have received eight letters from members of the public.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the redecoration of the Lord Chancellor's official residence will be completed. [18020]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is expected that the redecoration will be substantially completed by February, 1998.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what responses he has received following his statement on the changes to the magistrates courts procedures; and if he will make a statement. [18023]

  Mr. Hoon
  A range of responses have been received to the statement we made on 29 October concerning the future structure of the magistrates courts service. Responses have been received from 10 magistrates courts committees, 3 Members of Parliament, the Magistrates Association, the Justices Chief Executives Group and West Sussex County Council.

  Criminal Justice (Keighley)
  Mrs Ann Cryer
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for improvements in the administration of criminal justice in Keighley. [18024]
  453
  Mr. Hoon
  My statement of 29 October 1997,official Report, columns 901–05 set out the Government's view of the future structure of the magistrates courts service. I believe there should be fewer and larger MCC areas, more closely aligned to the areas served by other justice agencies. My first priority is to consider the position of metropolitan areas. I have recently written to the Chairman of the West Riding MCC on this subject and have indicated that, in the absence of any proposals from the committees themselves concerning the organisation of MCCs in West Yorkshire, it is likely that I will wish to consider, in the autumn of 1998, whether amalgamation is appropriate in the area.

  Court Officials (Training)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the guidance and training available to judges, magistrates and other court officials in dealing with witnesses with learning or communication difficulties. [18986]

  Mr. Hoon
  Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB), which is a non-departmental governmental body. The JSB has held a number of sessions in both induction and continuation training on equal treatment, including dealing with people with learning or communication difficulties, and is considering how training in this area might be developed.

  Lay Magistrate training is organised and delivered by Magistrates Courts Committees based on syllabuses, advice and guidance from the JSB. Lay magistrates already address the issue of equality of treatment for all in the light of their judicial oath and the JSB has recently begun a project to develop and pilot training materials to ensure equality of treatment issues are incorporated into all aspects of magistrates training.

  Staff in the Court Service receive training on customer service skills as part of an induction programme. This programme includes training on communication skills and dealing with customers including those with special needs. Further training in this area is also available to all staff whose work brings them into contact with members of the public. The Court Service makes no distinction in the training of court officials dealing with witnesses—all customers should be treated appropriately and with courtesy.

  A review of the induction programme for court staff is planned as part of the work towards achieving recognition as an "Investor in People" in 1999.

HEALTH

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the operation of community health councils; if he will list the areas which are under review; what representations he has received about their(a) role, (b) independence and (c) duties; and if he will make a statement. [17210]
  454
  Mr. Milburn
  No immediate changes to Community Health Councils are planned. We have received a small number of letters mainly about the role of CHCs in relation to primary care and membership matters. In addition the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales has sent to Ministers a copy of its report "Making a Difference".

  Pathology Services (Kent)
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine refused training recognition to the Kent and Canterbury Hospitals NHS Trust Pathology Service; and what progress has been made by the Kent and Canterbury Hospitals NHS Trust to address the concerns of the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine expressed at the time they refused the Pathology Service training recognition. [17789]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Boards of the Council are the statutory bodies responsible for training recognition. The Medical Laboratory Technicians (MLT) Board withheld training recognition for the Histopathology/Cytology Department on 15 September 1992. This decision did not affect the clinical chemistry, haematology and hospital transfusion science or microbiology, which all received approval.

  Subsequent inspection has shown that some improvements have been made; however, the MLT Board decided on 14 January 1997 to withhold approval for training in cellular pathology (histopathology) until the Board's requirements have been met.

  Older People's Services Report
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the recent Audit Commission report. "The Coming of Age: Improving Services For Older People". [18137]

  Mr. Boateng
  We welcome the publication of the Audit Commission's report "The Coming of Age: Improving Care Services for Older People". The Department has already looked in detail at the recommendations made in the report and these will contribute to work we already have in hand, which is actively addressing issues of particular concern to elderly people. This area includes the Long-Term Care Charter and the Royal Commission on long-term care for the elderly, announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 4 December. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already issued instructions to health authorities, the National Health Service and local authorities on services for the elderly setting out priority areas to meet their medium and long-term needs.

  Prescription Drugs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what audit procedures exist to deal with the disposal of returned prescription drugs by health authorities; [18815]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost to the National Health Service of items prescribed but returned to community pharmacists or GPs unused; [18814]

  (3) what audit procedures exist to deal with the return of prescription drugs to community pharmacists. [18816]
  455
  Mr. Milburn
  We encourage the public to take unused medicines to a community pharmacy for safe destruction. This reduces the risk of accidental ingestion, especially by children, and allows the medicines to be destroyed in line with environmental law. Prescription-only medicines have to be disposed of as clinical waste. Funding has been made available to the National Health Service since 1993 to run schemes through community pharmacies for the safe disposal of waste medicines. As at 31 March 1997 schemes were running in every health authority area in England and Wales, and 98 per cent. of community pharmacies in these areas were taking part in these schemes. No national estimate has been made of the value of returned medicines.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for further regulation of the dental profession. [18861]

  Mr. Milburn
  The General Dental Council has made proposals for changes in the Dentists Act 1984, which would give it more appropriate powers for professional regulation and protection of the public. We intend to address these issues when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

  NHS Bureaucracy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1997,Official Report, column 427, on savings in NHS bureaucracy, if he will list by health trust the trust management costs for the last two years. [18624]

  Mr. Milburn
  National Health Service trust management costs are available for 1994–95 and 1995–96 listed by trust in Trust Management Costs 1994–95 (published December 1995) and Health Authority Costs and Management Costs in NHS Trusts Financial Year 1995–96 and planned costs for 1996–97 (published March 1997). Copies are available in the Library. Figures for 1996–97 together with 1997–98 plans will be published shortly.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1997,Official Report, column 427, on savings in NHS bureaucracy, if he will list by health authority the quarterly management costs for the last six quarters. [18623]

  Mr. Milburn
  Health authority costs are published annually. 1995–96 figures are listed by health authority in Health Authority Costs and Management Costs in NHS Trusts Financial Year 1995–96 and Planned costs for 1996–97 (published March 1997). Copies are available in the Library. Figures for 1996–97 together with 1997–98 plans will be published shortly.

  The quarterly monitoring of health authority costs, referred to in my reply to the hon. Member on 24 November at column 427, provides regional offices of the National Health Service Executive with information on the likely year-end position of health authorities to assist with in-year performance management.

  Health Service Funding (North Yorkshire)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make available additional resources to the NHS Hospital in Northallerton through the North Yorkshire Health Authority to compensate for the scaling down of the military hospital in Catterick. [18802]

  Mr. Milburn
  We understand the Defence Secondary Care Agency is currently considering various options for the future of the Duchess of Kent Military Hospital at Catterick and is assisting with a consultation exercise led by North Yorkshire Health Authority.

  North Yorkshire Health Authority has recently been allocated £1.7 million for winter pressures. It will also receive a £14.3 million increase in its allocation for next year, of which £5.8 million is growth funding. Any additional pressures due to changes at the Duchess of Kent Military Hospital would be expected to be met by this extra funding.

  Alcohol and Drugs
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision has been made in the current year to provide assistance to those with alcohol and drug problems. [19108]

  Ms Jowell
  Health and local authorities are responsible for assessing the level of need for alcohol and drug services locally, and making arrangements to meet that need in accordance with local priorities and the resources available.

  The Drug Misuse Special Allocation is a significant element in the resources available to health authorities to address the needs of drug misusers. In 1996–97 the special allocation stands at £37.191 million. This will rise to £41.296 million in 1998–99, an increase of 8 per cent. in real terms.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions he has had with the mobile phone industry as to whether a health and safety warning is needed on all handsets; [19127]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the National Radiological Protection Board about potential health risks from use of mobile phones. [19130]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department regularly discusses advice on the health implications of exposure to electromagnetic fields, including mobile phone frequencies, with the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). NRPB's view is that mobile phones currently used in the United Kingdom comply with the recommended exposure limit. The Department has had no discussions concerning health and safety warnings with the mobile phone industry.

  Health Promotion
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision has been made in the current year by his Department to promote healthy living through general practitioner practices and primary healthcare services. [19109]
  457
  Mr. Milburn
  Advice on healthy living and disease prevention is integral to the activity of general practitioners and primary health care teams. Most consultations in primary care will include an element of opportunistic health promotion. A patient is entitled to a health check on registering with a doctor or after three years without a consultation and patients over 75 years are entitled to an annual health check. The health of children is promoted through the immunisation and child health surveillance programmes. Most practices engage in chronic disease management programmes in asthma and diabetes, in the national cervical cytology screening programme and in structured health promotion activity under arrangements introduced in October 1996.

  The initial cash-limited and non-cash limited total general medical services allocation for 1997–98 is £2,980 million. This figure will however be reviewed shortly at spring supply and will be subject to change.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to combat recent outbreaks of meningitis. [19012]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department takes meningococcal disease very seriously.

  Guidance on the control of meningococcal infection is issued by the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS). The most recent guidelines were issued on 8 December 1995 and guidance on the management of clusters of meningococcal disease was issued in January 1997. Copies of this guidance are sent to all Directors of Public Health and local Consultants in Communicable Disease Control and it is published. The guidance is constantly under review and careful thought is given to whether any lessons can be learnt from any incident and to whether any revision of the guidance might be required. The guidance was last reviewed on 21 November 1997 drawing on recent experiences in Southampton and it was agreed that no change to the guidance was necessary.

  PHLS experts are routinely involved in dealing with serious outbreaks of disease. Advice on the diagnosis of meningitis is contained in the Department's memorandum "Immunisation against infectious disease" which is provided free to all doctors. Additionally, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) writes annually to all doctors alerting them to the expected winter rise in cases of meningococcal infection and reminding them of the value of early antibiotic treatment and urgent referral to hospital. The Department contributes to the many information articles in newspapers and the medical press, and television and radio programmes that appear during the winter increase in cases.

  The CMO also holds an annual press briefing for journalists to raise public, professional and media awareness of meningococcal disease. This year's briefing was held on 3 November and CMO was supported by representatives of the National Meningitis Trust and the Meningitis Research Foundation. The vital message at the briefing was that, in the absence of an effective meningococcal Group C vaccine suitable for routine use, and with no Group B vaccine at all, it remained essential that parents and, in places of further education, students, are aware of the signs and symptoms of meningitis and
  458
  septicaemia and remain alert to seek urgent treatment if illness is suspected. Information materials continue to stress this message as well. This year, the Department's information leaflet "Knowing about meningitis and septicaemia" has been rewritten; it is available to the public from general practitioners' surgeries. The Health Education Authority (HEA), funded by the Department, has also relaunched its leaflet, "Look out for your mate", which is targeted at students. This year about 1.2 million "Look out for your mate" fliers and posters were distributed to over 750 colleges in England and Wales; 4,000 leaflets and 40 posters were sent to Southampton University before the recent outbreaks there. Information on recognising the signs and symptoms of meningitis is provided to new parents in the HEA's booklet "A Guide to Childhood immunisations". The Department also provides funding under Section 64 of the Health and Personal Social Services Act to support the work of the two meningitis charities in raising awareness among health care professionals.

  Studies to evaluate meningococcal and pneumococcal vaccines in United Kingdom children, funded by the Department at a total cost of over £1 million, are being carried out by the PHLS in collaboration with the National Institute for Biological Standards and Controls, the Centre of Applied Microbiology and Research and the Institute for Child Health. These studies have shown very encouraging results already for Group C vaccines and early indicators for Group B are encouraging. There are reasonable prospects that these vaccines will eventually be able to induce long-term immunity although more research is needed before their suitability for widespread use can he considered.

  Hospital Complaints Procedures
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the effectiveness of hospital complaints procedures in order to establish a code of best practice. [19453]

  Mr. Boateng
  We will be commissioning an independent evaluation of the National Health Service complaints procedures during 1998. It is intended that one of the areas on which the evaluation focuses should be the identification of good practice.

  Health Council
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Health Council on 4 December. [20003]

  Ms Jowell
  Following discussion, the Council reached a common position on a proposed Directive on tobacco advertising. The Council also reached political agreement on the Commission's proposal for a programme of Community action on rare diseases. The Council discussed the public health aspects of food safety. The Council agreed the text of a resolution following up the Commission's report on the state of women's health in the European Community. The Council also agreed conclusions of the European Union-United States Task Force on communicable disease, emphasising the importance of co-ordination between the activities of the Task Force and other appropriate bodies working on disease surveillance. The Council also took note of developments since its last discussion of Transmissible
  459
  Spongiform Encephalopathies and agreed to keep the subject under review. There was a brief discussion of the Commission's proposals for programmes of Community action on injury prevention and pollution-related diseases. Finally, the Council took note of a Commission proposal for a Recommendation on the suitability of blood and plasma donors and the screening of donated blood.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many car park spaces are provided for his Department's(a) Ministers, (b) employees and (c) visitors in (i) London and (ii) the United Kingdom. [19369]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has 288 car parking spaces associated with its London buildings, of which 14 are specifically allocated to visitors and six are shared between Department of Health and Department of Social Security Ministers. The remainder are allocated to staff but available to visitors when not in use.

  In the rest of the United Kingdom there are a further 1,504 car parking spaces associated with Department of Health buildings, of which 66 are specifically allocated to visitors, 476 to staff and the remainder are available for both staff and visitors.

  Incontinence Products
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is provided in this year's allocations for NHS for the cost of VAT on incontinence products. [19717]

  Mr. Milburn
  Resources are not allocated to fund particular services or costs. It is for health authorities and general practitioners to use these resources to plan and arrange services for their residents, following an assessment of their needs, and to make decisions about the level of resources required for any particular service. However, the National Health Service has always been liable to Value Added Tax and NHS funding allocations take account of this.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how health authorities and trusts are notified of the amounts in their allocations which are provided to fund them to meet the costs of VAT on incontinence products. [19715]

  SCE Ordinary/Standard Grade

  SCE Higher Grade

  1986–87

  1994–95

  11996–97

  1986–87

  1994–95

  11996–97

  Total number of schools

  440

  405

  401

  440

  405

  401

  Number of schools with leavers presented in more than one modern language

  379

  323

  336

  343

  247

  271

  of which making presentations in:

  French

  379

  323

  336

  343

  246

  271

  German

  336

  296

  301

  279

  212

  239

  Spanish

  127

  113

  134

  78

  66

  100

  Other languages

  118

  79

  95

  74

  48

  70

  1 Based on pupils in school at the end of session.

  460
  Mr. Milburn
  There is no separate allocation of funds to health authorities in respect of Value Added Tax liability.

  National Health Service trusts receive most of their income through contracts with commissioners of health care services, i.e. health authorities and general practitioner fundholders. Contract prices are intended to recover all relevant costs including liability to VAT.

  Drugs, Medicines and Aids (VAT)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date his Department was notified of the Treasury's intention to table the Value Added Tax (Drugs, Medicine and Aids for the Handicapped) Order 1997. [19718]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department was notified of the intention to legislate on 13 August 1997.

  Medical and Dental Students
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will fund the cost of the special support covering the proposed tuition fees beyond year four for English and Welsh medical and dental students studying at Scottish universities; and what estimate he has made of the costs. [19589]

  Mr. Milburn
  It is the Government's intention that all eligible United Kingdom medical and dental students should benefit from the special provisions announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 23 September. Clarification of the arrangements and costs will be the subject of discussions between the departments concerned.

SCOTLAND

  Language Teaching
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many secondary schools offer the opportunity to study two languages at each level indicating the number offering(a) French, (b) German, (c) Spanish and (d) any other modern languages; and what were the figures (a) two years ago and (b) 10 years ago. [18132]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information requested is not available centrally in the form requested. The table shows the number of education authority secondary schools with pupils presented in more than one modern language subject at SCE Ordinary or Standard Grade and at SCE Higher Grade by the time they had left school.

  Student Tuition Fees
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the CBI regarding the effect on the labour market of the introduction of tuition fees for students. [18349]

  Mr. Wilson
  I wrote to Mr. Lain McMillan, Director, CBI Scotland on 23 July, inviting the CBI Scotland to comment inter alia on the Government's preferred approach to future funding arrangements for higher education, which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in Parliament on that day,Official Report, columns 949–51. I received the CBI Scotland response on 26 September.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he had with Sir Ron Dearing prior to his announcement of tuition fees for students. [18350]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have not met with Sir Ron Dearing. However, I met Sir Ron Garrick, Chairman of the Scottish Standing Committee of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, on two occasions prior to the Government's announcement on 23 July 1997,Official Report, columns 949–51, of its plans to reform higher education funding, and also when I addressed the COSHEP Annual Forum on 27 October.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the principals of higher education institutions in Scotland regarding the introduction of tuition fees. [18358]

  Mr. Wilson
  In addition to various informal discussions with individuals and representative bodies, I received a paper from the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals responding to various aspects of the Dearing and Garrick Reports including the introduction of tuition fees. I am placing copies of the paper in the Libraries of both Houses.

  School Transport
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue guidance to Scottish local authorities to require them to provide free school transport for all children whose families are in receipt of means-tested benefits. [17206]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 1 December 1997]: No. It is entirely a matter for each authority to decide whether or not to provide free school transport, taking account of individual circumstances.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to reinstate the cost floor arrangement for council house sales; and if he will make a statement. [18649]

  Mr. Chisholm
  The current cost floor rules relating to sales of council houses in Scotland have been in place since 1989. My right hon. Friend is considering possible changes to these rules. Any changes proposed would be subject to consultation.
  462
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of council houses sold for less than the outstanding debt in each of the past five years and the amount of remaining debt involved(a) in total and (b) in each council area. [18608]

  Mr. Chisholm
  Information on the selling prices and outstanding debt of individual council houses is not held centrally.

  Schools
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for repeal of the legislation which allows schools to opt out of education authority control; and if he will make a statement. [18906]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 4 December 1997]: My right hon. Friend will bring forward legislation to repeal these provisions at the earliest opportunity.

  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schools have opted out of education authority control; where they are located; and if he will make a statement. [18905]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 4 December 1997]: Two—St. Mary's Episcopal Primary School, Dunblane and Dornoch Academy. Fort William Primary School's proposal for self-governing status was accepted last December but it has not been implemented.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Guinness Affair
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will place in the Library the text of the legal advice taken by her Department on which she based her decision not to institute proceedings under the Companies Act 1985 against any of the individuals referred to in her Department's report on Guinness PLC. [19459]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  No. The decision by the President of the Board of Trade not to institute proceedings under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 against any of the individuals referred to in the inspectors' report into Guinness PLC was based on, and in accordance with, the legal advice she had received. That legal advice included advice from independent Counsel.

  Technology Foresight Programme
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made with the technology foresight programme; and if she will make a statement. [19289]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government are committed to driving forward the Foresight programme. They have brought Foresight into the heart of Government policy on business competitiveness. Soon after the election, the President of the Board of Trade commissioned an audit to assess the level of departmental activity in support of Foresight and identify areas where more emphasis is required. The findings and recommendations were published in October. Following the audit, the Government have set up a Ministerial Foresight Group, to provide top-level co-ordination of the programme across Whitehall. Progress is also being made in increasing business
  463
  participation in Foresight, the top priority for the current phase of the Programme and a key objective for the next round of Foresight which will start in 1999. Planning for this exercise is already under way. A consultative document seeking views from interested parties will be published in the Spring of next year.

  As a practical demonstration of its commitment to Foresight, the Government has launched the Foresight LINK awards, which bring together business and the science base to work together on projects addressing Foresight priorities. We have also launched several new LINK programmes in response to Foresight, notably the Foresight Vehicle programme, which will develop the technologies for cleaner, leaner and safer vehicles of the future.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the future of the Coal Research and Development Programme. [19330]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department has undertaken a detailed review of the UK's future clean coal technology requirements in consultation with industry and universities. This review has just been completed and examined what further support the Government should provide to clean coal technology research, development and demonstration. An announcement will be made about the outcome of the review in the New Year.

  India
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Indian-based British firms she visited and how many contracts were signed during her trip to India; and if she will make a statement. [18820]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I attended a breakfast meeting involving some 30 members of the British Business Group in Delhi and spoke at a lunch hosted by the Confederation of Indian Industry for the local business community. I visited Rolls-Royce's premises. I was able to announce the creation of 10 Golden Jubilee Fellowships under the Indo-British Partnership and witnessed the signing of a joint venture agreement between Libra Weighing Machines Ltd., Sheffield, and Giri Brothers P Ltd. based in Chennai. The visit followed on from the successful Towards 2000 exhibition in October and re-emphasised the Government's strong commitment to the Indo-British Partnership.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what powers she has to require the energy utilities to provide annual figures for energy consumption by postcode area. [18993]

  Mr. Battle
  Under the Statistics of Trade Act 1947, the President of the Board of Trade has powers to ask for information from any undertakings on questions about matters in the schedule to the Act. This includes consumption by locations. The use of these powers to collect information must be balanced against a clear need for the data and the compliance burden placed on the companies in question.

  Arms Export Licences (Indonesia)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which companies were awarded a licence to export machine guns to Indonesia in 1995. [14827]

  Mrs. Roche
  As I stated in my answer to my hon. Friend of 21 July 1997,Official Report, column 451, one such licence was granted during 1995.

  Inquiries are being made as regards the release of the identity of the licensee concerned under the non-statutory Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and, since this is confidential information, the consent of the licensee is being sought for its disclosure. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of that letter in the Library.

  Genetic Testing
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if NHS trusts will have to negotiate their own licences to test with or for a patented gene; and if she will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of ensuring that genetic testing is equally available throughout the United Kingdom. [16372]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]]: I have been asked to reply.

  It is for a patent owner to give permission for someone else to use his invention by granting a licence. The terms of this licence is a matter for the patent owner and the potential licensee. As separate legal entities, trusts, individually or as members of consortia are in a position to negotiate their own patent licences. Genetic testing is usually provided through clinical genetic services purchased by health authorities for their local population.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Eastern Arts Council
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the funding available to the Eastern Arts Council. [17984]

  Mr. Fisher
  Grant-in-aid, distributed through the Arts Council of England to the Eastern Arts Board during the financial year 1997–98 totalled £4,985,614.

  Additional funding from the British Film Institute and the Crafts Council gives an overall total of £5,425,060.

  Sports Sponsorship
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations he has received from sports bodies on business sponsorship; and if he will make a statement. [17985]

  Mr. Banks
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health and I recently met governing bodies of sports in receipt of tobacco sponsorship. We discussed how to end tobacco advertising and sponsorship while minimising any damage to the sports concerned. Agreement has now been reached on the EU Directive and as a result, all sports have five years in which to find alternative sponsors. I am also setting up a task force of sports and business interests to help them do just that.
  465
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on sources of sponsorship available to United Kingdom sporting events. [18002]

  Mr. Banks
  The sports sponsorship market has grown to over £300 million a year. We estimate that it increased by 6 per cent. last year alone. It is flourishing. I congratulated 700 delegates at a sportsmatch sponsorship award ceremony some three weeks ago.

  Public Libraries (Information Services)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to develop information services in public libraries. [17986]

  Mr. Fisher
  New Technology presents public libraries with the opportunity to enhance their traditional services and provide information to users in new and exciting ways. We are currently considering a report from the Library and Information Commission which recommends the development of IT in public libraries. We will be responding to the report's recommendations early in the New Year.

  Cricket
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he last met the President of the MCC; and what subjects were discussed. [17987]

  Mr. Banks
  Neither my right hon. Friend I nor have had the opportunity to date to meet the President of the MCC

  Film Industry
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary for State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the future of the British film industry. [17988]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The British film industry is booming. However, we cannot be complacent about its continuing success, which is why I am co-chairing with Stewart Till of PolyGram Filmed Entertainment a comprehensive Film Policy Review. The Review Group will report early next year with an agenda for action by the industry and Government.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to encourage financial institutions to invest in tourism projects. [17990]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  A Tourism Forum working group led by Charles Allen of Granada is working on ways of helping investors to reassess the industry. In addition, the need to raise the profile for tourism opportunities in the financial sector was highlighted in the report, "Visitors Welcome", produced by the CBI's Tourism Action Group, on which my Department is represented.

  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the work opportunities which the tourism industry can provide for the welfare-to-work programme. [17992]
  466
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  At the New Deal Conference which I hosted on 24 November, I was greatly encouraged by the very positive response to the New Deal from almost 160 key industry leaders present. Further, a survey recently conducted by the British Hospitality Association suggests that 86 per cent. of the BHA membership is willing to offer placements under the programme.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to boost the United Kingdom's income from tourism. [18000]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  At a meeting of the new revitalised Tourism Forum on 26 November, I announced that I would be developing a strategy for tourism, for publication next summer, which will specifically address the issue of enabling further growth in tourism.

  Football
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his Department's assistance for the bid for the soccer World Cup in 2006. [17993]

  Mr. Banks
  The Government are committed to attracting major sporting events to the UK, and are giving the fullest possible promotional and diplomatic support to the Football Association's bid to host the 2006 World Cup. I have written to hon. Members asking them to back the bid whenever an opportunity arises.

  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to encourage families to support their national soccer team at the 1998 World Cup finals. [17997]

  Mr. Banks
  I hope that next year's World Cup Finals will be enjoyed by all football supporters both at home, and those fortunate enough to travel to France. The Government are offering the French authorities every assistance so that those genuine supporters from this country attending this celebration of world football can have a safe and memorable time.

  Media Ownership
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received concerning media ownership. [17994]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have received representations about the public interest test applying to mergers between local newspapers and local radio stations and about a possible EC Directive on Media Ownership in the Internal Market.

  Inner-city Theatres
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the Department's strategy in promoting inner-city theatres. [17995]

  Mr. Fisher
  The arts have an important part to play in the regeneration and building of local communities; this can have particular importance in inner city areas. Strategic funding decisions for theatres are made by the Arts Council of England and the regional arts boards in conjunction with local authorities and other funding
  467
  partners. I know that none of them underestimate the wider benefits which the arts can bring to their audiences and communities.

  Development Through Play
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to encourage children's development through play. [17998]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The National Playing Fields Association is currently carrying out work for the Department in the areas of information dissemination, playwork education and training and play safety. I also made it clear in the White Paper "The People's Lottery" that we are particularly committed to the development of children's play. I am currently discussing with Lottery distributors how we can best ensure that Lottery funding for it is more easily accessible.

  Jazz
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his policy on the role of the Arts Council of England in developing audiences for jazz. [18001]

  Mr. Fisher
  All the Arts Council's funding for jazz is designed to develop and build new audiences: the Government agree that the development of audiences in all art forms is a high priority.

  Athletics Training
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to help improve the quality of training for British athletes. [18003]

  Mr. Banks
  We are committed to improving the quality of training for our athletes. In particular, the United Kingdom Sports Institute will provide our athletes with the best training facilities possible and the English Sports Council's World Class Performance Programme provides Lottery support to our best athletes.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has had with the lottery distribution fund boards. [18004]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I hold regular meetings with the Lottery distributors. I last met the Chairmen and the Chief Executives of the London-based Lottery distributors on 26 November. This was the fourth in a regular series of such meetings. The main topic of discussion was the Lottery Bill.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate his Department has made of the effect on the share of funding which will be received by humanitarian charities from the national lottery as a result of the introduction of a sixth good cause. [17975]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The National Lottery Charities Board can expect to receive £1.8 billion over the period of the current licence. This matches its original expectation when the Lottery was launched. In addition,468
  charities can expect to benefit from projects funded under the new good cause, covering health, education and the environment.

  Subtitling and Sign Language
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will take steps to ensure that the agreed levels of subtitling and sign language inserts that will apply to terrestrial television over the next 10 years will apply equally to United Kingdom providers of satellite and cable television service. [18788]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Channel 3 and 5 licensees are required to meet targets set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990 for the provision of subtitling. The BBC, Channel 4 and S4C, in pursuit of their public service commitments, aim to provide a similar amount of subtitling. Digital terrestrial television programme service licensees will be required to meet the subtitling and signing targets set under the Broadcasting Act 1996.

  There are no statutory subtitling or signing targets for cable and satellite broadcasters. I am nevertheless keen that cable and satellite channels should provide more subtitling and sign language services. I am therefore asking them what plans they have to make their services more accessible in the future.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of television football coverage is supplemented with live subtitling on(a) terrestrial and (b) satellite television stations. [18789]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  From 1 January-2 November 1997, the BBC provided live subtitling for 63.25 per cent. of its network football coverage. I understand from the Independent Television Commission that during the same period, the ITV Network subtitled all its live coverage of football matches. Neither Channel 4, Channel 5 nor, as far as the Commission are aware, any satellite television services provided any live subtitling of football coverage.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to extend to satellite television channels the obligations regarding subtitling set out in the Broadcasting Acts. [19563]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have no plans (and no current powers) to extend the statutory subtitling targets for subtitling to satellite broadcasters, but I am, nevertheless, keen that satellite channels should provide more subtitling services. I am therefore asking them what plans they have to make their services more accessible in the future to viewers with hearing difficulties.

  British Library
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if the British Library(a) Board and (b) Management Committee are required to publish details of their remuneration in the annual report; [19054]

  (2) what information the British Library is required to provide in its annual report in respect of income from the disposal of (a) freehold and (b) leasehold properties. [19055]
  469
  Mr. Fisher
  Under arrangements agreed with the Treasury, the British Library and other Non-departmental Public Bodies may produce summary financial information in their Annual Reports, indicating that the detail is available in the Annual Accounts. The Library's Accounts, which are published after the Annual Report, disclose remuneration of members of the British Library Board, the pay bands of senior employees earning more than £40,000 and the remuneration of the Chief Executive. The Accounts also show the income from the sale of freehold and leasehold properties.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what revenue was generated by readers in the British Library in respect of(a) London and (b) Boston spa reading room, in the last five years for which figures are available. [19045]

  Mr. Fisher
  Reading room revenue for the last five years was as follows:

  £000

  London reading rooms

  Boston Spa reading rooms

  Total

  1992–93

  510

  14

  1—

  1993–94

  537

  19

  1—

  1994–95

  835

  25

  1—

  1995–96

  1,019

  31

  1,050

  1996–97

  729

  34

  1,007

  1 Prior to 1993–94, no distinction was made in revenue from readers and remote users.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the number of reader places for science and medical readers in the new British Library; and what previous estimates of these numbers have been presented to Parliament. [19046]

  Mr. Fisher
  The total number of reader desks in the Science reading rooms is 273, with a further 41 dedicated for special functions such as CD-ROMS. These are available on a general basis and not specifically designated as "science" or "medical". Previous estimates of this provision were presented to Parliament on the following occasions:8 December 1988 (OR, WA, col 255) 238 reader seats for science and technology in the first phase of the new building.
  NAO Report, October 1990: New Building for the British Library: Revised reader seat provision for Science Reference Information Services: 242.
  National Heritage Committee Report, July 1994, The British Library: Reading rooms for science, technology and business: 209 desks in Phase 1A; 61 desks in Completion Phase.
  NAO Report, May 1996: Progress in Completing the New British Library: Capacity of the science and oriental reading rooms … 351 seats [i.e. 273 science and 78 oriental desks].

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what are his proposals for 29 Exhibition Road, South Kensington, when the National Sound Archive vacates the building; [19052]
  470
  (2) what are his plans for 25 Southampton Buildings, Holborn, when the present tenants vacate these buildings. [19051]

  Mr. Fisher
  Subject to approval by the relevant authorities, the Library will sell the freehold of the property at 29 Exhibition Road in 1998–99. The freehold of the property at 25 Southampton Buildings will be sold after their present tenants have vacated the buildings in 1999.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the floor area of the office accommodation in the British Library St. Pancras building; and how many offices it contains. [19053]

  Mr. Fisher
  The total floor area of office accommodation in the St. Pancras building is 11,500 sq m. Under current plans, the number of individual offices is expected to be 40, as well as some 22 large open plan areas.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if 17 deg. C. and 50 per cent. relative humidity has been achieved in all the vault areas in the British Library. [19044]

  Mr. Fisher
  Tests in the vault areas have confirmed that the plant has achieved and maintained environmental conditions of 17 deg. C. (plus or minus one degree) and 50 per cent. relative humidity (plus or minus 5 per cent.) in accordance with the technical specifications laid down for the areas.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the cost of the(a) new and (b) proposed British Library buildings at Boston Spa. [19047]

  Mr. Fisher
  In 1995 the Library completed construction of a storage building at Boston Spa to accommodate reference material at a cost of £2.25 million. The Library is considering leasing additional office space to accommodate staff for functions relocated from London.

  Ballet and Opera
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what initiatives he proposes to increase access for young people and those on low pay to ballet and opera. [17982]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Access is a central theme of my Department's policies for the arts. The public has a right to expect a return for the substantial public funding which the arts receive. The Government are considering proposals for a number of initiatives to enhance access, such as an artscard scheme for young people and open theatre nights. More recently, we have asked Sir Richard Eyre to look at the future of the Royal Opera House companies and English National Opera, to see how the future of all the companies can best be secured, and how the work of each company can become more accessible to all of us—whether through more touring activity, through education work or broadcast opportunities.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Upratings
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what would have been the extra cost to the National Insurance Fund that would have arisen from uprating contributory invalidity benefit or incapacity benefit by the higher of average earnings or prices in each year since 1980–81; [15452]

  (2) what the basic rate of invalidity benefit or incapacity benefit would have been in each year since 1980–81 if it had been uprated by the higher of average earnings or prices; and what was the actual rate for each of these years. [15453]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is in the table.

  Year

  Actual rate of basic invalidity benefit (incapacity benefit from April 1995)(£s per week)

  Rate if uprated by the higher of earnings of prices

  Estimated additional annual costs £s million

  1980–81

  26,00

  26.45

  5

  1981–82

  28.35

  29.60

  40

  1982–83

  31.45

  32.10

  60

  1983–84

  32.60

  34.90

  75

  1984–85

  34.25

  36.70

  160

  1985–86

  38.30

  41.60

  190

  1986–87

  38.70

  43.45

  325

  1987–88

  39.50

  45.90

  490

  1988–89

  41.15

  49.50

  650

  1989–90

  43.60

  53.90

  795

  1990–91

  46.90

  59.15

  925

  1991–92

  52.00

  65.60

  1,065

  1992–93

  54.15

  70.80

  1,335

  1993–94

  56.10

  74.25

  1,530

  1994–95

  57.60

  76.40

  1,645

  1995–96

  58.85

  79.45

  1,620

  1996–97

  61.15

  82.55

  1,575

  1997–98

  62.45

  86.00

  1.560

  Notes:

  1. In April 1995 invalidity benefit was replaced by incapacity benefit. The amounts shown are those for the long term rate of incapacity benefit.

  2. Uprating indices used are the Retail Prices Index (all items) and the Average Earnings Index (whole economy) as supplied by the Office of National Statistics.

  3. The uprated figures have been rounded to the nearest five pence.

  4. Estimates of additional costs are:

  (i) rounded to the nearest £5 million,

  (ii) cover invalidity pension-basic incapacity benefit and adult dependency additions and invalidity allowance only (IVA was replaced by age additions in April 1995),

  (iii) converted to 1997–98 prices using the GDP deflator and take account of offsetting costs in the income related benefits using family expenditure survey data.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division.

  Website for Women
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of the new Website for Women and how many visits have been made since the site went on-line. [17272]

  Ms Ruddock
  The new website of the Ministers for Women was set up at a total cost of £2,450 (£2,200 staff time, plus £250 for registration of the domain and IP address http://www.womens-unit.gov.uk).
  472
  The number of unique hosts accessing the site in the weeks since the site has been on-line are as follows:

  Weeks-ending

  Number

  8 November

  508

  15 November

  332

  22 November

  175

  Child Support
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents without care and control have been assessed by the CSA as having arrears in excess of £15,000. [16917]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We expect the Child Support Agency to provide an efficient and effective service to all its clients throughout the child support assessment process. We are looking for substantial and sustained operational improvements from the Agency, in particular on getting more maintenance paid, reducing the backlog and improving customer service.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 5 December 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of parents without care (normally known as absent parents) that have maintenance outstanding in excess of £15,000.The number of maintenance assessments completed and recorded on the Child Support Computer System currently stands at approximately 679,000; at 19 November 1997, the total number of cases with more than £15,000 of maintenance arrears outstanding was 18,890.In 90% of these cases (16,912), the arrears recorded as outstanding are the result of a Category A interim maintenance assessment. This measure, which sets maintenance at a punitive rate for absent parents who fail to co-operate, is imposed until the Agency is provided with the information needed to complete a full maintenance assessment. The Agency issued many interim maintenance assessments in its first two years—73,303 in 93/94. The emphasis now is to encourage absent parents to co-operate early and therefore avoid building up excessive maintenance arrears; the number of interim maintenance assessments has now greatly reduced to 11,718 in 1996/97.From April 1995 regulations were changed, so that the liability under an interim maintenance assessment reverts to the level of the full maintenance assessment once the absent parent co-operates; once sufficient information is provided to complete a full maintenance assessment in the interim maintenance cases the amount of arrears actually owed will be considerably reduced.I hope this is helpful.

  Weather Stations
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security pursuant to her answer of 17 November 1997,Official Report, column 79, if she will indicate the location of the two new weather stations; and if she will make a statement. [17528]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) on 30 October 1997,Official Report, columns 855–56.
  473
  The Government are determined that pensioners will stay warm in their homes this winter. In his pre-budget report on 25 November, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced additional help for pensioners, to help with winter fuel bills for this winter
  and next.

  A payment of £50 will be made to pensioners receiving Income Support and £20 to other pensioners. This is in addition to any Cold Weather Payments they may also receive.

  Housing Benefit (Young People)
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she expects the review of the operation of the changes in eligibility for housing benefit for under-25s to be completed. [17315]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We want to build up a national picture of the effects of this change. In order to enable us to do that, we are gathering evidence from a variety of sources and, in addition, we have commissioned research jointly with Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ascertain the effects of this change on Housing Benefit and the private rented sector. We will consider fully all the available evidence which will be coming on stream over the next few months. We will then decide on the way forward.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents in the London, south-east and eastern regions, receive the lone parent element of(a) income support (b) child benefit. [19359]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of Income Support and Child Benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 5 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many parents in the London, south-east and eastern regions, receive the lone parent element of (a) Income Support (IS) and (b) Child Benefit (CHB).
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Benefits Agency (BA) collates statistics by BA District Offices. These Districts do not correspond to constituency boundaries or specific geographical areas.
  From April this year, the lone parent premium was replaced by a higher rate of family premium for lone parents. Information relating to parents in receipt of the lone parent rate of family premium is shown in the attached Annex.
  Information relating to parents in receipt of the lone parent element of CHB could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex: Income support customers in receipt of the lone parent rate of family premium as at 31 August 1997

  Number of lone parent rate of family premium recipients

  Benefits Agency Area Directorates

  AD1—East London and Anglia1

  108,666

  AD21—Chilterns2

  104,289

  SD31—London South3

  147,945

  474

  Annex: Income support customers in receipt of the lone parent rate of family premium as at 31 August 1997

  Number of lone parent rate of family premium recipients

  London4

  193,948

  The BA collates statistics by Distric Offices. These Districts do not correspond to constituency boundaries or this specific geographical area. The 125 Districts are grouped together into 13 Area Directorates.

  1 Includes the BA Districts of Barking and Havering, Cambridgeshire, City East, Essex South East, Essex South West, Hackney and Islington, Lea Roding, Leaside, Newham, North Essex, Norwich and Suffolk.

  2 Includes the BA Districts of Barnet, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Ealing, Euston, Harrow and Hillingdon, Neasden, North and East Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Thames Valley and West Hertfordshire.

  3 Includes the BA Districts of Bankside, East Kent, East Sussex, Hampshire North, London Central, North and West Kent, Palace, Solent and New Forest, South Circular, Central Sussex, South East Hampshire and Isle of Wight, South West Thames, Surrey Unit, Thameside and West Sussex.

  4 Includes the BA Districts of City East, Hackney and Islington, Lea Roding, Leaside, Newham, Barnet, Ealing, Euston, Neasden, Harrow and Hillingdon, Bankside, London Central, Surrey Unit, Palace, South Circular, South West Thames, Thameside and North and West Kent.

  The information has been provided by the BA's Central Data Unit, it is provisional and maybe subject to change. The figures provided relate to the number of income support customers in receipt of the lone parent rate of family premium as at 31 August 1997. It does not include those lone parents customers who are pensioners nor those registered sick who would qualify for a higher rate premium such as a pensioner or disability premium.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many car park spaces are provided for his Department's(a) Ministers, (b) employees and (c) visitors in (i) London and (ii) the United Kingdom. [19370]

  Mr. Field
  The breakdown of car park spaces provided for Ministers, employees and visitors is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Department of Social Security Ministers are accommodated in Richmond House. Facilities in this building, including car parking, are provided by the Department of Health as the major civil service occupier.

  The numbers of car park spaces provided within the Department of Social Security for all users are as follows:

  Number

  In London

  293

  In the United Kingdom

  10,945

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the costs and media of advertising campaigns designed(a) to combat benefit fraud and (b) to encourage benefit take-up for the year 1996–97. [19237]

  Mr. Field
  The costs of advertising combat benefit fraud and to encourage benefit take-up for the year 1996–97 were £3.776 million and £3.991 million respectively.

  Media used for advertising are as follows:

  Media

  Fraud

  Take-up

  National press

  Yes

  No

  Local and regional press

  Yes

  Yes

  Direct mail

  Yes

  Yes

  Specialist press

  No

  Yes

  Radio

  Yes

  Yes

  Posters

  Yes

  Yes

  Promotional events

  No

  Yes

  Leaflets and alternative formats

  Yes

  Yes

  Unclaimed Benefits
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the value of unclaimed benefits for the year 1996–97 in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland. [19234]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Estimates for 1996–97 are not yet available. The total amount of unclaimed income-related benefits in Great Britain in 1995–96 is estimated as between £2.3 billion and £3.5 billion. The total amount of unclaimed benefit in Scotland in 1995–96 is estimated as between £200 million and £300 million.

  Estimates relating to Northern Ireland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Source

  Family Resources Survey.

  Notes

  1. Estimates relate to the four main income related benefits: Income Support, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Family Credit only. All take-up estimates exclude the self-employed as their entitlement to income-related benefits cannot readily be established from survey data.

  2. Estimates for 1996–97 are not yet available.

  3. The estimate for Scotland should be regarded as indicative only, as it is based on modest sample sizes.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what estimate he has made of the entrance fee for the millennium experience. [18006]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company is actively considering a range of entrance fees and ticketing arrangements, with a view to ensuring that as many people as possible have the opportunity to visit the Experience at Greenwich.
  476
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what steps are being taken to promote the Millennium Experience to visitors from overseas. [18007]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company is in detailed discussions with the domestic and overseas travel trade and journals. Initial promotion began at the World Travel Market in London last month. Detailed promotion will begin in Spring 1998, including a feature stand at the British Travel Trade fair in March.

  The Millennium Experience will be featured in all relevant travel guides and programmes as a focal event in 2000. The NMEC will participate with British Incoming Tour Operators Association and other appropriate trade groups. The Millennium Experience will feature prominently in the British Tourist Authority's and the London Tourist Board's promotional and liaison programmes. The NMEC's ticketing strategy will recognise the importance of the travel trade to the Millennium Experience.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is his policy on encouraging private sector contributions to the cost of the Millennium Experience. [18009]

  Mr. Mandelson
  My policy is, with the New Millennium Experience Company, to give every possible encouragement to the private sector to contribute to the cost of the Millennium Experience.

  Ms Ward
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio when he proposes to publish the names of the successful contractors, and their plans, for the exhibitions within the millennium dome. [18008]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) announced on 2 December that they had concluded contracts with the first 10 designers for the large-scale exhibition structures within the Millennium-Experience. They are Bentheim, Eva Jiricna Architects, HP:ICM LTD., Jasper Jacob Associates, Land Design Studio Ltd., Media Projects International, MUF Architects, Park Avenue, Spectrum, and Work. In association with the NMEC, sponsors and specialist advisers, these designers are now developing further the concepts for the Experience attractions. I have placed a copy of the NMEC'S press release in the Library of the House. Since that announcement the company has concluded a contract with Zaha M. Hadid.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what will be the contents of the Millennium Dome. [18984]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 4 December 1997]]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) announced on 2 December that it had concluded contracts with the first 10 designers for the large-scale exhibition structures within the Millennium Experience. They are Bentheim, Eva Jiricna Architects, HP:ICM Ltd., Jasper Jacob Associates, Land Design Studio Ltd., Media Projects International, MUF Architects, Park Avenue, Spectrum, and Work. In association with the NMEC,

  477
  sponsors and specialist advisers, these designers are now developing further the concepts for the Experience attractions. I have placed a copy of the NMEC's press release in the Libraries of the House. Plans for a spectacular central experience that will be shared by all who visit the Dome are also well under way.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on official hospitality for (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1987–88, (iii) 1990–91, (iv) 1991–92, (v) 1992–93, (vi) 1993–94, (vii) 1994–95, (viii) 1995–96, (ix) 1996–97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997, [15226]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]]: Expenditure on hospitality by Ministers and officials is shown in the table.

  MAFF

  1980–81

  n/a

  1987–88

  30,291

  1990–91

  54,420

  1991–92

  64,852

  1992–93

  72,986

  1993–94

  79,758

  1994–95

  64,092

  1995–96

  59,646

  1996–97

  70,104

  1997–98 (May-September)

  39,143

  n/a = not available.

  These figures do not include the expenditure by the Department's Agencies nor its non-departmental public bodies. Agencies will respond independently. The Department does not hold information about its NDPBs, and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Michael Finnigan to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about expenditure on official hospitality within the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency (FRCA).
  FRCA is a new agency which came into being on I April 1997, and cannot, therefore show expenditure for financial years prior to 1997/98.
  For the period 1 May 1997 to 30 September 1997 expenditure on official hospitality was £5,805. This figure includes costs of refreshments for meetings, which are not separately identifiable from hospitality.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concerning the level of expenditure on official hospitality for various periods has been passed to me for reply with regard to this Executive Agency.
  478
  The MHS was established as an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 1 April 1995. It therefore does not have any information on expenditure on official hospitality prior to 1995.
  I can advise you that the MHS spent the following sums, on an accruals basis on hospitality during the respective financial years:

  Year

  Expenditure (£)

  1995–96

  5,750

  1996–97

  13,011

  1 April 1997–30 September 1997

  4,697

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about expenditure on official hospitality by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, for (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1987–88, (iii) 1990–91, (iv) 1991–92, (v) 1992–93, (vi) 1993–94, (vii) 1994–95, (viii) 1995–96, (ix) 1996–97 and (x) 1st May to 30th September 1997, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  The Directorate was established as a Next Steps Agency on 2 April 1990 and did not maintain its own accounts until 1991/92. Since that date expenditure on official hospitality is as follows:

  £

  1991–92

  1,239

  1993–94

  1,035

  1994–95

  1,817

  1995–96

  123

  1996–97

  186

  1 May 1997–30 September 1997

  Nil

  The figures shown for the years up to 1994–95 included the cost of lunches for industry liaison meetings and advisory groups which is now accounted for separately.

  Letter from P. W. Greig-Smith to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  In response to your Parliamentary Question on official hospitality, I have been asked to provide you with the relevant figures covering the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (CEFAS). These are as follows:

  £

  1980–81

  n/a

  1987–88

  n/a

  1990–91

  1,000

  1991–92

  645

  1992–93

  213

  1993–94

  1,645

  1994–95

  1,491

  1995–96

  1,292

  1996–97

  1,614

  1997–98 April-September

  1,026

  n/a = not available.

  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your question concerning expenditure incurred by PSD on official hospitality.

  479
  The Directorate was launched as an Executive Agency on 1 April 1993. Figures prior to this date are not available. Expenditure from this date is set out below:

  Year

  £

  1993–94

  380

  1994–95

  422

  1995–96

  1,269

  1996–97

  1,609

  1997–98(May to September)

  964

  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), to your question concerning expenditure on official hospitality
  Expenditure prior to 1992, when CSL was first launched as an Agency, is included in Departmental Figures. The Agency was significantly enlarged and relaunched in 1994 and collocated to a new side between 1996 and the summer of 1997.
  Expenditure on hospitality within CSL is shown below:

  Year

  £000

  1992–93

  4.2

  1993–94

  4.7

  1994–95

  12.5

  1995–96

  23.6

  1996–97

  9.4

  1997–98(May -September)

  4.0

  Expenditure on hospitality in 1995–96 includes the cost for the Visiting Group to CSL's Agriculture and Environment Directorate. The purpose of Visiting Group was to assess the quality and management of the science delivered by Directorate.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on expenditure by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) on official hospitality.
  The VLA was launched as an Agency on I October 1995 as a result of the merger between the Central Veterinary Laboratory, already an Agency since April 1990, and the Veterinary Investigation Service, which was formerly part of the State Veterinary Service.
  Figures for expenditure on hospitality are as follows:

  £

  1993–94

  16,720

  1994–95

  12,076

  1995–96

  18,900

  1996–97

  27,152

  May-September 1997

  14,392

  Figures prior to 1993–94 are included in MAFF figures.

  Figures from 1996–97 include the Veterinary Investigation Service following the merge in 1995.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each of the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his ministerial team since 2 May, specifying in each case(a) the participating Minister or Ministers, (b) the destination of the trip, (c) the purpose of the trip and (d) the cost of the trip; and if he will make a statement. [15228]
  480
  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]]: The costs of each overseas trip undertaken by myself or by members of my Ministerial team, including the costs of accompanying officials, since 2 May are as follows:

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose

  Costs £

  20 May 1997 to 21 May 1997

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council (Dr. Cunningham)

  1.840.72

  20 May 1997

  Brussels

  Bilateral with Fisheries Commissioner (Mr. Morley and Dr. Cunningham—see above)

  807.00

  25 May 1997 to 27 May 1997

  Netherlands

  May Informal Council (Dr. Cunningham)

  2,288.00

  15 June 1997 to 16 June 1997

  Stockholm

  Bilateral with Swedish Agriculture Minister (Dr. Cunningham)

  2,051.60

  23 June 1997 to 24 June 1997

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council (Dr. Cunningham)

  2,566.62

  15 July 1997 to 16 July 1997

  Strasbourg and Bonn

  To meet the Temporary Committee European Parliament and then to Bonn for a bilateral (Dr. Cunningham)

  3,340.00

  21 July 1997 to 22 July 1997

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council (Dr. Cunningham)

  3,150.24

  06 October 1997 to 7 October 1997

  Poland

  Meeting with Ministers on CAP Reform and EU Enlargement (Lord Donoughue)

  1,900.00

  16 September 1997

  Spain

  Meeting of Fisheries Ministers (Mr. Morley)

  2,300.40

  22 September 1997 to 23 September 1997

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council (Dr. Cunningham)

  2,625.20

  9 September 1997 to 12 September 1997

  Czech Republic and Hungary

  Meeting with Ministers on CAP Reform and EU Enlargement (Lord Donoughue)

  3,050.00

  10 October 1997 to 12 October 1997

  Rome

  Bilateral with Italian Agriculture Minister (Dr. Cunningham)

  1,593.00

  13 October 1997

  Cologne

  ANUGA Food Fair (Dr. Cunningham)

  547.80

  16 October 1997

  Indonesia

  Trade Promotion (Lord Donoughue)

  26,500.00

  20 October 1997 to 21 October 1997

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council (Dr. Cunningham)

  2,726.40

  18 October 1997 to 26 October 1997

  Monaco

  Meeting of International Whaling Commission (Mr. Morley)

  1,298.00

  30 October 1997

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council (Mr. Morley)

  2,849.40

  7 November 1997 to 12 November 1997

  South Africa

  Trade Bilaterials (Dr. Cunningham)

  13,415.60

  17 November 1997 to 19 November 1997

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council (Dr. Cunningham)

  3,266.00

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on overseas travel for (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1987–88, (iii) 1990–91, (iv) 1991–92, (v) 1992–93, (vi) 1993–94, (vii) 1994–95, (viii) 1995–96, (ix) 1996–97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997; and if he will provide a breakdown to show (1) air fares and (2) other expenditure relating to overseas travel. [15227]
  481
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]]: Expenditure on overseas travel by Ministers and officials is shown in the table:

  MAFF

  1980–81

  n/a

  1987–88

  953,392

  1990–91

  1,444,905

  1991–92

  1,954,412

  1992–93

  2,159,191

  1993–94

  2,127,316

  1994–95

  1,910,202

  1995–96

  1,641,245

  1996–97

  1,834,381

  1997–98 (May-September)

  558,788

  n/a = not available.

  These figures do not include the expenditure by the Department's Agencies nor its non-departmental public bodies. Agencies will respond independently. The Department does not hold this information about its NDPBs, and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about expenditure on overseas travel by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, for (i) 1980–81, (iv) 1991–92, (v) 1992–93, (ii)(vi) 1987–88, (iii)1993–94, (vii) 1990–91, 1994–95, (viii) 1995–96, (ix) 1996–97 and (x) 1st May to 30th September 1997, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  The Directorate was established as a Next Steps Agency on 2 April 1990 and did not maintain its own accounts until 1991–92. Details of expenditure on overseas travel and subsistence since that date are shown below. Expenditure for airfares is not separately identifiable.

  £

  1991–92

  95,848

  1992–93

  112,386

  1993–94

  118,009

  1994–95

  126,864

  1995–96

  112,501

  1996–97

  98,676

  1 May to 30 September 1997

  24,289

  The main element of overseas travel was in respect of inspections of manufacturing premises in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the USA and Europe.

  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), to your question concerning expenditure on overseas travel.
  Expenditure prior to 1992, when CSL was first launched as an Agency, is included in Departmental figures. The Agency was significantly enlarged and relaunched in 1994.
  Expenditure on overseas travel within CSL is shown below:

  Year

  All £000

  1992–93

  98.7

  1993–94

  57.4

  1994–95

  155.8

  1995–96

  175.2

  1996–97

  198.3

  1997–98 (April-October

  105.4

  Expenditure for air fares is not separately identifiable.

  482
  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your question concerning expenditure on overseas travel.
  The Directorate was launched as an Executive Agency on 1 April 1993. Figures prior to this date are not available. Expenditure by PSD on all forms of overseas travel since this date are set out below:

  Actual expenditure

  £

  1993–94

  97,668

  1994–95

  74,980

  1995–96

  107,914

  1996–97

  80,819

  1997–98 (May to September)

  34,128

  Letter from P. W. Greig-Smith to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  In response to your Parliamentary Question on overseas travel, I have been asked to provide you with the relevant figures covering the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (CEFAS). These are as follows.

  £

  1980–81

  n/a

  1987–88

  n/a

  1990–91

  98,173

  1991–92

  122,525

  1992–93

  126,244

  1993–94

  98,554

  1994–95

  130,259

  1995–96

  154,883

  1996–97

  162,125

  1997–98 April—September

  4,672

  n/a = not available.

  Unfortunately it is not possible to separate the air fare costs.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), your question to the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food concerning the level of expenditure on overseas travel for various periods has been passed to me for reply with regard to this Executive Agency.
  The MHS was established as an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 1 April 1995. It therefore does not have any information on expenditure on overseas travel prior to 1995.
  I can advise you that the MHS spent the following sums, on an accruals basis, on the overseas travel during the respective financial years:

  Year

  Expenditure

  1995–96

  Nil

  1996–97

  Nil

  1997–98 (to date)

  £878 (£245 air travel)

  Letter from Michael Finnigan to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about expenditure on overseas travel within the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency (FRCA).
  FRCA is a new agency which came into being on 1 April 1997, and cannot, therefore show expenditure for financial years prior to 1997–98.

  483
  For the period 1 May 1997 to 30 September 1997 expenditure on overseas travel was £485.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on expenditure by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) on overseas travel.
  The VLA was launched as an Agency on 1 October 1995 as a result of the merger between the Central Veterinary Laboratory, already an Agency since April 1990, and the Veterinary Investigation Service, which was formerly part of the State Veterinary Service.
  Figures for expenditure on overseas travel are as follows:

  £

  1993–94

  61,700

  1994–95

  66,200

  1995–96

  63,900

  1996–97

  111,900

  May-September 1997

  74,300

  Figures prior to 1993–94 are included in MAFF figures. Figures from 1996–97 include the Veterinary Investigation Service following the merger in 1995. It is not possible to break down expenditure into air fares and expenditure relating to overseas travel.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the total expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95, (iii) 1995–96, (iv) 1996–97, (v) the 1997–98, year to date, (vi) the 1997–98, full year estimate and (vii) the 1998–99 planned expenditure. [15229]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]]: Expenditure on publicity and advertising by Ministers and officials is shown in the table:

  MAFF

  1980–81

  —

  1987–88

  —

  1990–91

  —

  1991–92

  —

  1992–93

  —

  1993–94

  4,649,589

  1994–95

  4,961,303

  1995–96

  5,324,791

  1996–97

  5,138,192

  1997–98 (year to date)

  1,948,160

  These figures do not include the expenditure by the Department's Agencies nor its non departmental public bodies. Agencies will respond independently. The Department does not hold this information about its NDPBs, and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on expenditure by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) on publicity and advertising.
  484
  The VLA was launched as an Agency on 1 October 1995 as a result of the merger between the Central Veterinary Laboratory, already an Agency since April 1990, and the Veterinary Investigation Service, which was formerly part of the State Veterinary Service.
  Figures for expenditure on publicity and advertising are as follows:

  Publicity1£

  Advertising2£

  1993–94

  68,500

  7,656

  1994–95

  47,000

  13,429

  1995–96

  42,000

  15,787

  1996–97

  52,800

  42,000

  April-October 1997

  47,400

  52,653

  1997–98 estimate

  61,200

  70,000

  1998–99 planned

  62,000

  40,000

  1 This includes annual reviews, marketing brochures, customer newsletters and leaflets

  2 The majority of advertising is for staff recruitment in newspapers and specialist journals

  The figures from 1996–97 include the Veterinary Investigation Service following the merger.

  Letter from Michael Finnigan to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about expenditure on publicity and advertising within the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency (FRCA).
  FRCA is a new agency which came into being on 1 April 1997, and cannot, therefore show expenditure for financial years prior to 1997–98.
  For the period 1 May 1997 to 30 September 1997 expenditure on publicity and advertising was £19,291, which includes £10,842 spent on advertising staff vacancies.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concerning the level of expenditure on publicity and advertising for various periods has been passed to me for reply with regard to this Executive Agency.
  The MHS was established as an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 1 April 1995. It therefore does not have any information on expenditure on this item prior to 1995.
  The MHS spent the following sums, on an accruals basis, on the requested items during the respective financial years:

  Year

  Expenditure (£)

  1995–96

  1,000

  1996–97

  34,000

  1997–98 (forecast)

  49,000

  1998–99 (estimate)

  49,000

  The expenditure on publicity and advertising predominantly covers expenditure on the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts. It excludes recruitment advertising.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, for (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95, (iii) 1995–96, (iv) 1996–97, (v) the 1997–98 year to date, (vi) the 1997–98, full year estimate and (vii) the 1998–99 planned expenditure, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.

  485
  Expenditure on publicity and advertising is as follows:

  £

  1993–94

  80,106

  1994–95

  52,129

  1995–96

  48,723

  1996–97

  63,917

  1 April to 31 October 1997

  43,614

  1997–98 forecast

  65,000

  1998–99 forecast

  65,000

  The above figures cover the announcement of the grant and expiry of marketing authorisations in the official gazettes, direct recruitment advertising, the VMD's Annual Report and Accounts, publicity relating to the safe use of organophosphorus sheep dips and expenditure on the VMD's quarterly newsletter MAVIS. This newsletter is circulated to the veterinary profession, the veterinary medicinal products industry, representative bodies and opinion formers.

  Letter from P. W. Greig—Smith to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  In response to your Parliamentary Question on publicity and advertising, I have been asked to provide you with the relevant figures covering the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (CEFAS). For clarity, the figures are shown in separate categories: staff advertising/recruit-ment, and publicity/marketing.

  Staff advertising recruitment£

  Publicity/ marketing£

  1980–81

  n/a

  n/a

  1987–88

  n/a

  n/a

  1990–91

  7,000

  n/a

  1991–92

  3,191

  n/a

  1992–93

  7,128

  n/a

  1993–94

  50,686

  n/a

  1994–95

  12,817

  n/a

  1995–96

  35,292

  38,880

  1996–97

  36,106

  1145.665

  1997–98 April-September

  29,646

  17,500

  1997–98 full year estimate

  57,000

  76,000

  1998–99 planned expenditure

  budgets not yet agreed

  1 Includes Agency launch expenditure

  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your question regarding expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising.
  The Directorate was launched as an Executive Agency on 1 April 1993. Figures prior to this date are not available. Direct expenditure by PSD on all forms of publicity and advertising from this date is set out below. PSD makes use of MAFF advertising and publicity where appropriate and the costs are borne directly by MAFF on PSD's behalf.

  Year

  £

  1993–94

  15,471

  1994–95

  4,400

  1995–96

  0

  1996–97

  0

  1997–98 (April to October)

  0

  1997–98 (estimate)

  0

  1998–99 (estimate)

  0

  486
  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 December 1997:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), to your question concerning expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising.
  CSL was first launched as an Agency in 1992. The Agency was significantly enlarged and relaunched in 1994.
  Expenditure on publicity and advertising within CSL is shown below:

  Year

  £000

  1993–94

  16.4

  1994–95

  41.1

  1995–96

  26.5

  1996–97

  32.4

  1997–98 (April-October)

  12.6

  Agenda 2000
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his assessment of the impact in the United Kingdom of Agenda 2000 on each of the agricultural sectors where proposals have been made. [19549]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  Formal legislative proposals to implement the ideas outlines in Agenda 2000 are not expected to be published by the European Commission until the first part of 1998.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on European Legislation's considerations of Agenda 2000 (HC 155-vi), if he will list the environmental and rural development measures referred to in paragraph 2.5; which Commission rural policy and targeted agri-environmental measures referred to in paragraph 2.6 he supports and for what reasons; if he will set out the basis for his calculation of the savings to consumers in paragraph 2.7; and which member states had the difficulties with the proposed level of the cuts in support prices for cereals and milk referred to in paragraph 2.8; and for what reasons. [19594]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  No. I will formulate my detailed response to the Commission's legislative proposals giving effect to Agenda 2000 when they are tabled next year.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of its EU budget he estimates would be spent on agriculture if the current Agenda 2000 proposals were adopted in full. [19545]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The Commission estimate that the agricultural guideline would stand at 50 billion ecu in 2006 (at 1997 prices), out of total budgetary commitments of 114.5 billion ecu. The Commission envisages that actual spending on agriculture would be less than the guidelines, at 46 billion ecu (at 1997 prices). This estimate includes expenditure in new Member States and on pre-accession aid for countries which have yet to join the EU.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the United Kingdom will press the Council to review the level of its agriculture guidelines as part of the Agenda 2000 negotiations. [19541]
  487
  Dr. John Cunningham
  Decisions on the level of the agricultural guideline are for ECOFIN, not the Agriculture Council. The Commission has proposed keeping the method of calculating the guideline unchanged and reviewing this in about 2005. The UK will be pressing for agricultural spending to be set well below the guideline, which should be a ceiling, not a target, as I made clear at the November Agriculture Council.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the way in which Agenda 2000 will affect the prospects for the production of bio-mass for energy usage. [19544]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  It is not yet clear what effect Agenda 2000 will have on the prospects for the production of biomass for energy usage. While the Commission's paper recognises that renewable energy crops represent a new opportunity for agriculture, forestry and rural job creation, it also proposes to suspend obligatory set-aside and reduce the aid for voluntary set-aside, measures which currently support these crops.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which proposals in Agenda 2000 will help(a) improve the environment, (b) encourage reduced usage of agro-chemicals, (c) protect wildlife, (d) increase organic production, (e) prepare the community for enlargement, (f) assist the community to negotiate successfully in the next World Trade Organisation round, (g) enable the Community's expenditure on agriculture to stay within its guidelines, (h) allow efficient British farmers to prosper, (i) require environmental objectives to be achieved before CAP payments are made or received, (j) set environmental objectives for the CAP, (k) encourage the production of non-food crops, (l) affect forestry, (m) help the beef sector and (n) affect hill farmers. [19546]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  In the Government's view, the Agenda 2000 proposals are a step in the right direction towards a market-oriented CAP with less production-related support and more emphasis on agri-environmental and rural development objectives. A CAP which is radically reformed along these lines, as favoured by the Government, should be beneficial in most of the areas identified by the right hon Member.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the required increase in productivity in each sector affected by the Agenda 2000 proposals to trigger a reduction in levels of direct payments; and what recommendations the United Kingdom Government will make on this matter to the Council. [19539]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  None. In the Government's view, direct payments should be time-limited and degressive, giving producers time to adjust their businesses to a market-oriented system which does not rely on production-related subsidies.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Agenda 2000 is to be fully implemented before further Community enlargement takes place. [19540]
  488
  Dr. John Cunningham
  Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy is essential to enable the EU to meet its future challenges, including early successful enlargement. I will use our Presidency to launch negotiations in the Agriculture Council as soon as the Commission's legislative reform proposals appear.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons peas and beans will receive supplementary aid under the Commission's proposals for Agenda 2000. [19550]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The Commission has explained the purpose of its proposal as being to maintain the competitiveness of protein crops with cereals and to encourage their production.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the environmental impact studies of Agenda 2000 carried out by his Ministry or any of its specialised advisory groups. [19542]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  My Department is in the process of commissioning one project from the Centre for Agricultural Strategy at Reading to assess the implications of Agenda 2000 for land use in England and Wales, using the Land Use Allocation Model, and another desk top study to identify the likely consequences for the environment if the Agenda 2000 reforms are implemented. It is normal practice to allow researchers to publish the results of their work.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of Agenda 2000 on the countryside stewardship scheme; and if he will make a statement. [19538]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  In the absence of detailed legislative proposals, the impact of Agenda 2000 on the Countryside Stewardship Scheme cannot be assessed.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if the removal of crop specific payments for oilseeds proposed under Agenda 2000 will end the requirements for a maximum area for these crops; [19547]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the Agenda 2000 proposals for non-specific payments in respect of oilseed crops with existing World Trade Organisation rules. [19548]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The compatibility with WTO rules of any trade arrangement can only be definitively determined under WTO dispute settlement procedures. The Commission's preliminary view, which we share, is that the introduction of a non-crop specific aid for oilseeds would relieve the EU from the restrictions on the maximum area of oilseeds laid down in the 1992 Blair House Agreement between the EU and the USA.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the financial effects which Agenda 2000 will have on the United Kingdom beef sector; and if he will make a statement. [19543]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The effects of the Commission's proposals for the reform of the beef regime will depend upon the extent to which the proposed cut in support prices is reflected in market prices.
  489
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what rate and over what time scale under the terms of Agenda 2000 the Government propose that direct payments should be decoupled from production and reduced. [19537]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The Commission has not yet tabled legislative proposals to implement the ideas set out in the Agenda 2000 series of papers. The Government will respond appropriately to those proposals when we receive them.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to his answer of 27 November 1997,Official Report, column 640, on food safety, what factors in respect of the management of risk his research programme is examining; what are the programme's findings to date on the public perceptions of food safety risk; which other relevant opinion surveys he has assessed; and what were their results. [19595]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  My Department's risk management research programme, which has been running for five years, covers all aspects of risk management including perceptions of risk, the way that risk messages are received by the public, risk communication and methods by which consumer views on food safety might be best taken into account in decision making. Other relevant opinion surveys are published by others, such as, for example, the Consumers Association, as a result of research into a variety of food-related issues.

  Scientific Research (Corporation Tax)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the Board of Trade's proposed changes to the guidelines on granting exemptions from corporation tax to scientific research associations. [19551]
  490
  Dr. John Cunningham
  The proposed changes to the guidelines would have a significant impact on a number of bodies under my Department's sponsorship and, following representations from several of these, both my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I, have raised the matter with colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Support Schemes
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which Community funded agricultural support schemes he estimates will underspend their budgeted amounts in 1997–98; and by how much. [19552]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to him on 21 November 1997,Official Report, column 356.

  Hill Farming
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those elements of his hill farming policy which are compatible with Article 33 of the treaty establishing the European Community. [19536]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  Hill farmers receive specific financial help via the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances scheme. This has been approved under the terms of the EC farm structures Regulation 950//97, and is therefore compatible with Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty.

  Unpasteurised Milk
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons he decided to consult publicly on the banning of unpasteurised milk following his receipt of the scientific advice from the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food. [19585]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 4 December 1997,official Report, column 357.